Lady Bird

Score:  A-

Directed by Greta Gerwig
Starring Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Lucas Hedges
Running time:  93 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Lady Bird is a coming-of-age story featuring one of the leading actresses of the indie film world, Saoirse Ronan, and another behind the camera in Greta Gerwig.  Although the genre has seen countless attempts (mostly tiresome and all-too-similar, IMO), Lady Bird stands out thanks to a fantastic cast and smart and effective style, editing and script.  Highly recommended.


It's 2002, and Christine - or "Lady Bird" as she insists others call her - is another high school senior being prevented from reaching her potential.  That's how Lady Bird sees it, anyway, although her counselor at the Catholic school is skeptical about her dreams of escaping boring Sacramento for the dreamy independence of New York private colleges.  As she squabbles with her mother about the future, Lady Bird's status quo is upset during her last year in school.  She tries to start living the vision she has for herself, but in doing so strains old, reliable relationships with friends like Julie, and tests new ones with rebellious boys like Kyle.  Lady Bird finds herself thrown into turmoil as she struggles with the people in her life, trying to figure out not only who she is but who she wants to be.

Lady Bird has a great cast with some familiar faces, all of whom provide grounded performances.  Saoirse Ronan (pronounced "sir-sha"; whoever said SNL isn't educational programming?!) is tremendous as the lead, titular character.  While she's joined by her friends and family, the focus is entirely on her and she shines.  She does so well because she plays Lady Bird as just an ordinary girl; she (Ronan) rejects archetype and the pressures to fit one or another.  There is enough that's specific about her - the desire to go to a "cool" college in NY, her various social activities - yet the script mostly has her doing everyday things where her personality shines through.  Lady Bird loses her temper and screams, shrieks with joy, and - most commonly - struggles in silence figuring out how she does feel, and Ronan's impressive accomplishment is to make it all cohesive, a fully formed person.  Laurie Metcalf, playing Lady Bird's mother, has the most significant supporting role, and she does just as much with her part.  Sparks fly and the film is as its strongest in the pair's scenes together.  The film enjoys a number of other smaller but very well done performances, too, from Lucas Hedges' sweet boyfriend to Beanie Feldstein's best friend Julie, not to mention the quiet but influential father played by Tracy Letts.

Lady Bird is an outstanding coming-of-age film, one structured around a fairly standard story but enacted effectively with a great tone, script and style, in addition to the aforementioned stellar cast.  So many of these movies focus on the last year of high school for one or more young characters, too, but Lady Bird shows it all through a brand new lens.  The action starts off in a tense yet ordinary car trip with Lady Bird and her mother, introducing their powerful and realistic relationship that is the film's foundation.  This ends up being one of the longer scenes; although I was expecting the following montage of clips, introducing various aspects of Lady Bird's life, much of the rest of the film is composed of snippets strung together between the occasional longer set.  I don't recall seeing another film do anything quite like this, but it's very effective.  It keeps the pace humming and encourages you to remain attentive to detail; storywise, it allows the film to show "throwaway" moments that may not be important to the plot but are essential to an adolescent's daily life.  Importantly, it's also not done in a too clever or self-aware style, either.  This brings us back to Lady Bird's (and the film's) lack of an archetype - the film is not trying to guide you into feeling a certain way, and in fact, several times there is a jarring (yet natural) transition from elation in one scene to devastation in the next, much like real life.  As refreshing as both the emotions and the editing are, the script fortunately matches up with them.  The dialogue and acting is occasionally awkward; at first I thought it might be a weakness of script and/or performance, but it's simply capturing the awkwardness of teens in certain situations, and this becomes clearer as the film goes along.  Finally, Lady Bird has some good humor throughout, but I have to mention that it also has one of the funniest parts I've seen in a long time, featuring a football coach attempting to diagram the roles in a drama production.  You just have to see it.

***

Lady Bird is a triumph in many ways, not least in easily sidestepping most of the pitfalls of this well-worn genre, so often cliche-ridden and self-conscious.  It's not perfect; at times the abrupt editing style and naturalistic script just doesn't work so well, particularly early on.  It's both affecting and effective, but it's not built for quite the depth or endurance of impact that other dramas are able to achieve.  Still, those are just quibbles, and by any standard Lady Bird is a very well made film.  The style is perfect for telling the story of an average girl, not just because it creates such a vivid portrait of her and her world but also because it generates genuine compassion for her.  Perhaps other coming-of-age films might effectively explore unique angles or aspects of the genre, but when it comes to these films in general, I can't see any topping it (or even worth attempting).  Great way to balance the holiday movie excitement of Star Wars - try it out.




By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55096958

Coco

Score:  A

Directed by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina
Starring Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt
Running time: 109 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Coco is the latest Pixar film, another visual masterpiece and featuring elements of Hispanic culture and tradition.  Perhaps not as wildly (and weirdly) creative as some of its kin, Coco nevertheless belongs in the company of some of the studio's best, delighting audiences with both sight and sound, and warming hearts with its characters and themes.  Highly recommended for all.


Miguel (Gonzalez) is a small, young boy with big, age-old dreams.  Raised by a family of shoemakers in Mexico, he idolizes the historic father of Mexican pop music, Ernesto de la Cruz (Bratt), and hopes to follow in his footsteps.  Unfortunately for Miguel, his family despises music due to a scandal from long ago, and they insist that he take up the family tradition of shoemaking and forget his dreams.  Frustrated, Miguel is determined to show them - and the world - that he is meant for music by entering a local competition.  First he must find a guitar, though, as his family took his away, causing Miguel to make a desperate and fateful decision.  Bound by a curse, Miguel must embrace his family again - albeit a much different version of it - to free himself, while keeping a tight hold on his love of music.

Coco features a compelling cast of characters brought to life by both Hollywood stars and newcomers.  Anthony Gonzalez lends the young lead, Miguel, an inspired and bright personality, gushing with enthusiasm and an independent spirit.  Miguel is extremely likable, and you find yourself actively rooting not just for him to overcome the various challenges but for his happiness; that may seem a simple thing, but all too often the plot (and any danger involved) in films like this becomes the focus rather than the young protagonist him/herself.  The two main supporting characters are Ernesto, Miguel's hero, and Hector, a scallawag of the Land of the Dead.  Hector provides a nice foil for Miguel as his companion through much of the film, a man who is also focused on a mission for himself but goes about it with cynicism in contrast with Miguel's idealism.  Ernesto is more significant as a symbol than as an active player in the story, but he eventually also plays a direct, key role as well.  There are plenty of other supporting characters, some of whom are a bit cliche but as a whole make up a unique and fascinating family portrait which gives the film a sturdy, warm foundation.  And Pixar has also come up with another instantly lovable dog companion, just for good measure!

Coco is an outstanding film, fitting nicely into the Pixar family with many of its familiar trademarks yet making its own mark through visuals, music and classic themes.  The story structure is a fairly familiar one, following a young lead on a fantastical journey to achieve a dream, in animated and family films generally, not just Pixar.  In less capable hands, this could easily have led to a predictable, unremarkable film that passes the time pleasantly but leaves little lasting impression.  And admittedly, Coco starts fairly slowly, although Miguel (and Gonzalez's performance) still creates a spark.  The slow start also allows room for the musical theme to be introduced, via some catchy, beautiful tunes.  It's not too long before Miguel enters the Land of the Dead, and Pixar's visual team gets its chance to shine, creating an unbelievably complex and colorful world, populated by skeletal denizens that convey their "status" while remaining capable of expressing human emotion.  Having wowed audiences through sensory wizardry, Coco begins to unpack the narrative themes which were quietly, patiently developed in the first half of the film.  Impressively, the themes of family are both specific to the intergenerational aspects of Hispanic culture as well as universally relatable (perhaps not just reaffirming but also enlightening).  A related theme is that of memory, another Pixar favorite. As always, you may want to have tissues on hand for some well-earned (and happy) tears.

***

Coco is yet another triumph for the best film studio of the past twenty years, Pixar.  Perhaps Marvel got its idea from them:  create a brand of films that share an overall feel (technical achievement and effective, genuine themes) at a consistently high level of quality, but give each individual film a unique angle on that worldview.  It is easy to say that Coco's "angle" is the Hispanic flavor Pixar film, but it is so richly and intricately created that that label is far too simplistic.  Yes, there is a distinct cultural feel (mark that as a success), but it is easily and naturally relatable to all.  Go for the characters, go for the culture; go for typically great Pixar animation and hummable tunes; and of course, go for all the feels and timeless lessons to be (re)learned.  Just go see the movie!




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47613889

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Score:  C

Directed by Martin McDonagh
Starring Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell
Running time:  115 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Three Billboards, an awards season contender, features an interesting premise in the push for justice through unusual means by a grieving mother.  Frances McDormand's lead performance is as good as advertised, but the film itself falls well short.  The premise is squandered by an inability to find the right tone, which is often waylaid by dark comedy and violence, and an inconsistent script.  Opinions may vary widely, but proceed with caution.


A disconsolate woman, Mildred (McDormand), mother of a brutally murdered daughter, one day comes across three forgotten billboards alongside a little-used road.  At last, she has found inspiration: with the criminal investigation gone cold without producing any leads, Mildred rents the billboards in order to call out the police department in a very direct way.  Once local media puts her act of confrontation in the news, Mildred soon finds herself at odds not only with the police and their cancer-stricken Chief Willoughby (Harrelson) but much of the town's population, too.  Mildred's resolve is unshakeable, however, even as she and her teenage son receive harassment and abuse from everyone from the dentist to school children.  When tragedy strikes once more, Mildred's campaign comes under more pressure, even as new interest in and questions about her daughter's case emerge from unexpected sources.

Three Billboards has a great cast portraying a colorful set of characters.  Frances McDormand is the lead as despairing yet ruthlessly driven Mildred.  She does an excellent job, primarily through her physical embodiment of a barely contained rage; just a glance at her locked-in expressions tells you all you need to know, an expression that holds whether she is face-to-face with a pastor, the police chief, or a kid.  However, her underlying grief breaks through from time to time, and McDormand believably sheds the rough exterior and transforms into a genuinely vulnerable mother.  If anything, the film would have benefited from more of her.  Next is Woody Harrelson as Chief Willoughby, who brings an equal mixture of dramatic tension with Mildred and a darkly comedic element.  Harrelson is also very good, mostly dropping his eccentric trademark (save for a few bits) for a straight part.  He is intriguingly complex, buffeted by not only Mildred's attacks but also his personal problems yet remaining principled... to an extent.  Sam Rockwell has another significant role as a dim-witted, drunken yet also often humorous police officer.  Rockwell often gets oddball supporting parts like this and as usual, he does a great job - with what he's given, at least.  All other parts - most notably including Peter Dinklage and Caleb Landry Jones - are fine, but much smaller.

Three Billboards has many good elements (particularly the cast) within a great premise, but they are mostly spoiled by an inconsistent script and tone, which are at times bewildering and at others distasteful.  The story is very interesting, contrasting support for a mother's demand for justice against  unease at the methods she uses on others.  There are plenty of related, timely, fascinating themes in this, from the criminal justice system (and sexual assault in particular) to the relationship of media and public opinion.  While the film does well to avoid being too heavy-handed with any of that, it goes too far in the opposite direction by distracting from the story with oddly (and often, IMO, inappropriately) placed black humor and chilling violence.  Where these two elements are in Mildred's scenes, they work well and are appropriate, but the two police officers steal far too much screen time and focus.  Harrelson and Rockwell, again, do well, but the comedy and violence in their scenes is distracting and disorienting at best, and appalling at worst.  Both of their characters undergo dramatic changes which drive the development of the story (which should have been Mildred's job), and are otherwise problematic: for Harrelson, it's the way the film views his fateful choice, and for Rockwell, it's an implausible 180 degree shift in character.  There are further sidetracks, too, though at least they tend to involve Mildred.  One involving her ex-husband is cliched and mostly uninteresting, and the other, with Dinklage, had potential but is over in the blink of an eye.  Finally, too often the film veers between being too direct and unsubtle (mostly thanks to awkward moments in the script) and artsy-abstract, where coincidences often transform awkwardly into crucial realities.

***

Three Billboards is one of the biggest letdowns for me recently among awards contender films (also Hacksaw Ridge - terrible, way out of place with last year's other excellent Best Picture nominees and should be skipped).  In skimming critics' reviews, I haven't seen much about the film's tone, but it really bothered me.  This film had so much potential, particularly from the premise but also from the cast, but it squandered it with poor direction and an inconsistent script.  I didn't like many of the choices made, from the undue focus on the cops to an often tasteless application of the comedy and violence.  I think my overall score may be based more on my personal reaction to it than it is for other films, so you (like the critics) may come to a very different conclusion than me.  So give it a try if you're so inclined, but in my opinion you can wait until it comes to Netflix or DVD, if at all.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53574638

Justice League

Score:  C+

Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Henry Cavill, et. al.
Running time: 120 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  After a few "setup" films in the way of Marvel's Avengers universe, DC has its own mega hero bash now in Justice League.  Forced to severely alter its antecedents' darker tone after critical thrashings, the film ends up being a bit of a mess of elements, albeit an entertaining one.  Gadot's returning Wonder Woman and Miller's new Flash give it a lift, but the structure is all too familiar without providing anything distinctive of note to the genre (or even DC's own universe).  Pass on this in favor of Thor, unless you're a superhero junkie like me.


The death of Superman (Cavill) has brought fear and despair to a world that had just begun to embrace him as a protector of Earth.  This environment lures new evil to the world, while humanity's other heroes remain isolated.  Bruce Wayne (Affleck) investigates increasing sightings of winged aliens in Gotham, and begins to connect them to the broader societal turmoil.  Realizing that the city - and the world - faces a threat larger in scope than he alone can handle, he pleads with Diana Prince (Gadot) for help.  The two seek out others with the ability to join them, but struggle to form a united front among individuals used to standing on their own.  Time is short, however, as a powerful being known as Steppenwolf storms across the globe in attempting to revive an ancient doomsday device.

Justice League returns many of the characters/actors that have accumulated in the DC superhero universe recently, and introduces a few more.  Leading the way is Ben Affleck as Batman.  Although Affleck proved himself worthy of the cape and cowl in last year's Batman v Superman, the character is a bit swallowed up here both by the larger cast and the more fantastical tone; he seems kind of out of place.  Not helping matters is Affleck's own more generic performance, relying more on cliches and seeming on cruise control.  Gal Gadot, however, steps up to the plate in fully reinhabiting her Diana Prince-aka Wonder Woman-role.  The film also introduces an intriguing developmental arc for her, though it is unfortunately not fully realized.  Ezra Miller as the Flash is the most interesting and entertaining newcomer, filling a stereotypical nerdy, Spider-Man-y role, and the character is both refreshing and the source of most of the film's humor.  Jason Mamoa and Ray Risher's Aquaman and Cyborg, respectively, are both fine but also offer underexplained, bewildering back story (Cyborg) and generic muscle attached to the bad boy archetype (Aquaman).

Justice League is DC's film studio answer to Marvel's Avengers, and while it is entertaining and possessing of potential for the inevitable follow-ups, overall it is a far cry from its rival's finely polished craft.  DC's previous Batman v Superman was eviscerated by critics (unfairly, IMO-more on this later) for its stylish but dark, brooding tone.  Clearly, the studio got the message and so while it retains much of the visual style (via the same director, Zack Snyder), it tries to be a lot more "fun", mostly through humor and an Avengers-like team dynamic.  A good bit of the comedy does work as does the lighter touch (at least partly), but overall it comes off as an incomplete facelift, an attempt to radically shift gears that results in a fairly generic blockbuster feel as opposed to Marvel's distinctive and effective equivalent.  Not helping matters is a pretty familiar plot structure.  The team building is familiar, of course, but greatly accelerated; much time is spent on it, but because we still know so little about three of the new characters, the unifying process feels unearned and obligatory.  The villain is a pretty generic baddie who, as is often the case in weaker superhero films, seems practically unstoppable at the beginning but gets trounced at the end.  Speaking of the action, there is plenty of it, of course, and Snyder's direction makes most of it at least interesting.  But there is a lot of CGI - way too much, in the climactic battle - and there are no truly great sets.  Throwing a diverse group of heroes into one movie generates a strong pull to make it all generic, a pull that Justice League succumbs to often.

***

Justice League features some of the biggest superheroes in pop culture in one movie, yet, while it isn't a bad film, it ends up feeling relatively insignificant.  For me, it comes back to the tone created not just in one film, but in the whole series of films that the comic book juggernauts are producing.  Marvel hit on something special with Iron Man, and it built on this carefully and methodically until the first Avengers completed the task (while also setting the stage for countless more to come).  I felt DC had an intriguing new take on the superhero genre with Batman v Superman, with a much different yet also distinct tone, defined by its darker, stylish visual tone and mood.  It wasn't a perfect film, but strongly established a canvas (like Iron Man in Marvel) for a rich, wider universe*.  Yet critics basically destroyed it, and in doing so, gave us the muddled mess that is Justice League.  Perhaps the next few "solo" films will help to better define some of the new characters; already, Affleck's Batman has poor prospects while Gadot's Wonder Woman is soaring, so it's a toss-up.  If you're looking for a fun action film for the holidays, Thor: Ragnarok is a far superior option, but if you're a fan of the genre, this isn't a terrible choice, either.

* This summer's Wonder Woman was actually already a big contrast in style - much more optimistic and light, which works for her standalone character - but it would have been very intriguing to see a movie (read: Justice League) in which those contrasting styles are pitted against/with each other.  Alas...


By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53575621

Murder on the Orient Express

Score:  B

Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Starring Kenneth Branagh, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, et. al.
Running time:  114 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Murder on the Orient Express is a bit of counter programming in the theater as we get to the blockbusters of holiday season.  Highlighted by a large cast of esteemed actors and a classic mystery tale, there is a good bit of fun to be had on this train ride.  However, the cast and details they bring along get to be a bit too much, and it never truly soars.  If you need a nice, simple outing at the theater this is a solid choice; otherwise, it can wait until Netflix, if you're interested.


Shortly after solving a case in Jerusalem, the famed detective Hercule Poirot (Branagh) heads home to London as yet another case beckons.  When he arrives in Istanbul, a friend offers him passage on the renowned Orient Express train.  Poirot meets and takes note of the train's varied passengers, including a shady American named Ratchett (Depp) who, having received threats, seeks his protection.  That night, there is commotion near Poirot and the train becomes stranded; the next morning Ratchett is found murdered in his cabin.  While waiting for help to arrive, Poirot leads an investigation into this fresh case, having a limited number of suspects yet also limited evidence.  As tension builds on the train with a murderer hiding among them, Poirot uncovers increasingly peculiar details about the suspects as he races to solve the case.

Murder on the Orient Express features quite a cast of stars packed tightly into the confined physical setting of the film.  Kenneth Branagh leads them all as the famous Hercule Poirot, a fun character that he plays well.  The opening of the film, which sees Poirot solving the Jerusalem case and traveling back home, gives Branagh plenty of room to introduce not only Poirot's impressive intellect but also his preference for solitude and biting dry humor.  As the main case proceeds on the train, Poirot also faces struggles of morality, but the film favors plot almost exclusively to his development; he is who he is.  All other characters are strictly supporting, although there are some standouts.  Depp is quite impressive as Ratchett, mysterious and menacing, particularly in his single meeting with Poirot.  Josh Gad plays his associate, a role much different from what you're used to seeing from him and one of the more interesting in the film.  Michelle Pfeiffer also gets a nice part and makes the most of it; it's hard to nail down just who she is as she shows gentle affection for Poirot one minute and sharp control of the train the next.  There are many more roles beyond these, but they are relegated to essentially a few moments (of varying quality) each.

Murder on the Orient Express is a pleasant, old-fashioned mystery film that is somewhat limited and fleeting, much like its train setting.  It benefits from good directing and writing, and while the plot outline - a mystery classic - by now is pretty familiar, it relies on its large and varied cast for flavor (to both better and worse effect).  Branagh, again, is fine as Poirot, and just getting to know him early on is interesting enough, but the film wisely transitions to the main setting and plot before long.  A nice feeling for leisure on the train is established, and it's clear that there's more to the characters than meets the eye (long before the murder), boosting our curiosity.  Once the main murder case gets underway, however, the process becomes surprisingly rote outside of a few interesting bits, particularly with Ratchett's associate (Gad).  It's not long before you realize that everyone has some kind of connection to the victim, and the film spends a lot of time on all those details which are frankly not that interesting after the third or fourth interview.  There are some twists along the way to throw you off track, although by the time they come, the story has become convoluted enough that it's not as effective as it could be.  I'll admit I did not predict the outcome before it was revealed, so that at least preserved some intrigue for me (others will no doubt be more clever than me).  At the end of the film I felt like I was getting off a train like Poirot:  it was an entertaining time, but the proceedings and its characters will likely be carried out of my mind before long.

***

While Murder on the Orient Express has only middling reviews from the critics (58% on Rotten Tomatoes) and my own review isn't super enthusiastic, it's best viewed as a welcome change of pace in today's film landscape.  As much as I do enjoy a lot of the current trends in film - such as the superhero boom - it's also refreshing to see more back-to-basics entries like this one.  I admit that I have neither read Agatha Christie nor seen any other film versions, so I have nothing to go on as far as the quality of this adaptation.  My score of a "B" definitely counts as "good" here; it's well made throughout but also fails to do anything particularly great.  Perhaps more time would have allowed for better development of a few key individual stories or conflicts, or more liberty could have been taken with the adaptation of the overall story.  At any rate, if you really want to see a solid traditional film in the theater, this is a good choice; otherwise, it wouldn't hurt to try it on Netflix some time.




By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54191771

Thor: Ragnarok

Score:  A

Directed by Taika Waititi
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett
Running time: 130 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Thor: Ragnarok is a load of fun, utterly overhauling one of Marvel's more "serious" Avengers.  Old frenemies Thor and Loki step up their game for this one, with a big assist from Hulk and a bevy of interesting new characters.  Perhaps the funniest Marvel film yet, it still retains the overall Marvel universe feel as well as its high level of quality.  Essential theater viewing for Marvel/superhero fans, and highly recommended for anyone else, too.


While continuing his search for the Infinity Stones - powerful artifacts that have begun appearing mysteriously in the Avengers' paths - Thor (Hemsworth) discovers that his father, Odin (Hopkins), is no longer ruling their homeworld of Asgard.  Thor returns and finds that his adopted brother, Loki (Hiddleston), has been disguising himself as Odin and ruling in his place.  Thor forces Loki to take him to their father, on Earth.  The aging man speaks to his sons for the last time, warning that his death will release their sister, Hela (Blanchett), a powerful force locked away and kept secret after betraying Odin long ago.  Hela confronts her brothers and easily overpowers them; when they try to flee back to Asgard, she sends them tumbling deep into space, and goes to Asgard herself to set her plans in motion.  Finding himself on a strange planet and at the bottom of the food chain, Thor must figure out how to free himself and return to Asgard in order to prevent a catastrophe.

Thor: Ragnarok benefits greatly from a talented cast, one with many familiar faces and almost all of whom get to show off impressive comedic chops.  Chris Hemsworth naturally leads the way as Thor, this being his character's third "solo" film.  Although there is a lot of noise around him, Hemsworth shows continued development, in particular his impressive comedic timing.  There is still a little bit of the imperious Norse god element, but it is much reduced; he is brought down to much more relatable earth by his various partnerships with others, vulnerable circumstances, and most of all the consistent use of good, self-effacing humor.  Still very much unique, Thor now feels much more like an Avenger than ever before (in a good way).  Fortunately, Tom Hiddleston's Loki gets a significant role again, and his character also makes a similarly dramatic shift to the comedic.  A frenemy from the start, this change also suits Loki quite well, as he's not a full-on "bad guy" (though he retains some significant scenes of sneakiness and treachery).  Mark Ruffalo's Hulk gets some interesting material to work with, and credit to the actor (and script) for his great chemistry with Hemsworth while not stealing the spotlight.  Cate Blanchett unsurprisingly does a superb job as the villain, easily conveying a sense of great power and menace but keeping it well within the bounds of this film's lighter tone.  There are plenty of other great parts: Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie is a great new heroine with a swagger to match her power, Jeff Goldblum is an expectedly (and hilariously) bizarre ruler of his equally strange planet, Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange makes a brief but fantastic appearance, and there's even a surprise A-list cameo.

Thor: Ragnarok on the surface is a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach to the superhero genre, but it somehow works tremendously as an action comedy that still manages to advance the Marvel universe's story, too.  While the first two Thor films were solid and entertaining, they were also a bit too sober for their own good (and thus out of place at Marvel).  Well, Ragnarok is certainly no tentative step in the other direction.  I'm not sure that two minutes go by without an overt attempt at humor here - a remarkable amount of which works, and I laughed out loud quite a bit.  There is all kinds of comedy, from slapstick to the more subtle, from self-referential (and self-effacing) to broad, all of it contributing to what is one of the most fun Marvel films yet - an impressive feat.  Yet Ragnarok also does not simply fall into parody, nor does it throw away the chance to advance a compelling story.  It takes advantage of its characters' great powers (several of them are literally gods) to "believably" create enjoyable but not rules-busting silliness (to Loki's frequent chagrin).  While the story structure is not new, it is a good fit for this world; the stakes are appropriately high (but not a burden) and provide Thor excellent challenges not only to his strength but to his character.  In a weaker film, I would have rolled my eyes at the climax, but here it is well-earned, fun, and ends in a truly unique and interesting way.  With all the good humor, interesting characters and new tone for the world, the signature Marvel action is practically an after thought (but still good, particularly the Thor-v-Hulk gladiator rumble).

***

I knew that Thor: Ragnarok was going to be a departure in some way from the previous films, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much different - and how well it was done.  We can surely thank Guardians of the Galaxy for opening the door for it, but Ragnarok manages to be even better (especially important due to the belly flop that was Guardians 2).  I've sung Marvel's praises before, but they keep delivering the goods to deserve some more.  The director, Waititi, is a largely unknown filmmaker who certainly has not done any big franchise work before, but he turned out to be a perfect choice here, bringing a sorely needed fresh perspective to Thor's world yet retaining the high quality of the Marvel universe and allowing it to fit in with its kin.  As with all Marvel films, it's most enjoyable if you've seen the others, but even for newcomers, this should be a tremendously entertaining time at the cinema.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53738935

Blade Runner 2049

Score:  B

Directed by Denis Villeneuve
Starring Ryan Gosling, Ana de Armas, Harrison Ford
Running time: 163 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel coming thirty-five years after the original sci-fi classic.  Directed by the incredibly talented Villeneuve, the sequel is quite faithful in style to the original (too much so when it comes to characters and story - in my opinion) and executed with the highest quality.  Gosling does well as the lead, but beyond the stunning visuals there is too little to occupy you over the exceedingly long running time.  Must-see if you're a fan of the original; otherwise, proceed with caution.


In a sci-fi future, humans share the world with replicants, or androids.  One replicant, known as K (Gosling) is a blade runner, which hunts and "retires" (eliminates) rogue replicants.  In the process of retiring one such replicant, K finds the remains of another replicant hidden on its property.  Analysis at the LAPD reveals that the replicant was a woman who died during child birth - a revelation, as it was believed replicants were not able to reproduce.  Fearing global turmoil at the news, the LAPD tasks K with destroying all evidence of it, including the child.  K's mission brings up similarities to his own implanted memories, and he struggles with yet is increasingly intrigued by his personal connection to the situation.  But his time is short, as word of the news has gotten out, and soon there is a race to get to the bottom of this mystery.

In continuing and expanding the unique world of its predecessor, Blade Runner 2049 relies on a fairly small cast to bring it to life.  Ryan Gosling is the lead as replicant/blade runner K, and he does a very good job in the role, even as the role itself proves limiting.  K is not human, which is made clear by Gosling's mostly impassive expressions and minimal yet efficient physicality.  Yet he also experiences emotion to some degree and has limited memories, and the actor shows this well (as does the camera, so frequently focused on him) through subtle reactions.  As intriguing as this performance is, there is simply not much, well, character there in the first place and so a sense of connection to this central figure is lacking.  Ana de Armas plays something even less human - a program that can take holographic form, named Joi, which serves as K's "girlfriend".  Ana does an impressive job with the ostensibly human yet very artificial role which is, of course, shallow, yet also visually innovative (more on this later).  Harrison Ford, the main character from the original, shows up only late in this one.  There are a few good moments with him and K, but his role is really mainly a plot device and Ford didn't make much of an impression on me.  Smaller supporting roles include Sylvia Hoeks' Luv, a menacing nemesis replicant, Robin Wright as a strong, stern yet good LAPD officer, and Jared Leto as a very creepy main villain.

Blade Runner 2049 is an ambitious and creative work by one of today's most talented filmmakers, one that is faithful to the original - enough so that it suffers from the same flaws, too.  Blade Runner, and now its sequel, are primarily driven by two elements - a vision of a vast and desolate future Earth, and much more intimate stories about these human-like "replicants."  Although it's implied that the world's population has ballooned, both films feel startlingly lonely, even empty, leaving much space for the central characters to act as symbols for this strange new world.  Like the original, however, those characters are simply not up to the task; the impressions of interesting drama is there but it's all shadows, swallowed up by the gloomy tone and indulgent (to me, tedious) pace.  The plot here had the potential to be significantly more interesting than the original's, but it's stretched over such a long running time - and advanced in such subtle fits and starts - that it's too easy to lose track of what's going on.  Still, there is much to be said for the filmmaking, which retains the style of the original - from the lighting to the dark, synth-y soundtrack to the dialogue - yet improves just about everything in it.  If anything keeps your interest through the lengthy film, it's the visuals, from the many haunting and caringly crafted locations to the atmospheric cinematography.  And the Joi "character" is amazing, flickering oh-so-faintly but obviously to constantly remind you she is a hologram, and at one point even "melding" with another human being.

***

The score I've given to Blade Runner 2049 - a "B" - reflects a combination of my simply not caring for the style of film that this (and its predecessor) is, and my admiring the quality with which it was made.  More and more, I prefer my sci-fi films to be on the lighter and energetic side (Star Wars), while this franchise is very much on the darker and slower end.  Perhaps my opinion would be improved if the characters and stories were interesting, but they are mediocre at best, to me (granted, the sequel is a significant improvement here).  Of course, if you loved the original, likely you will love this one, too - in fact, you'll probably like it even more than the first.  So why did I see this sequel if I didn't like the original?  I thought the original had some potential that could be built on, but far and away the top reason is because of the director, Denis Villeneuve.  He has made tremendous - and unique, creative - films in Prisoners, Sicario, and Arrival, and is one of my very favorite filmmakers working today.  His talents are very much apparent in Blade Runner 2049, and for a sequel true to the original, this is frankly probably as good as it could be.  If you're a sci-fi fan, this is worth seeing (and obviously essential for Blade Runner fans); otherwise, maybe Netflix it sometime if you're curious.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51893608

Battle of the Sexes

Score:  A

Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Starring Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Bill Pullman
Running time:  121 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Battle of the Sexes is based on the famous tennis duel between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King, and serves as a drama with real life topicality along with a healthy dose of humor.  Emma Stone and Steve Carell are both excellent as expected, pulling their characters' rivalry far beyond a simple battle of women's rights versus male chauvinism.  Come for a high-quality, affecting film that keeps you entertained throughout: recommended to all.


In 1973, Billie Jean King (Stone) was the top American woman tennis player, serving as a leader for a close-knit group of her countrywomen.  Even as the women's game was rising in popularity (and financial success), the leaders of tennis' organizing bodies like Jack Kramer (Pullman) refused to increase women players' pay to anything close to the men's.  King thus formed the first women's tennis association.  As King and the others traveled to tournaments, struggling to stay afloat, she met and found herself attracted to a hairdresser named Marilyn (Riseborough), despite being married.  Retired but frustrated and addicted to the excitement of his playing days, Bobby Riggs (Carell) pulled the media stunt of challenging the top women's player, Margaret Court, to a match.  The public response, as well as tennis patriarchy's, to his victory compelled King to challenge Riggs to another match; with the media spotlight even brighter this time, the outcome promised to have ramifications far beyond the tennis court.

Battle of the Sexes features an excellent cast, bringing the historical drama to life with both tension and humor.  Emma Stone leads the way as Billie Jean King, a strong and committed athlete and leader who nonetheless faces daunting challenges both on and off the court.  Stone, one of the most talented actresses today, makes the character more than just an important symbol.  She is believable, both physically and in her demeanor, as a premier athlete, and shows King's powerful force of will and determination.  Yet she also convincingly shows King's struggles, and the way that what happens on the court and off the court affect each other.  Carell is able to bring his considerable talents for both comedy and drama to bear in his role as Bobby Riggs.  Riggs is, well, quite a character, from horsing around with his son to showboating on the tennis court.  The film also depicts Riggs genuine struggles, both in his relationships and his obsessions with attention and excitement, and Carell makes him actually somewhat sympathetic through this.  Among the supporting roles, Bill Pullman as the ATP director and Andrea Riseborough as King's lover are the most significant and both do quite well, helping to increase the impact of the different forces pulling on King.

Battle of the Sexes is a very well-made historical drama, effectively mixing important themes and character drama with comedy to make for an entertaining and affecting film.  The film is not shy about confronting major topics surrounding King and her match with Riggs - namely, the challenges faced by women athletes and gays (King being both) - but it gets its important points across without disrupting the dramatic narrative; in fact, they drive much of the drama quite naturally.  One could argue that the film doesn't go quite far enough with either issue, but I think that both fit well with the tone of the film which calls for at least somewhat of a light touch.  This other facet, the more straightforward entertainment, is achieved through the camaraderie of the women tennis players, and perhaps even more so with Riggs' antics (even if it creates some friction as you find yourself laughing with the "bad guy").  Riggs goes so far over the top - including practicing dressed as Little Bo Peep complete with sheep roaming the court - that even King rolls her eyes and laughs.  It's the tension created between the symbolic importance of the match (can women "compete" with men?) and the ludicrousness of the event that makes the film so compelling.  Finally, I'll point out that they show enough of the sport to give you context and add extra drama to the climactic match, but little enough that it came off more as a regular drama than a sports drama (great accomplishment in my book).

***

Battle of the Sexes is in the Oscars conversation at the moment, and for good reason.  I could certainly see this going up for Best Picture, with its great mixture of quality, important issues and entertainment value, not to mention perhaps Best Actress consideration for Emma Stone.  The film does seem just a bit overlong, dragging in a few places.  While the style of the film is perfectly appropriate for the story, it also holds it back from being considered among the very greatest dramas. That's nit-picking, though: this is highly recommended for any adult, and in particular, of course, fans of tennis, Emma Stone, and/or Steve Carell.  Well worth a trip to the theater to see this one.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54063011

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Score:  B+

Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Starring Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Julianne Moore, et. al.
Running time: 141 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Golden Circle is a follow up to the surprise hit Kingsman, a film where manners may maketh man, but the action and humor is liberated for maximum fun.  This sequel is too long, stuffed with more of everything and an even crazier plot, but the great tone and style is the same and there's plenty of thrilling action and sharp humor.  Should be seen by those who enjoyed the first, and it's worth recommending to anyone who enjoys the genre in general, too.


A year after saving the world, Eggsy (Egerton) continues his work as an agent in the secret Kingsman organization.  Upon leaving headquarters in London one night, however, he encounters a former fellow Kingsman trainee, Charlie, who had switched sides but also apparently died.  Eggsy barely escapes Charlie as they race through the city, and he goes home to see his girlfriend.  During the attack, Charlie had managed to hack the Kingsman network, and that night a series of missile attacks effectively destroy the organization, leaving only Eggsy and loyal trainer and staffer, Merlin (Strong).  The two initiate the Kingsman "Doomsday" protocol, and find themselves seeking a sister organization in America.  There they meet an old friend, and learn about a mysterious new international criminal outfit known as the Golden Circle.  Eggsy, Merlin and their new allies race to find the Circle's leader and stop its evil plans - before it's too late for millions around the world.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle has an impressive cast of stars, including much of the original and many new faces as well.  Taron Egerton returns to lead as Eggsy, who has grown past reformed criminal and novice agent, to full-fledged Kingsman agent.  While his character didn't lack for confidence in the first film, he is now assured in his role and is now a more typical hero type.  Egerton gets to display his impressive charisma early on, cocky yet self-effacing and amusing, but there's little development of the character as the film progresses.  Well-known spoiler alert: Colin Firth also returns as Eggsy's partner, Harry Hart or "Galahad".  His role is somewhat diminished here, but also one of the more interesting as his character battles amnesia.  Firth does a good job with this "different" character, and as he slowly recovers the relationship dynamic with Eggsy is subtly modified.  Mark Strong is once again, well, very strong in his role as Merlin, a sort of Q-meets-Alfred who also kicks ass; he gets a more significant part in this one, too.  Julianne Moore plays the new villain, Poppy Adams, a seemingly saccharine sweet woman who is in fact even more brutal and ruthless than her predecessor, Samuel L. Jackson.  She gets relatively little screen time, but makes a big impact.  Elton John gets an unexpectedly large and pretty bonkers role, while most of the other new stars are fine but also limited to essentially cameos (Halle Berry, Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges).

The Golden Circle is a more flawed and less original film than the first Kingsman, but it retains much of the great style of the first and gives us more of, well, pretty much everything.  Writer/director Matthew Vaughn returns, along with the tone of serious enough to not be strictly parody, but also with a certain freedom from reality through comic book-like elements and great humor, both overt and tongue in cheek.  I find this balanced tone excellent, just like in the original.  The plot, however, stretches this tone to the limit.  It is similar to the original: a megalomaniac threatens widespread death and destruction with a plan that involves a contemporary hot topic (war on drugs this time) taken to an absurd level.  But the U.S. government plays a role, too, this time, with amusing political commentary yet also overboard; the introduction of an American version of Kingsman itself is interesting but also a bit much.  There is even more action in this installment, most of it quite good, especially the opening scene car chase.  It achieves a great balance of just enough realism-and outstanding choreography- with impossible but very cool comic book-like effects.  There is a lot to like in the climactic battle, too, including an Elton John-soundtracked start and a bravura 2-vs-1 ending.  But it's also almost exhaustingly long, like the film itself (nearly two and a half hours).  There are plenty of great scenes, moments, and ideas, but the impact of each is diminished with just so much going on; a twenty or thirty minute trim might have done wonders.

***

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a highly entertaining sequel that doesn't quite live up to the stand out original, but is still quite well-made in its own right.  A warning: this film's tone, violence and humor are not for everyone.  It all works for me very well, but I'm also well aware that it will repel others equally strongly.  If you are as immature as I am, though, and entertained by a little action and humor that pushes the envelope (still far short of where some other films go), you might want to give this a try, or at least the original.  The critics have given it a fairly mediocre 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I think this mostly proves there are those who just aren't able to enjoy this type of film at all (which is me when it comes to horror movies).  If you've seen the first, I'd recommend this for a theater viewing but if not, you might want to wait for it to come to Netflix/streaming.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54939477

Logan Lucky

Score:  A-

Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Starring Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough
Running time: 119 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  From the director who brought us Ocean's Eleven, Logan Lucky is another heist film - in a rather different setting.  Led by an impressive cast of stars (even Channing Tatum is great), the film quickly distinguishes itself from its predecessor.  It is a lot of fun, and funny, but it doesn't take the easy way out with redneck jokes, instead lifting up the culture of its characters.  Especially at this time of year, it's a top choice in the theater.  Highly recommended.


The Logan family seems to be anything but lucky.  Brothers Jimmy (Tatum) and Clyde (Driver) eek out a living due to regular misfortune.  Jimmy was once a star football player before suffering a leg injury, and finds himself laid off even from his construction job due to liability, while Clyde manages a bar having lost a hand while serving in the military.  After learning that his daughter is to move away with his ex, and suffering humiliation from out-of-towners, Jimmy decides that enough is enough.  He and Clyde devise a scheme to literally reverse their fortunes by robbing a nearby NASCAR race track.  But they'll need plenty of help, and so recruit their hairstylist sister, Mellie (Keough) and notorious safe cracker Joe "Bang" (Craig), among others.  While the Lucky brothers are surprisingly well-prepared, they still must heed their own warning that "shit will happen."

Logan Lucky has a very good cast, full of star actors in even small roles.  Channing Tatum is the lead as Jimmy Logan, an ordinary man struggling to get by in his rural hometown.  Channing owns the first part of the film, where he establishes his character as a man who has come to quietly accept that a significant potential of his life (as an athlete) is lost, though he is driven to keep moving forward for love of his young daughter.  It's some of the best acting I've seen from Tatum and gives the film a solid dramatic core.  Adam Driver's Clyde, Jimmy's brother, has less background but does a good job fitting in in the sibling relationship; he is even more hardened and stoic than Jimmy.  Daniel Craig gets the most colorful role in the film, seizing on the part of Joe Bang with great relish.  Very, very far from James Bond, Joe is at once wickedly funny and surprisingly disciplined and proud.  Riley Keough as sister Mellie is the most stable of the bunch, providing family (and criminal) stability but with attitude in a nice performance.  Fun or notable smaller parts abound here, from Joe's nitwit brothers, played by Brian Gleeson and Jack Quaid (sons of Brendan and Dennis, respectively), Katie Holmes as Jimmy's ex, Seth MacFarlane as an obnoxious Brit, Hilary Swank as an FBI agent, and many more.

The simplest way to describe Logan Lucky is "Ocean's Eleven taking place in West Virginia" (actually, it's North Carolina) but while very entertaining and somewhat familiar, the film is not a simple parody or remake.  A large part of what makes the film successful is the aforementioned cast.  It may not have the glitzy names of Ocean's - replacing Clooney, Pitt and Damon with Tatum, Driver and Craig - but this cast is every bit as skilled, and are all quite appropriate for their roles.  The very premise of the film risks condescension toward rural America, but (being from rural America myself) I feel it celebrated the culture, if anything.  Certainly much humor is based on the setting, and there are some broad stereotypes like Jimmy's daughter competing in a beauty contest, but little if any is judgmental.  In fact, the film rather pointedly shows how much these characters are like anyone else, how smart, hardworking, and community-based they are.  This portrait includes some very minor characters, either part of Jimmy's background (an old classmate) or part of the main plot (an unwitting racetrack employee) who might otherwise be dull.  Of course, the main heist is a big part of the film; it's more drawn out and less slick than Ocean's - while a bit disappointing, it also is a stylistically appropriate contrast with its predecessor and has plenty of surprises.  It can be a little challenging to follow the details of the plot (and the tone shifts and misdirects a bit), making a second viewing likely quite appealing, but we're left with an ending that is perfectly satisfying in a quasi-Hollywood way.

***

Despite its similarities to Ocean's Eleven, this is one of the freshest and most clever films I have seen in a while.  The critics are right on target in loving it (IMO), but it had an awful opening weekend with audiences with under $10 million.  Maybe a lot of people just don't know about Logan Lucky, because the premise seems like it should appeal to a large audience.  And unlike too many films with a good premise, this one follows through and more on its promise.  It is the kind of summer film that, again, should appeal to many:  a great, star-filled cast at the top of their game; a fun story that draws comparisons to a classic while finding its own unique path; and a feel good tone and ending.  I strongly urge you to go out and see this one in the theaters - we should convince Hollywood studios to make more like it!


By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54170950

War for the Planet of the Apes

Score:  C+

Directed by Matt Reeves
Starring Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn
Running time: 140 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise, which has been very strong but a little overshadowed by others (superheroes, etc.), gets a finale that sadly does not live up to the prior films. Andy Serkis returns as Caesar and the effects are fantastic, but the film is saddled with a generic set up made worse by a poor script, pacing, and a surprisingly ineffective villain played by Woody Harrelson.  Either go see one of the actually good films in theaters right now, or Netflix the first film, Rise, if you haven't already seen it.


An unstable, dangerous world continues on from this film's predecessor, Dawn, in which the remnants of humanity struggle to survive along with a separate community of super-intelligent apes, led by Caesar (Serkis). A human military group ambushes the apes, but when they are finally defeated, Caesar decides to spare the survivors as a gesture of good faith and attempt to end hostilities.  Unfortunately, the attacking military group was from a rogue group led by the Colonel, who is determined to wipe out the apes.  After suffering another sneak attack, Caesar is infuriated and resolves to get revenge.  While sending the rest of the ape community on a journey to a hopefully safer home, he goes with a small group of trusted friends to kill the Colonel.  Along the way, he learns of a potentially planet-altering development involving the remaining humans, and must decide what he is willing to sacrifice in order to keep his fellow apes safe.

Even more so than the first two films of the new Planet of the Apes trilogy, Rise and Dawn, this film features apes as the main characters.  Once again Andy Serkis, a veteran of motion-capture roles (Lord of the Rings, King Kong, etc.) is the lead as Caesar.  Serkis is so reliably good that it's easy to take him for granted, but he maintains the character so consistently well, from the physical (voice, style of movement) to the emotive.  Beyond the acting, the effects work is outstanding here; I can't think of a single poor frame, and the apes were completely convincing as regular characters (visually, anyway) throughout.  The two other main ape characters are Maurice, a peaceful orangutan who serves as Caesar's advisor; and Bad Ape, a new guy found along the way who can speak like Caesar and provides good comic relief (played by Karin Konoval and Steve Zahn, respectively).  The only notable human character is Woody Harrelson's villain, the Colonel.  Typically Harrelson gives strong, charismatic, unique performances but he's underwhelming here.  There's a lot of show, of course, but I did not feel the menace and danger the role required.

War for the Planet of the Apes retains some of the inherent strengths of its predecessors, but also unfortunately goes off the tracks in other ways resulting in a disappointing finale to the trilogy.  I note first that, like with Rise, I was deceived in a big way by the trailers; for Rise, the surprise was a pleasant one, but it was the other way around for War.  The overall structure of the story combines two very well-worn conventions: a good but embattled leader gets pushed too far and seeks revenge (will he go too far in turn?!), and the evacuation of a threatened community away from barbarians.  If executed well, this straightforward path could have produced a fine film.  And there are certainly strengths to be found; again, the visual effects are phenomenal, and Serkis's Caesar is a great lead (if a bit more generic this time around).  Bad Ape's humor is a very welcome addition, and the twist with the humans is pretty clever, and rather disquieting.  Unfortunately, the film gets bogged down not too far in, as the plot shoots ahead to what is normally a final act scenario - but it's only halfway through. The pacing becomes painful and the events telegraphed and decreasingly interesting.  I was counting on some pretty spectacular action, considering that this is the trilogy finale and Dawn had quite a bit already.  But this one goes out with a whimper, and features one of my pet peeves in being unrealistic even by the measure of its own rules.  Add in the fact that this is way too long at two hours-twenty minutes, and you have a classic letdown.

***

I'm pretty baffled by the critical raves War has been getting - it has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes!!  The film does try to address some more advanced themes than most other blockbusters, but it doesn't do so nearly as well as Rise or Dawn - yet it is better reviewed than either of those.  I had been hoping July 2017 might turn out to be one of the strongest months for movies, with Baby Driver, Spider-Man and Dunkirk preceding it, but War let the others down, just as it did its trilogy predecessors.  I would like to see the entire franchise again over a short period, once this comes on DVD/streaming, and maybe my opinion of it will improve.  Certainly the effects work remains strong.  But if you are a fan of the first two films and are wondering about this last one, I suggest you wait for Netflix.  And if you haven't seen either of the others yet - don't bother at all (there are plenty of superior options in theaters right now; or, if anything, just watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes instead).



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48616125

Dunkirk

Score:  A+

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy
Running time: 106 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Dunkirk is a riveting war thriller like none other, a spectacular success from one of today's finest filmmakers.  There may not be much Hollywood star power here, but the film sucks the audience in to the intimate survival stories of the evacuation at Dunkirk in WWII.  Nolan's trademark narrative trickery pulls events on land, at sea, and in the air into a powerful cinematic symphony that is not to be missed.  An instant classic that must be seen on the big screen.


Soon after the Nazis unleashed their blitzkrieg on France in 1940, the stunned Allied forces of Britain, France and others found themselves retreating to the coast.  In no time, 400,000 troops were surrounded at Dunkirk on the English Channel - just a few agonizing miles away from England.  With the Nazis prepared to deal a deathblow to the Allied cause, desperate efforts on land, in the air and at sea went underway to save as many of the troops as possible.  A private named Tommy (Whitehead) manages to make it to the beach, only to find vast lines of troops awaiting evacuation.  He soon discovers the daunting challenges of both getting offshore - and then staying afloat.  Meanwhile, boats of all kinds are launched from Britain, including civilians like Mr. Dawson (Rylance), braving U-boat and bomber attacks while sailing straight into danger.  And a trio of RAF pilots also fly toward Dunkirk, doing what they can to protect those being evacuated.  While the short-term battle has already been lost, the situation at Dunkirk could still be either an irrecoverable loss - or an invaluable morale boost for the beleaguered peoples of the free world.

Dunkirk has a strong cast with a few familiar faces and a number of newcomers who prove up to the task.  Leading the way is one of the new faces, young Fionn Whitehead as Tommy, a British Army private.  The film has very little dialogue, and Tommy gets even less to say than most, but he does an excellent job of, above all, being a realistic, terrified yet courageous, surrogate for putting the audience right into the action at Dunkirk beach.  We know virtually nothing about Tommy, except that he's trying to survive, and that's enough.  His young army peers, particularly two companions, do similarly well.  More familiar to moviegoers is Mark Rylance, playing a civilian taking his small boat to help evacuate.  Rylance has a few powerful yet brief and simple lines, but mostly he is just quietly determined while also fearful for the two boys helping him.  Tom Hardy gets the final major role as a fighter pilot.  Although you can see nothing but his face (similar to his role in the inventive Locke), his acting combined with brilliant directing produce surprising nuance and depth.  Cillian Murphy as a shell-shocked survivor and Kenneth Branagh as a naval commander also bring the goods in smaller roles.

Dunkirk is a masterpiece; at once one of the best war films I've ever seen and one of Christopher Nolan's best, and both a thrilling blockbuster and an Oscar-worthy work of art.  There is much to laud, and I'll start with the technical.  While the subject matter here is new for director Nolan, his style of filmmaking is both clearly present and very appropriate for the proceedings.  It's in even the little things like the sound of gunfire, bombing, and strafing aircraft: loud, gruff, like a pack of hounds' vicious, intimate attack.  And it's also in the big picture; anyone familiar with Nolan's work knows he likes to toy with the timeline.  Here, he frames events on the beach over a week; those at sea over a day; and those in the air in just an hour.  Each area gets longer, uninterrupted action early on to get established, but as the danger mounts - and they draw closer to each other - the edits get faster and drive the action to its climax.  The action itself is superb, so effectively drawing the audience into the war.  Poor Tommy and his mates are literally sitting ducks, whether on the beach or on massive naval warships; the Channel, potentially their savior, is also often just as deadly as the Nazis' bullets and bombs.  The aerial dogfighting with Hardy and co. is spectacular - not for gee whiz (and unrealistic) effects but for dizzying, agonizingly precision and tense showdowns.  Much more frequent, though, is the dread of waiting: audience and film characters know that the enemy is lurking always, yet we're never shown an actual Nazi - only the death and destruction they deal out.

A primary criticism of Nolan's films - and I've often agreed - is that he struggles to effectively connect on an emotional level.  I would argue that he addressed that well with Interstellar, but he definitely also does so here.  As mentioned, there is very little dialogue (apparently the script was only half as long as usual), and there is absolutely no backstory for any of the characters.  Instead, it's all about the now: surviving and escaping.  Everything in the film is devoted to this immediacy, and in its desperation, it is just as (if not more so) effective than building characters traditionally.  Both large, historical stakes and moment-to-moment personal ones are more than enough to generate plenty of interest and empathy.  This is far from a sentimental film, but events naturally lead to several incredibly powerful moments, such as when a fleet of civilian ships approach the Dunkirk beach, and when the exhausted, demoralized troops are greeted back home to a heroes' welcome.  This, then, leads to a final important point: Dunkirk is not a typical war film in showing the good guys' courage and feats in destroying the enemy.  It is about the horrors of war, yes, but even more so about the tremendous courage, sacrifice, brotherhood, and force of will that it can bring out in humanity to deal with it.  The lines between military and civilian are blurred into one epic, human struggle for survival.

***

Dunkirk ranks right up there with Saving Private Ryan in tremendous war filmmaking.  Although they both are set during World War II, they are otherwise very different films.  Everything seemed to fall into place just right with this film.  I couldn't picture Nolan doing a traditional war scenario, and Dunkirk is certainly one of a kind.  Yet it offered tremendous challenges, not least of which being that the story is one of a major loss - survival, too, but essentially the surrendering of continental Europe to Hitler.  Nolan knew that such a story needed no extra traditional dramatic "padding", and instead put his extraordinary (perhaps unsurpassed) technical filmmaking skills to work to capture a web of intimate survival stories that get drawn together in a complex yet fine way that he is quite familiar with.  Add superb work from the actors, set designers, producers, music composer, cinematographer, etc. etc. etc... and you have an instant classic.  A must-see - and in the theater! - be sure not to miss out.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51683157

Baby Driver

Score:  B+

Directed by Edgar Wright
Starring Ansel Elgort, Kevin Spacey, Lily James, Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx
Running time: 113 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Better known for his satirical work like Shaun of the Dead, Edgar Wright finds great success in more straightforward but stylish action in Baby Driver.  Baby - the character - listens to music constantly, and it serves as the soundtrack for everything from his gripping getaways to quiet moments with his girlfriend.  While the super fun of the first parts of the film eventually fade and turn to darker fare, it's still a very entertaining and well made movie.  Highly recommended.


As a trio of bank robbers get out of a car, armed and about to hit their target, the driver sits calmly and revvs up his music.  When the robbers come running back, Baby (Elgort) lets the music drive him through the city with incredible precision, eluding a fleet of police.  Baby and the robbers return to headquarters, where their boss, Doc (Spacey), awaits them.  Baby is paying off a debt, and has just one more death-defying job to go before he is free.  Baby celebrates at a favorite diner, but he is pulled from his musical reverie by a new waitress, Debora (James), with whom he falls in love.  Baby dutifully serves as the getaway driver for one last job, however, and again barely escapes as he chauffeurs a particularly violent set of robbers.  Although he attempts to transition to a normal life, Baby encounters Doc again on a date with Debora.  Doc wants him to help with yet another robbery, and Baby is forced to reckon with the fact that leaving the criminal world will not be easy.

Baby Driver has quite a few familiar faces in its cast, but is led by a relative newcomer.  Ansel Elgort is the lead as Baby - yes, that's his name - and does a fine job in an unconventional role.  The film emphasizes his quirks early on, mostly stemming from his obsession with music (he has his ear buds in for most of the movie).  He is often shown as detached from the rest of the world by this trait, but he exhibits more normal reactions as Baby gets pulled farther into Doc's criminal enterprise.  Ansel doesn't do nearly as well with the latter part, but he's intriguing - and technically-speaking very impressive - with the music-based parts.  Everyone else is strictly supporting, but there are plenty of fun roles among them.  Kevin Spacey plays, well, Kevin Spacey, as the villain, a la House of Cards; even if it's not that different, he is still great to watch and menacing.  Lily James's Debora gets a meatier role than the usual girlfriend, and she does a very nice job in making a handful of flirting scenes interesting.  The robbers also all seem to relish their roles.  Jon Hamm is the main one, who starts out the most sympathetic but grows quite dark; and Jamie Foxx is surprisingly dangerous and cruel, very effective.

Baby Driver is a very entertaining, stylish action film that starts with a neat premise that begins to slip away in the second half.  The first fifteen minutes or so are just fabulous.  The music is synced perfectly with the action, first as Baby gets himself ready to go, and then as he leads a really impressive chase scene.  It continues in the aftermath of the chase, as he does normal things like picking up coffee for his crew, and flows into the first well-played meeting with Debora.  The film settles into a more traditional flow after that, which can't help but be a bit of a downer.  But between Spacey and his gang of criminals chewing the scenery, and Baby's burgeoning relationship with Debora, it continues to hum along quite enjoyably.  Things start to turn considerably darker when Baby gets pulled back in, as the violence ratchets up and formerly smiling (or at least smirking) characters are now deadly serious.  Getting darker isn't necessarily a bad thing, and Wright and his actors keep the quality high, but I was unpleasantly jarred by the change.  I found myself longing for more of what the first few minutes held.  It turns out that the only two significant getaway chases happen in the first third or so of the film (although notably there is a foot chase later that is also spectacular).  After all that, there is another jarring shift, as we get a surprisingly happy ending.  I was  quite pleased to hear the song played over the credits, though, which I had thought about ever since finding out about this movie in the first place.

***

Baby Driver is a high-quality action film, and another entry in what is already turning out to be a very strong second half of the summer movie season.  The first half of summer was extremely disappointing, and I didn't even bother seeing much of what was released (Wonder Woman being the lone bright light).  I can understand if others rate this movie more highly than me, but the primary reason I gave it a B+ was personal preference.  I'd been hoping - perhaps expecting - to see a lot more car chasing, in a tone that's not light-hearted, exactly, but leavened by the music.  The violent, darker turn it took was far less appealing to me, even if it was probably much more realistic (relatively speaking) for the story.  Still, if you are looking for a fun time at the movies - and particularly if you'd like to avoid the superheroes or franchises - this is a great choice.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53460129

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Score:  A-

Directed by Jon Watts
Starring Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey, Jr., Marisa Tomei
Running time: 133 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  This Homecoming, just three years after the stalling out of yet another Spider-Man, was anticipated with skepticism by some, but like many heroes brought under the Marvel Cinematic Universe's umbrella, succeeds brilliantly.  Tom Holland is an excellent choice as the young new webslinger, and he alternates smoothly between deep immersion in the Avengers' story line and his own far more pedestrian (yet still interesting) Queens high school life.  Typical Marvel top-notch quality all around makes this a highly recommended theater viewing.


Having experienced a thrilling introduction to the Avengers via a battle splitting Tony Starks (Downey, Jr.) and Steve Rogers, young Peter Parker (Holland), aka Spider-Man, is promptly returned to his home in Queens.  Peter continues to take on small-time crooks at night (using a "Stark internship" as his alibi), but he longs for the day when Tony will call him up again to rejoin the Avengers.  Meanwhile, high school offers its share of trials and tribulations, from competition on the school's Academic Decathlon team to dreaming of his crush, Liz (Harrier), alongside his best friend, Ned (Batalon).  One night's crimefighting leads Peter to discover that new weapons, created from the alien remains from the Battle of New York, are being smuggled in the area.  Despite barely surviving an encounter with the smugglers' leader, Adrian (Keaton), and getting a warning from Stark, Peter is determined to solve the case himself.  The young Spider-Man is filled with enthusiasm but lacking in experience, and unaware of the dangers of his ambitions to those close to him.

Spider-Man: Homecoming benefits from the talents of both established veterans and fresh newcomers.  Tom Holland, an actor not much older than the teen he portrays, is a great fit in the role and a welcome follow up to Tobey Maguire.  Tom is able to convey the characteristics of a genuine teen, so that he fits into the high school scenes seamlessly (as opposed to making you wonder, "why is a superhero in high school?").  His teen eagerness for excitement and relevance beyond what he sees as his own small world are convincing and make for a great transition to his Spider-Man alter ego.  Yet the film never forgets that he is a newcomer, and he fails about as much as he succeeds.  The villain is played by Michael Keaton, who is as opposite in experience as you can get.  The role is given substantial background, providing nuance that Keaton digs into while also remaining quite menacing.  Fellow veterans Marisa Tomei and Robert Downey, Jr. (who gets a surprisingly large part) are also excellent.  Back to the other end of the spectrum, Tom's primary young companions are played by Harrier (his crush), Batalon (his best friend), and Zendaya (a friend, yet also a quirky loner).  None of them exactly do Oscar-caliber work, but most importantly they work well with Tom and maintain the authenticity of the film's coming-of-age elements.

This Spider-Man reboot, the third version in ten years, impressively manages to both refresh the franchise and also to incorporate it intriguingly into the immense Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It's also not particularly mysterious why it worked, as the latest incarnation differs in so many ways from its predecessors.  First, it blessedly and completely ignores Spider-Man's origin story - although that's not entirely accurate, as it does have a "replay" of events from last year's Civil War (but it's done succinctly, effectively, and with good reason).  Second, it has a really good villain.  Obviously it's a help to have Keaton play him, but the context fits really well into the MCU and the stakes are smaller than usual to fit the style of the film.  Most importantly (though connected to the first two), the film manages to tie Spider-Man to the Avengers' world in a compelling way, while somehow also developing a very non-Avenger-like (more like Ferris Buehler) everyday life for Peter Parker.  By introducing Spider-Man last year, the Avengers have a natural relevance to his story (plus some other reasons, brought in here).  And the script gives ample time to the normal high school stuff, showing how Parker must try to balance his full life, while not lingering too long on it, either.  Oh, right, this is a blockbuster, too?  Yes, Homecoming offers plenty of good action as well, having fun with Spider-Man's talent yet tendency to screw up, and confusion with his Iron Man-like suit.  My favorite set piece was a rescue at the Washington Monument that managed to kick in my fear of heights.

***

Marvel has done it again.  Its cinematic universe was already quite full, and while Spider-Man is one of Marvel's biggest characters he's also been run ragged by the recent "Amazing" reboot.  To have refreshed the character and pulled him into the larger Marvel world so seamlessly is a tremendous success.  Marvel did have a significant stumble earlier this summer with the Guardians sequel, but that seems even more now like it was the result of just trying to cash in on earlier success by making an even bigger (but devastatingly generic and pointless) follow-up.  When Marvel finds narrative purpose, like it did with Homecoming, the results are almost always spectacular.  They also once again found a perfect leading actor in Tom Holland, and the decision to stick Robert Downey, Jr. in there for a little mentoring almost feels like gloating.  A huge amount of fun, Spider-Man: Homecoming is finally getting this summer movie season on track.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53586522

The House

Score:  B+

Directed by Andrew Jay Cohen
Starring Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler, Jason Mantzoukas, Nick Kroll
Running time: 88 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The House is one of summer 2017's major comedy films, featuring stars like Will Ferrell and Amy Poehler - and has fallen flat with critics and avoided by the masses.  But I would urge you to give this oddly old fashioned movie, about desperate parents and their unscrupulous friend starting a suburban casino, a try.  Its stars may not shine quite as brightly as expected, but the script, structure and tone are surprisingly good and carry the load.  Just be sure to see it with some friends.


Scott and Kate Johanssen (Ferrell and Poehler), and their daughter, Alex (Simpkins), are a happy family, but Alex's graduation from high school challenges their close-knit relationship.  Alex is excited to attend college in the fall, but Scott and Kate get a nasty shock when they discover that the community scholarship that was to pay her way has been canceled.  Desperate, the parents search for ways of making a lot of cash and fast.  When Frank (Mantzoukas), Scott's friend who has his own financial problems, learns about their crisis, he thinks he knows how to solve both of their problems at once.  While he has lost much already to a gambling addiction, the experience has taught him how much there is to gain from being on the other side of the table.  Thus, right in the middle of their sleepy suburb, Scott, Kate, and Frank begin a secret, lucrative, and increasingly wild new illicit adventure.

The House is stocked with some of the funniest comic actors in Hollywood, embracing the silly proceedings with varying levels of success.  Ferrell is perhaps the biggest name in film comedy (and my personal favorite), but he doesn't meet his own level of success here.  The tone and his role set him up well for his brand of hilarious wildness, but he fails to make the character as distinctive as many of his other iconic characters, and is even upstaged by his co-stars through much of the film. Amy Poehler seems to better embrace the style of the film, although the script unfortunately gives her relatively little to work with.  Still, she makes the most of what she has (and watching her more closely would be a great reason for a repeat viewing).  The star who shines the brightest here is the somewhat unknown Jason Mantzoukas (The League, Brooklyn Nine-Nine).  He is perfectly cast, as even when he is calm and speaking rationally, he seems capable of doing something crazy at any moment.  Jason is good at pacing himself, though, and easily commands attention in just about every scene.  There are a number of nice supporting roles, two of the biggest (and best) being Nick Kroll's crooked councilman and Rob Huebel as an earnest police officer.  They are polar opposites, and perhaps the most cartoonish (and possibly the funniest) of all the characters, but Kroll and Huebel both give great performances.

The House is a deceptively good, seemingly standard-issue comedy that occupies an intriguing place in today's genre.  Like so many other comedies, it has a two-part hook in an interesting premise and being led by a roster of well-known comic personalities.  Many recent titles have gotten by mostly, if not entirely, on the comedy chops of its stars (from Ferrell to McCarthy and so on), and the structure of the films themselves are often quite flimsy beyond the basic premise.  Here, it's surprisingly just about the opposite.  Ferrell and Poehler may be disappointing and/or sidelined, but the script serves up good old fashioned slapstick comedy that picks up the slack.  It's both goofier and more straightforward than its contemporaries, which takes some time to adjust to.  However, it does a great job of being consistently funny, in both the little moments (Ferrell and Poehler's suburban parent banter) and the big scenes (including some great setups in the underground casino like Ferrell's attempt to intimidate a cheater gone too far, and an impromptu fight club).  The script can seem a bit clunky sometimes, but I think that's largely part of it's back-to-the-basics approach, eschewing the modern style of being (or trying to be) coy, meta and/or quirky.  The House also does a good job at making you feel the feels it wants you to, whether desperation early on in realizing Alex's college career is in jeopardy, or - most effectively - a great sense of joy and fun in the casino.

***

The House is one of those films where I strongly disagree with the critics.  The film has an abysmal 18% aggregate score on Rotten Tomatoes, which likely had a big effect on its miserable $9 million opening weekend.  This film deserved a much better reception.  Although I have yet to read through those reviews yet, I would bet (seems appropriate for this film) that they simply were expecting a movie in the same style as other big contemporary comedy titles.  To be fair, partly it could be Ferrell's somewhat lackluster performance, too.  I felt jarred by the direction and tone of the film at first, too, but if you make the effort to go with its flow, you'll be richly rewarded.  Another reason for the poor reviews might be the result of critics watching it by themselves.  Most comedies are best seen with friends who enjoy the same stars and type of humor, and this movie might be more dependent on such a viewing setting than others.  So do yourself a favor and grab a friend or four and check this one out in the theater!




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53213479