Tenet (2020) review

 

Well, folks, I recently did something that I haven’t done for more than half a year; I went into a theater setting to see the latest film release. To be clear, I’m not referring to the traditional movie theater since I’ll admit that I’m not yet ready to go back to that just yet given the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is still far from over. Instead, I’m referring to the timeless tradition that is the drive-in theater. Prior to this year, one could’ve viewed the art of going to the drive-in as something that was becoming outdated due to the decreasing amount of drive-in theaters in the United States (case in point, the Rustic Tri-View Drive-In, which is conveniently located not too far from my home in Rhode Island, is the only drive-in left in the state). However, due to the need for social distancing, drive-ins have become a lot more popular recently since they provide what is quite arguably the safest method of viewing films with a crowd outside of the ‘watch party’ options that streaming services have started to implement. And while much of this year’s new releases have either been delayed to next year or moved to streaming services, some films have been daring enough to get released theatrically despite the odds, with the biggest of the bunch being Tenet, the latest outing from director Christopher Nolan. At this point, Nolan is someone who needs no introduction as he has very much established himself as one of the top filmmakers in the industry with a wide array of hugely successful films. Not only is he responsible for the successful revitalization of the Batman film franchise thanks to his Dark Knight trilogy, but he’s also been big on delivering original screenplays in an age of sequels, remakes, and reboots with hits such as Memento, Inception, and Dunkirk. This is once again apparent in his new film, Tenet, which is another premier display of his directorial talents… even if his knack for complex narratives does prove to be a bit of a problem this time around.

After an undercover operation at an opera house in Kyiv goes wrong, a lone, unnamed CIA agent (John David Washington) ends up being the sole survivor of his team and is captured by Russian mercenaries. When the agent (who’s also referred to as ‘the Protagonist’) tries to take a cyanide pill to avoid revealing classified information, he learns that this was all a test and that he’s now under the employment of a secret organization known as Tenet. Through the instructions of his new boss Fay (Martin Donovan), the Protagonist learns that he’s about to partake in a mission meant to ensure the survival of humanity by preventing the start of World War III. To do so, he must confront Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh), a key member of the Russian oligarchy who’s on the hunt for a series of mysterious artifacts tied to the various countries that possess nuclear weapons. Aided by his new handler Neil (Robert Pattinson) and art appraiser Katherine Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), Sator’s estranged wife, the Protagonist finds himself in a race against time to prevent Sator from collecting all these artifacts in his efforts to destroy the world. In the process, however, the Protagonist discovers that there’s a lot more to this operation than he was initially led to believe. After experiencing a unique anomaly during that previously mentioned undercover operation where he witnessed a bullet being ‘un-fired’ by an unknown operative, the Protagonist learns about the process of ‘inversion’ where people and objects can travel backwards through time. And if that wasn’t enough, the Protagonist learns that Sator is just as well-versed with the process and fully intends to use it to accomplish his sinister plot.

Tenet is very much a Christopher Nolan film in every conceivable aspect of its production, especially when it comes to its technical merits. Nolan is, after all, well-known for his preference towards practical special effects rather than CGI, which is once again on full display here in many of the film’s signature moments, such as an actual Boeing 747 crashing into a hangar. And just like his previous two films, Interstellar and Dunkirk, Tenet boasts excellent cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema. While the consequences of our current worldwide predicament meant that I was sadly unable to see this in 70mm IMAX (which I’m sure would’ve looked amazing), that doesn’t stop the film from being another visually stunning outing from Nolan. However, if there’s one thing that does hold this film back, it’s its screenplay which, in true Nolan fashion, is a deeply layered and fully complex narrative with all sorts of twists and turns. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the problem is that this film’s plot is too complicated to the point where it’s practically incomprehensible because, to be perfectly frank, that’s not even close to being the case here. At the very least, it does get its main plot-points across in a succinct enough manner. In fact, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it does an excellent job with how certain plot-threads that it builds up result in top-notch payoffs, which ties in quite nicely with the whole time-bending concept. Really, the biggest problem with the script is that, for the most part, it feels like a non-stop barrage of exposition, and that’s even when taking the film’s hefty two-and-a-half-hour runtime into account. In other words, while it doesn’t really drag at any point, its rapid pacing can often leave you feeling quite overwhelmed at the worst possible times.

Another thing that people tend to bring up when it comes to Nolan films is that he’s usually more of a story-driven filmmaker than a character-driven one, which often results in the argument that his films tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to character development. And while that is quite arguably the case with this film as well, it still boasts a phenomenal ensemble. John David Washington headlines the film nicely as ‘the Protagonist’ who, admittedly, is mainly just an audience surrogate without any substantial backstory but the role still lets Washington convey the kind of strong charisma that he clearly must’ve inherited from his father, Denzel. He also has great camaraderie with Robert Pattinson as the Protagonist’s handler Neil, who does get a bit more to work with character-wise once the film starts to reveal more information about Neil’s true connection to the Protagonist. Moving on to the film’s female lead, Elizabeth Debicki as the main antagonist’s estranged wife Katherine, there’s been some debate on whether ‘Kat’ is just a ‘damsel in distress’. This is something that ties into yet another recurring argument surrounding Nolan films where, apart from a few select exceptions such as Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises and Murphy Cooper in Interstellar, their female characters don’t really get much to work with in the grand scheme of things. But with Kat, though, I’d say that this is one of those exceptions. There’s only really one stretch of the film where she has to be rescued by the Protagonist, and overall, she gets to play a considerably large role in the plot given her tumultuous relationship with her husband and how she’s mainly driven by her desire to protect their son. Finally, speaking of her husband Andrei, Kenneth Branagh is another big standout of the cast as a villain who’s appropriately sinister without being too over-the-top.

I’m about to say something that I honestly believed I would never say. For the first time ever, I left a Christopher Nolan film feeling… rather indifferent about it. However, this doesn’t mean that I think that Tenet is ‘bad’ because, well, it isn’t. From a technical perspective, this film is practically flawless. Whether it’s the excellent cinematography or top-notch action sequences that were entirely done on a practical level, Tenet is another prime showcase of Nolan’s talents as a director. Ultimately, though, the biggest thing that hurts this film is its script as Nolan’s habit of overly complicated narratives ends up being a major hindrance this time around. It’s not that this film is so convoluted that you can’t understand it. The problem is that it tries to cram in so much information without ever stopping to take a break, which is something that its substantially long runtime offered it plenty of opportunities for. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t think that this sort of thing was ever a big issue with any of Nolan’s other notoriously ‘complex’ films such as Memento or Inception. Ultimately, though, while it really could’ve benefitted from some steadier pacing, Tenet is still the very definition of a film that’s an absolute must-see on the big screen… you know, if you can. Yes, it’s time to address the elephant in the room that is the continuing devastation that’s been brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic. While Christopher Nolan may arguably be the staunchest defender of the cinematic experience, Tenet has been royally screwed over by COVID-19 just as much as all the other films that were slated to come out this year. Sure, it may have managed to end up being the first blockbuster release to come out after the nationwide shutdown of theaters back in March, but it was still forced to push back its release date three separate times. And even then, Warner Bros. had to release it internationally first since, let’s face it, folks, other countries are handling this pandemic a hell of a lot better than we are here in the U.S. Thus, as much as I hate to admit it, I probably won’t be able to see this film again until after it hits the home video market. Despite this, though, I assure you that I’m very eager to see it again to see if my initial thoughts towards it end up changing in any way.

Rating: 3.5/5

Artemis Fowl (2020) review (Disney+)

Thanks in large part to the massive critical and financial success that Warner Bros has achieved through the Harry Potter franchise, we’ve seen plenty of attempts at film franchises based on other popular young adult novels. And yet, the results have generally varied when it comes to their attempts to become the next Potter. In other words, while franchises like The Hunger Games and Twilight managed to see their stories told to completion, others like His Dark Materials and The Mortal Instruments basically crashed and burned right at the start, thus failing to spawn their potential franchises. But now we’ve come to the latest attempt at a film franchise based on a YA novel with Artemis Fowl. It all began with the 2001 fantasy novel of the same name written by Irish author Eoin Colfer, which introduced readers to the titular Artemis Fowl II, a 12-year-old prodigy who runs his family’s long-standing criminal empire. Upon publication, it did quite well with both critics and audiences and would be followed by seven sequels that were released up until 2012 as well as a few spin-offs. But as for a potential film adaptation of the franchise… it took a little longer to make that a reality. Plans for this adaptation go back as far as 2001, the same year that the first novel was released, but it ended up in development hell for at least more than a decade until 2015, when the one and only Kenneth Branagh was announced as its director. It was originally set for an August 2019 release but was then pushed back to May 2020, presumably due to Disney’s efforts to manage the newest additions to their release schedule that came courtesy of their recent purchasing of 20^th Century Fox. But, as you might have guessed… then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced Disney to cancel its theatrical release and instead have it debut on Disney+. And while I’m well-aware of the incredibly notorious reputation that this film has garnered amongst fans of the franchise from an adaptational perspective, I’d say that it still manages to be a decently entertaining fantasy flick.   

Artemis Fowl II (Ferdia Shaw) is a 12-year old genius who lives with his father, Artemis I (Colin Farrell), at their prestigious manor off the coast of Ireland but is emotionally burdened by his father’s frequent trips that he never talks about. But then, on one fateful day, Artemis Sr. suddenly disappears, and thanks to the extensive media coverage of this incident, Artemis is distressed to discover that his dad has been linked to the thefts of some of the most famous artifacts in the world. And if that wasn’t enough, Artemis gets a message from a mysterious figure named Opal Koboi (voiced by an uncredited Hong Chau and physically portrayed by Emily Brockmann, Jessica Rhodes, and Charlie Cameron) who reveals that she has kidnapped his father, who had stolen a powerful artifact from her known as the Aculos. Artemis’ loyal bodyguard Domovoi ‘Dom’ Butler (Nonso Anozie) then proceeds to inform him that his father, like his ancestors before him, has spent several years documenting the existence of magical creatures. And as it turns out, a whole universe of these creatures exists underground in a place known as Haven City. Thus, with only three days to find the Aculos and save his father from Opal, Artemis and Butler enact a plan that sees them capture Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), an elven fairy and member of Haven City’s Lower Elements Police reconnaissance squad (AKA LEPrecon). Holly also happens to be the daughter of Beechwood Short, who is revealed to have been the one who had originally stolen the Aculos for Artemis’ dad despite this resulting in him being deemed a traitor by LEPrecon. Naturally, Holly’s capture attracts the attention of LEPrecon as her superior, Commander Root (Judi Dench), launches a full-scale assault on the Fowl estate to rescue her, completely unaware that this is all part of Artemis’ ingenious scheme to stop the evil being that threatens to destroy both the human world and the magical world.

Right off the bat, the first thing to note about this film is that, in several places, it differs quite a bit from its source material. While the main plot of Artemis kidnapping Holly Short and incurring the wrath of LEPrecon is the same as it was in the book, the set-up behind it isn’t. Instead of being part of his quest to find a powerful magical artifact and rescue his father from Opal Koboi (who, in the books, didn’t appear until the second installment, Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident), the book saw him do this simply to collect a massive reward to recoup his family’s fortune. There was also a key emotional subplot regarding Artemis’ mother, which is absent in the film as it’s established that she died sometime prior. So, in other words, it seems like the biggest difference between the film and the book is that the former makes a considerable effort to tone down Artemis’ ‘criminal mastermind’ persona so that he doesn’t come off as an unlikable villain. And yet, based on what I’ve seen from fans of the franchise, it’s safe to say that Artemis’ traditional characterization was never an issue for them, and as you might have guessed, they aren’t too happy with all these narrative and character-based changes. However, what fascinates me the most about this film is how surprisingly modest it is when it comes to one of the biggest aspects of any potential franchise starter, world-building. While it does set up the world of Haven City and the creatures that inhabit it, it doesn’t spend a lot of time there, instead focusing more on Artemis’ clash with LEPrecon at his family’s mansion. Granted, this does result in a rather unique ‘bottle episode’ of a story that’s often been described by Eoin Colfer as a ‘fantasy version of Die Hard’, but it still would’ve benefitted from a greater focus on the magical world of Haven City. To be fair, though, this is probably another consequence of the film’s major changes, especially since films usually don’t get the same amount of time that books get when it comes to setting up their unique settings and their eclectic casts of characters.

Despite this, however, the film fares a lot better in other aspects of its production, which I primarily attribute to Kenneth Branagh’s traditionally solid direction. While action sequences are still far from being Branagh’s strongest suit as a director, the film does boast some nice production design, especially for the fantastical world of Haven City. And thanks to its breezy 95-minute runtime, its pacing is generally decent throughout even if it does sometimes come at the cost of story and character development. It also sports a solid cast that, even with some big names like Judi Dench and Josh Gad to headline the ensemble, primarily lets newcomers Ferdia Shaw and Lara McDonnell have their time to shine in the lead roles of Artemis and Holly, respectively. And overall, these two do manage to hold their own against their famous co-stars even when taking the changes to their characters into account. Obviously, Artemis is the most radically different compared to his book counterpart, but Ferdia Shaw still manages to do a nice job in maintaining Artemis’ persona of a kid who’s very much wise beyond his years. Again, it may be a far cry from how the character is portrayed in the book, but it works fine enough for this specific take on the story. The same goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short, who arguably fares a bit better than Artemis does when it comes to withstanding the changes to her character since they’re more story-based than character-based. As for their co-stars, Judi Dench is her usual dignified self as a gender-swapped Commander Root (and yes, that’s the second time in a row that she’s played a character like that) while Nonso Anozie, who’s quickly becoming a Branagh regular, continues to showcase his talents as a top-notch supporting player as Butler. But as for the biggest standout of the film, that honor goes to Josh Gad as Mulch Diggums, an ‘oversized dwarf’ and kleptomaniac that LEPrecon brings in to aid in their attack on Fowl Manor. As you might have guessed, he ends up being the film’s best source of comic relief.  

In conclusion, I should probably note that when it comes to the YA-oriented novels that I read when I was growing up, Artemis Fowl wasn’t really a part of that group. Instead, it was headlined by the likes of Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, and of course, Harry Potter. My family did own copies of the first two installments of Artemis Fowl… but I’ll freely admit that I only got a few chapters into the first book before putting it down. For reasons that I simply can’t explain, it just didn’t click with me the same way that something like Harry Potter did even though fantasy is very much one of my favorite genres. As such, I went into this film as a complete newcomer which, given what I’ve learned about all its controversial changes, was probably for the best. While Artemis Fowl does maintain the general plot synopsis of its source material, it isn’t as faithful when it comes to how that plot comes together. But while fans won’t be the least bit happy with how radically different it is when compared to the book, Artemis Fowl manages to be a decent little fantasy flick even if it is rather hindered by being a bit too simple-plotted for a supposed franchise starter. While most have focused on how much it deviates from the source material, I’m more fascinated by how it ends up being surprisingly light on world-building since it doesn’t spend as much time as it could’ve in the underground world of Haven City. Simply put, the first installments of other franchises based on YA novels have done a far better job when it comes to that sort of thing since that’s usually what’s expected from them. Ultimately, though, while it’s far from being a masterpiece, it manages to get by thanks in large part to its solid cast. However, I think it’s safe to say that its fate as a Disney+ release means that we probably won’t be seeing any sequels. To be fair, though, I have the feeling that if this film was released in theaters as originally intended… its poor reception would’ve easily led to it becoming one of the year’s big box-office bombs.

Rating: 3.5/5

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

When it comes to some of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie is undoubtedly one of the most legendary in that field. Over the span of several decades, the late English author was well-known for writing several classic mystery stories, so much so that she currently holds the record as the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies of her work sold. And in her first novel, 1920’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles, readers were introduced to arguably her most famous creation, the Belgian detective known as Hercule Poirot. Poirot went on to appear in 33 of Christie’s novels, her 1930 play Black Coffee, and over 50 of her short stories. But as for the most famous story that he ever appeared in, that honor goes to Christie’s 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express, in which the detective with the well-groomed mustache found himself dealing with, as the title suggests, a murder mystery onboard the titular Orient Express. This particular Christie story has already been adapted to the screen several times over the years, including a star-studded 1974 film adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet and an episode of the long-running British TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. But now Poirot is back on the big-screen once again in a brand new take on this iconic story, with Sir Kenneth Branagh taking on the role of the legendary detective. He also serves as the director of this new film which, like the 1974 adaptation, also features a star-studded cast. And overall, despite some of its shortcomings, this new version of Murder on the Orient Express does manage to be a solid adaptation of its source material.

As the film begins, we are introduced to the man himself, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), the most famous detective in the world. The year is 1933 and despite Poirot’s plans to go on holiday after his most recent case in Jerusalem, he receives a telegram demanding that he return to London to take on a new case. To get there, Poirot’s friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) offers him a compartment on the luxurious Orient Express, which Bouc has just been appointed the director of. Whilst onboard, Poirot is joined by an eclectic group of passengers, including young governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), American socialite Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), and immoral businessman Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). Ratchett ends up approaching Poirot and asks him to be his bodyguard as he fears that he’s in danger. Poirot refuses but, soon enough, Ratchett is found dead in his cabin from several stab wounds. When the Orient Express is forced to make an unscheduled pit stop due to an avalanche, Poirot quickly begins to investigate the cause of Ratchett’s death. Deducing that one of their fellow passengers was responsible for the crime, Poirot works tirelessly in order to figure out which one of them is the murderer. And as he soon finds out, this case ends up having some noticeable connections to a highly public kidnapping/murder case that had occurred a few years back.

Now, just a quick disclaimer; at the time that I’m writing this, I have not read the original Murder on the Orient Express novel. I also haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of this story, which of course includes the last major feature film adaptation from 1974. And from what I’ve read online, comparisons between this film and its various predecessors have been quite common. Thus, given what I just said about my general unfamiliarity with the source material, unfortunately, I can’t really add much to that discussion. What I will say, though, is that Branagh does do a good job in making this film an engaging murder mystery, and because I didn’t really know anything about the plot before seeing it, it allowed me to go into the film without already knowing the final outcome. With that in mind, however, I am aware that some have been rather mixed on the ending, not because it changes anything (from what I’ve read, it seems like Branagh stayed generally faithful to the source material) but more in the case of how Branagh handles it as director. Some have felt that the ending diminishes the impact of the final reveal by way of how Poirot ultimately responds to it. And despite this being my first major experience with this classic murder mystery story, I will admit that I did find that the ending didn’t quite have the impact that it wanted to leave on the audience. Still, at the very least, the build-up to the final reveal is well-handled and the film is well-made on a technical level, benefitting especially from some great cinematography from Branagh regular Haris Zambarloukos that was shot on 65 mm film a la Dunkirk.

As noted earlier, the 1974 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express featured an all-star cast that included the likes of Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery just to name a few. The same applies to this new version as well, with names like Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp… and again, that’s just to name a few. And, of course, Kenneth Branagh not only directs the film but stars in it as well as the one and only Hercule Poirot. Branagh does a great job in the role, excellently conveying both Poirot’s wisdom and eccentric nature, two traits that very much help him when it comes to solving cases. As for the rest of the cast, they’re all great as well but they admittedly don’t have as much to work with compared to Branagh. Now, to be fair, it can be argued that this is just a consequence of being a story in which there are 12 primary suspects. Still, aside from a select few like Gad and Ridley’s characters, most of their roles in the film are basically just limited to one or two major scenes that they share with Poirot, who interrogates them all one at a time. Ultimately, though, if I had to pick the biggest standouts of the supporting cast, that would include Michelle Pfeiffer as the headstrong Mrs. Hubbard, Judi Dench as the pushy Princess Dragomiroff, and Leslie Odom Jr. as the often put-upon Dr. Arbuthnot.

So as I’ve made it clear, this film basically served as my introduction to Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. As such, I can’t really say much about how this version of the story compares to other adaptations of it because simply put, I haven’t seen any of them. With that said, though, I am aware that some have been critical of this adaptation for not really doing anything new with the source material. And, of course, some have also taken issue with the ending, which I’ll admit is an argument that I do sort of agree with in terms of how it kind of lessens the final resolution of the main conflict. Still, for the most part, I found this to be a solidly made mystery thriller. While the plot does maintain a ‘slow burn’ style of pacing throughout, there is never a dull moment in this film. And like many of Branagh’s films (e.g. his remake of Cinderella and the first Thor film), this film does benefit from some solid production value, namely in regards to the cinematography, and an excellent ensemble cast. In short, if you’re like me and you’re not too familiar with the original source material going in, at the very least this film serves as a nice way of introducing newcomers to Christie’s work. And given that the film ends with a nod to another Poirot story, the potential is there for a sequel or two adapting other classic Christie novels. But if you are familiar with this story and the previous adaptations of it, this adaptation may seem a bit more questionable given everything that’s come before it. Overall, though, this film does succeed when it comes to being an entertaining popcorn flick that’s worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 4/5

Dunkirk (2017) review

Ever since his feature-length directorial debut, Following, in 1998, Christopher Nolan has consistently proven himself to be one of the best directors in the business. His second feature film, 2000’s Memento, ended up earning him major critical attention, including an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Ultimately, though, he really made a name for himself in 2005 when he resurrected the Batman film franchise after a nearly decade-long hiatus with Batman Begins. Effectively returning the series to its darker roots, he would then follow that up with a pair of billion-dollar grossers in the form of its two sequels, 2008’s The Dark Knight and 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises. The former of the two not only became a landmark of the superhero film genre but it also ended up being one of the most critically-acclaimed films of its time. And while Nolan has since moved on from the world of superheroes, he’s continued to produce top-quality films that have been defined by his reliance on old-school filmmaking techniques. For one thing, Nolan is a director who has been keen on the perseveration of the practice that is shooting on film, which has become less and less prevalent in the increasingly digital age. As a way of keeping the art of filmmaking alive, Nolan’s 2014 release, Interstellar, saw an early release where it was screened on 70 mm film in IMAX theaters. And he continues this practice again with his latest film, Dunkirk. This World War II epic tells the true story of ‘Operation Dynamo’, a full-blown evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Dunkirk is very much a Christopher Nolan film and, sure enough, it’s a technical marvel that fully warrants a watch on the big-screen, especially if it’s in IMAX and via Nolan’s preferred method of film projection.

In late May of 1940, over 400,000 Allied soldiers find themselves stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Driven there by the German regime during the Invasion of France, the soldiers anxiously await to be evacuated back home across the English Channel before enemy forces can close in on them. However, due to the enemy’s heavy presence in the area, the chances of survival seem to grow less likely with each passing moment. The film mainly focuses around three separate parties, all of whom endure the wide range of incidents that occur during this period. On land, young soldiers Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), Gibson (Aneurin Barnard), and Alex (Harry Styles) frequently attempt to get off the beach on whatever ship they can get on to varying degrees of success. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when the primarily silent Gibson is questioned over his true allegiance. Meanwhile, as the Royal Navy commissions civilian boats to help evacuate the soldiers, one mariner named Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), along with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and assistant George (Barry Keoghan), heads out on his own accord to aid in the evacuation. Along the way, they manage to rescue a soldier (Cillian Murphy) who has just survived a devastating U-boat attack, although this then proceeds to cause some problems for them as they attempt to reach Dunkirk. Finally, in the skies above, Royal Air Force Pilots Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) provide air support for the troops in their Spitfire aircraft.  

Dunkirk primarily focuses around three main storylines that are set on land, at sea, and in the air, respectively. The land storyline takes place over the course of the week that the event occurred. Meanwhile, the sea storyline encompasses a single day of that week while the air storyline only covers a single hour of the entire stretch of time. Nolan, true to form, combines these three storylines together in a non-linear narrative. And while it may be a bit confusing at times when the film jumps between storylines that don’t always share the same timeframe, there’s never really a point where you’re lost completely as to what’s going on. There are instances where the characters from different story lines interact with each other, which helps to showcase how they’re all connected to the larger plot that is the overall evacuation. But at the end of the day, the key to the whole film is that Nolan does succeed in crafting a suspenseful war film without ever going overboard with violent action. Whether it’s thanks to things like Hans Zimmer’s pulse-pounding score or scenes that are set within claustrophobic locales (e.g. a sinking ship that’s being fired upon by the Germans), this film will have you on the edge of your seat throughout. Not only that, but Nolan also manages to achieve this without ever showing a single German soldier. Well, okay, some do appear at the very end, but for the most part, the enemy is primarily unseen. And even though you never see them, their presence is always felt, making the situation even more stressful given that they’re inching closer and closer to the beaches of Dunkirk. Of course, the film also benefits from another thing that you can always expect from a Nolan film, high-level production value. Real ships and fighter planes, some of which were even from the actual event, were used to recreate these intense war situations, and these sequences are filmed excellently by Nolan’s cinematographer on Interstellar, Hoyte van Hoytema. These shots look even better when seen on a giant IMAX screen, especially those that showcase wide landscapes out on the open sea.

The other thing to note about Dunkirk is that it relies more on visual story-telling than plot or dialogue. Thus, you shouldn’t go into this expecting a lot of character development. That’s not to say that the characters are bland and underdeveloped, but at the same time, they’re mostly just a bunch of faces in the larger crowd. Ultimately, though, it was perhaps for the best that this part of the writing was minimal. Because after all, setting up backstories for a select few out of the 400,000 soldiers on the Dunkirk beach probably would’ve bogged the film down considerably. Instead, we just get tiny but effective glimpses at the varying dynamics between the characters who make up each of the three storylines. Still, as is the case with Nolan’s other films, Nolan did manage to assemble a solid ensemble cast made up of both recognizable faces and general newcomers to give reliably good performances. Those that make up the former category, like Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, and Tom Hardy, take on supporting roles in the larger narrative but they’re all solid as usual. Of the film’s main ensemble, newcomer Fionn Whitehead arguably gets the most screen-time, and overall, Whitehead does make a solid first impression as a young soldier who, like his fellow men, is just trying to survive. On that note, I should probably address the elephant in the room that is the casting of One Direction singer Harry Styles in one of the lead roles. Given that Styles is obviously known more for his musical career (this is his first major starring role, after all), some have questioned Nolan’s decision to cast him. However, I thought that he did a solid job in the role that he was given. Granted, this isn’t a film where the performances are meant to be the focus, but Styles does slip naturally into his role as one of the many soldiers stranded on the Dunkirk beaches.

There was a bit of controversy prior to this film’s release for one main reason; its PG-13 rating. Despite Nolan’s insistence that the film was more about the tension than the violent side of war, the announcement that Dunkirk would be rated PG-13 didn’t go over well with some people given that most war films tend to be rated R, thereby highlighting the true horrors of war. However, at the end of the day, Nolan did, in fact, succeed at making a war film that didn’t rely on gruesome violence. Instead, he crafts a story that’s minimalistic in nature but is still full to the brim with tension. This also translates well to the film’s narrative, one that doesn’t stop to focus in on a few main characters in the larger story; instead, it just puts them through the same kind of grim and intense situations that their fellow soldiers are going through. In other words, this is more of an ‘experience’ than it is a ‘story’. But, through it all, that never once takes anything away from the film’s greatest strengths. After all, Nolan truly is one of the best in the business when it comes to a film’s technical aspects. With all this in mind, Dunkirk is an absolute must-see in theaters. And if you can, see it in IMAX in 70 mm. At the risk of sounding like an old goat, this already great-looking film looks even better when projected in its classic format. Nolan’s persistence on keeping this style of filmmaking alive has provided modern audiences with some great cinematic experiences that help prove why big films like this are worth seeing in theaters. And if you ask me, IMAX is quite arguably the best outlet for screening films this way. 

Rating: 4.5/5

Cinderella (2015) Review (300th Post!!)

While Disney’s recent live-action fantasy films have gotten a generally mixed reception from critics, they’ve definitely been much more successful with audiences which if you ask me is what matters the most at the end of the day. I for one have generally liked them. I’ll admit I wasn’t the biggest fan of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ but on the other hand I absolutely loved ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’, to the point where I even listed it as my favorite film of that year. Last year gave us ‘Maleficent’, a retelling of ‘Sleeping Beauty’ from the perspective of its main antagonist. While some may have issues with the fact that the film portrays her more as the protagonist, I did still enjoy it, mainly for Angelina Jolie’s outstanding performance in the role of Maleficent. And now Disney returns with their latest re-imagining, this time revisiting one of the most iconic films in their lineup, ‘Cinderella’. Unlike the previous three major fantasy films, which were a sequel, prequel, and re-telling, respectively, this new ‘Cinderella’, directed by Kenneth Branagh (‘Thor’), instead opts to basically just tell the same story as its animated predecessor. Some may find this to be unnecessary but ultimately this new ‘Cinderella’ does end up being an excellent adaptation of this classic story. That is thanks to not only beautiful production design, classy direction, and a top-notch cast, but also a clear sense of appreciation for the original film while in some ways also updating it for a new generation.

After the death of her mother (Hayley Atwell), young Ella’s (Lily James) father (Ben Chaplin) remarries to Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett), who also has been recently widowed after the death of her husband, who was an old friend of Ella’s father. Unfortunately, not long after this, he dies while on a business trip, leaving Ella in the care of her new stepmother, who ends up revealing her true wicked nature as Ella becomes a horribly mistreated servant to both her stepmother and stepsisters, Anastasia (Holliday Grainger) and Drizella (Sophie McShera), who nickname her ‘Cinderella’ due to the fact that her face was covered in soot one morning after sleeping by the fireplace. One day, while riding in the woods, Ella comes across a nice young man (Richard Madden) named ‘Kit’ who claims to be an apprentice living in the nearby kingdom. In reality, however, he is actually the Prince, who’s being pressured by his dying father (Derek Jacobi) to find a bride, specifically a princess, at an upcoming ball. But because ‘Kit’ is so entranced by Ella, he convinces his father to allow every maiden in the kingdom to attend in the hopes of seeing her again. On the night of the ball, Ella is eager to go but is forbidden by her stepmother to do so because she doesn’t want her to ‘disgrace’ her and her daughters. But with the help of her Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), Ella’s fortunes soon begin to change.

This basically is the same general story as the original ‘Cinderella’, save for a few differences that actually do kind of improve on certain elements of that film. For one thing, Cinderella and the Prince do meet before the ball so it isn’t as ‘rushed’ of a romance as it was in the original film. We see Ella with her original parents more than we did in the original and while we don’t get the full details of it all, we even get a little more insight into Lady Tremaine’s back-story, giving us an idea as to why she acts the way she does towards Cinderella. Ultimately though, this film really benefits from just having an overall positive tone. After all, the film begins with Cinderella’s mother giving her the advice to ‘have courage and be kind’ and let’s be honest folks, in the cynical world that we live in today, that is some genuinely good advice to follow. From a technical standpoint, this film is an absolute visual delight thanks to the terrific production design, from the incredible costume design by Sandy Powell to the visually splendid set design. But at the same time, this film also has quite a lot of heart to it as well due to the aforementioned feel-good atmosphere. Branagh’s solid direction shows nothing but respect to the original film while also doing just enough to make it so that it isn’t just a ‘carbon copy’ of the original, which admittedly hasn’t aged very well in some aspects, namely in regards to the main character.

I mean I think it’s safe to say that Cinderella is a rather controversial member of the Disney Princess lineup. This is mainly due to the fact that in the original film, she is viewed by some people as being a rather passive protagonist who doesn’t really do much until she’s rescued in the end by the Prince. However, at the same time, she should be also given a lot of credit for her inner strength, positive attitude and perhaps most of all her ability to put up with all of the s*** that she’s put through by her Stepmother and Stepsister. This new film in some ways may follow the same route as the original but I don’t think that this Cinderella is passive at all. Her kindness really shines through the toughest of times and at one point she even tells Lady Tremaine that she’ll do whatever she can to ‘protect’ the prince, even if it comes at her expense. This results in, in my opinion, a very strong female heroine who is defined not by her actions but because of her overall character and Lily James does a phenomenal job in conveying Ella’s charm, likability, and most importantly, her inner strength and beauty. Because the relationship between Ella and the Prince is expanded upon here, their chemistry feels very genuine and Richard Madden definitely brings the right amount of, for lack of a better term, charm to the role. And of course, Cate Blanchett absolutely owns the role of Lady Tremaine, who’s definitely one of the greatest Disney villains of all time due to how she manages to gain so much control over Cinderella’s life without any special powers, while Helena Bonham Carter is a definite scene-stealer as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother.

‘Cinderella’ may be one of the most iconic Disney films of all time but at the same time it may not exactly be the most ‘pro-feminist’ story out there. And while the same could be argued about this new version of the story as well in certain areas, I don’t think that it’s as prevalent here as it may have been in the original film. The Cinderella in this is not just some damsel in distress who doesn’t do much. This one is more involved in determining her own fate and even if she may still not be the most proactive female protagonist ever, her likability and sweet persona more than make up for it. All in all, director Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Cinderella’ really stands out amongst Disney’s recent fantasy re-imaginings, even if it’s not doing much different when compared to the original animated film. The production design is worth the ticket price alone but the film also succeeds in terms of its heart, showing much appreciation towards its animated predecessor while also maintaining an overall ‘feel-good’ atmosphere even with all that Cinderella goes through while living with her stepfamily. And really, as someone who’s finding that he’s really starting to favor films like this over ones that are much bleaker in tone, I really believe that this film is a must-see, especially if you’re someone who is looking to cheer themselves up. I guarantee you that this film really will put a genuine smile on your face by the end of it. There’s no better way of saying it; this film is pure cinematic magic (pun totally intended) that is absolutely gorgeous both inside and out.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. This film is paired in its theatrical release with the short film ‘Frozen Fever’, a follow-up to Disney’s hit animated film ‘Frozen’. Because it’s just a short film, I’m not going to go into too much detail about it. However, what I will say is that if you are a fan of ‘Frozen’ (I know I am), then you’re definitely going to love this short as it brings back all of your favorite characters as well as yet another catchy song a la ‘Let it Go’ in the form of ‘Making Today a Perfect Day’.)

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) review

Author Tom Clancy, who sadly passed away in October of last year, has left quite an impact on pop culture. His novels featured tales of military espionage set during or after the Cold War and 17 of his novels have become bestsellers. He has also lent his name to multiple video game franchises, including ‘Splinter Cell’, ‘Rainbow Six’, and ‘Ghost Recon’. Some of his stories have been adapted to film, with most of them focusing on the character of Jack Ryan, a CIA analyst and occasional field operative. This character had previously been portrayed on screen by Alec Baldwin in ‘The Hunt for Red October’, by Harrison Ford in both ‘Patriot Games’ and ‘Clear and Present Danger’, and by Ben Affleck in ‘The Sum of All Fears’. In this new film, which serves as a reboot for the franchise (its second after ‘Sum of All Fears’), Star Trek’s ‘Captain Kirk’, Chris Pine, stars in the role of Ryan and the film is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who as a director landed a very big hit back in 2011 with ‘Thor’. As for this film, it’s not exactly perfect (what more should you expect from a film that came out in the ‘dead month’ of January?) but it is still pretty entertaining mainly thanks to its cast which help this film manage to ultimately overcome its shortcomings.

Compelled to serve his country after 9/11, student Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) joins the Marine Corps but his time as a soldier abruptly comes to an end after he nearly dies when his platoon’s helicopter is shot down. While in rehab, he is recruited into the CIA by agent Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) as an analyst. Ten years later, Jack, while undercover as a broker on Wall Street, discovers a potential terrorist attack that could weaken the market, eliminate the value of the dollar, and lead America into a second Great Depression. After Harper promotes him to the position of operative, Jack heads to Russia to meet with Viktor Cheverin (Kenneth Branagh), a businessman whose directly involved with this plot. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when Jack’s girlfriend Cathy (Keira Knightley) is brought into the situation and he is forced to reveal to her what his ‘real’ job is having kept it secret for years.

Now I’m not too familiar with this franchise as a whole, but from what I can gather, the appeal of the character of Jack Ryan is that he’s an everyman. He’s someone who gets into incredibly dangerous situations even when they are more than he’s used to handling. But at the same time, he’s not like some invincible superhero without any flaws. Overall, I’d say this film succeeds at making the character of Jack relatable to the audience. He is in way over his head and while it may seem like he is able to get out of most situations that come upon him without any major problems, the character still has a very down-to-earth and likable personality. Chris Pine does a very good job in the role. It doesn’t require the ‘cocky’ attitude of a character like James T. Kirk, but Pine still manages to be a charming lead. Kevin Costner (who’s having quite the career resurgence lately after his excellent performance in ‘Man of Steel’) and Keira Knightley also do good jobs as well, although Knightley’s role leans toward ‘damsel in distress’ territory near the end of the film. At the same time, she does get involved in Jack’s work at one point and the two of them have really good chemistry so it’s not like she’s just there to be Jack’s love interest. Finally, in the villain role, Kenneth Branagh also does a good job as well; his character can be both menacing and yet charming at the same time.

However, as a director, Branagh still isn’t used to directing an action move yet. In ‘Thor’, it wasn’t really too much of a big deal when it came to the action sequences, but some were shot in that close-up, quick edit style that some action movies tend to use. The same scenario applies here; most of the action scenes are shot close-up and use fast edits. Like in ‘Thor’, it’s not too much of a problem but at the same time it shows that Branagh needs to improve as an action director. On that note, the film itself also really doesn’t have a ‘definitive’ action sequence. There are a couple of car chases and some one-on-one fight scenes but I can’t really say that any of these scenes really stood out. It’s sort of your basic spy thriller; a good and entertaining one, but pretty basic as far as its execution is concerned. Maybe under a different director, the action scenes could have been better and some of them could have really stood out. In the end though, that wasn’t the case with this film.

I was a little hesitant about this film being pushed back to January because, as we all know, January is not exactly the best month for movies and that was a little worrisome considering the talent involved on this film both behind and in front of the camera. However, in the end, this is one of the better films that have come out during this month. At the same time, though, it makes sense why this was released at this time because overall this film is just good, not great. That’s not to discredit this film by any means. It is a very entertaining spy thriller that benefits from having a solid cast, namely Chris Pine in the lead role. There is potential in this franchise but at the same time, there’s also room for improvement. Branagh is a good director, but as an action director, he still needs to work on just that… action. This film lacks a definitive action sequence, and some of the action sequences are shot in the close-up, quick edit fashion. Still, I can see this becoming a franchise. I would just suggest that the studio try and find a director who is more suited to the action genre.

Rating: 3/5