Wonder Woman (2017) Top 100

When I was a kid my favourite superhero was Wonder Woman. I remember being teased about this on the playground as we played super heroes because boys weren't supposed to like girl superheroes and I was made fun of for not picking a male hero to emulate. But I wanted to be the boy Amazon and fly my own invisible jet. I loved her connections to Greek mythology which eventually spawned a deep interest in the study of those myths. I think I was also drawn to how she stood out when so many other comic book characters just seemed like variations on the same theme. Fortunately I was confident enough to continue my love of the Amazon Princess despite taking a lot of bruises over it.


Fast forward a few years when my family had their first VCR. I discovered the 1974 Wonder Woman movie starring Cathy Lee Crosby was going to be rerun in the middle of the night. I was a huge fan of Christopher Reeve's Superman The Movie (still one of my favorite movies) and so far the only Wonder Woman movie ever made was this one. I wanted to see it no matter how bad it was. I  set the VCR to record it eager to finally see a Wonder Woman movie even if it was very old and featured what I knew then was a very "different" take on the character. Unfortunately I set the time to record as p.m. instead of a.m. so when I woke the next morning I discovered it hadn't recorded. I waited for another re-airing but it never came. I worried I had missed my chance to see it... ever. I also worried that in an era when female lead action movies were just not a thing, there would never be another Wonder Woman movie. Superman, Batman, Spider-man movies would come and go and still no Wonder Woman movie. The Marvel Cinematic Universe arrives and they only make movies about white men heroes. Sure there was the Wonder Woman TV series which I have always enjoyed but a TV series isn't the same thing.

Finally all of this is changing. The movie I have been waiting for since I was 8 is finally arriving in theatres and I couldn't be more ready. And to top it all off I have downloaded the original 1974 film featuring Cathy Lee Crosby to watch in advance of seeing Patty Jenkins' more traditional take. I am sure the 74 version will be terrible but the child inside me that missed that opportunity so many years ago doesn't care. He's ready to finally watch Wonder Woman the movie. And then watch the new Wonder Woman movie. It is a little like coming home, giving that younger version of me a real treat. Especially that I now live in a world where men, women, and anyone else can watch a movie about a female hero and enjoy it, idolize her, and watch the story I have imagined many times.

Only a few days left til I see the movie I've been waiting a lifetime for...

And it was everything I'd hoped it would be.

My favorite Wonder Woman stories in the comics are when she is presented as the antithesis to war, when her struggle involves wrestling with the ways humans deal poorly with conflict. So I was thrilled that not only is Wonder Woman an origin story, finally bringing the world of Themyscira (Paradise Island) and Diana's journey to "man's world" to bold vivid life, but that the story centred on that classic Wonder Woman tale. Director Jenkins and story writer Heinberg has crafted a movie that feels not only classic in its approach, echoing the best of superhero origin stories (like Donner's Superman the Movie) but radical in its feminist approach to story telling. Diana's journey is classically a hero's quest, where she struggles with her flaws and overcomes that to succeed in her mission. But it also centres the story in a way that is different from the traditional masculine heroes and their epics.

First off, Wonder Woman works straight up as an action adventure blockbuster. It's constantly engaging with exquisitely executed set pieces spaced between naturalistic exposition and character development scenes. It would be hard not to enjoy this film. I've seen it twice so far and both audiences I saw it with were alive with excitement during and after the film. But it is how Wonder Woman goes beyond that to create something special, in the way certain Hollywood tentpolls create that sense of silver screen magic that reminds you you aren't just seeing the latest in a string of forgettable movies, but something extraordinary.

Much of this comes through the themes the film is exploring while entertaining us. As I mentioned early on, the anti-war message is fascinating. It wrestles with the tension between a warrior being and "end to war." The choice to set the film during the "war to end all wars," a war the world thought could not be topped in its horror (and were horribly wrong) is brilliant. The idea that mankind is imperfect and not deserving and yet choosing to save it anyway, choosing to stand in the way of war. The film, like the best Wonder Woman stories, forces Diana and us to look at our complicity in that fighting. "We are all to blame. I am to blame." Steve Trevor says. We have to accept that blame as well.

There is a popular myth in western culture, especially popular in the U.S.A., that there is a nobility to war, that soldiers died saving freedom. Many need to cling to this to be able to sleep with the fact that their nation in its imperialistic agenda is complicit in the deaths not only of innocents but of human beings in general. The idea that there are "bad guys" that need to be stopped is an essential part of this rationalization. Wonder Woman looks that directly in the face and makes us question it. She questions it and we do. It is something that rarely happens in summer blockbusters.

Then there is the way the film overtly and subtly critiques gender assumptions. The film, like many Wonder Woman stories before, constantly reminds us of her beauty, a feature which is supposed to render her inert to a certain effect, yet shows us she is so much in addition to that. In her fish out of water act, Diana is oblivious to the expectations around her and her reaction to the absurdity of it highlights that absurdity. Again position this in the pre-women-voter era makes this even more powerful. There is no pretense of women's equality as there is today. She is the foil to that and the film's humour makes this part of the story even more delicious.

There is also a subtle critique of colonialism. While it's not perfect it is clearly there. From the multiracial amazons whose society doesn't stratify based on colour, to the whiteness of the war mongers on both sides, to the fact that Diana's allies in her campaign are all marginalized individuals (with the exception of the "above average" Steve Trevor), the film is sending us messages about power and privilege. "I am the wrong colour" she is told at one point. Another character points out that despite Trevor being held up as an example of a "good man" it is his people who have taken everything from her Blackfoot colleague. There are also subtle references (perhaps they could have been a bit more explicit) to the sexuality of the Amazons. Diana isn't not ignorant of sexual pleasure and there is even a joke about men not being essential for sex. Clearly the film is referencing queerness. It is little touches like this that took the movie from being more than just an exciting "superhero" movie and into something that meant even more to me.

I also want to mention how strong the performances are of the leads. Gal Gadot has shined in this role in BvS but here she truly comes into her own as an actor, embodying the Diana I have read about my whole life. Also especially strong is Chris Pine playing one of the most nuanced and well drawn Steve Trevors I have seen. He shows his talent for balancing pathos and humour perfectly. Robin Wright and Connie Neilson also bring the pitch perfect level of tragedy to the tale. I also especially enjoyed Said Taghmaoui and Lucy Davis.

All my life I have imagined what a live action Wonder Woman film could be. I no longer have to imagine. Patty Jenkins has made that film and it is real. And I love it.

P.S.
It turns out despite it being a big cheesefest, Cathy Lee Crosby's Wonder Woman film was enjoyable in spite of everything. I think my young self would have loved it, although certainly Linda Carter's eventual TV take was far superior. 

Wonder Woman
Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Connie Neilson, David Thewlis, Danny Huston, Elena Anaya, Said Taghmaoui, Eugene Brave Rock, Ewen Bremner, Lucy Davis
Director: Patty Jenkins
Writer: Alan Heinberg

Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Film after film, Disney proves that the tale of Jack Sparrow really should have only ever been a one film trip. Johnny Depp's shtick gets more and more tired. Pirate hi-jinks become less and less fun. The magic that was there for the first film, which took us all by surprise and remains a light, fun, and entertaining adventure, has been sapped by endless repeating themes, trotting out the same tropes and jokes, and a lack of any real chemistry between the audience and the characters.

Johnny Depp and his most famous character have pretty much become caricatures of themselves. It just really isn't fun to watch him do this any more. Thank God he only says "savvy" once (that I noticed) as some of the other films have it as every second word and it makes you want to throw your drink at the screen if he says it one more time. There are film series where seeing characters return, characters we have a connection to, can be a joyful thing. But this series suffers from trying to strangle out a legacy when there isn't enough there to sustain it. Without spoiling the end, the film creates some real closure for the series' longest running characters but the question remains, do we care? It's hard to work up any emotion over the folks in this series.

And the new characters fare even less well. Speaking of a lack of chemistry, new youngsters Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario are as vanilla and soulless as possible. Javiar Bardem's villain suffers from not only bad CGI but a lack of any the kind of good one liners any scenary chewing villain needs to really earn his keep.

To be fair Dead Men Tell No Tales really isn't that bad. It has a passable (if entirely uninteresting) story and it's plotted well enough. There really isn't anything technically wrong with the film. The big question is will anyone care? Does anyone walk around invested in the adventures of Will Turner's long lost son or wish for more of Johnny Depp's drunken ramblings? It just doesn't feel like any of this is relevant any longer.

There is no life is Dead Men and with the very fitting ending for all the the characters, perhaps this is truly the best place to leave a series that no one, other than the bankers, really cares about sailing off into the sunset.

Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales
Starring: Johnny Depp, Javiar Bardem, Geoffrey Rush, Kaya Scodelario, Brenton Thwaites
Directors: Joachim Ronning, Espen Sandberg
Writer: Jeff Nathanson

War Machine (2017)

Based on the non-fiction book by Michael Hastings about the US's role in the Afghanistan war, War Machine attempts to be Catch 22 or even Dr. Stranglove but never quite finds the right groove. The film struggles with finding the balance between the story's ties to real life and its attempt at satire. This can be done but it's a fine line to walk and War Machine stumbles in its attempt.

War Machine is an exploration of the business end of war. There is a general sense of ignorance of how wars are fought, organized, structured in the general population and perhaps even in the military as well. The book this is based on and this adaptation gets into the nitygritty of the back room workings of running a war. There is an essential element in a democracy which engages in war in having the public understand how the process of decision making works. But the truth of this is often so unpalatable that the general preference in the population is to remain ignorant. So media which attempts to explore this needs to counter this with a clever engaging entertainment. To make us want to care.

War Machine does this through trying absurd humour. But in the way it connects to the historical accuracy it often feels like it is compromising its satirical and humourour approach. And therefore that approach never comes to fruition. The film just isn't as engaging as it needs to be to make its audience get its point.

Brad Pitt goes headfirst into his "character" seemingly unaware that the film he is in is holding back. His character feels out of place. His performance would have felt more at home in Dr. Strangelove, as do some of the other performances. This inconsistency between performances and tone of the film takes us out of the movie a few times.

War Machine isn't a failure. It delivers its message if you stick with it. But whether it is compelling enough to keep you with it is the problem. There are moments where you can see the potential of this story and what the film could have been. Writer/Director David Michod made a film I loved a couple of years ago called The Rover. I know he had this in him but it just didn't come through completely here.

War Machine
Starring: Brad Pitt, Ben Kingsley, Topher Grace, Tilda Swinton, Scoot McNairy, Meg Tilly
Writer/Director: David Michod

Song to Song (2017)

It feels like writer/director Terrence Malick is beginning to repeat himself. There isn't much to differentiate Song to Song from his last film Knight of Cups. The latter was pseudo set in the mind of a film maker, this one a musician (or musicians) but in both cases that aspect of the character is so relegated to the sidelines that you would be forgiven if you forgot it entirely.

Song to Song's main failing is not its genericness. There is somewhat of a richness to his slice of life approach, his everyman kind of stories. As usual he has filmed something strikingly beautiful, setting his introspective subjects in beautiful environments, here mostly unique modern character homes, to fret over their own insecurities. The main failing is his lack of connection to the characters.

Here he follows the relationship of musicians Ryan Gosling and Rooney Mara as they meet, fall in love, fall out of love or at least loose sight of it, and reconnect after experiments with others which don't work out. Not only does he fail to connect either of them to their music (they both appear so detached from any music they are playing, singing, or listening to) but he fails to connect them to each other. Their chemistry never feels honest or real. I never believed they loved each other. I reflected on this. Were we supposed to see them as doomed in their lack of relationship? I never felt the film was making that point either. It truly felt like he was just not able to get his film's central conceit realized.

There is a subplot about the Machiavellian Michael Fassbender and his corruption of the two romantics. Fassbender is the most realized character, actually getting to be a complicated and destructive figure. Around him the rest of the film feels cliched and a bit hopeless. Especially Natalie Portman's inexplicably wedged in character who offers absolutely nothing to the progression of the story. At least the waster Cate Blanchett actually has an impact on Gosling's arc. Portman's journey feels wasted, even at the point of its most impactful, Fassbender just moves on.

I appreciate Malick's freeform approach and when he has a fascinating story to tell (like in The New World) it can work to create something spectacular. But he needs to find that story to make me care about all the beautiful musings of fashionably dressed subjects standing morosely next to infinity pools.

Song to Song
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett
Writer/Director: Terrence Malick

Twin Peaks (1990)/Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me (1992) REVISIT

There is a moment in episode 2 of the TV series Twin Peaks which is a bit of a litmus test for me. It's the infamous dream sequence moment with the backwards talking and the dancing man from another place. Some people watch this and its "weirdness" confuses them, turning them off this journey. Others come across it and it excites something in them that means they need to watch more. For those in the latter category I know we are kindred souls. For those in the former, I know we won't connect as completely.

The moment actually originates from the "European version" of the pilot episode. For contractual and financial reasons David Lynch followed up his television pilot by making an additional 20 minutes or so (much of it this dream sequence), added it to the end of the pilot episode to close out the story, and released it as a "movie" in the U.K. It creates closure (as much as any Lynch movie offers closure) and wraps up the story (well sort of) and is legendary for being the result of an accident on the set. The whole idea for BOB allegedly comes from stage hand Frank Silva being caught in shot in a mirror and the rest is history. This ending is much maligned despite being the inspiration for all that people obsess over when it comes to Twin Peaks. It truly is the burning heart of this mystery and the most satisfying aspect of the story.

And even if the ending and its disconnectedness is too much for you, the rest of the film works so well as that pilot is truly one of my favorite "movies"  to ever be filmed. The haunting opening shot of Josie's face in the mirror (speaking to so much about what is to come although we don't know that yet), the finding of Laura's body and the incredible reactions to the news of her death, the arrival of Cooper (one of the best characters to be in any movie or TV series), and the creation of space... of place... of a world that is familiar yet out of reach. It is a gorgeous and terrifying thing to watch and I revisit it often.

The other movie in this canon is Fire Walk With Me, also much maligned, famously booed at Cannes. At the time I first saw it, it confounded me, it terrified me, it confused me, and it left me broken and battered a bit. I understand why people reject it outright for that, but I never could. There was so much richness to it, so much that changed how I understood films, that I also returned to it many times. Now it is in seeing these two "films" together that I understand a more complete vision here.

When watched together these two pieces (an opening and a closing... but which is which) create a mobius strip of a story which has within it questions/answers, problems/conclusions, pain/redemption. One leads to the next. Honestly you can start at almost any point, one story leads into the next, creating an endless loop of possibilities and view points. You can experience them with or without the TV series which inspired them.

For me Twin Peaks has always been about the evil lying just under the surface of Americana, the absurdity of it all and the horror of it. Specifically it's about male violence towards women and the pervasiveness of that evil. Much of Lynch's work explores this (Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive) but Twin Peaks is the magnum opus. It is a hero's journey, the hero debatably being Laura who is the one to truly triumph over the evil (which is why she has to die).

Laura is a fascinating character, often misinterpreted as the "bad girl" but perhaps more honestly the "everyman" trapped in dystopian America who overcomes it. There are those who try to "save" her, Donna, James, certainly Cooper, who face their own demons in that quest. But it always comes back to Laura, a victim who becomes so much more than what we think of when we think of a victim.

One of the things people struggle with in this story are its confounding aspects, the way time is played with, the way answers aren't complete, where logic is upended. There is debate about whether the evil is supernatural or symbolic. I originally weighed in on that debate but over time gave up on it. The beauty for me in Twin Peaks is the way it exposes the lack of need for their to be one truth over another. Is BOB the "evil that men do" or a an possessing spirit corrupting innocence? I don't think either are the answer. There is incredible truth in the tension between those ideas.

I think one should ask the question what does it all mean but the problem is in the kind of answer you expect. If you want Hercule Poirot to step in and walk you through the scenes to explain the who dunnit you've missed the point and joy of this sort of story. If you are willing to wrestle with the fact that there are going to be numerous interpretations of each moment, multiple understandings of events, and choices in how you want to understand aspects of this story today which you may choose differently tomorrow, then you've uncovered the wonder that is Twin Peaks.

I was a cinemaphile from the time I first was taken by my parents to the movies but my access to big "F" film was limited to what I could get on my VCR and TV or what I could sneak into at the local mall cinema. I was a child before Twin Peaks and I was an adult after. It brought to my TV film themes which I hadn't experienced yet and opened doors for me that have contributed to who I am as a film lover.

There are few movies which have offered me as rich and satisfying an experience as these two films. Lynch has described his 2017 return to Twin Peaks as an 18 hour movie and I imagine it will be, and I certainly hope it will be, like nothing I would expect it to be.

Twin Peaks/Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me
Starring: Kyle McLachlan, Sheryl Lee
Director: David Lynch
Writers: David Lynch, Mark Frost, Robert Engles

Alien Covenant (2017)

I couldn't help but feel disjointed while watching Alien Covenant. The film manages to be two things at once, and I enjoyed both those things, but I'm not sure I felt the two things were integrated well enough into a whole that worked cohesively. The film is both 2001 inspired existential exploration (along the lines of its predecessor Prometheus) and straight up monster movie.   While I enjoyed both of the tracks it was on, they never quite come together and I felt that perhaps both lost something in the effort to do both simultaneously.

First, the monster movie. For those who were upset that Prometheus wasn't more gory Alien Covenant delivers. The film takes a bit to get there but once the monsters come, they come and it's bloody. While this is all well and good for me monsters are the scariest when we don't see them that well, when the shadows conceal the horrors just enough that our imaginations fill in the gaps far worse than anything we can actually see. Alien Covenant goes the other direction. They just show us the monsters and show them attacking. It even gets a bit cliche (there is a shower sex scene that is interrupted by an attacking monster which felt like it was right out of a B-movie). The film gives good scare but feels a bit generic. "You wanted monsters, you get monsters" seems the be the approach.

Compare that to the atmospheric original Alien which gave us just enough of the alien to be scared and disgusted but left us terrifyingly blind to its approach. Sometimes CGI can take away from the fear. Most of the time when they showed us the emerging aliens they looked like special effects which naturally takes you out of the film. This doesn't mean the action scenes were tense. There are some great moments here. But they are somewhat problematic.

Then there is the continuation of the themes began in Prometheus, the questions of who are we and why are we? This is what I am most interested in. Where Prometheus left us with questions, Covenant feels like its trying to provide answers. Sometimes this feels quite heavy handed. Perhaps I am more interested in the questions than the answers. It almost felt like a check list was being worked through as Fassbender's characters were making sure the audience understood everything. I know that for many films that don't spell out what's going on can be frustrating but there are some of us who like to have room to speculate, ruminate, and wonder. Covenant tells us a lot about the nature of these beasts we have been running from since the 70s. I will admit some of those answers are pretty cool. There is a revelation near the end which surprised me and excited me. Scott's ideas about creation are interesting and are a great jumping off point for further reflection.

For the real triumph here is Michael Fassbender. I enjoy him in almost anything but the work he's doing here as two different characters and the way he brings them and the whole movie's ruminations to life is remarkable to watch. This is certainly another notch on his belt. 

The movie has a great ending. It's not the kind of ending which has audiences cheering or emotional. it's more of a kick you in the gut ending. It also makes me very eager to see what happens next. There is still a way to go to get us to the place where Ripley and her crew stumble across the field of eggs and I'm very curious to see it get there, even if this part of the journey was a bit bumpy.

Alien Covenant
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterson, Billy Brudup, Danny McBride, Damian Bichir, Carmen Ejogo
Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: John Logan, Dante Harper

Prometheus (2012) REVISIT

Often certain narratives about films begin within the movie going public which just prevail. Most people don't see that many films and so we just assume certain films are good, bad, or indifferent based on the common mood. The generally accepted narrative around the Alien prequel Prometheus (although certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes for all that is good for) is that it's "disappointing." I have never understood that. Certainly Alien is one of the best movies of all time so perhaps it is "disappointing" that this film doesn't enter the upper echelon of film making majesty. Or perhaps those who dig the hyper-masculine vibe the sequel Aliens brought to the series resent the thoughtful, reflective vibe that this film embraces. There are two main critiques I have heard; (1) characters make dumb choices, and (2) not enough aliens. I guess if the first one is your problem you'll never be happy in any movie cause that happens all the time and I don't find the bad choices characters make in Prometheus to be any more egregious than the ones they do in any other movie. If it's the second, you should just go watch another movie.

Because Prometheus is not about aliens chasing people. It is an old school morality tale, perhaps tragic hero arc. The quest to find your maker is cradled in a "careful what you wish for" narrative. It is quite fascinating actually to reflect on the nature of how we understand creation (either religiously, non-religiously, or some other way) and the consequences of that. I've watched Prometheus a number of times since its release and find it always offers me something fascinating to reflect on.

Most interesting is David. The idea of a creation observing his creators search for their creators is brilliant and endlessly captivating. Fassbender's portrayal is amazing as he is building on the legacy of Ian Holm and Lance Henniksen's portrayals of androids from earlier films in the series while playing a part which is entirely different. Yes the humans flail and bring about their own ends through their character flaws. David plays a complex and not completely clear role. I know it's frustrating the the film doesn't hold your hand and explain his every move. We need to reflect on his actions and the answers don't always come easy. That's part of what makes this film so watchable for me.

While I enjoy all the Alien films (yes even Resurrection) for what they are, they are all very different films with different agendas, for me Prometheus is the most in the spirit of the first film. They are like a mosaic, all parts of the same story but from different points of view with different results. This isn't The Lord of the Rings with a chapter one, two, three all the vision of one creative team. Like Alien, Prometheus explores a fascination and horror with birth, sexuality, and biology in a way that is extremely uncomfortable. Prometheus adds in areas of faith into this (as birth is tied to the nature of creation) in a compelling way. I think for many who wanted horror along the lines of being chased by a monster, the idea of horror at the nature of who we are and why was "disappointing" but for those of us more curious about the existential questions Prometheus became for more satisfying.

The film isn't perfect and I find some of it's imperfections complicated. For example, one of my favorite scenes has to do with Shaw's cesarean. It is horrifying and I can watch it over and over. But the film's story doesn't quite earn it, it doesn't get us to the point where we need to it for this scene to feel completely organic. And then she recovers too quickly. This pulls me from the film each time. Yet I am torn because I love the sequence.  I feel this way about a number of the narrative choices of the film.

However the film is filled with great characters (none of whom get enough screen time except Shaw and David) and it has enough monster movie mojo for me dished up along side all the existential angst. The ending leaves me wanting more, which is a good thing.

I hear we may not get the more we were anticipating (Shaw encountering the engineers) but will get something more in line with more Alien. I'm okay with that too. Scott has brought me back to the themes and ideas he started in 1979 and its a journey I am excited to continue.

Prometheus
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guys Pearce, Logan Marshall Green, Rafe Spall
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof

Snatched (2017)

I could watch Goldie Hawn in anything... which is good news for Snatched. The film isn't much but the combo of Hawn and Amy Schumer makes it more than just bearable, but generally enjoyable, despite a problematic plot and jokes which push the limits of whether they are really funny or not, Hawn and Schumer save what really isn't that good of a movie.

The film is likely best watched on a Netflix and chill night when there aren't more interesting choices and perhaps you're looking for something to have on while you do another task. It's inconsistent, moving between funny bits and not so funny bits. As I said the plot has its challenges and has "dumb American" written all over it.  But taken on the basest level it will make you laugh. It may be forgettable, and there are times it made me shake my head, but despite myself I found myself laughing.

Schumer still needs to find her cinema groove. Trainwreck had its issues too. One day she'll have a vehicle which truly showcases her potential. Until then we have this little misguided but somewhat funny pairing of two very funny comedians.

Snatched
Starring: Amy Schumer, Goldie Hawn, Ike Barinholtz, Joan Cusack, Wanda Sykes, Christopher Meloni, Randall Park, Tom Bateman
Director: Jonathan Levine
Writers: Katie Dippold, Amy Schumer

Bon Cop Bad Cop 2 (2017)

Bon Cop Bad Cop wasn't a great movie. It was formulaic and a bit corny.  But what made it so much fun to watch was the spirit of it, the way it skewered Canadian identity politics in a clever and lighthearted way. So the idea of a sequel sounds like fun but I guess the execution of that just didn't pan out.

The plot remains formulaic and the jokes remain corny. The film makers once again are copying a cheap American buddy cop formula wedged into a Canadian context. But this time most of that self-referential and self-depreciating humour is missing, instead focusing our attention more on the predictable story and a hammy family based story which never feels authentic. Basically what made the first film charming is gone from 2.

The creation of Canadian identity mythology is still there. The plot hinges importantly on the differences that separate Canadians from Americans (and therefore unite disparate Canucks) but it's so in your face it's hard to take seriously. And the jokes just aren't that funny. I found the characters were laughing at their own jokes more than the audience was.

And, as in the first, the film makers' idea of Canadian identity is relegated to the Ontario/Quebec two solitudes, leaving the rest of the country out in the cold. Ah well, there is still time for the trilogy to end with these two cops going on a road trip up north picking up a new agent who is neither white nor male nor from central Canada. Come on guys, end this series well.

Bon Cop Bad Cop 2
Starring: Patrick Huard, Colm Feore
Director: Alain Desrocher
Writer: Patrick Huard

King Arthur Legend of the Sword (2017)

The title of this film is a bit confusing as it turns out Guy Ritchie didn't make a movie about King Arthur after all. He took a couple of names from the legends, reworked them into completely new, almost unrecognizable characters, and made a fairly generic period action film which has little to nothing to do with the legends his movie is named after.

It's not really "reinvention" to just take names from a story and make up a whole new story. The plot of King Arthur Legend of the Sword incorporates so little of anything recognizably Arthurian, that I don't know why they even bothered to tie this movie to the name. Ritchie takes a great deal of artistic license and tells his own story. He took a lot of artistic license with his take on Sherlock Holmes too but at least he kept it recognizably about Conan Doyle's character. Here he gives up completely on any of that and just acts like he's trying to make a Lord of the Rings movie. And not a very good one sadly...

Perhaps I could have forgiven going to see a King Arthur movie and not seeing a movie about King Arthur if the movie had at least been fun, entertaining, interesting, or even just not boring. Legend of the Sword is one of the most generically boring summer tent poles I have sat through in a while. It's filled with cliches, Charlie Hunnam's ham acting, and stolen plot points from a million other movies.

Ritchie at least puts his stamp on this film. You recognize it immediately as a Ritchie film from his frenetic pacing style to his hypermasculine esthetics. While I felt most of that worked to breathe new life into this Holmes movies, here it just feels like a less nerdy Peter Jackson film. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

When it comes down to it, Legend of the Sword is boring and forgettable. It's generic and unintentionally campy. And most of all it adds nothing to the retelling of the legend of King Arthur. Stories have a life through the generations as we each add something new to the narrative. The richness of this is how the story evolves over time. This honestly felt like it added nothing new and that is the biggest disappointment of all.

King Arthur Legend of the Sword
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aiden Gillen, Eric Bana, and Tom Wu
Writer/Director: Guy Ritchie

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Marvel Studios has a problem with follow through. If we're being honest we would have to admit that with the exception of the Captain America series, the Marvel sequels have all been inferior to their predecessors. Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor the Dark World, Avengers Age of Ultron.  Add Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 to that list.

The first Guardians of the Galaxy took us by surprise with a mix of great humour, a fun story, great characters with good chemistry, and some badly needed originality. Unfortunately it isn't far into this sequel that we start to see that very little of that is here. The film is no where near as funny as the first. The jokes fall into a far more predictable pattern, as does the paint by numbers story which is as predictable as they come. It's like we're watching someone do a bad job of copying the first film.

My biggest disappointment in the film is the characters. What made the first one work so well was the mix of personalities and here it just felt that the mix was off. There were perhaps too many characters meaning that most didn't have enough time. Gamora is the most ripped off as she is juggling two plot lines that have little to nothing to do with her. There is the forced romance plot line which has absolutely no chemestry. Yes I get that Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana are both gorgeous but other than that the film gives us no reason to believe they have any spark of romance what so ever. And then there is the story arc of her sister, Nebula who is a far more interesting character and gets far more good stuff to do. But even Baby Groot is given far less screen time than he deserves (but I do give points for the only post credit scene of the 5 in this film which I enjoyed, the teenage Groot scene). The film keeps getting forced back into its boring daddy issues plot which takes away from any of the fun the film could be having. It takes away from any real character develeopment that could be going on.

Let's be honest, that plot itself is a big weakness of the film. It's not just that it is so boiler plate. It is how the film just hits the main beats of it. Peter's journey doesn't eel organic or realistic. SPOILERS He finds his dad, he gets sentimental about it (even with a cheesy game of catch moment), discovers his dad is evil, has his realization about what family really means, and turns on his father on a dime, overcoming the god like power in an unreasonably ridiculous manner. END OF SPOILERS A silly movie still needs a good plot and this one just doesn't have it. The first one did. This one does not.

Vol. 2 is one of those films where pretty much all the funny bits are in the trailer. For a film series which made it mark by being funny, this one is startlingly less funny. The audience I was with chuckled a bit but there weren't hearty guffaws. And there is a truly yucky vibe about Drax verbally abusing Mantis throughout which just leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.

I loved the film's message about what the true nature of a family is. But after watching this creative team and cast knock it out of the park the first time, seeing them fumble it here was disconcerting. Don't get me wrong. The movie isn't bad. It's fine. But it's got enough flaws to make it not great. Good is even stretching it. It appears, once again, like the first time is the charm when it comes to Marvel films and it's down hill from there.

Perhaps Ragnarok will change that.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Karen Gillian, Pom Klementieff, Michael Rooker, Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell
Writer/Director: James Gunn

Maudie (2017)

First Maudie is an opportunity for a tour de force performance from Sally Hawkins. Director Aisling Walsh focuses her camera on two things, her lead actor doing a knock it out of the park performance which highlights the strength of a woman many may not see as strong, and two on the beauty of eastern Canada and all the magic that entails. By doing both she creates something truly watchable, captivating.

This story of Canadian painter Maud Lewis doesnot focus on her disability or her rise to fame. Instead it focuses on her struggles with a community that doesn't see value in her. Hawkins and Walsh spend their efforts on showing the woman's strengths and remarkable resiliency. Her detractors are always forced to confront their own betrayal of her and her journey is one of joy and success in spite of what she encounters.

My only problem with the film is the way it romanticizes what is presented as a borderline abusive relationship. I get that it's showing both her resiliency and defiance as well as the journey of her husband inspired by her, but his love for her is often ugly and I felt the film softened the effects of that for the sake of the ending. The film gives her justice in her other abusive relationships but here she shows the forgiveness of a deity. Yes Ethan Hawke is remarkable in this role, in one of his rare chances to not just play Ethan Hawke like he usually does. But his character is cruel and we are asked almost too easily to forgive him. Perhaps this is because she does, the real Maud Lewis. And perhaps that is good enough for us her audience.

Walsh lovingly and artfully exploits her setting (Newfoundland standing in for Nova Scotia - heresy?) creating that kind of love of the area that those who live there experience. Maud captures that beauty in her work and the film does too in its own way. Maudie is a lovely little thing of beauty.

Maudie
Starring: Sally Hawkins, Ethan Hawke, Kari Matchett
Director: Aisling Walsh
Writer: Sherry White

Their Finest (2017)

Director Lone Sherfig first grabbed my attention with the remarkably charming film An Education. Like that film, Their Finest is far more entertaining that one would assume based on the premise. She has a way of telling a story which captures what is truly magical about her characters' experiences. This story of a woman's ventures into propaganda film making could have been rather paint by numbers but Sherfig finds something original about it and gets us wrapped up in her story.

It is one thing to make a war movie. People do that all this time and we've seen it all before. Their Finest does something else. It is a story about how war affects people, the way it ripples through a culture, a nation. It is about how people respond in such a time. It is about the different ways people contribute. Sherfig captures the fear and strength of being surrounded by war and choosing to do something about it.

Their Finest is also strong in portraying the ways women were (are) marginalized and the normalization of that marginalization. In overt and subtle ways the characters refer to the sexism they live in like a fish in water. It is pervasive and Sherfig's heroine faces it and stares it down. She doesn't defeat it naturally but she takes it on well enough.

I also enjoyed the way the film gives its lead a real love life. It isn't a typical romance but feels a lot more honest. It also doesn't end up the way you expect but that is all good too.  Sherfig has crafted something lovely here and she follows her own drummer. She and her drummer and worth following.

Their Finest
Starring: Gemma Arterton, Sam Clafin, Jack Huston, Bill Nighy, Richard E. Grant
Director: Lone Sherfig
Writer: Gaby Ciappe