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

The Mummy

Score:  C-

Directed by Alex Kurtzman
Starring Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, Russell Crowe
Running time: 107 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Mummy is a reboot of the famous franchise as well as the potential start of a whole series of monster movies.  If this is the best they can do, though, any plans for a new series are DOA.  Tom Cruise headlines, and he's one of the best action actors we've got, but he's just not a good fit here and can't pull the rest of the film up.  There are admittedly a few good scenes, but everything's smushed together in such a generic, nonsensical (and ultimately boring) way that it doesn't matter.  Skip.


A pair of rogue military officers, Nick Morton (Cruise) and Chris Vail (Johnson), enter an isolated Iraqi village hoping to pillage artifacts, only to come under attack by insurgents.  An airstrike saves them, and also reveals a buried tomb.  The military calls in archaeologist Jenny Halsey (Wallis) to examine the find, and the team carries away a mysterious sarcophagus.  En route to England, a series of bizarre events causes the plane to crash; while Halsey parachutes out, Nick and Chris are apparently killed.  Except that Morton somehow wakes the next day without a scratch.  Jenny and Nick investigate the crash site, finding that the sarcophagus's inhabitant, Ahmanet (Boutella) has been resurrected and seems particularly intent on getting to Nick.  The pair desperately flee Ahmanet, with the help of some new friends, as they try to figure out what is going on - and how to put a stop to the supernatural threat.

The Mummy has a talented cast, but many of the roles are poor fits and the performances are adversely affected.  Tom Cruise plays the lead, as dependable an action star as there is.  However, he isn't nearly as good as usual here.  He is what he is at this point in his career; while he awkwardly attempts to add some humorous mischief to the part (at least early on), it just isn't a good fit and so his character isn't as fun as usual.  His partner in crime, Annabelle Wallis as Jenny, is even worse, unfortunately.  I haven't seen her in much else so I don't know if this is an anomaly for her, but Wallis's personality is so generic and bland, and even her basic reactions to situations so off, that she is essentially just a drag on the movie.  Russell Crowe is fine in a small role, but the part itself is mostly a distraction (more later).  Sofia Boutella comes out the best of the main cast, a convincingly creepy, menacing, but occasionally even seductive, villain.  Her success with the physicality of the role is a major reason for it.  Not much else to speak of, but Jake Johnson, normally a reliably hilarious comedian, just does not do a great job here with his role as a (temporary) sidekick.

The Mummy is a failure of an action-adventure film - not truly terrible in any one way, but successful only in a very few.  I haven't seen the old-school Mummy films, but I couldn't stop myself from comparing this to the Brendan Fraser-led version from 1999.  This version attempts the same goofy-serious split that the 1999 version succeeded at so well, but it fails pretty badly early on and essentially quits trying after that.  While The Mummy is the definition of a monster movie, it's still important to have some connection with the characters and plot.  Unfortunately the characters are hampered not just by poor casting fits but also by lack of time to learn about them or reason to care about them.  It's just one action set piece leading to the next, by varying degrees of inexplicability.  Then a "universe" concept springs in the middle of the film, as Crowe's character, Dr. Jekyll (...), shows up as the man in charge of investigating monsters like Ahmanet.  This both doesn't really go anywhere yet also messes up any remaining focus in the movie.  While there are some reasonably entertaining scenes in the first half of the movie - the plane crash, Nick and Jenny's first encounter with Ahmanet in England - it all ends in a big, dull, predictable blockbuster finale.

***

The Mummy is a dud of a summer popcorn film, and is particularly disastrous as an attempted first step in a new monster movie "universe".  Usually the presence of Tom Cruise provides a decently high floor for the entertainment level of a movie, but even he can't save this.  While the remaining casting was even more middling (at best), the true fault is in the overall story, script, and directing (all of which can seemingly be blamed on Kurtzman, but I wouldn't be surprised if the studio brass had a hand in it).  They didn't find anything interesting to focus on, or even a particular tone or style, to separate itself from others or justify its existence.  The filmmaker tries to hide this (intentionally or not) by ramming all its loosely related components together and hoping that you won't think about it too much.  Well, I certainly won't be thinking about going to any sequels to this flop.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53652377

Wonder Woman

Score:  A-

Directed by Patty Jenkins
Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright
Running time:  141 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Wonder Woman is the highly anticipated debut film for the most famous female superhero, and it exceeds expectations.  For all intents and purposes, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman, a beautiful, strong, feminine actress who owns this film just as she needed to.  There's plenty of fun action and humor, and even some intriguing exploration of larger issues than what's normally seen in this kind of film.  Highly recommended, all audiences.


On a hidden island, Diana (Gadot) is raised by her mother, Queen Hippolyta (Nielsen), leader of the island's Amazon women, and trained by General Antiope (Wright).  The Amazons continue to prepare for the eventual return of Ares, god of war, to Earth, when a plane crashes on their island.  Diana rescues the pilot, Steve Trevor (Pine), and takes him to the other Amazons.  They discover from him that the "war to end all wars" (World War I) is raging.  Queen Hippolyta prefers to leave mankind to its fate, but Diana sees the influence of Ares in the struggle and leaves the island with Steve to find and kill him.  Steve takes Diana to London, where he reports another discovery to his superiors: the Germans are developing a new, incredibly powerful and lethal chemical weapon.  However, the Allies are negotiating an armistice to end the war, and don't want to risk its success by launching an attack to destroy the new weapon.  Frustrated, Steve goes to Europe anyway with Diana and a small team.  Determined to destroy Ares and end the plague of war once and for all, Diana must first find her own strength in battle - and experience the very thing she hopes to end.

Wonder Woman has an impressive cast, and it is boldly led by its main heroine.  Gal Gadot provided audiences a glimpse of her Wonder Woman in last year's Batman v Superman, but here in her own movie she proves the brilliance of her casting and excellence in portraying the famed heroine.  In superficial terms, Gadot is perfect: she is as convincing, athletic and tough in battle sequences as she is beautiful.  However, she also inhabits and develops the character exceptionally well.  Gadot exudes  Diana's core goodness and strength naturally, but she also is no humorless stoic; she always counters her co-star's sarcasm, and frequently displays her own sense of fun, even mischievousness.  Somehow, Gadot's Wonder Woman is both a feminine ideal and yet also easily relatable.  Chris Pine is a lot of fun, too, as Steve Trevor, but for all his charisma, it's a testament to Gadot's presence that he is always playing second fiddle here.  The remaining roles are strictly supporting.  Diana's Amazonian family, played by Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen and others, is fine, as are Trevor's ragtag band of friends from the war.  Although the villains don't get a lot to work with, Danny Huston as Gen. Ludendorff and Elena Anaya as Doctor Poison are impressively menacing.

Wonder Woman is a very well done if mostly standard superhero film, but it also nicely incorporates some larger themes.  The film's first fifteen minutes or so serve as Wonder Woman's origin story, one much different than other superheroes' yet framed as a familiar mythological background.  The main story combines Diana's seemingly simple mission to destroy a villain with Trevor's determination to stop the chemical weapon.  In essence, Diana is trying to stop a fantasy villain of sorts while Trevor focuses on the practical - sometimes these efforts intertwine, and at others they clash.  There is plenty, though not too much, action, and most of it is well done.  Particularly good is Wonder Woman's debut battle - which contrasts a spectacular showcase of her unique fighting style with the grim but realistic setting of WWI trench and city battles.  The film also has a lot of humor - not quite at the level of Marvel's better films, but still fresh whether from Diana and Steve's banter or Diana's fish-out-of water introduction to 20th century London.

It is in London, the least action-oriented part of the film, where some interesting themes start to emerge.  As appropriate for the first major movie about a female superhero, there is commentary on gender roles.  This is not awkward, forced, or sermonizing, but rather comes naturally from the situation.  Diana is raised with all women - and thus women there take on all the roles of a society.  When she arrives in London she is shocked by other women's experiences, from work as a "slave" (her interpretation of a secretary) to subjugation with battle-restricting "fashion" wear.  Also at issue is war itself.  This is powerfully illustrated (cleverly combined with more gender commentary) when Diana rages at a group of old military generals for their seemingly noble but in fact cowardly efforts to secure an armistice at any cost.  It is also present in Diana's mission to destroy Ares, which she believes in turn will end war itself.  Here, the film unfortunately misses an opportunity to go against the grain of normal blockbusters with a much more subdued yet ultimately more powerful and shocking ending.  Instead we get the usual climactic battle - which is fun, but disappointing.

***

Wonder Woman is a very well made film, saving DC from a streak of critical flops.  More importantly it is a resounding success as a female-led superhero film.  The filmmakers neither cynically pandered to any particular audience, nor did they make a movie that was just like any other superhero film only with a woman as the lead.  It was potentially a very difficulty needle to thread, but the film created (thanks largely to Gal Gadot herself) a true heroine, a feminine character within a world just like Batman or the Avengers'.  For now I'm pulling up just short of a straight "A" score - due to its not embracing the clear opportunity it had for a powerful, unique ending as well as for some choppiness throughout the script (wasn't as smooth and consistent as Marvel has shown superhero films can be).  I may well upgrade this later, and hope to see it again in any case.  And by all means:  if you're looking for a fun film, Wonder Woman is far and away the best film of the summer so far.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51137764

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Score:  ** out of ***** (D+)

Directed by James Gunn
Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, et. al.
Running time: 136 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 swoops into the prime opening weekend of the summer, following the first hit film's opening in the garbage heap of summer.  Just as the openings are reversed, however, so is the quality of the two films.  A horrifically bad script is largely to blame for its myriad problems - bloated, dumb plot; loss of interest in its quirky main cast; and mostly poor attempts at humor.  Skip it.


After saving the universe from the evil schemes of Thanos, the so-called "Guardians of the Galaxy" - Star-Lord (Pratt), Gamora (Saldana), Drax (Bautista), Rocket (Cooper), and Groot (Diesel) - have become interstellar superstars.  Their services are in high demand, and one such mission finds the Guardians protecting highly valuable... batteries from various would-be thieves.  In payment, the batteries' owners, known as the Sovereign, release Gamora's sister, Nebula (Gillan) to them.  Unfortunately, Rocket's old habits have yet to wear off and he pockets several of the batteries.  The Sovereign quickly discover the treachery, and soon the Guardians are forced to flee to a distant planet for shelter.  Even there, the Guardians find themselves sought by other forces - one a mysterious being from Star-Lord's past, who takes him and part of the team to another world.  Another, led by pirate Yondu (Rooker), confronts the remaining Guardians.  Although allegiances seem apparent - those who want to help the Guardians, and those who hunt them - the team must rely on each other more than ever before in a quickly-changing galaxy.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 features most of the cast from the first film, and significant roles for several newcomers.  The main quintet remains, of course, but in almost every way is not as interesting or as fun as in the previous adventure.  Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is the de facto leader of the group, but is largely prevented from unleashing his new age Han Solo act again.  There are just too many other active parts given screen time, and most of his time is stuck in serious, plot-based stuff rather than the silly or casual scenes at which he excels.  Zoe Saldana's Gamora is even worse off, mostly dealing with a boring sibling rivalry/war.  She is a generic side part here, rather than the intriguing tough-as-nails assassin from the first.  Dave Bautista's Drax is about as annoying as last time, although he benefits from his relationship with one of the new characters.  Groot, now a tiny version of himself, is basically the cute pet of the film, to hit-and-miss effect.  But among the group, Rocket is by far the worst off; Cooper is forced to spit out some pretty terrible lines.  Among the many newcomers, Kurt Russell has the biggest part as Star-Lord's long lost father.  He's a welcome presence, fitting in with his zany colleagues, although a brief digital youth transformation is a little disturbing.  And Elizabeth Debicki, leader of the Sovereigns, is by far the most interesting character in the film; unfortunately, it's a pretty small role.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 retains many of the explicit elements of the first film, but has been blockbuster-ized, spoiling a lot of what made the first so much fun.  Things start promisingly and cleverly, focusing on a dancing, oblivious baby Groot with a battle raging around him as a great 70s pop song plays.  After that, though, much of the premise is not very interesting and has way too many threads, both major and minor.  Added to this is a horrendous script, likely the worst I've seen from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  This weakness is immediately apparent after the introduction, and dooms at least a few scenes that could otherwise have been interesting.  The script is most glaring in much of the attempted humor - it is far more infantile, seemingly designed to please five-year-olds rather than adults.  Sure, there are some funny bits (particularly the Sovereigns, which pilot their ships from afar in essentially a massive arcade game, and their absurd self-seriousness), but it lacks almost any of the first film's mischief.  Despite being "cleaner", this film has some rather shocking amounts of cold-blooded violence.  This is coming from a reviewer not bothered by John Wick, but I found an entire ship's crew being stabbed, one at a time, by a guided arrow to be a bit much.  To cap it off, the film is too long with a final act that sees the chaos of the past two hours collapse into one final jumble before limping on for another fifteen minutes.

***

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is the first big belly flop of the otherwise-impressive Marvel film universe.  The first film was a gamble that paid off spectacularly, following a group of not-so-super (or willing) heroes - without a single superstar character or actor - in space.  It's not so much that Marvel made it into a Serious Franchise (although its convoluted plot did it not favors) with this one, but rather that it became generic, overcrowded, and despite all the money spent on effects, the pitiful quality of the script put it in a league with films like *gulp* the Fast and Furious franchise.  There are a lot of promising elements in this franchise still, from its characters to the irreverent tone (at least the first film's).  But there needs to be a major, major rethink at Marvel headquarters for the next one.  Are they going to boldly continue into new, interesting territory as they've proved they can do successfully - or will they simply use these now-familiar faces as a front for a boring franchise with eyes only for box office rather than artistic success?  For this installment, give it a try at home if you are curious, but please avoid it in theaters.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52041243