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

Clunky Metals

What was I expecting anyway? After Shia LaBeouf left, the Transformers franchise has hit self-destruct by continuing in the same timeline/universe as the original trilogy instead of hitting a hard reset. What follow are some of the worst and laziest blockbusters ever made. Age of Extinction is 3 hours full of pointless dialogue, unexciting action and obvious product placements. This new one is the same. Yes, this opinion comes from someone who enjoys Revenge of the Fallen and Gods of Egypt. I have low standards, and if a film can't clear my low standards, you know what that means.

Transformers: The Last Knight is so bad Michael Bay seems like he's just there to cash his paycheck. Gone are the Bayhem thrills and spectacle, it's just filled with nothing. There's a Suicide Squad-wannabe sequence that feels studio-commissioned because, honestly, even Michael Bay wouldn't sign off on that. The story is stupid, except for the King Arthur parts which are pretty cool (note that Michael Bay was once in the running to direct the Clive Owen version and head writer Akiva Goldsman is one of the EPs of the Charlie Hunnam version, it's super possible that they just lift the elements from those films). The grand villain is even stupider. All in all, there's too much human stuff going on, and we go to these movies to see metal hit metal and shockingly, there's not enough robot action within all the explosions going on. I mean, they have a writer's room filled with superstars for this film!

The fact that they are able to make one of the coolest CGI character stupid is another thing entirely. Optimus Prime is super underused here, Bumblebee too, in fact all the robots are underused. And how they are able to get big names to voice these robots is beyond me: I mean, John Goodman! Ken Watanabe! Omar Sy! Mr. Carson from Downton Abbey!! That is not as shocking as Anthony Hopkins starring in this film. The only explanation I can think of is that he wants a more hands-on experience on robots after dealing with the hosts in Westworld. But I like Laura Haddock, and her career might fail after starring in this wreck of a film, I hope not. Also props to Stanley Tucci (as Merlin for no reason). Let's talk about the distracting aspect ratio in this film. The film constantly changes aspect ratio and it's annoying. I'm not even watching this in IMAX so why am I seeing those 10 aspect ratios throughout the film?? Overall, the film is super bland, but it can keep you entertained if you decide everything that's going on in the film is normal. It's bad, but it won't annoy you that much. But I promise, I won't see another Transformers film after this in cinemas. Please report my blog to the police if I decide to see another one. Transformers: The Last Knight: rated 1.5/4.

PS. There's a lot of bad movies this year. Why...
Most of them are franchise films (Pirates, Mummy, Kong Skull Island..), so I hope Hollywood understands that if you think with your wallet, you'll get shit. (Except for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, which you should continue).

Really, Where's Your Sense of Adventure?

"Where's your sense of adventure?"
Tom Cruise's character in The Mummy asks Jake Johnson that question twice, bookending the film. And honestly Universal, where is your sense of adventure? I'm going to keep this short and ugly. If you read my blog, you know my worst film of 2017 is Kong: Skull Island, but this one is a contender for that title. Honestly, Kong is bad because of my expectations, maybe it's not that bad, but I was super disappointed. But The Mummy is really bad. It wasted a great production, a talented cast, and possibly, hopes for a new franchise. Tom Cruise's Nick Morton is a treasure hunter(not sure, if he is, a bad one at it). He found an Egyptian tomb in Iraq with an archaeologist, Jenny and his sidekick, Vail. He was then cursed to be the vessel for Set, Egyptian God of Death and the Mummy who goes by the name of Ahmanet is unleashed to the world.

I didn't have any expectations for this film. I was simply going in for Tom Cruise, whose decision to star in this film is super peculiar and out of character. It's not his typical film and one can only guess how much he's paid to be covered in CGI rats in this film (yes, that's an actual scene). The Mummy's only redeeming value is the production design. Much of it is actual set and that's something to celebrate. But that's it. Story is bad as fuck. Direction by Alex Kurtzman seems non-existent. This film doesn't deserve the actors' dedication. Sofia Boutella is so underused in this film. And any film that wasted Emmy winner Courtney B. Vance is a criminal. At least we know how they got Tom Cruise to star in this film, by offering him extreme stunts, which, to some people, turned this film into a Mission: Impossible-wanna be monster picture. And maybe they pitch him a bumbling idiot character that he never plays I don't know. I usually love Jake Johnson, Nick from New Girl and he screams Nick a lot in this film which is weird, but in this film he's super annoying. And let's take our hats off in mourning for Annabelle Wallis who is receiving the 2017 Taylor Kitsch Bomb Award for starring in this failure and box office failure King Arthur. Oh, another thing the producers done right is actually hiring Tom Cruise because the film is actually making a buttload of money it shouldn't have made.

The film does not know what it wants to be. Either it is a zombie horror film or a horror film or a comedy-adventure film, instead it settles on being the most bland film I've seen in a long time. Some of the scenes comes off as unintentionally funny. But the actual jokes they do in this film is beyond cringy. What these writers should know is that they can't do Marvel-type jokes without affirming the characters' personalities, and the characters in this film shouldn't make jokes. Also, without backstory they shouldn't do Jekyll and Hyde in this film which to a lot of audience who's not familiar with the literature comes off as the ultimate what-the-fuck moment in this film. Even I know about Jekyll and Hyde but it's still weird. Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe should have a better movie to camp it up ala Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes in Clash of the Titans. The biggest crime though, is that for a movie titled The Mummy there's not enough Mummy terror in this film. Instead they decide to bound their titular character in chains to deliver expositions and set up this crap Dark Universe, and with this film, the future for Dark Universe is dark indeed. I hope they just don't continue this doomed universe because they just don't have that sense of adventure. They just have the sense of grabbing cash from the audience without making a compelling film. The Mummy: rated 1/4.

The (Wo)Man Who Can

At long last, the execs of Warner Bros. can breathe now that they have a winner in their DCEU roster. Wonder Woman opened to widespread critical acclaim and box office hit. I myself have seen it twice. Directed by Patty Jenkins and starring Gal Gadot and Chris Pine, Wonder Woman has not only become DCEU's best reviewed film to date but also a movement. Her arrival has marked a barrier being broken for women filmmakers, diverse cast and feminist themes. It is a big burden to bear for one film, but it delivered. The film is a standalone film for Diana Prince, as we see her grow eventually into Wonder Woman. She is exposed to the exteriors of Themiscyra after she rescued Steve Trevor. She then journeys to the modern world of 1918 into the great war as she discovers her own powers and abilities.

Wonder Woman is an unusually bright DC film but to a good one at it. It's not as bright as Marvel offerings but not as bleak as past DCEU films. Gal Gadot takes charge and a great lead for the film. Usually she's only a supporting cast, even a minor one like in Date Night or Knight and Day. She's amazing as Diana Prince, excelling at the nuances of the character and also at fighting sequences. Chris Pine is also great and has a great chemistry with Gal Gadot. It has been a long time since we've seen a compelling romance in a superhero film. The last I remember is Captain America: The First Avenger, strangely both films are set at war times. As for the Amazonians, the island is filled with great women. My favorite is Claire--I mean, Robin Wright, who's super cool in this film as Antiope. Not to be outdone, Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta is also great. The full credit here goes to Patty Jenkins who has assembled this fine film. Her thing for slow-mo in the fight sequences are different than Zack Snyder's, sometimes it's a bit too much but it's still cool. Honestly, I don't think there is going to be a better scene this year to top the No Man's Land scene.

I also like the fact that Rupert Gregson-Williams does the score for this film. He contributed for the melodic parts of the film, wisely blasting Hans Zimmer's theme only three times in this film. Other unconfident composers would abuse that amazing theme to the point of hilarity. Unfortunately, the film is also without flaws. Firstly, some of the CGI is not finessed well. In some scenes it's pretty obvious and that takes us away from the film. Then we have the problem of all DC superheroes: they're too strong, they're like gods, which needs an equally god-like villain. And the antagonist here is pretty over-the-top, even at one part it reminds me of the King Arthur: Legend of the Sword's third act (which is the worst part in the entertaining film). But to counter that, Wonder Woman almost neutralizes it with a surprising amount of heart. The third act works as it tests Wonder Woman's ideals, it is a test that Superman failed in Man of Steel. And it's weird when you think that. In summation, Wonder Woman is great fun, and you can look pass the flaws once you see the action sequences, and of course, the flawless aesthetics of Gal Gadot in any scene. Wonder Woman: rated 3.5/4.