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