Dunkirk Review

Christopher Nolan's newest film "Dunkirk" tells the true story of the evacuation at the titular location where allied forces were miraculously shipped across the British channel by civilian boats. Christopher Nolan does what he does best and puts the viewer right in the dead center of this significant battle of WWII. The result is an immersive, realistic, and intense experience that better give Christopher Nolan his first Oscar nomination for Best Director. However, the film did not meet the hype (at least my own personal hype being my most anticipated film of the year) with its unnecessary non-linear storytelling, emotional detachment, and pretentious cumpulsion for uniqueness. 

"Dunkirk" started out with a very jumpy bang. Christopher Nolan throws the audience right into the action and never lets up with the thought of an imminent attack lurking at any moment. The opening scenes are cinema at its most grandeur. The usage of practical effects for the ships, planes, buildings, soldiers, and locations are outstanding and say a lot about Christopher Nolan's dedication for telling realistic stories. The strafing runs and dog fighting scenes are directed to perfection and for a split second make you forget you are watching a movie. "Dunkirk" is undeniably gorgeous that'll definitively win Oscars for its craft.

"Dunkirk" may be a winner on a technical scale but a movie needs a little more to be a truly remarkable film. A common complaint about the film is a lack of character development. Going in, I knew this would be a more visceral film with little dialogue where the emotional core banks on common human empathy. Christopher Nolan wanted to focus on the event of Dunkirk, not the characters, but it is hard to feel for these people especially when you don't even know their names. Frequent Nolan collaborator, Hans Zimmer, provided the score, and he delivers with pieces ranging from gut-wrenchingly intense (Supermarine) to searingly hopeful (Variation 15). A misstep the film took was overplaying Zimmer's score which ended up toning down the actual sounds of bombardment. I even had trouble hearing some of the dialogue (upon first viewing) resulting in a lot of confusion on what was happening when there were dialogue driven scenes. I couldn't even judge the acting because half the things people said didn't register, but at least everyone looked the part.

Christopher Nolan structured the film with three different perspectives -- land, air, and sea -- all interweaving at a critical point. Some perspectives last longer than others (an hour, a day, a week) and Nolan jumps around between perspectives without any indication where the viewer is at in time. Some may think this is a clever and unique way to tell the story but it just killed some of the tension when you see the same scene for a third time, or when something is about to climax and it cuts away. Nolan overcomplicates a quite simple story. He tries too hard to be unique when certain conventionalities would have been more effective like making his film R-rated for maximum realism and intensity.

Given the potential, mastery, and high expectations, "Dunkirk" is a bit disappointing. It's a sensation for the eyes and ears but it leaves your brain in a knot further causing a blockade to the heart. It's a film that in order to fully appreciate, must be viewed on the big screen. For all of "Dunkirk's" flaws, it's still one of the best theatrical movies ever made, and can't be missed in theaters. 7.5/10

Kingsman 2 Review - Everything wrong with Sequels

Suffers from Sequel Syndrome

4/10

Kingsman: The Golden Circle does what most sequels try to do only to ultimately fall flat. It suffocates itself by being stupider, lazier, more ridiculous and can only help but pale in comparison to the original. Kingsman: The Secret Service was a breath of fresh air for the action genre. Its zaniness, humor, creativity and wildness made for one enjoyable time. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is too long, boring, predictable, CGI-infested, and ridiculous to even care for.

The first Kingsman had a very infectiously perverse vibe that made the film more unpredictable and fresh. This one lost me as soon as they brought back Colin Firth in the most cartoonish and ludicrous way possible, making Kingsman go from unexpected fun to campy sci-fi stupidity. Nearly all the action scenes are too over-the-top, and cartoonish to enjoy. The film relies too heavily on CGI; everything seems so artificial and uninspired. The film goes for vulgarity instead of well timed clever jokes. The newcomers (Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, and Halle Berry) are wasted as they either drop exposition dumps on an already thinly written plot or fail to add any humor, charm, or character.

If there is any good things to say it's that we got to see more of the good characters from the original, it had one or two funny lines, acceptable close-range fight choreography, and interesting commentary on drug use. All this, however, does not redeem the film for being a boring bloated mess.

Blade Runner 2049 Review

One of the Most Visually Stunning Films Ever

8/10

Blade Runner 2049 successfully captures the essence of the 1982 original classic. Denis Villeneuve was the right man for the job as he brings his maturity, ingenuity and passion, whereas a different director (including Ridley Scott) might have sacrificed quality for nostalgic fan service and superficial storytelling. Villeneuve deepens the world and storyline of Blade Runner in only a way Denis knows how: by being super artistic, visually stunning, mind-bending, and very slow.

Blade Runner 2049 attracted some of the most talented and beautiful people in the world to bring this story to life. The film bleeds with mastery, from the directing, to the acting, to the gorgeous production design, to the techno ambient soundtrack, and to the Oscar-worthy cinematography. The lavish and stunning visuals are so incredibly beautiful that if films were graded based on visuals alone this would hands down be the best movie ever. But obviously they’re not, so I can't make a statement that bold.

Blade Runner 2049 is a little less entertaining and more artful than mainstream audiences were probably hoping for. The storyline builds upon a mystery and slowly unravels throughout the long runtime. The film picks up on themes from the first and expands upon them in a deep, philosophical, and sometimes confusing manner. Jared Leto’s character Niander Wallace talks in such deep metaphors that it's hard to follow everything he is saying. Also since there was probably no studio interference, the film didn't have a spoon-feeding voiceover narration like the theatrical cut of the original. This allowed for the film to be more artful and less heavy-handed.

Clocking in at 2 hrs. and 44 min. makes this nearly an hour longer than the original. The film had many scenes that seemed unnecessary or could have been trimmed down like Ryan Gosling walking around broodingly, weird robot sex scenes, or mundane everyday activity. The pacing was even slower than the original mostly due to the long runtime and the compulsive need for extended shots. The original was quicker, less boring, and had a much stronger conclusion with the most epic monologue in film history.

Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece and a very good sequel to an untouchable film. It's so artistic, beautiful and detailed that a single viewing wouldn't do it justice. It's just that siting through certain scenes again will more than test the patience of some.

Detroit Review - Why it is NOT SJW Propaganda

American Horror Story: Detroit

9/10

Kathryn Bigelow's latest film, Detroit, recounts the chaotic 1967 Detroit Riots as well as the following incidents at the Algiers Motel. To say the film is not for the faint of heart is a massive understatement. Detroit unapologetically personifies the horrors of racism, bigotry, and cruelty. From the opening frame to the last, Detroit is a masterclass of unnerving, riveting and downright horrifying cruelty. It's as important of a film as its cry out for change.

Kathryn Bigelow seems to have found her niche with real life dramatizations of American history. With this film, she reaches the heights of Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips, United 93) in the art of creating tension and sustaining it. She masterfully captures the intensity, frustration, and chaos of the riots. The riots feel so tangible it's as if Kathryn Bigelow walked in on a riot and started filming. She displays the same skill with the Algiers scenes except with much more precision. The whole second act of the film is more terrifying, intense and horrific than most horror movies. It's so well done you don't even notice that it takes up the majority of the film’s long runtime. Bigelow even keeps the film rolling through scenes (particularly at the end) where other directors may have stumbled. Bigelow, with Detroit, succeeds whereas Christopher Nolan, with Dunkirk, did not. Bigelow captures the tension early on and doesn't let it leave her grasp while Nolan undercut the tension and didn't get it back again due to his compulsive need for complexity, and incoherence.

Detroit may be a masterclass of tension but it also features an exceptional performance from Will Poulter. Will Poulter shines as the racist cop Krauss, and completely shatters his image of creepy virgin eyebrows kid from We’re the Millers. From the get-go you just couldn't take your eyes off this monster. His unrelenting ferocity and devilish hatred towards his victims makes your skin crawl in fear. This is an excellent performance that deserves Oscar attention (though may not get it due to how controversial his character is). Another standout was Algee Smith who may make a name for himself, maybe even as a singer. John Boyega (Melvin Dismukes in the film) was good even though Mark Boal (the screenwriter) may have forgotten about him as Boyega just stood by as if he was a ghost. Another hiccup that the screenwriter never addressed was why didn't the civilians at the Algiers just blame the dead black guy (played by Jason Mitchell) for shooting at the police and hiding the gun, especially since he was the shooter. Maybe a case of don't talk to the police or they’re honoring their dead friend, but some clarity to this would have been more appropriate. 

Some of the biggest complaints about this film is that like The Passion of the Christ it focuses on the violence in favor of a deeper meaning. But the violence in Detroit and in The Passion both serve a purpose. They do not glorify their brutality but they show the audience the true horror of that brutality, and what had to be sacrificed for a greater change. Another popular gripe is that the film is historically inaccurate. The filmmakers even displayed a subtitle stating that they had to dramatize certain events and fill in the blanks since some things are still clouded in mystery. Even the real life Dismukes said in an interview that the film is 99.50% accurate. That statistic should silence any haters calling this film SJW propaganda.

Detroit is an absolute must watch. It's THE best film of the year, thus far, and due to its relevance should be a definite Oscar contender. Kathryn Bigelow has made her best movie here and has established herself as one of Hollywood’s most prized directors.

It Movie Review

It Sequel in Trouble! 

4/10

Stephen King’s It is regarded by some to be one of the most terrifying books to date. The 2017 remake of the 1990 miniseries doesn't come remotely close to that level. It delivered mainstream goods with disturbing mutilations, solid performances, a plethora of jump scares, and plenty of comedic lines delivered gleefully by profane-centric kids. Once you look past the surface of It you realize it's not scary, its got no character, its got no heart, and is really nothing but a clown trying to jump scare you to death!

The 1990 miniseries worked better due to its appropriate handling of transitioning between the characters’ adolescence into their adulthood. As kids, they won a crucial battle against It, yet they were still deeply scarred by the terror of It. In this movie, they defeat It by overcoming their fear which is how It kills you, through fear. So how the hell is the sequel supposed to be worth anything if Pennywise comes back and the adult versions of the kids aren't afraid of him. He is no threat and It 2 won't do anything new but try and jump scare the audience every five seconds. The filmmakers don't seem to get that good horror is not all about jump scare after jump scare. You don't build tension with jump scares, you release tension with a jump scare. 

The horror of It proved to be utterly ineffective and too try-hard. The lack of character depth left the film feeling soulless and empty. The humor was more shocking then refreshing. The sequel is in serious trouble and is almost a mission impossible to make it good if the filmmakers are just going to do the same thing. In the filmmakers eyes, the financial success of this film justifies every decision they made and why not imitate themselves for Part 2. Their funeral.

Spider-Man: Homecoming Movie Review

Just Another Marvel Movie. Nothing New Here.

The MCU tried to aggrandize its cast of superheroes by integrating Spider-Man into the mix in Captain America: Civil War. After an already attempted reboot, the odds were against this pseudo-origin story from being a success although the lovable childish charms of Tom Holland's take on the character was its one silver lining. The end result is a sporadically entertaining special effects driven comedy-drama that lacks in consistent humor, engaging action and serious drama.

Spider-Man: Homecoming diverted away from the other Spidey entries by focusing more time on Peter Parker rather than Spider-man. The film is heavily inspired by 80's high school comedy-dramas. It's more lighthearted and comical, which ultimately works against the movie because it's hard taking any of the perilous situations seriously. The action scenes are unimpressive and more been-there-done-that. Some of the jokes land while others are just lame, annoying, and/or repetitive (i.e. Penis Parker, ice cream in the car). There were some good performances (Michael Keaton as Vulture) and an interesting little twist, yet they didn't carry the punch needed to redeem the film.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is just another byproduct of an already successful formula. No risks were taken, no characters died, and no lasting impression was left. The MCU continues to play it safe and only when they decide to stop playing it safe will they finally produce something truly great. 4/10