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

Lawless

1 pipe out of 4

Great acting cannot save this bland and drawn out plot. Even with the stand out performance of Guy Peirce and steadfast acting of Tom Hardy could not save this movie from being unrelatable and ordinary. The movie follows the Bondurant brothers who are bootleggers in Franklin County, Virginia. The county is subsequently taken over by a corrupt district attorney who hires a ruthless mercenary (Guy Peirce) to bring all the Bootleggers under his thumb. Naturally the Bondurant brothers refuse and a “war” if you can even call it that begins between the two parties. There are continual teasers throughout the film of a confrontation between the two but is constantly differed to later. There are minor scrimmages that defiantly warrant the R rating that the film received but nothing like were indicated with the advertising. It appears that they tried to pull in the action movie viewers only to try and give them a drama action film that has questionable acting other than Pierce and Hardy. Shia Labouf is supposed to play the relatable character that is searching for equality and respect from his older brothers but fails miserably in that regard. He constantly is making stupid decisions and never owning up to the consequences. When he and his brothers gain wealth by becoming rum runners into Chicago he goes around flaunting his wealth with new cars, new clothes and new cameras trying to impress the daughter of an Amish preacher (Mia Wasikowska). This is just typical Labouf in his pretentious, overeager jerk that he is reprising from almost all of his films. There is the small highlight of Dane DeHaan who plays the crippled boy who the Bondurant have basically adopted and is the maker of the moonshine. He is delightfully upbeat and innocent which is refreshing from all the dark and dreary characters that litter this film.

The Dark Knight Rises

2½ pipes out of 4 

All good things must come to an end and so it has with Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy. In the final installment The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan manages to send the audience off with a style by tricking the audience into believing they know most of the plot through the trailers, only to find themselves glued to the edge of their seats with surprise cameos, plot twists and unexpected character development.  Throughout the Dark Knight trilogy, Nolan has done a masterful job of leaving little tidbits of comic lore for the diehard Batman fan but also holds enough intrigue for those who do not follow the comics. The Dark Knight Rises eloquently raps up the Batman story of Nolan’s trilogy with only a few mistakes. Nolan’s 2008 Dark Knight can easily be considered the greatest comic book movie of all time and brought legitimacy to the comic book movie industry. To follow up the Dark Knight with something as good or even better would be nothing short of a miracle and that is why Nolan doesn’t even try. He keeps the legitimacy of the Dark Knight trilogy but changes from telling the gritty story with masterful acting to throwing in curveballs that the audience doesn’t see coming. He also diverts everyone’s attention from the fact that Bane is no Joker with an intriguing back story with the League of Shadows from Batman Begins. Surprisingly Anne Hathaway manages to perform well as a troubled Catwoman debating her own morality. One of the most interesting aspects of the Dark Knight Rises is that it not necessary for the audience to view its predecessors in order to enjoy the film. There are a few aspects that undercut the plot causing for criticism, one being that in order to hold the plot together Nolan throws in too many characters without enough time to develop them properly. The two or three characters that Nolan chooses to develop he does well but leaves a number of others undeveloped. There were logistical issues that were swept under the rug with the audience expected to forget about but tend to be big enough to notice with ease. None of these issues damage the movie enough to make it not entertaining and well worth the price of admission.