Molly's Game

Texas Hold ‘em has become a massively successful sport that has constantly battled the impression that it is a game of chance, not that of skill. “Molly’s Game” delves into high-stakes poker in the way that “The Big Short” examined subprime loans and credit default swaps. Only it’s quicker, sexier, and a bit easier to understand.

Based on the autobiography of the same name, Molly Bloom was a competitive skier from Colorado, with an Olympic medal in her sights before a tragic fall forced her to re-evaluate her future. After moving to Los Angeles as a gap-year before law school, she used her feminine wiles to find work as a cocktail server, which led to introductions to some of the Hollywood elite; actors, athletes, businessmen, even royalty. Using her newfound connections, she began running an elite weekly poker game (she was dubbed the “princess of poker” by some tabloids) which led to tales of mounds of cash, drugs, FBI investigations, Russian Mob exchanges, and enough stories to fill a successful autobiography as well as a feature-length film. What’s left out however, are the specific names of the high-life players, and that integrity in spite of external pressure seems to be the cornerstone of her character.

Aaron Sorkin (“West Wing,” “Moneyball,” “The Social Network”) is a silver-tongued master of sharp dialogue. With a script that is equal parts “Moneyball” and “The Wolf of Wall Street,” we get a peek behind the curtain of how the one percent lives, and the criminal line that is so blurred by the fog of money, fame, sex, and drugs. Sorkin does a truly remarkable job in his directorial debut, and his pen is clearly all over the dialogue, but the story stands on its own just as well.

Jessica Chastain is an absolute knock-out as Molly. There is a cunning wolf-in-sheep’s clothing aspect to her character; she found what she called a “target-rich environment,” in Los Angeles, learned the ropes of the game, but more importantly, developed ways to manipulate dozens of men and leave everyone satisfied at the end of the night. One of the intriguing aspects of the story is the pervading question of who might these celebrities actually be? There are stories that Player X, portrayed by Michael Cera in the film, was actually Tobey Maguire. Ben Affleck, Leo DiCaprio, Alex Rodriguez, the Olson twins, Rick Salomon, and several billionaire businessmen are alleged to have been participants in the book, but their identities are obscured in anonymity for a lack of prosecutable evidence. While watching the film though, you can’t help wonder what the composition of those games might have actually been, and what kinds of conversations and dollar amounts must have been floating around.

Kevin Costner gives what might be his best performance in decades as Molly’s father, Larry. He’s a successful psychologist who has used his occupation to push his daughter and two sons to succeed in both academics and athletics. The volatile relationship on the screen between Molly and Larry is captivating, particularly in a pivotal scene that has them sharing a sharply written heart-to-heart talk.

Idris Elba is the anchor piece of the ensemble. His character is the fictitious defense attorney, Charlie Jaffey. Sorkin uses the character to explain elements of the story to viewers that might otherwise not be so clearly understood. Elba also very successfully serves as a vehicle to uncover the layers of Bloom’s motivation, moral compass, and character. It’s a fantastic role by a terrific actor, and is the perfect fictional addition to the otherwise true story.

“Molly’s Game” received a pair of Golden Globe nominations, for Chastain’s acting and Sorkin’s writing. I would expect the Academy to reward these two with nominations next month as well. The film is quite long at two hours and twenty minutes, but Sorkin is able to keep the audience engaged from start to finish. This is a great film without a very clear message. Molly is an inspiring character, but you never quite know whether to root for her or not. Either way, it’s a fun film worth the price of admission. 8/10.

The Shape of Water

One of the more unique stories to come out of Hollywood this year is a quirky and possibly classic love story of sorts where a misunderstood creature and a lonely, compassionate woman find each other in the most unlikely of circumstances. “The Shape of Water” is Guillermo Del Toro’s latest in an impressive resume of fantastical fairy tales with an emphasis on beautiful imagery and sharp attention to detail. As critically acclaimed as it has become in limited release, and as excited as I was to view it, I wasn’t particularly blown away by either the characters or the story.

Set in 1960’s Baltimore, lonely, mute Elisa (Sally Hawkins) lives a simple life. Bound to her daily routine, and spending what little spare money she has on shoes, she lives modestly and works in a top secret government facility mopping floors and cleaning bathrooms with her best friend, Zelda (Octavia Spencer). Her life is disrupted when the enigmatic and misunderstood Amphibian Man (Doug Jones) is brought in to be studied by Dr. Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg) in an attempt to gain an advantage over the Russians in the space race. Security specialist Strickland (Michael Shannon) accompanies the creature as the antagonistic alpha-male, but all the while, Elisa develops an odd attraction to Amphibian Man that develops like a fish out of water love story.

Sally Hawkins is magnificent portraying Elisa. She relies on sign language and conveys the most nuanced emotions through her eyes in a spectrum ranging from despair to compassion, and elation. Although the character lacks substance, there is an empathetic quality that she demands, and her spirit is pure and kind, which makes her as superficially likable as she is peculiar. Her neighbor in their quaint apartments over the movie theatre is Giles, played by the ever-entertaining Richard Jenkins. His eccentric gay artist character reluctantly joins her in her adventure, but exudes the kindness of heart that is the centerpiece of the love story (as does Spencer’s Zelda). It is the goodness of the three main characters that drives the shallow and light-hearted story, but it is the darkness of the anti-hero that provides the real entertainment.

Michael Shannon is truly one of my favorite actors, and he portrays anger and aggression perhaps better than just about anyone else in the industry. His ability to go from zero to fuming in an instant is unnerving, and this is certainly one of his better performances in recent memory (see him in “Revolutionary Road” and “Take Shelter” if you haven’t already). His character has more depth than any of the others, and I just wish Del Toro had invested a bit more time in his development and evolution. There was a performance ripe for the portrayal, but he wasn’t given quite the chance to unleash it. As great as it is, I wanted more.

Doug Jones is a close second to motion capture creature player Andy Serkis in terms of pure physical talent. Jones is outstanding playing creatures of all sorts in Del Toro’s films, but his movements as the 21st century Creature from the Black Lagoon are especially remarkable, and kudos must go to the makeup artists and special effects designers as well. His Amphibian Man is the freak show or oddity surrounded by human drones going about their meaningless lives, and that idea is certainly highlighted, though to what end I’m not entirely sure.

“The Shape of Water” excels in the artistic vision where it lacks other substance. Every detail is thoughtfully colored to enhance or subdue the mood on the screen, with a soft combination of greens and blues when Elisa is on the screen, starkly contrasted with yellows to signify Shannon’s Strickland. Reds enter at times to show both love and death, and although I didn’t completely follow Del Toro’s methodology for color coordinating, I found it visually pleasing, and delightful. I’m sure there’s a deeper meaning hidden somewhere in his mind, but that’s another editorial. Suffice to say, the film is beautiful and unique, but hollow beyond the surface glitz.

I would expect several awards nominations, but this film fails to make my top ten list, which is a disappointment. Is it a visual feast? Absolutely. Are the actors compelling? The acting, yes; the characters, no. Is it an entertaining film? I guess so, but the surrealism and quirky artistic moves prevent it from being a great film. 6/10.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Most films don’t receive the same level of anticipation that the “Star Wars” universe seems to generate. Two years removed from “The Force Awakens,” we are finally going to hear Luke Skywalker speak for the first time since 1983’s “Return of the Jedi.” That’s thirty-four years of waiting, which is more than a lifetime for most of today’s fans.

Who is the last Jedi? It’s complicated, just like the film in its entirety compared with the others in the canon. It’s far more mystical and magical than its predecessors, and full of symbolism that requires reflection, but that’s the evolution of the series over decades I suppose. The imagery is beautiful, and the effects are state of the art.

Episode Eight has a certain expectation of grandeur to it. The second installment in a trilogy is notoriously either fantastic or terrible, but the common theme is that the characters need to descend into the depths of darkness before resurfacing changed and ready for the finale. There is often a disappointing lack of resolution, but that buildup is part of the formula of typical trilogy success. The tone of the film broods as expected, but it’s juxtaposed with more naturally humorous dialogue than I recall from any of the others in the series. Not once did anyone claim “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” which left me feeling nostalgic whimsy and melancholy.

“The Last Jedi” follows the same basic trajectory as all of the others, whipping back and forth among three stories; one plot-line follows the individual journey by Rey (Daisy Ridley) into the meaning of the Jedi, one is a space battle between the Empire and the Rebellion with the ensemble cast, led by Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), and one is a fantastic and daring adventure where our rogue, Finn (John Boyega), gets himself into trouble on some wildly rowdy venue. Sound a little bit like Luke, Leia, and Han? It should, because the backbone of the franchise has never really shifted. I suppose the respect for the master, George Lucas, keeps the new talent from straying too far from the heart of the film catalog.

As darkness envelops the light, and all hope diminishes, we find ourselves immersed and actually caring for 150 minutes about creatures (diamond foxes, fuzzy penguins who scream, and giant manatees with green milk), light sabre battles, and a generally welcome escape from reality (and gravity). These types of films remind us why we go to the movies in the first place.

Rian Johnson (“Brick,” “Looper”) may have been a dubious and obscure choice to tackle such a high profile project, but his chops prove otherwise. He is a midget-car champion finally given the keys to a stock car. He handles every twist and turn like a pro, which is even more impressive from a writing perspective than as a director. Some may criticize the film for being a bit too far out and esoteric, but I argue it might have been the shot in the arm to take the franchise to the next generation. Johnson may have passed the baton for Episode IX back to JJ Abrams (with Chris Terrio and Colin Trevorrow, and Derek Connolly helping with writing), but his influence will last just like Irvin Kershner left his stamp with “Empire Strikes Back” back in 1980. Besides, Rian Johnson is working on a new “Star Wars” trilogy, so the end is nowhere in sight, which is good or annoying depending on where you fall on the fan spectrum.

Lucasfilms must be kicking themselves for selling the brand to Disney back in 2012 for a meager $4 billion, but the future is blinding for Disney Films, especially after the pending purchase of Fox films recently announced. That brings a film studio lineup of Pixar, Lucasfilms, Marvel, and Fox all under one roof. Expect big things over the next decade from Mickey and Minnie, I know I am.

My fan theory that has been percolating for the past two years was debunked, to my dismay. Maybe my expectations had outgrown any possible outcome, and I suppose it’s time I come clean and admit for the first time publicly that I’m a Star Wars super fan. “The Last Jedi” is as awesome as it could possibly be, and maintains the vibe created by “The Force Awakens” very nicely. I for one can’t wait for Episode IX in 2019. Until then, we have next year’s “Solo: A Star Wars Story” to look forward to. 8/10.

The Disaster Artist

On the surface, this seems like a terrible idea. James Franco directing and starring in what is essentially an homage to what is arguably the worst film ever made. Let that sink in for a minute.

“The Disaster Artist” is part sequel, part remake, and part behind-the-scenes back story to the 2003 cult classic “The Room.” Oddly endearing, and absolutely nonsensical if you haven’t seen the latter, it is difficult to determine until the very ending if we are laughing with, or at the original. “The Room” was written, directed, produced, and starring Tommy Wiseau. He’s a man with mysterious origins (he claims New Orleans, but Transylvania would be a better guess) and financial resources (the film cost $6 million, which he paid for single-handedly), who created a disjointed farce of a film that has gone on to turn a profit through word-of-mouth, self-promoted DVD sales, and midnight showings, a la “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

To attempt to describe the plot or characters of “The Room” would be more confusing than watching it, and far less entertaining, so let me just break it down like this; Tommy plays Johnny, a man who can’t throw a football, spews dialogue like Rocky after a fight, and has a love scene which shamelessly highlights the wrong gender’s umm… assets. The plot? There isn’t really one.

James Franco offers a wildly accurate glimpse inside the enigmatic Tommy Wiseau, whose persona is straight out of fiction. An unlikely project, Franco was clearly drawn to the unique, non-conformist attitude that Wiseau so deftly displays. His depiction of the man is hilarious and tragic. There is emotion deeply rooted in him, and as the film goes on and you get to know his passions, you come to respect his innocence; he’s really just looking for someone to love him.

Dave Franco plays Tommy Wiseau’s counterpart, aspiring actor Greg Sestero (author of the book that inspired this film) in a heartfelt, but somewhat shallow performance. The head-scratching relationship between Greg and Tommy sparks the birth of “The Room” in the first place and is made all the more complex seeing real-life brothers on screen together playing two vastly different characters. It’s all very metacognitive. Thankfully the source material is vapid and easy to follow, and if you just enjoy it for what it is, you are truly in for a very entertaining experience.

Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber (a variety of teen dramas), there is a nice blend of character development as well as scene re-creations. An all-star cast assembles to take on even minor roles, notably Zac Efron, Seth Rogen, and Josh Hutcherson. The dialogue is all pointed toward the ostentatious nature of Tommy Wiseau, and it’s as if he’s from another planet and everyone around him is simply marveling at his absurdity.

The film is essentially a sequel of redemption for Wiseau. A laughing stock in Hollywood for years, this film gives him exactly what he was seeking in the first place; fame and credibility. It may not be of the precise nature he envisioned, but as an entertainer, I think there is a respectful nod given by “The Disaster Artist” validating his contributions and establishing a legacy, albeit a mockery, in the industry.

Franco is free to explore his most outrageous self in this performance, and it is truly a pleasure every step of the way. What may seem overacting is actually spot on, and he may very well see his name come up on awards nominations short lists. The film isn’t spectacular, but it is a riot. Just don’t see it without viewing “The Room” first, otherwise it will baffle you. 8/10.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Dark comedies tend to be a challenging genre to master. Every piece has to have a delicate balance; writing has to be sharp and funny, the story has to be swift-moving and clever, and the actors need to harness the director’s vision and become the characters intended. “Three Billboards” successfully manages to deliver on the promise of its darkness and humor, and after two hours, there is a guilty pleasure sickness in the pit of your stomach, a satisfying resolution to a horrendous series of events, brilliantly conveyed by a stellar group of veteran actors.

The most quirky-titled film of the year takes the screen by storm. It starts slowly and calmly with Mildred (Frances McDormand) contemplating an idea that will forever change the sleepy town of Ebbing, Missouri. She channels her anger, frustration, and sorrow of losing her daughter to a violent and unsolved murder into renting three billboards, where she sends a message to the chief of police that fires up the department and the citizens of the small community. Mildred stands firm, displaying a nothing-to-lose bereaving mother, the vilified, underdog protagonist that evokes conflicted allegiances.

Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges,” “Seven Psychopaths”) could have written a story about just about anything and achieved the same effect. Three billboards being such an innocuous set of objects, it’s the cast and the morbid humor that strikes the audience like a frying pan to the face. His ability to move a narrative in entertaining, original, and unexpected ways harkens some of the Coen Brothers’ best work (“Fargo”). He is certainly a writer/director to keep a keen eye on, with this film likely earning him more Oscar nominations.

Frances McDormand is spectacular. A surefire Best Actress nominee, she emerges as a front-runner for now, but she has unusually stiff competition this year with highly anticipated performances by Jessica Chastain, Sally Hawkins, Saoirse Ronan, Margot Robbie, and the perennial stalwart Meryl Streep.

Woody Harrellson and Sam Rockwell are truly the soul of the film as much as McDormand is the heart. They carry the ironically loveable antagonist roles as the police chief Willoughby and his bumbling Barney Fife deputy, Dixon. Their relationship is a thing of cinematic beauty and they each support McDormand’s character in near-perfect fashion. Willoughby is a good man, and he’s a good police chief, but he is bound by the same constraints of law that infuriate Mildred. Dixon on the other hand, is irreverent, inappropriate, unprofessional, and highly entertaining. I’ve been a fan of Sam Rockwell for decades, and he will finally get his Oscar nomination after nearly one hundred film roles.

Lucas Hedges (Mildred’s son, Robbie) is one of my favorite young actors in the game today. After a star-making turn in last year’s “Manchester by the Sea” and a strong supporting role in this year’s other independent film darling, “Lady Bird,” I foresee great things in his future.

“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” isn’t a film that will appeal to all. You have to have a very dark sense of humor to truly appreciate the film’s message, which may be interpreted in different ways depending on your level of optimism. But isn’t that the impact of a truly great cinematic experience? The layers of humanity and emotion are much deeper than the film appears to contain on the surface. You’ll become conflicted, because every character demands your empathy and respect, no matter how vile. This is one of the best films of the year, unlikely to be bumped from my 2017 top five. 9/10.

Justice League

You simply can’t be disappointed when you know the movie will be awful. It’s like going to a Michael Bay movie; it’s a car accident that you just can’t look away from, as captivating as it is tragic. There is an expectation of a big budget dumpster fire with each DC Comic endeavor, which is why “Wonder Woman” was such a refreshing experience this past summer. Somebody call Christopher Nolan, stat!

Picking up where the abysmal “Batman v Superman” left off, we find ourselves in a world devoid of Superman’s integrity and symbolic goodness. The globe is mourning in their own ways, and Gotham, Metropolis, and all the other megalopolises are fearful of an attack by something sinister and ominous. Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) senses this as well, and attempts to assemble his team. Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Flash (Ezra Miller), Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) all see the value in working together as the formidable Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds) is bent on the destruction of the Earth with the help of his insectile parademons. As they face off, they quickly realize that they need something stronger to defeat him, and you can guess where this goes from there.

Written by Joss Whedon (“Toy Story,” “Avengers”) and Chris Terrio (“Argo,” “Batman v Superman”), the film seems an awful lot like a joke. A cartoon episode with a $300 million budget and absolutely no intention of telling any sort of lasting story. The one liners zing, the comic relief (Flash) is ineffective, Wonder Woman is eye candy, and Aquaman is a gruff surfer dude who can fly? Batman is getting too old for this stuff, and the only character with any depth is Cyborg, but he’s not given sufficient explanation in the first place. My favorite part is actually the inevitable appearance of he who shall not be named for spoiler’s sake (Henry Cavill), and he definitely upstages everyone else in the film. He finally gets his cinematic due in terms of his unstoppable speed, strength, heat vision, icy cold breath, and indestructible façade. Wait, did I just spoil something?

Director Zak Snyder, who has a monogamous relationship with Warner Bros. and has perhaps more influence over the DC universe than he should, left the project abruptly after a family tragedy, and Joss Whedon was ushered in to finish shooting and handle post-production. This gave me hope for something that might bring out some of the positive characteristics of each of the players and lighten the mood of the story, but it did not. I don’t see his contributions very clearly.

The post-credit scene offers a sliver of hope for the future of the DC universe, but I for one am not optimistic. “Wonder Woman 2” is in jeopardy with Gal Gadot’s holdout over Brett Ratner’s shady past, and 2018’s “Aquaman” has no hope if Momoa’s character is involved (he is). We need one of two things; fresh meat or a dark side. My feeling is that the dark side is where the potential lies.

Basically I felt like I was watching two hours of movie previews on an endless loop. The dialogue had no continuity, the narrative had no complexity or emotion, and the justice league themselves had no discernable cohesion. Even the bad guy himself was cliché and boring. The film lacked purpose. I can see this as a bridge to further things, but I hope that includes a less caffeinated approach to the next several films. Personally, I’d like to see an exploration of more characters and see which ones stick; Martian Manhunter, Hawkman and Hawkgirl, give Green Lantern another shot, and would someone please give Robin a little love? I’m glad to see Cyborg in the mix, but my hunch is that they felt a need to add some diversity with the otherwise all-white team. The “boo-ya” at the end was a tad unnecessary.

What they should have done, besides asking for my input before creating this monstrosity, was introduce each of the characters in their stand-alone films prior to dropping the justice league on us. It’s just too much too soon. The franchise will make money either way, but let’s be honest, DC is no Marvel. They can gauge the individual characters’ popularity and choose their team that way. Because frankly, people will go to superhero films regardless.

It wasn’t all bad. Familiar blends of musical scores, fantastic visual effects, and the hope of something better in the future. Always the hope of something better in the future. Screenwriting guys, invest in your screenwriting. 4/10.

Murder on the Orient Express

Agatha Christie’s world-renowned detective, Hercule Poirot, is given the Hollywood treatment in the remake of the 1934 classic whodunit leaving the viewer with one simple question at the end; “is it real?” And of course I am referring to Kenneth Branagh’s monolithic moustache. It just might be the finest in the history of film. The narrative that follows the super sleuth’s soup strainer? Not quite as captivating.

Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) finds himself on board the Orient Express with a collection of eclectic strangers; a governess (Daisy Ridley), a gangster (Johnny Depp), a doctor (Leslie Odom, Jr.), a professor (Willem Dafoe), a desperately single divorcee (Michelle Pfeiffer), and a handful of others. All is calm on the picturesque journey through the Carpathians until terror strikes in the middle of the night, finding one of the passengers brutally stabbed to death. Only the brilliant and eccentric Poirot can solve the case before the strangers disembark and disappear forever at their various exotic European destinations.

It’s no surprise that Branagh took on this project to star and direct. Long a classically trained Shakespearean actor, he’s been dipping his toes in other genres over the past several years, and after breaking ranks to make 2011’s “Thor,” he followed up with “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit” in 2014 and “Cinderella” in 2015. He’s returning to his wheelhouse, and although not a spectacular effort or performance, it is a perfect fit for him to take on classic Agatha Christie. I would expect that if the film has modest box office success, we could be in store for a new cinematic franchise character (there are thirty-three novels and fifty short stories to choose from).

Nostalgic if nothing else, the film is a cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter’s night. The story is familiar and the characters are predictable and shallow. Set in the 1930’s, everyone is chic and dapper, and facial hair is all the rage. There is the buildup of a big plot twist, which is the whole tagline; “everyone is a suspect,” but it isn’t particularly cunning or satisfying in the least.
At times the film was a bit of a snooze-fest, with such a claustrophobic setting that it was difficult to stay alert and proactively follow the action; three train cars and an engine does not allow a lot of room for movement, so there just isn’t a lot of change in scenery. There is however a genuine attempt to showcase the beauty and the cold of the mountains at times, and I commend Branagh for his work in the opening scene in Jerusalem; a Rabbi, a Priest, and an Iman walk into a room. Hercule Poirot delivers the punchline in astonishing case-cracking fashion.

The screenplay was written by the feverishly busy Michael Green (“Logan,” “Alien: Covenant,” “Blade Runner: 2049”) and was likely penned in a matter of hours after consulting the original novel and updating some narrative elements. The dialogue is not as sharp as I would have liked considering the cast. There was genuine opportunity for Johnny Depp to play a character in a way he’s never done before, but the potential was squandered terribly. Branagh stood out as the only actor who didn’t look like he was playing a role on stage, and that was a bit of a shame.

“Murder on the Orient Express” isn’t a terrible film, but it is remarkably mediocre. It may be even more disappointing if you are an Agatha Christie fan, and already know the twist at the end. There will however, always be something fun about a murder mystery on a train, and you can do worse than Istanbul to Budapest in the 1930’s. 6/10.

Thor: Ragnarok

According to Norse mythology, Ragnarok was the end of days. Fortunately, Norse mythology also has Thor. Aside from Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth just might be the best-cast character of the whole Avengers lot. He’s handsome, masculine, humorous, and gives Thor an arrogance that is surprisingly endearing and admirable. Fitting that the God of thunder is tasked with saving the universe from Ragnarok.

Moving toward the the epic Infinity War narrative, we find ourselves following Thor’s journeys via the Bifrost throughout the extra-terrestrial realms from Asgaard, to the Norse equivalent of hell, and a strange trash planet run by a perfectly-cast oddball named The Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) where time and space seem to defy all laws of nature. As Ragnarok approaches, the Goddess of death, Hela (Cate Blanchett) has returned to Asgaard to reclaim her rightful place on the throne, and Thor must enlist the help of his faithful friends (not those ones) to defeat her. Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Heimdall (Idris Elba), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and newcomer Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) band together to form Avengers-lite, but it works

Hulk and Thor were noticeably missing from the “Captain America: Civil War” story in 2016, and this film explains their absence. The change in venue on the heels of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” and “Doctor Strange” sets the table for next spring’s “Avengers: Infinity War” which will surely and easily become the highest grossing film of all time (until “Avatar 2” comes out). With a rumored budget of nearly a billion dollars for the film and its sequel, it’s a massive risk with even greater reward potential. The Marvel Comics extended universe (MCEU) has moved to outer space and other dimensions, and the strong characters established on Earth are now doing epic battles in a rich and appetizing visual-effects setting. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; Kevin Feige is brilliantly running Marvel Studios.

Sadly, the greatest superhero sidekick in the Marvel universe dies just minutes into the film. Mjolnir, Thor’s mystical hammer made from the magical metal from a dying star (or something like that) is crushed like a bug, leaving me feeling a bit sad and nostalgic. Thor is left with nothing but his chiseled physique, and ruggedly handsome good looks but like Spider-Man and his suit earlier this year, Thor learns that his true power is not due to his accessories, but instead come from within. He is a god after all.

Director Taika Waititi was an odd choice because of his lack of big-budget experience, but he does a fantastic job, particularly with the pacing. The film is long at over two hours, but moves quickly through upbeat music, several visually satiating fight scenes, and some very clever and humorous dialogue. The tone is definitely lighter than some of the other Marvel films, which seems to be one of two deliberately established directions. I would imagine that the next film in line, “Black Panther,” will offer a more serious approach, the serious yin to the comedic yang if you will.

“Thor: Ragnarok” has massive appeal for several reasons, the least of which is that it’s Marvel. It is very funny. Perhaps the funniest of the films yet, but that notion doesn’t diminish the value of the action one bit. Hemsworth is fantastic as usual, but he seems to embrace and master his character in a way that has been missing from his previous appearances; he is tremendous. Then, there’s the Hulk. A fan favorite for certain, he is showcased in all his green glory, even being given consistently hilarious one-liners throughout.

It’s been a few weeks (months?) since there has been a family-friendly action film that I would highly recommend to the masses, but it’s finally arrived. By Odin’s beard, you should definitely see “Thor: Ragnarok.” 9/10.

Granite Mountain

Originally titled “Granite Mountain,” the film developed an identity crisis during its creative process that I just can’t seem to understand. “Granite Mountain” is a very strong, serious title that is directly telling of the incident and purpose of the film, while “Only the Brave” seems to diminish the realism and drama in favor of more Hollywood-friendly box office bait. The film itself is a worthy addition to the pantheon of fallen heroes’ films, however, and is particularly timely given the recent surge of massive wildfires on the west coast.

Based on the tragic true story of the Prescott, Arizona wildfire deaths in Yarnell of the Granite Mountain Hot Shots in June of 2013, the story is ripe for a retelling. The Prescott Municipal wildland fire department, led by the grizzled veteran chief Eric Marsh (Josh Brolin), is vying for the sacred and prestigious title of “hot shots” through a grueling series of training events, evaluations, and personnel turnover. It became the first municipal department granted that status in 2012, and joined the front lines during the fire season.

Josh Brolin, Miles Teller, Taylor Kitsch, James Badge Dale, and Jeff Bridges headline an all-star cast of macho outdoorsmen, and Jennifer Connelly adds a strong, soft, feminine element that is a welcome complement (you can almost smell the sweat and stink of the men). Teller stands out as Brendan McDonough, the new recruit who is trying to prove his worth both in the fire line, and at home. his character is a vulnerable underdog, not overly dramatized or made to stand out. It’s a welcome move by the screenwriters Sean Flynn and Ken Nolan (“Blackhawk Down”). The men are raucous and irreverent, but there is a heroic endearment to their cause, and the purity of man versus nature is evident in the sweeping vistas of unsullied land (referred to as “fuel” by Brolin’s Marsh), and the raging flames or scorched earth that smokes in the aftermath. The contrast is beautiful and tragic, and adds a real sense of awe to the picture, which could be a nature documentary just as easily as an action biopic.

Director Joseph Kosinski (“Oblivion,” 2019’s “Top Gun: Maverick”) takes the blaze head-on with realistic action scenes and avoids the cliché heroic action scenes in lieu of a more natural approach. This is after all, the story of twenty men who found themselves in an unthinkable scenario for which they tirelessly trained to encounter. It would almost seem poetic if it weren’t so tragic.

The film seems to go on, and on, and on and begins to seem a bit lost in a smoky loop of testosterone, bravado, sweat, and grime after a while. The heat is nearly palpable, and the desert furnace could have been showcased a bit stronger, but the audience’s focus is snapped back to full attention as the final sequence begins to unravel.

The ending makes it all worth it, and although the writers are transparent and on the record as saying they dramatized the final sequence (as well as Jeff Bridge’s character), I found their liberties to actually add to the emotional effect of the tragedy.

This is a good film that will likely earn strong reviews, but lackluster box office results, which is a shame. Had it been marketed as simply “Granite Mountain,” there may have been a stronger draw. The final sequence of events is worth the long run-time, and I’m a sucker for these types of stories; a tear or two may be shed. If you’re planning to go to the movies this week, this is a strong contender. 7/10.

Blade Runner 2049

It’s hard to believe it’s been thirty-five years since Ridley Scott introduced us to the revolutionary Philip Dick adaptation of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” that has gone on to establish one of the strongest single-film sci-fi cult followings in history. Let me be one of the first to say, it’s worth the wait.

Fast-forward to a new generation of science fiction. Set thirty years after the original, we find a new Blade Runner named K (Ryan Gosling) hunting down Replicants (genetically engineered slaves who are superior to humans in many ways) and enforcing the law in the dark, dystopian setting created by Ridley Scott so many years ago. It’s challenging to summarize the plot without spoiling critical revelations, but essentially K is slowly unraveling a long-kept secret that could change everything the world knows about humanity and the role of the Replicants.

Director Denis Villeneuve (“Prisoners,” “Arrival”) is a visionary master of film. He teams up with Ridley Scott to recreate the original world, while injecting a coolness and modern beauty to the narrative. Roger Deakins, the finest director of photography not to win a cinematography Oscar, captures in mesmerizing fashion the hauntingly bleak landscape with a nuance that can only come from decades of experience. At nearly three hours, “Blade Runner 2049” seems as if every shot is deliberately stretched out for a few extra seconds, and for the first two-thirds of the film, it is magical and entirely appropriate to capture the mood. Throw in Hans Zimmer with yet another brilliant and chilling score, and you have what might be the best sci-fi film of the year (hold your horses, a little George Lucas flick is coming in December).


Your first question may be, “do I need to have seen the original?” Well, to that I say not exactly, but it may be slightly confusing if not. The film does a fine job of standing on its own two feet, and pays beautiful tribute to the original, but it’s mostly in source recognition and not storyline. The world of the original is the context required to enjoy the film thoroughly, but you won’t get lost.

Screenwriters Hampton Fancher (“Blade Runner”) and Michael Green (“Alien: Covenant,” “Logan,” “Green Lantern”) weave some depth into what might be an otherwise standard tent-pole sequel. They don’t linger too long on any particular sequence, and deliver in the end what is quite satisfying and tidy. Philip Dick would be proud.

Where “Blade Runner 2049” excels exceptionally is in its austerity and subtlety. Manipulation of color hues, deliberately long and sometimes uncomfortable pauses, and sound editing that builds suspense all create a majestic vision of a future that frankly, I don’t want any part of.

There are elements of futurism that are incorporated, but the tone remains gritty, dirty, dark, and almost retro-technological. Massive metal buildings, corroded and sun baked. Sterile building interiors with emotionless and depressed people mingling with Replicants and holographic companions. It’s all very imaginative, yet grounded in the loneliness and lack of human connectivity that is a growing fear in our own society.

“Blade Runner 2049” is an outstanding creation that does not disappoint. My only real gripe is that it goes on a bit longer than maybe it should, but I can appreciate Villeneuve’s vision, and although epic in length, it works pretty well. By the end, the visual and audio journey makes the traveler a bit weary, but ultimately it is the coolest film of the year thus far. 9/10.

Battle of the Sexes

Although the film’s disposition is already common knowledge to those in the sports community, or who have followed the progression of the feminist movement since the early 1970’s, film making team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (“Little Miss Sunshine”) are able to convey the plight of the fight for sports gender equality in an intriguing, yet emotionless fashion, or what I’d like to call, “Disney sports drama light.”

Emma Stone reunites with Steve Carell to rekindle their remarkably strong on-screen chemistry in a recreation of the infamous 1973 tennis farce famously dubbed the “battle of the sexes.” Twenty-nine-year-old Billy Jean King (Stone) is convinced to accept a publicity stunt challenge by fifty-five-year-old Bobby Riggs (Carell) during a time when women’s sports were relegated to backseat status. The media circus culminated in a predictable and lackluster competition that although viewed by millions, wasn’t anything particularly surprising or revelatory. Don’t get me wrong, what Billy Jean King accomplished in her life inspired Title IX, paved a way for more robust awareness of LGBTQ rights, women’s equality, and so much more during a time when frankly, misogynistic behavior was commonplace and accepted.

There are some tremendous life lessons to be learned from sports, perhaps that’s why I’m so fond of inspirational sports films as a genre. In the case of “Battle of the Sexes” however, the lessons have already been learned, and the film just doesn’t seem particularly compelling.

Tennis as a spectator sport doesn’t quite have the appeal as, well, any other sport, and to the film makers’ credit, the sport itself is minimized in lieu of a more concerted attempt to convey the public sentiment toward athletics at the time. This leads to a severely anticlimactic finale in which there is so little tension that the viewer is ready to fast forward through the athletic event straight to the inevitable narrative caption, which seems written thoughtlessly and provides no insight into the real effects of the events.

It wasn’t a terrible film, however. Emma Stone shows again that she is one of the most talented young actresses in the industry. A severe make under puts her right at home in the 1970’s, and nearly all of her physically attractive qualities are hidden, forcing her to rely on a tense ball of emotional fire in her eyes (behind some hideous glasses) instead of using her typical charm. She plays the role exceptionally well, but it is quite dull and understated by nature. King seemed to be an introvert, hiding her true sexuality and repressing her happiness in deference to the social norms of the day.

Steve Carell is still hard to take seriously in any dramatic role, and he plays Bobby Riggs with an aloof swagger that never truly creates the antagonist the audience deserves. He’s too nice and is likeable from beginning to end, and that severely undercuts the value of the opposition. I have to add, Fred Armisen falls into the same category as Riggs’ nutritionist. It was a distraction to see him with a serious face on the tennis sidelines. Sorry Fred, you’ve just done too much comedy to be taken seriously.

The subject matter is worthy of a biopic, but the combination of 1970’s, tennis, and comedic actors taking on serious roles just kind of ruined it for me. I know there will be some who appreciate the film because they lived through the time, but for me and perhaps the younger generations, there isn’t anything shocking or earth-shattering about the idea of a woman beating a man in tennis. Of course, the match meant so much more than that, but unfortunately the film doesn’t. 5/10.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Imagine you took five Oscar winners and Channing Tatum and put them together in a James Bond film by a very talented writer/director. Then imagine that particular James Bond film is rated R, has more gonzo action and special effects than typical, but somehow retains the same suave and classy appeal as the iconic paradigm of the genre. Then imagine if you will that the lead isn’t any of the aforementioned award winners, but rather, a young, burgeoning movie star on the brink of a breakout career, and you have “Kingsman: The Golden Circle.”

Truth be told, Halle Berry shouldn’t have won an Oscar in the first place, and Elton John is hardly known for his Academy Award, but the cast is stellar and noteworthy nonetheless. Jeff Bridges, Colin Firth, and Julianne Moore could headline just about any film on the planet, but I am delighted they chose this one. 2014 introduced us to Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a young, English lad with a skill set that earned him membership as an apprentice into the elite Kingsman spy agency. The success of the film opened the door for a new franchise, which I imagine will continue to thrive due to sheer range of appeal (and the almost certain box office draw).

This time around, Eggsy has matured to a full-blown agent, and not twenty seconds into the film we are tossed into a spectacular fight sequence that gives the audience a preview of what’s to come. Although the action doesn’t maintain the stamina promised, the scenes are expertly choreographed and delivered with a polished execution that doesn’t disappoint. Eggsy has to save the world yet again, this time from the evil (and sadistic) Poppy (Julianne Moore), whose agenda is much more endearing than that of Samuel L. Jackson in the original “Kingsman: Secret Service.” With plenty of allusions to the hypocrisy and lunacy of current drug legislation and enforcement, there are some political jabs, but it’s all in good fun because after all, the tone is wild and outlandish. Kingsman enlists the help of their American counterparts, Statesman, and together they risk life and limb to save the unsuspecting masses.

Matthew Vaughn has yet to miss the mark. Director of the surprise hit “Kick-Ass” and the strongest of the X-Men films (“X-Men: First Class”), he seems to be on a roll that will lead to a strong reputation as well as a financial boon (he also wrote and produced). His style is influenced heavily by his long-time associate, Guy Ritchie, but without the unnecessary calling card of immediately recognizable glitzy camera work. It’s refreshing, and I daresay Vaughn has surpassed Ritchie in terms of quality with this film.
When I wrote about the original, I was pretty hard on it, but after a second viewing, I came to appreciate it for the director’s somewhat unique vision. It grows on you, and I would urge you to give the original film another shot before making a trip to your local theatre for some good old-fashioned fun.

This is a rare instance of the sequel being better than the original, joining the ranks of “Empire Strikes Back,” “Aliens,” and “The Dark Knight.” You could sway me on “Godfather Part 2” as well, but I digress. The film takes that best parts of the original and improves, showing that sometimes the best formula for success in film is to just have fun and don’t try to reinvent the wheel. I appreciated the toned-down violence, and although the American Statesman were a bit too stereotypical, the absurdity works with aplomb.

If I haven’t sold you thus far, I will say that the film showcases exceptionally strong performances by both Egerton and Pedro Pascale (“Narcos,” “Game of Thrones”) who plays Agent Whiskey. They stand out among giants and make this truly worth watching. All in all, it’s a really fun film that is much needed to jumpstart the current drought of quality films out there (“It” notwithstanding). 8/10.

Mother!

In what can only be described as an existential, mind-blowing opus, Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan,” “Requiem for a Dream”) gives us what might be one of the most ambitious cinematic allegories of the year. Polarizing by critical standards, and unapologetically true to his own vision, “Mother!” is likely to be misinterpreted by many, misunderstood by even more, and mislabeled in the annals of history as an epic failure. I beg to differ.

Before I explain my thinking, let me reduce the plot to a tangible (albeit incomplete) form; Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) awakes in her large Victorian house, situated in an undisclosed, but picturesque setting. Her husband, Him (Javier Bardem) is a successful writer, and together they are rebuilding their home after a devastating fire took nearly everything from them. Attention to every detail has been painstakingly made by Mother, as she bides her time homemaking while he struggles to overcome writer’s block. When Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) show up unexpectedly, they trigger a series of events that leads the narrative down the rabbit hole of frustrating, preposterous, and confusing, but ultimately to a spiritually enlightening and rewarding climax.

There is something unsettling about the relationship between Mother and Him from the very start, and the house itself takes on a personification that is eerily suffocating despite the vast open space it consumes. The house is where the success of this film truly begins to gain traction. Every single frame in the film follows Mother, and occurs inside the house. It’s claustrophobic without even trying.

Some might get frustrated with the confusion, even as it plays out to its finale, but I very much admire the vision by Aronofsky. Without giving away too much in spoilage, there is a certain tangible resonance even while the viewer is in the dark. There’s just enough shown on-screen to grasp large themes such as humanity, good and evil, spirituality, anxiety, control, and the circle of life. The extent of metaphor is certainly laid on thick, but it is absolutely necessary to accomplish what the director intended.

One has to resist the urge to give up on the film simply because it doesn’t make sense, because although that is certainly the case, the viewing experience is much more valuable than the subscription to typical cinematic rules or norms. Bear with the nonsense, because it will make sense hours, days, or perhaps even weeks later when you are trying to figure things out. “Mother!” is a cerebral thriller, and I respect the attempt at something so non-conformist and mind-bending. There aren’t enough film makers brazen enough to attempt such abstract polarizing fare; Chris Nolan recently (and successfully), and my personal favorite, Stanley Kubrick historically.

My initial reaction as the credits rolled was confusion and anger, so the film was an absolute success. My anger evolved into a sort of respect the longer I pondered the details that created what will go down in film lore as something unique, if not a disaster. The reviews have not been kind as a whole, and there is an argument that Jennifer Lawrence, whose role as muse may be lost in the scandalous relationship formed with Aronofsky, is wasted on such questionable content, but I disagree. All of the actors involved did a fantastic job, and the film itself, as wild as it was, left an imprint on my mind.

I have a difficult time recommending this film to any particular group, as it will likely be misunderstood or underappreciated. I don’t intend to ever see it again, but I will say with confidence that I’m glad I saw it; I’m a better film critic for it. And after all, isn’t that what the movies are all about? 7/10.

It

In 1986, Stephen King introduced us to Pennywise the Clown, and spawned a generation (or two) of coulrophobia (fear of clowns). According to rumors, the subsequent television mini-series featuring Tim Curry (1990) as the red-balloon carrying provocateur of childhood nightmares, created a boon for the child therapy industry.

The cinematic resurrection of what is arguably Stephen King’s most infamous story is ill-timed, coming on the heels of the “Dark Tower” adaptation just last month. “It” is however a terrifyingly entertaining film, even if it is a retelling. I wish I could compare to the book, but my only frame of reference is Tim Curry, and I will say, the modernized version carries a more polished, aggressive sense of violence and as a result, inspires a greater level of fear, which is just what the audience needs.

The small town of Derry, Maine has a mysterious phenomenon where every twenty-seven years, there is a rash of children who go missing. The adults are eerily oblivious and accepting of this, which is odd, but adds to the charming 1988 setting, and when Georgie Denbrough becomes one of the victims, his brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) and his band of loveable losers investigate. What they find is the thing of nightmares, and as they come face to face with Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard), they discover more evil than they ever thought imaginable.

Filmmakers Andy Muschietti (“Mama”), Cary Fukunaga (“True Detective”), and Gary Dauberman (“Annabelle), deliver a strong collaboration devoid of what could have easily been its downfall; cliché. There are obviously elements indicative of the genre, and the characters make poor decisions in dire times, but we are given a new, frightening Pennywise with just the right amount of screen time and dialogue to make him a very effective clown monster.

The film isn’t just a horror flick however. There is a surprisingly strong cast of young kids led by Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard (“Stranger Things”), and Sophia Lillis. They lead the Losers Club with a sense of tragically waning innocence, and form a bond through their shared desperation as they try to survive Pennywise, and their own personal demons. The characters are written with a remarkable amount of depth considering the ensemble format, and Wolfhard and Lillis steal the show through dialogue delivery and genuine emotion.

King novels and shorts have a tradition of using children to enhance the suspense, and move the narrative along emotionally, which is traditionally challenging to successfully translate to the screen. “Stand by Me” is one of the most effective of his that comes to mind.

Enter Pennywise. Bill Skarsgard does a tremendous job taking what Tim Curry did and both honoring the spirit of the character while also updating and modernizing it with the help of more advanced and seamless CGI. His speech and mannerisms are captivating and pose just the right combination of sinister on the verge of frightening, and somewhat docile.

“It” is a refreshingly thoughtful and satisfying contribution to the horror film canon. Although I was hoping to have the bejesus scared out of me, it was ultimately a great time at the theatre. I felt transported back to my own adolescence, and was moved to empathize with the characters from start to finish. There are some pretty good scares, and there will certainly be a resurgence of coulrophobia. With an estimated opening weekend surpassing $100 million, I can’t wait until Chapter 2 comes out. 8/10.

The Hitman's Bodyguard

An interesting premise blending two of the action genre’s most interesting occupations, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is an action buddy comedy in the vein of “Lethal Weapon” or “Rush Hour” with one stark contrast; they are nemeses. It’s a spy versus spy of sorts, and I love the marketing angle and the casual way in which they are selling the idea. On paper, it’s actually pretty great. But I have one major problem that exacerbates the whole film.

Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) is a AAA rated executive protection agent until he loses a client in a predictable opening sequence. The incident relegates him to what appears to be the shell of a man protecting B-list clients, although his skill set is still top notch. Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) is a legendary hitman with a flawless execution. They are naturally thrown together when Kincaid is scheduled to testify against a Russian warlord (Gary Oldman) and he needs protection. What ensues is the typical reluctant bonding experience where both begin to appreciate the other’s craft and they each learn a little something about themselves, softening up a bit and growing both professionally and personally.

The action is fantastic. Great chases, explosions, fight scenes, and a very humorous banter. But Samuel L. Jackson will be sixty-eight years old in December. He’s in great shape for his age, but how many sixty-eight year olds can out-gun Interpol special forces agents? How many sixty-eight year olds can jump from a roof or get shot through the leg and keep running? I haven’t met many, but I would absolutely love to meet one. That’s my main gripe, and the fact that he can’t get through a sentence without cussing isn’t something that necessarily offends my sensitivities as much as it offends my respect for the man as an actor. He’s a one-trick pony, and more power to him for making his living spouting the same vulgar rhetoric every movie he’s in, but for me it gets a little old. Just like him.

Ryan Reynolds is his typical self as well. Full of one-liners and witty comebacks, he’s definitely more believable as an action star because, well, he is one. He carries his character just fine, but as half of the equation, it just doesn’t work to carry a whole film.

The plot being as simple as it gets, this is a fun film. It exceeded my very low expectations, but make no mistake. This is no “Lethal Weapon.” In fact, this rates pretty low on the buddy action comedy scale, but it is two hours of entertaining, mindless, popcorn-munching viewing. Take a little comfort in that, and I’m sure that the box office will reflect the audience’s desire for just that.

Novice director Patrick Hughes (“Expendables 3”) delivers a pretty impressive set of action sequences, but not a whole lot more. The film lacked some of the grit of some of the previous buddy films of the genre in favor of a more comedic approach, but that can be forgiven easily in the name of entertainment. I have a soft spot for Mel and Danny, but do recognize that that was nearly thirty years ago, and the general taste has changed significantly. One’s own personal influence only has so much clout when recommending entertainment to a broader audience after all.

If you’ve seen everything else and you’re looking to kill some time, or just stay cool on these dog days of summer, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” will do better than some, but trust me, there’s much better film out there right now (see “Wind River.”) 6/10.

Logan Lucky

Steven Soderbergh, the man behind the “Oceans” trilogy, “Magic Mike” films, and one of my personal favorites, “Out of Sight,” returns to the genre that has been his bread and butter; the light-hearted, slightly cerebral, slick heist films. Let’s be honest, he’s made heists look pretty cool numerous times on the screen (and easy to boot), and that’s part of the holdup here. There isn’t much going on that we haven’t seen before plenty of times. Criminals who have thought of every little detail, while the audience is just a little bit in the dark until the reveal at the end.

“Logan Lucky” is a typical West Virginia redneck larceny story, with not so typical characters. The Logan brothers, Jimmy and Clyde (Channing Tatum and Adam Driver) put into play a scheme to rob the cash room of the Charlotte International Motor Speedway during a NASCAR race. They enlist the help of criminal Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) and his two nephews, Fish and Sam. Throw in the Logan sister, Mellie (Riley Keough) and you have your crew. In the periphery, Katie Holmes is Jimmy’s baby mama in a bit of a misguided parallel storyline, although her performance is the best she’s done in quite some time.

The acting is terrific, and the leads all seem to be enjoying themselves from start to finish, particularly Daniel Craig who plays a hardened safe-cracker with a good deal of prison clout. Driver is given the role of quirky and dry comic relief, and Tatum packs on a few pounds and shirks his usual charming good looks in exchange for a chance to play a flawed, yet likeable lead.

There is a lot of opportunity here for character development, with Dwight Yoakum, Seth McFarlane, Katherine Waterston, and Hilary Swank standing out as well-played characters, but the film moves along too quickly, which is a double-edged sword. The heist is certainly the looming endgame, but Soderbergh likes to pace his films quickly, refusing to linger on any scene too long. This doesn’t allow us to get to know any of these characters quite well enough, and that’s a bit of a shame.

“Logan Lucky” was written by Rebecca Blunt, a possible pseudonym with speculation by numerous sources that it might actually be Soderbergh or his wife, Jules Asner. As of now, there hasn’t been any credit taken, but this makes for an interesting sidebar trivia item, which is something consistent and admirable about the director. He certainly knows how to make movies fun, and it shows on screen. This might be his greatest strength, and it redeems any lingering reservations about any redundancy in his style. Sure, you could probably line up his heist movies side by side and you would notice more than a few similarities, but there is a certain levity that jumps from the screen in his contributions to this genre. The actors seem to be caught up in the mirth as well, and that adds a certain intangible effect to his movies that make them enjoyable in the end.

In terms of the screenplay itself, there is a bit left to be desired. There’s no back story, no motive for the heist in the first place, and nothing compelling to make us root for any of the characters to succeed beyond it being a bunch of rednecks knocking over NASCAR. The West Virginia redneck setting is simply a ruse to get the audience to forget that they’ve seen this all before. At least three times.

“Logan Lucky” gets points for execution and acting, but lacks originality. It’s like “West Side Story” doing “Romeo and Juliet.” Great film, clever change of setting, but ultimately a completely recycled story. If you can get past this little detail and just let the experience wash over you, I bet you might find this film pretty dadgum entertaining. 7/10.

Wind River

I would be extremely remiss if I didn't share my thoughts on the exceptionally crafted "Wind River." The latest concoction of writer/director Taylor Sheridan, this will certainly cement his place among the most talented and thoughtful double threats in the game today. After 2014's "Sicario" and last year's "Hell or High Water," he's continued his gritty and realistic storytelling narrative with a particular homage to the forgotten women of the Native American reservations, and he's done it by letting the story (and perhaps one particular character) do the talking.

Although set in rural Wind River, Wyoming, it's a true Western at heart. The best Western since "No Country for Old Men" mind you. The setting is chilling. Literally. Sub-zero conditions in the spring in the Rocky Mountains, we find a young woman barefoot and frozen to death. Ruled a homicide, the local tribal police call in the FBI, and we meet agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). She enlists the help of local fish and wildlife hunter Corey Lambert (Jeremy Renner) and with chief Ben (Graham Greene), they begin the search for the guilty murderer. As the clues lead them where they don't want to go, they search for justice for the woman's family, and closure for the community.

The brilliance is in the small things. From the supporting characters who make the most of single scenes, to the stationary camera shots just perfectly capturing the majestic setting. There is a melancholy sense of beauty, desperation, and isolation while presenting it in a freezing climate that makes you shiver in your seat. The dialogue is witty, but not contrived. It drives the narrative like a well-oiled machine, whether it's the whimsical ruminations or the necessary prose targeting the audience.

The climactic finale should go down in history as one of the finer and more harrowing extended scenes in recent memory. In fact, I couldn't stop thinking about it for nearly a day. Sheridan has a way of bringing out the raw, primal emotions in his actors, whether he's behind the camera or the written narrative. Taylor Sheridan is simply my new favorite (Sorry Coen Brothers). He is a master of the modern Western in the way that can only be compared to author Cormac McCarthy.

Jeremy Renner delivers what might be his finest performance yet, even moreso than "The Hurt Locker." He embraces his character and shows us the pain he carries behind his eyes in every scene, while being the heroic semi-reluctant protagonist that the film needs. In fact, this performance will almost make you forget about Hawkeye, who is clearly the weakest of all the Avengers.

"Wind River" is simply stunning. It currently sits atop my best pictures of the year, and it will take something quite stunning to knock it off its perch (there are a few contenders on the horizon). I would expect five awards nominations; actor, picture, director, writer, cinematographer. With an August release, the odds are stacked against the film at this point, but I for one won't forget about it anytime soon. 9/10.

The Dark Tower

There have been over sixty Stephen King film adaptations since 1976. He’s been crowned the literary master of the thriller genre, and has spun more tales than a dozen highly trained authors could ever conceive of, which means that there are inevitably monster hits (“The Shawshank Redemption,” “The Shining,” “Stand by Me”), some stinkers (“The Lawnmower Man,” “Maximum Overdrive”), and of course some of my personal favorites (“Apt Pupil,” “1408,” “Misery”). The common thread among his stories is that they are so wildly diverse, that there is virtually no common thread. I would hate to see what his nightmares are like. On second thought, I would pay to see what his nightmares look like.

“The Dark Tower” has been rumored for a film adaptation for decades. It is odd to me that they chose book number three in the eight book series to start the franchise (which may not continue if the box office doesn’t show stronger results), but I suppose the epic story really is so grand in scale that the film really can only be a snippet of the whole story, and maybe producers though this was the most exciting portion. If that’s the case, the franchise is doomed.

Everything you might expect and hope for, including the best sequences, are shown in detail in the previews. This is never a good sign. The Dark Tower is a mysterious source of power that is essentially all that is keeping the universe together, and the forces of evil from running rampant on Earth and all other worlds. Walter (Matthew McConaughey) also known as the “man in black” is trying to destroy the tower with his army of skin people, and his secret weapon is the brain energy of abducted children. Only Roland (Idris Elba), the last of the famed Gunslingers, can stop him. With a .45 revolver forged from the blade of Excalibur. Young Jake (Tom Taylor) holds the power to destroy the tower with his unique and pure mind power, so the battle between good and evil will come to its last stand.

Whew. The story is a whimsical fantasy mixing old West heroism, the power of youthful innocence, and biblical evil. The film jumps right in with a slightly confusing attack on the tower, and doesn’t really get any better or clearer. There is simply too much going on that needs a few thousand pages of prose to set up and explain, and I can’t fault Stephen King for that in the slightest. This project is simply too epic and should have been a Netflix mini-series instead of a single film.

As a stand-alone film, it fails pretty miserably. Think of it this way; imagine watching season three of “Lost” without any other contextualization. It’s a little bit like that. I’m also dubious of the casting choices for the two lead roles, and that made the biggest difference for me. Elba is a fantastic actor, but when I heard that Javier Bardem was being considered for the role a few years back, I thought he would be a perfect fit. I still feel that way. Elba was a fine gunslinger, but there is something dark, mysterious, and decidedly not British about the character, and Bardem’s strong silent approach would have been more fitting.

McConaughey got to play his usual cool self as the personification of death, but he was a bit wooden and on emotionless autopilot. I would have preferred someone with a more physically imposing presence, maybe someone a bit weathered and grizzled. Someone older and more masculine. It would have changed the marketing angle for certain, but I think it would have made for a stronger overall film.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the source material, I mean seriously, who has the time? Over four thousand pages is pretty time consuming. I suppose fans of King in general and fans of the novel in particular will give it a look, and I’m curious to hear what the overall reaction is, but I for one wasn’t very impressed. There are certainly better ways to spend your time and money. 5/10.

Detroit

It’s a little early for Best Picture candidates to come out, isn’t it? Oscar winning director Kathryn Bigelow has made a name for herself by shooting gritty, realistic depictions of modern warfare (“The Hurt Locker,” “Zero Dark Thirty”). “Detroit” is merely a departure in setting, not genre.

Set in 1967 Detroit, the mix of economic depression and rising racial tensions come to a head at the Algiers Hotel, a cheap oasis for black youth to escape the literal war zone in their neighborhoods. Police, State Patrol, and National Guard are patrolling the burning streets while looting runs rampant. A curfew is in effect, but it’s just another day in paradise for most of the black youth who just want to live their lives and let loose with some alcohol and loud music. A toxic blend of police aggression, miscommunication, and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, sets off a series of cold-blooded killings and the subsequent aftermath. When the smoke clears, what’s left is a previously untold story that becomes another part of America’s shameful racist legacy.

A mostly unknown cast surround rising stars John Boyega and Will Poulter, who play a black security guard and the racist ranking police officer on scene, respectively. Anthony Mackey adds star power, but the real standout performances are by Algee Smith (Larry), and Jacob Latimore (Fred), who are really the central figures to the entire story. Larry is a singer with a silky smooth voice, and Fred is his biggest fan and best friend. Caught unaware, they are portrayed as the real innocent victims, even more so than the other patrons of the Algiers. Bigelow somehow is able to make the two of them stand out in a true ensemble cast, all delivering outstanding performances, which is a testament to both their acting, and her direction.

There was one maddening question I kept asking myself throughout, and you will too as you find yourself sucked into the extremely well-done tension. But as expressed at the end of the film, much of the accuracy of the actual events are unknown, so award winning writer Mark Boal took some liberties to add dramatic effect. His restraint shown in his liberties pay off handsomely, and what the viewer gets as a result is two and a half hours of what feels more like a documentary than a blend of fiction and non.

What stood out to me was not how tragic the events seemed to be, but how timely and shockingly poignant the story is with the current Black Lives Matter movement. Not to get too off-track, but “Detroit” truly struck a nerve; in a good way. The aim was to dig deep into the soul of the viewer and tap into the uncomfortable recognition of racial inequities that still exist in our society. To shed light on the real problem with police brutality, which isn’t necessarily that cops are racist, but that there is a stark cultural divide in perspective and lifestyle between those who are charged with protecting the people, and the citizens. This is particularly noticeable in 1967 Detroit, but certainly is relevant still today.

“Detroit” is a gritty and sometimes somber reminder of how things once were during the Civil Rights Movement, but what really sticks is the question; have things really changed that much? The emotions will be stirred in you, and you will leave with a real sense of tragedy, but also that this was an exceptionally made film. If buzz can stick around, expect award nominations to prevail. This is certainly one of the best films I’ve seen so far this year. 8/10.

Atomic Blonde

“Atomic Blonde” is the most recent in a growing trend of stuntmen working behind the camera as opposed to in front. This time, it’s David Leitch, a longtime (and well-respected) stunt double and fight choreographer. He shot some scenes in 2014’s “John Wick” and was given a chance to do his own film here. The big test, however, will be next year’s “Deadpool 2,” which is a very low-risk/high-reward proposition with a modest budget.

Fueled by alcohol, a bad attitude, and cigarettes, Charlize Theron plays Lorraine Broughton, a British MI6 superspy who channels James Bond and Jason Bourne as a well-dressed bare-knuckle brawler who puts all of the East German thugs on their backs, and looks really good doing it. When she’s done, she swigs her vodka on the rocks and wallows in her regrets. She’s a master of disguise and fighting in heels, and uses everything within hands reach as a weapon.

Charlize clearly studied fight choreography as several scenes are definitely her and not a double. There isn’t much depth to the character beyond her stoic professionalism, and she clearly works alone, but Theron conveys a very subtle loneliness at times, which is a vulnerable trait you wouldn’t expect with such an uber-confident woman. She fits the role perfectly, and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to see this character become a franchise figure.

Powered by a steady stream of 80’s pop, and cold war era nostalgia, the film is set in 1989 Berlin, a turbulent and exciting time in history. The days leading up to the taking down of the wall find a British spy killed, and he loses a valuable list of international agents (sound familiar?) that is hidden in a watch. Broughton is dispatched to work with fellow British agent David Percival (James McAvoy) and find the watch before it gets into the KGB’s clutches. Percival is the personality of the film as opposed to Broughton’s calm coolness. He is flamboyant, unorthodox, and seemingly on the cusp of losing his focus on his purpose, and every time he’s about to come unhinged, Broughton seems to reel him back in. It’s really a nice chemistry even if there isn’t a spark.

As they race the clock to find the list, they use assets and leave a trail of battered and bloody bodies, their own included. Joining the team are MI6 handler Gray (Toby Jones), and CIA agent Kurtzfeld (John Goodman) who are used nicely to separate the narrative from the debrief. Sofia Boutella plays Delphine, a vampy French woman who is attracted to Broughton from the moment she sees her. The two of them share a surprisingly steamy scene together, which conjures memories of gratuitous sex and violence in 80’s and 90’s B-movies. Perhaps this was intentional to match the setting and mood of the film, or perhaps not, but either way, I’m not complaining.

One thing that people will inevitably talk about is the stairwell fight scene. Let me be clear, it is absolutely stunning. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the best fight scene since Viggio Mortenson’s “Eastern Promises” steam room brawl in 2007. It is an eight-minute sequence that appears to be shot in one scene (director Leitch admits there are some hidden cuts, although I couldn’t tell) and it is brutal. Shootings, stabbings, tumbling down stairs, and even a strategically placed corkscrew. Theron did the scene herself, and it catapults her to the top of my female bad-ass list in a single eight-minute swoop. Try to find the cuts while watching, I dare you.

“Atomic Blonde” is more than just a vehicle for gonzo fight scenes. With a 30 million budget, strong reviews and word of mouth, and a story that is actually pretty strong considering the aim, I would expect this to be a surprise hit. There is plenty to criticize, but I was thoroughly entertained, and I can truly appreciate what Theron and Leitch accomplished in this one. The twist at the end might not be surprising, but it is pretty satisfying as well. 8/10.

Dunkirk

Christopher Nolan’s name has become synonymous with brilliant and cerebral science-fiction films ever since breaking on the scene with the masterfully crafted “Memento” in 2000. He followed that with the epic “Batman” trilogy, “Inception,” and most recently, “Interstellar” in 2014. Suffice to say, when he made the decision to give non-fiction a try regarding one of the most pivotal and heroic stories from the British perspective of World War 2, it conjured images of “Saving Private Ryan” and I braced myself for a gripping story filled with graphic images and sensational acting.

A refreshingly unknown cast (besides 3 noticeable Oscar-winning/nominated actors in very unassuming roles) take us back to 1940, when the British allied troops were trapped against the English Channel, pressured by the axis powers from all sides, pushing them as fish into a barrel for the Germans to strafe and bomb. Their only hope is evacuation by sea, but with their Navy decimated by German bombers and U-Boats, all hope falls on the civilian naval corps to cross the scant fifty miles separating the soldiers and their homes.

Right off the bat, it was clear that this would be a film of action and not dialogue. Chris Nolan did a tremendous job using music and setting to paint the picture of desperation and plight. Dialogue is sparse, which serves the story perfectly. Understated acting draws the viewer’s attention to the tense and harrowing score (by Hans Zimmer) which will be a difficult one to beat on Oscar night. Particularly interesting is the ticking of a stopwatch that continues essentially from start to finish, amplifying the desperation and urgency. Attention is paid to the slightest details from start to finish, with every single frame and sequence intentionally shot. It was almost too intentional, too framed. That doesn’t take away from the beauty and awe at all, but at times I felt that the film was taking the easy way out and was a bit too conservative in its approach to war despite the full-immersion and gripping beauty. Additionally, the PG-13 rating eliminated any bit of violence or blood, which left a much smaller impact on me as a viewer. I’m not saying I was hoping for violence, but it definitely adds effect. It was “Saving Private Ryan” light in a nutshell.

Broken into segments of sea, air, and land, we bounce back and forth following individuals who represent the collective in different perspectives; a civilian sailor (Mark Rylance), a fighter pilot (Tom Hardy), and a trio of soldiers who will do just about anything to get home (Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard, and Harry Styles). This diversity shows the different struggles, and are even shot with different color hues if you’re paying attention. Everyone is a hero in his own way, yet the heroism isn’t glamorized and is subtle and tasteful in preserving the realism.

What I couldn’t quite gauge from the film was the true number of soldiers either killed or rescued. They mention numbers throughout, but the camera never shows groups as large as I was expecting. There were almost a half a million soldiers on the beach, with roughly eighty-five percent rescued, and that sheer miracle wasn’t punctuated nearly well enough, nor could I envision that many during the climactic rescue. The small bands of pilots, sailors, and infantry were the focal points throughout, which lessened the grandeur and epic scale that could have been. Nolan is a consummate professional, and uses deliberate and minimalist scenes to tell stories with incredible depth, but I never quite was able to visualize four hundred-thousand British in peril.

“Dunkirk” is a fantastic story wrought with heroism, sacrifice, fear, and drama. Nolan clearly had this passion project on his mind for some time, and I can’t find any flaw in his depiction. Maybe I was expecting more violence, and for that I was a bit caught off guard. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but it definitely could have presented more tension or struck a deeper nerve. That said, I can’t overstate the spot-on perfection achieved by the score, with the ticking clock taking center stage. Zimmer proves he is the master of his craft (he took some inspiration from Paul Thomas Anderson films on this one) and he truly outshines the cast leaving a lasting impression. The film is of very high quality and an exceptional story. I for one welcome more non-fiction from Nolan. Although his science-fiction is pretty awesome too. 8/10.

War for the Planet of the Apes

I quite enjoyed the first two “Planet of the Apes” remakes. Much more than I expected, and it was largely due to the care and attention to detail in the motion-capture effects of bringing the simians to life. Andy Serkis is not even remotely given his due in terms of the magic he has brought to the screen as characters such as Gollum, King Kong, Supreme Leader Snoke, or Caesar.

The epic finale to the remake of the trilogy finds Caesar (Andy Serkis), the leader of the genetically enhanced society of apes living deep in the Redwood Forest, battling for alpha species status with the last-stand special forces group of monkey-haters, led by the Kurtzesque Colonel McCullough (Woody Harrelson). The film has more than a few “Apocalypse Now” parallels, and as the war rages and the body count stacks up (ape and human), we quickly come to realize that these two species simply can’t live harmoniously on Earth. Or at least in America. Or at least on the West Coast. Caesar and McCullough develop a certain extinction-level hate or rivalry toward each other, and it causes them to make merciless and highly personal decisions in their dueling.

This film has a decidedly different feel than the previous two. Director Matt Reeves (2018’s “The Batman”) conveys an unintentional dark, almost ominous mood, which is a stew of “The Great Escape,” “Full Metal Jacket,” and “Schindler’s List.” You read that right. After a hard and fast battle introduction, I thought I was watching a true blue war film, and it was extremely compelling. I was simultaneously impressed and surprised, but the mood devolved quickly. The war quickly turned into a political statement eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, where the humans displayed the deplorable barbarism of humanity, led by none other than Woody Harrelson’s Colonel McCullough.

Harrelson claims that he’s not channeling Marlon Brando, but there is something off about the typically great actor’s performance. It’s much too forced, and the sunglasses in the dark don’t do him any favors. The militaristic approach was a bit too inhumane and jingoistic, but I suppose the intended juxtaposition of audience sympathy is the whole point. Humans bad, apes good. Two species hitting a crossroads evolutionarily; one grasping for its domination through animalistic violence, and the other reluctantly displaying more humanistic tendencies than expected is a great concept, but played out on the screen in two hours, I just thought the idea would make a stronger novel, and the film should have had more action.

That said, the acting was phenomenal; by the apes. Every one of the main characters communicated so much emotion through their eyes, their sign language, and even in some cases, their primal grunts and noises. The humans were devoid of emotional depth however, which left me feeling a bit underwhelmed by the story.

The film was a bit too long, with lengthy segments of inaction, and I question whether horses have the strength to carry gorillas and orangutans on their backs, running at full-speed. That aside, I was absolutely blown away by the realism presented on screen. I would expect numerous Oscar nods in the effects department, and the music kept pace with the action very well, creating what is on the surface a very entertaining film. I can’t overstate how impressed I was by Serkis, and I hope he is finally recognized by the academy (I said that back in 2014 for “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” and his work as Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” films) “War for the Planet of the Apes” is an ambitious but ultimately kind of depressing movie.

Come for the effects and the movie magic, but don’t expect to leave with a smile on your face. It’s plenty entertaining for a summer blockbuster, but just a bit too heavy and emotionally layered. 7/10.