Haiku Revieu | Ready Player One

Ready Player One
★★¾

Wade Watts is The One
Ladies don't get much to do
Not a great copy

---

When the creator of a virtual reality world called the OASIS dies, he releases a video in which he challenges all OASIS users to find his Easter Egg, which will give the finder his fortune.

---

It's been a while since I saw this movie (like two months ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ), but I wanted to play catch up on my somewhat recent trips to the theater, and this was at the top of the list.

Let me preface this review with the fact that I didn't love Ready Player One, the book. I thought it was a fun novel, and I enjoyed all of the nerdy pop culture references—even if I didn't get all of them—but I really disliked Artemis' character and their "romance." (It felt very self-satisfying, as though author Ernest Cline was putting a fantasy to paper, rather than thinking about how to make their romance believable.)

I felt much the same way about the film adaptation. Fast-paced and great nerdy references, but terrible lack of depth to the female characters, even though I do appreciate that Artemis got more to do. The romance was actually worse in the movie, if you can believe it. I also didn't like the changes they made to the secondary characters; they had semi-fleshed out backstories in the books that were nonexistent in the movie.

Like I said, however, the many, many, pop culture references included in the film were impressive. I guess it pays to snag a director like Steven Spielberg, who just maybe has some connections. Tye Sheridan was a good Wade/Parzival. Lena Waithe could have been amazing as Aech, were she given more to do. And Ben Mendelsohn was great as Krennic Sorrento. (He has a very punchable mid-management type face.)

I tried not to go into this movie expecting a perfect adaptation, and I wasn't disappointed. I just had hopes that the few things I found fault with in the book would have been addressed or improved.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Annihilation

Annihilation
★★1/2

Pretty visuals
More scary than suspenseful
The book was better

---

A biologist signs up for a dangerous, secret expedition where the laws of nature don't apply.

---

I made the mistake of reading the book version of Annihilation right before seeing the movie. I really enjoyed the suspense of the book and the very unique way it was written. I knew that it wouldn't translate exactly, but I was super interested in seeing what made it from the page to the screen. Unfortunately, aside from the high-level ideas, the movie was very different. And not one that appeals to me. I won't go into depth on the differences, because spoilers, but take my advice and don't read the book before seeing the movie. (I can't say if reading it after would be good or not, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone who goes that route.)

Visually, the movie was really beautiful, in a creepy and intensely graphic way. I'm not really a horror fan, and was surprised at the level of scary in the film; the book, while suspenseful, didn't come across what I think of as horror. (I don't read much of the genre, however, so I could be mistaken.) Ultimately, the combination of the strange plot and the creep factor made me feel more uncomfortable than anything. I think my initial review to Colt after leaving the theater was, "well, that was disturbing."

I did like the cast and the fact that the only dudes in the movie were secondary characters. (The same can be said about the book; in fact, the men play even less of a role.) I'm here for more lady-led films that aren't romantic or "girl's night" comedies or traditional "chick movies." There's nothing about the main characters in Annihilation that necessitated them being played by women—other than that they were in the book—and it's nice to see this sort of representation in film. I'm all about bucking the norms.

I know a lot of people whose opinions I trust have seen and loved this movie, but it's just not my cup of tea.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
★★1/2

A pretty movie
Dane DeHaan is terrible
Haven’t I seen this?

---

A dark force threatens Alpha, a vast metropolis and home to species from a thousand planets. Special operatives Valerian and Laureline must race to identify the marauding menace and safeguard not just Alpha, but the future of the universe.

---

Special thanks to Colt, who provided the haiku for this review.

Full disclosure: We went to see Valerian in theaters  out of curiosity, because we thought it was the kind of movie that would be better, visually, on the big screen, rather than actually wanting to see it. With such low expectations, we had an enjoyable time, but it's still a pretty dang terrible film.

Thanks, for the most part, to Dan DeHaan's Valerian. I've seen Dane in other roles, and never thought he was amazing, but Valerian is flat-out awful. He makes Cara Delevigne's Laureline look good, and if you've seen Suicide Squad, you know that this is impressive. He's uncomfortably, laughably bad in the role, and it's super hard to picture him as a dashing space soldier/rogue. He's definitely better suited as the somewhat creepy maybe villain à la Harry Osborne.

The movie also suffers from many moments that are just too similar to The Fifth Element to be coincidence, given that both were directed by Luc Besson. I understand that Luc took a lot of influence from the Valerian comics for The Fifth Element, but that movie's too well-known (and too good) to get away with copying scenes/ideas.

All that said, the movie is pretty—lots of outerspace, futuristic tech and funky aliens—and I am glad we saw it on the big screen. The CG wasn't terrible, for the most part, and there's something to be said for movies that begin like Valerian does, with disparate people coming together in peace and creating something awesome to achieve a common goal. (I find the idea of peace with extraterrestrials a much preferable one to that of aliens who just want to destroy us.)

Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Suicide Squad

Suicide Squad
★★1/2

It could have been good
But not enough backstory
And disjointed plot

---

The U.S. government gives a team of supervillains a chance at redemption. The catch: their mission will probably kill them all.

---

I will freely admit to being excited about seeing Suicide Squad based solely on the trailers, a few of which I've posted previously and are actually quite good. Sadly, the movie on the whole suffered from what is seemingly DC's curse when it comes to their comic movies: they focus too much on putting specific characters on the big screen, and don't worry about actually making a good movie.

Let's focus on the good things, first: Margot Robbie was a great Harley Quinn. She was one of the few characters in the movie to experience any sort of growth, and she seemed like a whole, realistic (if overly sexualized and totally insane) person. She had layers, which, from what little I know about the comic character, is accurate.

Diablo was interesting for very similar reasons. His backstory was endearing, and the changes he underwent, both physically and teamwork-related, were pretty damn impressive.

And, I like Will Smith. He was basically playing "Will Smith who shoots well and isn't bothered by killing people who deserve it," but I'm all for him being in movies.

The rest of the movie, well ... just didn't work for me. (And that's putting it nicely.) The plot was disjointed; specifically, the flow of character backstory > little bit of plot > lots more character backstory > more plot that might not actually be important by the end of the film > character "introductions" with no backstory > plot that diverges to something else ... There were glimpses of an engaging story told by interesting characters somewhere in the mess, but it was cut together in a truly terrible way.

The other characters, too, weren't given any opportunity to shine. For example, I kept thinking about how terrible Jai Courtney's Australian accent was as Captain Boomerang—and having to remind myself that he's actually Australian. And watching Jared Leto's Joker was painful, and unnecessarily and scarily abusive. (I also couldn't help but picture Viola Davis' face at Comic Con whenever he showed up on screen.)

I really try to like DCs attempts at movies, I do. I actually really like Man of Steel, as much as that's an unpopular opinion. I have high hopes for Wonder Woman. I just wish the powers that be would focus on good movies first with name recognition second. Or spend more time building up the people we're supposed to know, and not expect 30 seconds of exposition to make us feel something.

Check it out:

Previously, in DC movies:

• Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (★★)
• Man of Steel (★★★★1/2)
  The Man of Steel review is housed on my old blog.

P.S.—The Suicide Squad soundtrack is pretty great, and way better than the actual movie.

Haiku Revieu | Swiss Army Man

Swiss Army Man
★★★

Paul D. is shipwrecked
And Daniel Radcliffe is dead
This movie is weird

---

A hopeless man stranded in the wilderness befriends a dead body and together they go on a surreal journey to get home.

---

Before I get into my review, I have a disclaimer: I might have not been the right audience for this movie. (I've heard so many people rave about it, and, well, you'll see how I felt below.) So, grain of salt.

Going to see Swiss Army Man was the Mister's idea, but I was game to check it out. I'm not purely a "mainstream" movie fan—I do like to branch out from superheroes and action sequences on occasion. I knew it was going to be a strange movie from seeing the preview and reading various snippets of reviews, but I was hoping the strangeness would balance out with the rest of the plot.

Sadly, that didn't quite happen. Instead, Swiss Army Man made me uncomfortable, physically, thanks to what Hank (Paul Dano) uses Manny (Daniel Radcliffe) for. Nothing drastically inappropriate, mind you, but think about the title of the movie and watch the trailer and you'll see what I mean.

The movie was definitely more magical than I'd expected, however, and left me with a sense of hope that I wasn't expecting. I also enjoyed Dano and Radcliffe's chemistry, and Radcliffe pulled off being a dead body surprisingly well.

I just ... I don't really know what to think. Even now, nearly two weeks after seeing the movie, I'm conflicted. I (really) don't want to see it again, but it wasn't all bad. Just really, really weird.

If you've seen it, or plan to, I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
★★

Batfleck is angry
Thanks be for Wonder Woman
What did I just watch?

---

Fearing that the actions of Superman are left unchecked, Batman takes on the Man of Steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs.

---

WARNING: Possible spoilers ahead.

Sometimes, you go into a movie knowing that it's going to be a massive disappointment, and you leave pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as bad as you'd expected. Unfortunately, such was not the case with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Sure, there were some good things about it:

• Gal Gadot does a great job playing Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. It's a shame she only had like 5 lines and 10 minutes of proper screen time. I'm looking forward to seeing more from her in her solo film. (Bonus points for it not being directed by Zach Synder.)
• We got to see Aquaman on the big screen.
• Superman and Batman are now BFFs thanks to their moms both being named Martha.
• Henry Cavill is nice to look at.

On the whole, however, this movie was such a mess. The plot was disorganized and overloaded with stuff that didn't need to be there, specifically Batman's origin story and Bruce's super weird dream sequences. Ben Affleck was decent as Bruce Wayne, but his fight scenes at Batman were terrible. (And WHAT was with the random Batcave crossfit montage?) Batman's obsession with Superman also reached nearly Criminal Minds-levels of creepy before it fizzled out in mere seconds. (Basically.)

All of what I really liked about Man of Steel's Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane were reduced to brooding looks and damsel-in-distress scenarios. Was Lois only in this movie to be saved by Clark? Why was Clarke all of a sudden kind of a dick?

Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was unbelievably bizarre and used as a way to further the plot without really ever giving it any sort of context. His lack of backstory was also confusing; Where did he come from? Why was he out to pit Superman and Batman against each other? Why did he have those files on the various superheroes? (It's like they were trying to make a weird evil version of Nick Fury, only ... terrible.)

Additionally, the whole "Dawn of Justice" idea was relegated to the very end of the film and a brief fight scene in which Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman barely say anything to each other. Where's the "team" in that?

I really think it would have been smarter for DC to do a series of solo movies to introduce the characters they wanted to eventually form the Justice League rather than trying to make "fetch" happen releasing this "bridge movie." I'd recommend waiting to watch this one on TV, and fast forwarding through much of it.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | The 5th Wave

The 5th Wave
★★1/2

ET invasion
Where has all the sci-fi gone?
The book is better

---

Four waves of increasingly deadly alien attacks have left most of Earth decimated. Cassie is on the run, desperately trying to save her younger brother.

---

WARNING: Possible spoilers ahead.

When I go to see a movie that's based on a book, I honestly try to give it the benefit of the doubt, and view the movie as a separate entity. Sometimes, however, a movie fails to live up to its potential, and just fails—both as an adaptation and a stand-alone film.

The 5th Wave is based on a YA book of the same name by Rick Yancey, and—although I've already said as much a couple of times in this review—the book is SO MUCH better than its film adaptation. The book is thrilling, and features exciting surprises and characters who you get attached to, easily and quickly.

I understand why the movie can't keep some of the book's secrets (e.g., keeping a character's true identity hidden is hard when you see his/her face from the start). But the lack of interesting characters stems, in part, from the plot of the movie being horribly rushed ... and the lack of acting skills of the main characters. (Or, perhaps, the direction that they were given. I'm not quite sure.)

I'm also highly disappointed in the movie's lack of science fiction elements. The book has a lot of them, and they're important elements. They're also believable. This story is about an  invasion by an advanced alien society, after all. The movie turns these items/plot points into gimmicks, or vaguely futuristic technology that comes across as cheap.

Additionally, I'm not sure that, if you haven't read the book, you'll really be able to follow—or care about—what's going on. (Thanks, also, to the rushed storyline and boring/wooden acting.)

I had hopes—not exactly high ones, but hopes—that this movie would be, if not wholly faithful, a decent adaptation of a great series starter. Alas.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Crimson Peak

Crimson Peak
★★3/4

House with walls that bleed
Why are her sleeves so dang large?
Tom is still pretty

---

In the aftermath of a family tragedy, an aspiring author is torn between love for her childhood friend and the temptation of a mysterious outsider. Trying to escape the ghosts of her past, she is swept away to a house that breathes, bleeds—and remembers.

---

WARNING: Possible spoilers ahead.

I was excited to see Crimson Peak for a number of reasons: 1. I think Guillermo del Toro creates some really unique and beautiful movies. 2. I like the actors in the movie. 3. I think Gothic horror is a fun genre. 4. Tom Hiddleston. (I can't lie to you guys.) Sadly, the combination of all of the above didn't make for a very good film.

Let's start with a few things I liked: Everything in the movie is very pretty. The costumes, the people, the sets, the scenery. Even when you get to the spookier stuff, it's still prettily done. The movie isn't too scary, either. There are some frightening parts, but it's not out to shock you for shock's sake. Plus: Tom Hiddleston pulls off Gothic finery extremely well.

I also appreciate that the movie was very much Edith's story. I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere online I ran across a statement that said something like, had this movie been made in the past, the story would have been from Alan's perspective, rather than Edith's.

Now, for what I didn't like: The story itself is super predictable (and really icky, when all is said and done), and it doesn't always seem to know what it's doing; certain scenes stick out like they were added in from other films. I wanted to throttle Edith at times for just going with what obviously was some questionable stuff. (I mean, there's a giant hole in the ceiling of your house, and the walls bleed clay, and you're OK with living there? NOPE.) Some of the scarier parts felt more ridiculous than creepy. And, at times, the delivery of lines fell totally flat.

I tried to like this movie, I really did. Maybe I just missed what del Toro was trying to do with it. If you know, I'd love to hear it.

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | Insurgent

Insurgent
★★3/4

Divergent: Part 2
Tris is now an action star
What's with the damn box

---

Beatrice Prior must confront her inner demons and continue her fight against a powerful alliance which threatens to tear her society apart with the help from others on her side.

---

WARNING: Possible spoilers ahead.

I'm not as late with this review as the other two I posted earlier this week—only about a month and a half after seeing it rather than more than two. This movie is still in some theaters!

To be honest, I didn't really care to see this movie in theaters. I liked Divergent, the first movie in this series, well enough—I gave it ***1/2 stars in my review—but I liked Divergent, the book, much more than the others in the series, so I figured the movies would go downhill equally. I was sort of right in that assumption; Insurgent is pretty ridiculous, and, for the most part, not in a good way.

I saw the movie with ladies from my book club, and thank goodness they were there, because I would have felt bad laughing at some of the supposedly more serious moments if no one else was. These movies just try so hard to be something they're not, and even with the changes between the film and the book, which, I'm sure, were meant to make this more appealing to the movie-going masses, there's something missing.

Even the great actors in the movie—Maggie Q, Kate Winslet, Octavia Spencer—had little to work with. Shailene Woodley's Tris is just plain terrible, and the various states of her hairdo throughout the movie are massively distracting. Miles Teller's sassy Peter is a shining light, but his quips only do so much.

Then there's the end of the movie, which feels oddly final. How there are going to be two more movies in this franchise, I do not understand.

If you're a series completist, by all means check this one out. It's good for a laugh, at least!

Check it out:

Haiku Revieu | What We Do in the Shadows

What We Do in the Shadows
★★1/2

Silly but lacking
Vampires in modern times
Werewolves, not swear-wolves

---

Viago, Deacon, and Vladislav are vampires who are finding that modern life has them struggling with the mundane—like paying rent, keeping up with the chore wheel, trying to get into nightclubs, and overcoming flatmate conflicts.

---

WARNING: Possible spoilers ahead.

This review is very late—it's been about two months since I saw this movie. But it might help you decide if you want to watch it when it becomes available on demand/on Netflix/at a Redbox?

Although I loved the premise of this movie—A bunch of hapless vampires dealing with the modern world? Yes, please!—the actual movie left a lot to be desired. Many of the best jokes of the movie are in the trailer (heads up, those of you who were about to watch it below), and even they aren't all that funny. The humor is similar to that of Flight of the Concords, and fans of that show will recognize quite a few people in the film, but it never quite made me laugh more than a chuckle. And if you know me, I laugh loud and freely when I find something amusing.

That said, I really enjoyed the sets and some of the silly special effects. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mindset for this kind of humor?

I'd recommend adding this to your Netflix queue—I wouldn't spend money on it (again)—if you're a FotC fan.

Check it out: