Darkest Hour

Score:  B+

Directed by Joe Wright
Starring Gary Oldman, Lily James, Ben Mendelsohn
Running time:  125 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Darkest Hour is a historical drama with Oscar aspirations, and similarities to other recent films in structure (Lincoln, Selma) and time period/topic (Dunkirk).  The highlight by far is Gary Oldman's performance as Winston Churchill, undergoing not only a complete physical transformation but also bringing him to life in multiple ways.  Unfortunately, the filmmakers seemed to take the narrative and themes of this well-known chapter of history for granted, and so underneath the sparkling performances it feels undercooked.  Good, but not essential theater viewing.


In May 1940, with the fate of all of Europe - and perhaps the world - on the precipice, the British Parliament demanded that its leader prepare the nation for war.  Having done little to stop Hitler to that point, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Pickup) was forced to resign.  The popular choice for his successor, Lord Halifax (Dillane), declined, leaving the Conservative party to hold its nose and name Winston Churchill (Oldman).  Stepping into the role immediately yet warily, Churchill was faced with a skeptical King (Mendelsohn), fractured government, and frightened nation.  Germany soon invaded the Low Countries and threatened France with imminent conquest.  Determined to resist Hitler under any circumstances - yet finding fewer and fewer options to do so - Churchill became pressed on nearly all sides to consider a (hopefully) peaceful surrender.  Yet even at such a military disadvantage, Churchill willed himself, his colleagues and the nation to fight anyway, no matter the cost.

Darkest Hour has a fine cast, although the lead gets extra emphasis - and delivers.  One of the most famous figures of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, is played by Gary Oldman, and his performance is an early Oscar favorite.  Part of this is sheerly physical: if you're not familiar with him, Google "Gary Oldman" and then "Oldman+Churchill", and you will be astonished.  Yet if you didn't know about that transformation while watching, you'd be forgiven for thinking Oldman was himself a plump, wrinkly old dude, too.  With the camera almost always focused squarely on him, Oldman not only had to constantly maintain Churchill's basic physical posture and mannerisms (one small criticism is that his slurred, mumbled speech is at times hard to understand), but more importantly, also communicate his internal workings.  Here, Oldman recreated an extraordinary yet still very real and flawed man.  He had the necessary confidence and drive, yet his ego often gives him trouble and worsened divisions with critical allies and colleagues.  He had a sharp wit and genuine compassion for others, yet struggled mightily not only to address Britain's strategic crisis but also to be fair to both those in his private life (at home) as well as the nation (via radio and the papers).  Others deserve recognition, too.  Kristin Scott Thomas makes for a strong, vivid Mrs. Clementine Churchill, and Ben Mendelsohn captures a regal tone as King George, while also grounding him in his limited screen time.  Ronald Pickup and Stephen Dillane, as Churchill's biggest rivals, Chamberlain and Halifax, are also great - effective opposition, yet not villainous.  Lily James also has a significant role as Churchill's secretary, though the role itself and her performance are among the weaker elements in the film, as they're both a bit cliche, forced, and at times just not very well done.

Darkest Hour fits the recent, trendy style of historical drama and while it succeeds in "nearsighted" terms, via its characters, it falls short in the "farsighted", or narrative and thematic, areas.  First and foremost, the film is an acting showcase, and within that space, of course, the emphasis is on Oldman as Churchill.  As described above, he does do fantastic work; whether it's the physical mannerisms, his sense of humor, or just watching his mind work, Oldman is great and interesting to watch whether by himself or playing with/screaming at others.  The supporting cast (mostly) fits in perfectly around him, too.  Scene to scene, you want to see what he does next.  The main "action" points of the film are Churchill's speeches, and the filmmakers (and of course Oldman) deserve credit for making these dramatic, stirring, and creative - without the use of an overbearing score! - though it starts to become a bit much in the final act.  However, taken as a whole - and even while I was watching it - the film comes off as incomplete when considering the broader narrative, and even just Churchill's role in it.  The film begins right as Parliament calls for Chamberlain's ouster, and then Churchill soon materializes and off we go.  We do get a bit of back story, and the history is well-known by many (in the audience), but narratively it's ineffective, especially frustrating precisely for those who do know a bit more: why Churchill?  Why does he feel as he does, and is so driven to stand up to Hitler?  While more questions spring from those, the film's ignoring or minimally addressing these critical points is both bizarre and undermining of its foundation.  The film also underplays and/or wastes some of the adjacent historical events, particularly the Dunkirk evacuation. I understand that not everything can (or should be - they don't call it the fog of war for nothing) be explained, but a better alignment of information/presentation with characters' various decisions and feelings was needed.

***

Darkest Hour is a good historical drama with some considerable strengths, but one that ultimately left me underwhelmed and a bit disappointed.  Again, Oldman's performance as Churchill is brilliant and deserving of the accolades he is receiving (and is sure to continue to).  I still like the general idea of following closely one pivotal historical figure and, perhaps even more importantly, a limited chronological and thematic focus.  However, I think the overall narrative isn't as effective.  I may simply not have been in the right mind set when I watched it.  Also, I have a particular interest in WWII history, so this may have given me certain expectations that I wouldn't have with another topic.  But the way I feel right now, with those caveats, is that the film treated the context and narrative as an afterthought (perhaps feeling that was the "easy" part?), hurting the overall experience of the film.  It's still good, and I recommend it be seen for Oldman's performance if nothing else, but it can wait for Netflix/DVD.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55363331

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