Nolan's Gravity

Dunkirk is Christopher Nolan's passion project. Same like Gravity is Alfonso Cuaron's passion project. Both are outstanding technical achievements. Both are short in their runtime. So basically Nolan just made a film worthy to envy Gravity's achievements, which is a weird compliment because Alfonso Cuaron and Christopher Nolan are two different directors. But yes, both are different films. Dunkirk, based on a true story unfamiliar to people outside the UK (or the Commonwealth at least), stars newcomers Fionn Whitehead & Harry Styles, backed up by greats Tommy-fucking-Shelby Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy.

The film plot is the evacuation of 400,000 soldiers from the city of Dunkerque in France, after the Allies + Brits gets pushed back by Germans. The story is told from three settings, land, air and sea. This story device/structure makes the film unique than other war films or other films in general. And it's very Nolan-y with his signature unconventional timeline. The film is technically superior. The sound design is over-the-top in a good way that it's perfect. I saw it in IMAX last week and it's amazing. The score by Hans Zimmer is very Zimmer-y but this film don't actually need a musical motif and Zimmer delivered a music that plays like a main cast member in the film. It is intense and you should blast the song when you're doing a project the night before deadline.

The actors in the film don't have much to do, because the film, like Gravity, is not an actor's film. But more than Gravity, the actors have more to do. Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy are unquestionable greats and Tom Hardy spends most of the film acting with his left eye only. Damn. But the real test in this film is Harry Styles, which is like the equivalent of when you hear Rosie Huntington-Whiteley got cast in Fury Road. Like Rosie Huntington, Harry Styles did a good performance in this film. He even gets more lines than the Fionn Whitehead, who's in the poster. My only criticism in this film is sometimes the editing takes you out of the film. It could be Nolan's fault too and not only the editor. There are at least three moments that could have better editing. Two of them need more scenes to stitch the existing scenes and the other needs to be deleted. It's a small thing but it could annoy you. It's a tricky film to edit anyway with its complicated structure. But the film is still great. Just like Nolan claimed, the film needs to be experienced in the biggest theatre available with the loudest sound system available. And for that I wholeheartedly agree. Dunkirk: 3.5/4.


PS. Like Inception, Christopher Nolan can be unimaginative to preserve the realism (it's dreamscapes!). Go to the amazing tracking shot in Atonement to see Joe Wright's stellar depiction of the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Peter Parker's Day On

Look at that stupid title for my post. If you missed the reference, it's obviously Ferris Bueller's Day Off, this is actually similar to some of the unsubtle references in Spider-Man: Homecoming to John Hughes' era films. But the film is typical Marvel-entertainment, but mixed with actual entertainment. Confusing? Example, Doctor Strange is typical Marvel entertainment: It's pretty good but you feel like you've seen something similar within the MCU films. Homecoming is directed by Cop Car helmer Jon Watts (weird choice on paper) and starring Tom Holland and RDJ, but still produced and distributed by Sony instead of Disney. This is the best studio teamwork that makes you wonder why don't they just do this for all Marvel properties.

Fresh off the events in Civil War, Peter Parker goes back to New York, waiting to be called to action again by The Avengers. But honestly, who would endanger a high school kid by recruiting him to fight bedazzled intergalactic gods? So Peter Parker is left fighting his own battles, mostly high school "battles" and helping people solve petty crimes. Until he stumbled on Adrian Toomes who is scavenging alien material from superhero battles.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is basically Spider-Man 2. Uncle Ben is now Tony Stark and Doc Ock is Vulture. It's a subtle 'with great power comes great responsibility' premise that is true to the Spider-Man lore. The film is also filled with a great energy, led by Tom Holland. It has a good Marvel villain in recent memory but I still can't help to think that Michael Keaton is paid a lot of money to be in a superhero film unrelated to his Caped Crusader films. He delivers a great performance though. There is this one sequence which just stands out in the film between him and Tom Holland. Also the other supporting cast is super great, especially if you watch a lot of series, from Donald Glover of Atlanta or Community (or just Donald Glover because you should know him by now) to Bokeem Woodbine of Fargo to Nacho of Better Call Saul (sadly underused here though) to Mendoza of Orange is the New Black; seriously, the list goes on. But yes, there are some underused great actors here: Hannibal Burress, Abraham Attah from Beasts of No Nation, and Donald Glover to name a few.

The film has a cool action sequence, seen in the trailers in Washington monument. It's definitely helped by Michael Giacchino's standout score. Seriously, the chills you get from his updated take on the Spider-Man theme is amazing. What I like the most from the whole film is that you don't see Iron Man that much in the film. From the trailers, it seemed like we're going to have a buddy Spider-Man/Iron Man film and even though that would be cool, it would suck for a Spider-Man film. The only thing I dislike the most is how they treated Zendaya's character. She absolutely adds nothing to the story. And honestly, why can't we just get Tobey Maguire to do an old retired Spider-Man called back to action? (Okay this is unpopular opinion). Nevertheless, it's a good "home-coming" for Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's certainly better than what we would expect from a second reboot in 5 years. Spider-Man: Homecoming: rated 3.5/4