Dunkirk

I'll be the first one to admit that Dunkirk is a beautiful film and is masterfully shot but I can't say that I liked it. Christopher Nolan has a knack for playing with people's minds and he and Dunkirk is no exception. He begins the film with three different locations at three different time periods ranging from 1 week two three hours from the evacuation complete evacuation of Dunkirk. It is really interesting to watch how he combines the three different timelines to end the film at the exact point in each timeline. While interesting it is very confusing and took more than 20 minutes to understand that there he was using different timelines to tell the stories of the people who were on the beach, flying planes, and The Little Ships coming to the rescue. The performances are astounding throughout the film with the likes of Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance, even getting an acceptable performance out of One Direction singer Harry Styles. If you did not have the background of the film and even with it the film drags on and on trying to instill the idea of hopelessness felt by the soldiers but it is difficult to comprehend when the only German combatants that the audience sees are airplanes. There are also a number of dramatic scenes that appear to be instilled in the film to get an emotional response when they are completely unnecessary. One would think that the from the great mind of Christopher Nolan that he could come up with a better emotional gut punch then to easily debunked character deaths that have not had the proper character development for the audience to really care. Another disappointing aspect of the film is its portrayal of the French throughout the evacuation of Dunkirk. There are only two brief moments when it is acknowledged that the British did not care and actively resented the French while those same soldiers defended the rear lines and made it possible for the British to evacuate. And with a throwaway line at the end of the film by the Admiral commanding the beaches it is acknowledged that the British shoes original plan of abandoning the French is not right. It is simply acknowledged as a fact of war and only the strong survive. The ending of the film is also a disappointment as there is a masterful shot of Tom Hardy's pilot character performing a heroic gesture which would be the perfect ending only for Nolan to cut back to the soldier we have been following sitting on a train four five seconds with no more dialogue and a fade to black. The film was described to me as more of a documentary and I wholeheartedly agree except for the portrayal of survival is most important and not the lives of all. C+ rating

Spider-man: Homecoming

We all must leave home in order to discover ourselves but sometimes I'll return home is just what the doctor ordered. This is exactly what Spider-Man has done returning to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Spider-Man was one of the best parts of Captain America Civil War and his character is built on in magnificent ways throughout homecoming. His witty charm, his lovable ignorance, and his comic book nerd like innocence is a breath of fresh air to the Marvel franchises. The one and only downside to the film is Tony Stark's inclusion, which to be fair was much less than anticipated. This film reiterates the problem with Tony Stark's Iron Man in all Marvel movies. In all films before Civil War he has been the Maverick or The Lovable Rebel to The Avengers but ever since Civil War Marvel have been trying to shoehorn him into the Now Noble hero. Instead of making him completely Noble they try to flirt with the line of keeping him Rogue like but also authoritarian. This comes off terribly when he scolds Peter Parker for going off and doing things on his own and blaming him for when things go wrong on plans he does not tell Peter about. Luckily Spider-Man is able to carry most the film on his own with his comedic dialogue and his new guy in the chair John something or other. Refreshingly his love interest is neither Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane and can be given a fresh take on prepubescent crushes. There an awesome Easter egg to his other love interests near the end of the film leaving it open for Marvel to either take a big leap from the comics or walk it back in the next film. This film critic cannot wait for the next film with Spider-Man and that is coming from someone who has become disillusioned with the idea of Marvel's Universe. A- rating

Transformers: The Last Knight

With last being in the title this should be the last one but it obviously won't. These films really should have ended after the train wreck of a third and they have only gone down from there. After age of extinction one would think it couldn't get much worse but when it comes to Michael Bay, he has to constantly one up himself, even in horrendousness. Unfortunately, no audience has the guts to stand up to Mr. Bay and say we won't take your nonsensical garbage anymore but that does not appear to be coming close. It may be starting to happen in the US but the rest of the world appears to be willing to continue to throw money at him. There is no comprehensible plot since Cybertron was destroyed in the previous film but now has returned be again a focal point. Bay continues to push the boundaries of objectifying pedophilia with an even younger actress, Isabela Moner, entering the franchise for no discernable reason other than to replace Mark Wahlberg's daughter who was either too expensive or too old to bring back. Bay also tries to poke fun at the previous criticisms of his transformer films with numerous jokes about racial appropriation. He also tries to do a tone of call backs to the other films that are utterly out of place and absurdly​ convenient. Now to attempt to explain the film. Cade (Mark Wahlberg) is running between Chicago and North Dakota like it is they are just down the street from each other. There is honestly a battle sequence where case is our heroes are supposedly​ running through an abandoned town in North Dakota and suddenly​ they are running up skyscrapers that look suspiciously like Chicago and then are suddenly in the wasteland again. It is shockingly reminiscent of Bay's teleportation powers from revenge of the fallen jumping the heroes from Washington DC to the Nevada vehicle bone yard by smashing down a door. This film basically shows the world how little he thinks of his audience that we can't follow basic geography. Anyway, Cade is somehow chosen as the last knight which has no effect on the film other than to constantly put him in the right place at the right time with literally no training or skill that is ever needed. Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) is corrupted by his maker, Quintessa (Gemma Chan). The world has completely turned on all transformers, Autobot and Decepticon alike. This is a convenient way to bring back Josh Duhamel’s character who is actively killing Autobots to try and be the moral center of the government which has no morality. He is also there to be the guy to tell the humans to automatically switch sides and join the Autobots to save a world that is already being destroyed. Michael Bay continues to think we are all stupid in thinking the audience will ignore when you crash another planet into earth, billions, not millions, billions of people die. The world can't​ go back to having logical government with such loss of life. Bay simply glosses over this, like he has in all previous iterations and teases even more horror with a 6th film. It is just utter and complete garbage and if I could give it lower than an F I would but sadly there is no lower a grade

F

Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman is wonder-full. It has been said before me but it must be said as much as possible. Wonder Woman truly is a magnificent feminist film, from on screen to behind the camera. Patty Jenkins has been fighting to make this movie for the last 12 years and she was the absolute best choice for the job. She takes the character of Diana Prince back to her feminist roots and pushes back the decades of Diana slowly being delegated to eye candy. Throughout the film the traditional roles of women being ogled and the men being strong are flipped on their head where it is the male bodies that are emphasized and admired while Diana shows more strength than any of her male counterparts. There is literally a scene where Diana stares and admired Chris Pine's naked body in a hilarious reversal of Hollywood norms. She is also given tremendous agency throughout the film by her constantly choosing her own actions and forcing men to react to her, not the other way around. I will be the first to admit my fault in judging Gal Gadot's performance before seeing her in the film. While she still doesn't especially fit the Amazonian body type, she acts her butt off to make up for any issues, bypassing any hate and showing off her awesomeness and decisiveness. If this film is the model for what DC will be doing in the future then the future is bright. If this is an anomaly it is a bright one but will have to have all other films held up to it with what could have been. The biggest plot issue with the film is the emphasis on world war 1 because wonder woman claims to want to protect the world and help mankind know the power of Love but then there is absolutely no mention of anything after 1920. This was done to avoid comparisons to Captain America but it still doesn’t make sense. World War II was much more barbaric than World War I and we have to assume she did nothing. Ten there are the countless wars between then and now, from Vietnam, Nigerian Civil War, the Chechen wars and many others. At least Captain America had the excuse of being frozen in a glacier, what's her excuse? Other than that glaring hole, the film is fantastic and we absolutely need a sequel to be focused on more than any other planned DC movie.

A-

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

If dead men tell no tales, then this movie is dead on arrival. In an attempt to revitalize his career and the series, Johnny Depp returns as Jack Sparrow except with none of the charm he has been steadily losing since the original. Disney seems to have forgotten why Sparrow was a fun and interesting character. Originally it was because he was a lovable rogue who could get himself out of terrible situations in what looked like ridiculous but lucky ways. Instead, Disney thinks it's because he is a drunk, looks funny, has a blaze fair attitude and cares about no one but himself. It is an utter cluster bomb of a movie that simply makes things up as it goes to explain what is going on. In Dead Men Tell No Tales the audience is introduced to Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), a Spanish sea captain who is bent on revenge for the curse he now suffers from who he blames on Sparrow. We are also introduced to a new power that Jack's all-seeing compass apparently has that has not been brought up in any of the four previous films and has changed hands countless times between characters. Just more nonsensical exposition to explain away the plot holes. We are also introduced to Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan's son Henry (Brenton Thwaites), who is miraculously now 21 years old with no one other than him showing the passage of that much time. Because this is a Disney movie and we need everyone important to have a love interest we are also given Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario) who is also looking for Poseidon’s trident to break all cursed at sea. Henry desires the trident to free his father from his curse, Carina wants it because it was her father's life's work, and Jack needs it to rid himself of the undead Salazar. Which brings me to question, since when did Davey Jones's duty, which became Will Turner's, become a curse. It is referenced numerous times as a curse when he is actually performing a duty. It also granted him life, as he was killed at the end of At World's End. So, if it is a curse and has been lifted then he should die and not just be able to return to land. If your sensing a theme here of BS non-explanations then you now know the essence that is Pirates 5. Unfortunately, it will make a ton of money and that will motivate Disney to keep making more as a sequel is set up in the end credits scene. Which again is a scene that makes no sense. This is a series that entangles too many good actors into terrible roles for it to keep going. Stop thinking of it as a pay check and have some principles! None of you are scraping the barrel for roles! Just a down right terrible movie that makes very little sense a d makes you hate the jack Sparrow when he should be the easiest character to like.

D-

Baywatch

Dwayne said it himself on SNL, he truly is ‘Franchise Viagra’. While many have panned Baywatch as a terrible movie and dismal first weekend numbers, one has to think what would have happened had Johnson not been in the movie. Now that would be a true bomb. It will easily make its money back and even go into the black with its world-wide release. And the flaws, which are apparent, are solely based on writing and directing problems. Everything Dwayne Johnson touches in the film is gold with the one exception being a nonsensical expositional run Mitch takes at the beginning of the film. Zack Efron on the other hand is very hot and cold, only hitting his stride when he unexplainably changes from the preppy entitled millennial that he is accustomed to playing into the genuine sidekick he needs to be. In the beginning the writers seem to want to push both Johnson and Efron on the same level and it isn't until the middle of the film that they realize how much of a mistake that was. No one is on Johnson's level. They then delegate him to side kick where he belongs and the film finally takes off. There are amazing bodies and crude humor throughout to keep you interested but only when everyone realizes their role can you really sink into the Baywatch world. Once there, it's a one-way trip back to the nineties with bouncing bodies, lifeguards performing too much police work and local corruption. You can just smell the nostalgia. CJ Parker is delegated to a more minor role than in the show due to the lesser acting chops of Kelly Rohrbach. those chops are picked up by Alexandra Daddario as Summer Quinn who is only hampered by her forced relationship to Efron. She continues to benefit from her association with Johnson and is starting to come into her own with superb comedic timing, dramatis and amazing good looks. Get a new director and the sequel can't come soon enough. 

B-

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

If there there was a film that was built around its soundtrack, King Arthur would be it. And what a soundtrack it is. Guy Richie's use of the music to advance the story is absolutely magical. While many feel that montages have become a lazy filmmakers best friend, in the hands of a truly masterful filmmaker they can be beautiful. The opening montage of King Arthur which advances the film from the young 6 year old life of Arthur to his more mature 21 year old self is truly amazing. It is the best musical montage that I have ever seen. Daniel Pemberton, the musical director earned his paycheck in spades. The film itself is also a wonderfully new take on the King Arthur legend. Gone is the Arthur of old who always knew the right thing to do and is almost holier than thou. Gone is the simple symbolism of Excalibur as the sign of the king. In comes actual usage of magic and Excalibur actually aiding Arthur in battle. At first glance in the film it appears that the story will be simply an origins story where we learn the backstory of Arthur only leading to his ultimate ascension at the end of the film. Richie turns this on its head when Arthur withdraws the sword and his journey truly begins. With witty banter and sometimes over use of the cutting room, Richie keeps us involved with likes of a truly villainous Jude Law as King Vortigern, who is willing to do anything, and the movie emphasizes anything, to gain and then retain power. Eric Bana gives us an as usual excellent performance, calling back to Troy, as Urther Pendragon, Arthur's father who constantly is coming back to haunt him. Unfortunately Djimon Hounsou's magnificent acting chops are delegated third string minor character Sir Bedivere. While his is excellent in the film, it is just disappointing he can not get better, more prominent roles. The faults of the film are evident and they are more quirks of the filmmaker than problems with the film. Guy Richie is a very interesting director who loves to have current naration as the character explains what his happening in the future. The audience is then subjected to many cuts between current and future time as what is being described is also transpiring. This occurs in every Richie film so you know its going to happen here when you buy the ticket. He is also a filmaker that loves to spend time in the cutting room especially during action scenes. Richie attempts to overcome the possible flaws in his actors to make look superhuman when all the cutting can lead to confusion as to what is actually happening. Other than the issues one must accept by going to a Guy Richie Film, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a refreshing and welcome new take on the King Arthur legend that unfortunatly will be viewed as a failure and not be rewarded for its ingenuity. Easily 4 stars out of 5, well worth the watch for the Soundtrack alone.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

The reputation of Marvel is living up to it's name. While Guardians 2 by no means is a bad film, it is definitely not the masterpiece it is being heralded as. The fun is still there bit some of the novelty has definitely worn off. The continued relationship beneath the surface between Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana) is a bright spot, as is Baby Groot (Vin Diesel). The main problem with the film and is Rocket Raccoon or more specifically Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon. In the first film he played only a supporting character at best, a bit of comic relief. Now he is thrust into the for front, being the catalyst for most of issues between the team. Gone is his funny quips, instead replaced with a greatest hits from the previous film. Yondu (Michael Rooker) is the surprising MVP of the film as Yondu, showing us the hard back story of Peter and himself, bringing some welcome dramatic chops. Nebula (Karen Gillan) comes in a close second, again bringing the drama solidifying herself as hard character and emphasizing the change that has occurred in Gamora. It does get difficult to stomach however when the they she tries to drag dramatic emotions out of Zoe Saldana who has gone most of her career either avoiding them or doing them terribly.  Kurt Russell plays the planet personified Ego, and the name is definitely indicative of his personality. While the film tries to again remain it's own entity within the MCU, it is evident there are overt pushes to connect it so that the Guardians can be brought into the fold for Infinity War. And there in lies the problem with new Marvel films, they can no longer just be food films, they have to constantly connect to each other. Guardians manages it well but at times annoys with it's attempts to be subtle in it's connections. All in all the film is well done, not as good as the first but what sequel is? 3 stars out of 5

The Circle

The future is coming and the future is transparency. Whether we like it or not, technology is connecting our lives more and more with few people caring as it improves convenience. The audience can look at The Circle in one of two ways, the first being that the lesson taught is the technology is good but is being used and twisted in the wrong hands. Given a noble Shepard, the technology will send us into a new age. The second view, which is the one I prescribe to, is that our society is moving too fast towards convenience and ignoring the big issues that are being trounced in our haste. The scariest thing about the circle is that we are on Pace to have everything that happens be possible in our lifetime. People are more interested in the technology than what they may be giving up to get it. The Circle follows Emma Watson as she gets her dream job at the big progressive social media company called The Circle.

The circle takes a lot of its cues from Google from college like campus, to the open idea of how and when to work. If you substitute the name Google in for The Circle you would barely even notice. Switch out Tom Hanks as the lovable boss who cares with Mark Zuckerberg and you wouldn't miss a beat. The one aspect that was delightfully unexpected was seeing Bill Paxton play Watson's disabled father. It reminds me of how much he was an amazing supporting character. The one downside to his character and the film in general is I do not know if Paxton and Glen Hadley, Watson's mother, are designed to be the old fuddy duddies who are against progress or if they are supposed to be the characters the audience can get behind with the over sharing. Watson walks a tight rope and often sways from side to side when it comes to which side of the debate she is on. At times she is all in at the circle and wants push its agenda even further and then there are times when she acts as though those who are fully enmeshed with the product are some sort of cult.

This all culminates in the dramatic event of the first that the audience is made to believe will finally push her over the edge against the circle and then suddenly she does a 180 and is back on board with simply the message that those at the top are to blame. Given that the film doesn't seem to know what kind of message is trying to send to its audience, whether we need to disconnect or connect completely, the film gets 1 out of 4 stars. It is still an interesting mirror held to society and where we are probably headed.

Free Fire

I'm picking a side, and that side is justice. While Free Fire has accumulated mixed reviews to say the least, those who are against it have called it a bore. To those reviewers, I ask them what movie where they watching? For Free Fire is anything but boring and it is an affront to justice to think so. I can only guess that they were surprised by the different take on the Mexican stand off from today's big movie hits. Ben Wheatley does not have a constant barrage of bullets being fired with high action explosions or the big hail fire finally. It is much subtler and character based. Now these characters don't get much development as people but they are funny, crazy people to begin with. One of the great character actors of our time, Sharlto Copley leads the group with a quasi-Austrian accent that you can't really pin down where he is from. He is a shift gun dealer always looking out for himself and trying to push what he can get away with. Arnie Hammer play a refreshing comical intermediary/bodyguard who thinks everyone should relax more because he's high. Cillian Murphy plays an IRA gun procurer with a no nonsense attitude but manages to bring a bunch with him. Brie Larson rounds out the top four with an interesting performance as an intermediary who brought the two groups together. There are sarcastic quips galore and that might be where many of the other critics got bored but as sarcasm is a part of life for me I adored it. Whenever you begin to get bored with petty bickering a fresh fire fight breaks out or a new monkey wrench is thrown into the mix. The whole ordeal is the right amount of high tension and breaks in the action to give the audience the ability to fully comprehend what is happening. And it is no small feat for the director to make the audience actually care about the wellbeing of any of these characters as they are all despicable criminals only trying to get what's best for them. As the tension rises and the audience becomes more invested in the characters each one gets their just deserts. And that is true justice. 2 1/2 stars out of 4.

Fate of the Furious

Good bye Rock, hello Dwayne Johnson. The man has finally arrived. No longer can it be said that the days of true movie stardom are behind us because Johnson has somehow tapped into the reservoirs of old and burst on the scene as the next big thing. While you might be asking, but he already is a movie star and he already was the highest paid actor in Hollywood for 2016, you would be right. My answer to you is less, he did all those things, but not until Fate of the Furious has he shown his true potential of elevating every scene he is in to good, borderline great movie making. And that is an increasingly more difficult task to do with the ridiculous excess of the Fast and the Furious franchise. The single sequence that is cringeworthy that has been discussed ad nauseam is the interaction between Johnson and Jason Statham discussing their pasts, threatening each other and then laughing and accepting one another. This is the dilemma that the Fast series keeps running into of terrible dialogue and over the top action sequences. If you remove Johnson from the film it is an absolute dumpster fire of trash but with him he elevates it to the third best in the series. The sheer ridiculousness of the film is getting more and more difficult to accept and based on the US box office take, it appears that people may finally be wising up to it. Since Furious 4 they simply have been trying to one up the last movie and they finally may have one upped to far for even the most diehard fans. Don't get me wrong, the film will make over a billion dollars and there will be a ninth, but maybe now the critics and fans are wising up to what they are actually watching. Cars and explosions. By the standard of movie definition, the critics should hate this franchise just like they hate everything that Michael Bay comes up, with which they should. Somehow Vin Diesel has been bullet proof when it comes to his precious car universe. Hopefully we are finally seeing some chinks in the armor.

Fate of the Furious has the Gang fighting against themselves when Cipher (Charlize Theron) randomly shows up at the beginning of the film and shows Dom (Vin Diesel) some information that will motivate him to completely betray his entire 'family' that they have spent the last 6 films (Tokyo Drift excluded) building towards you never turn your back on family. The main question I have at this point is what the heck kind of skills does this team of car racers have that no one else in the world have? They keep getting pulled into these amazing, world ending scenarios and all they can do is drive cars really fast. When did Tej Parker (Ludicrous) become this ultimate hacker able to defeat the world’s most dangerous hacker? The only member of the team that actually has their talents introduced and explained is Ramesy (Nathalie Emmanuel) and that’s only because she created the 'God's Eye' program and was introduced in the last film. Everyone else just picks up these amazing talents whenever the plot needs them to. And the plot needs them to pull things out of thin air a lot. Since when could thousands of cars be hacked and then driven and inserted with autopilots, creating a drone car army? Or be able to do anything with a nuclear football without all the codes from the different people that MOVIES THEMSELVES have taught us they need? Or anyone be able to hack into a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE and drive it remotely? Or completely remove the nuclear fallout from detonated nuclear missiles by simply removing an electronic chip? That uranium doesn't just go away. And all of this is made actually entertaining by the charm and charisma or Dwayne Johnson. Whenever he is not on screen or in the background, the film is laughable and boring. The main lesson here is that Johnson was right to beef with Diesel over screen time because he absolutely save this film from being a clunker. 2 ½ pipes out of 4.