Lady Macbeth (2017)

Lady Macbeth isn't an easy watch. It's not the kind of film that makes you feel good. It is stunningly uncomfortable as we don't get to feel good about anyone or anything we see. However in that discomfort there is a hypnotic energy which makes it hard to look away.

Lady Macbeth is being sold as a rebellious romance. Nothing could be farther from the reality of this story. It is a study in depravity, how isolation, abuse, neglect, and violence spawn further isolation, abuse, neglect, and violence. It is a tragedy about a woman who destroys herself in reaction to her world attempting to destroy her.

And at the centre of this is the remarkable Florance Pugh. Her approach to Katherine is complex and exciting. She could have easily just played "crazy" but she doesn't. Despite the film's rather stingy running time, you feel her descent through her fears, joys, complications. She is a product of the world around her and the film shows us both her victimization and her cruelty. And Pugh shows it all in incredible relief. This is the stuff that breakthroughs are made of.

She's not alone. Also strong are Cosmo Jarvis and Naomi Ackie playing opposite Pugh. The film is an exercise in restraint as director William Oldroyd keeps his story telling to the bare minimum (perhaps, due to the nature of this story, that's for the best) and his cast does to. They do good work letting their faces tell the story, keeping much of it just under the surface. Oldroyd builds tension by just letting us see moments, with most of the horror just underneath what we see.

Lady Macbeth is upsetting and captivating and its star is definitely the latter. It is a great film for when you want to be pushed to understand how things can go bad. The film makes no excuses but takes no prisoners. We can't hate anyone, just feel raw wondering how anyone would react in that set of circumstances.

Lady Macbeth
Starring: Florence Pugh, Cosmo Jarvis, Naomi Ackie, Christopher Fairbank, Paul Hilton
Director: William Oldroyd
Writer: Alice Birch

Atomic Blonde (2017)

About half way through  the stylish and kinetic Atomic Blonde, I began to believe the film was going in a fascinating direction which could have made it as intellectually fascinating as it was visually. But the film reverses course in the last moments with a disappointingly predictable denouement which makes the film feel like striking eye candy with only about as much substance as a sugar rush.

Generally Atomic Blonde is delightful over the top action fun with a neon twist of 80s nostalgia. It's all sexy and violent, with a surprisingly straight forward story that gives us just enough to carry us from one set piece to the next. Charlize Theron is charismatic and magnetic in the lead and we can't take our eyes of this (often literally) broken hero as she fights her way through the end of the cold war.

But as the film goes on it becomes clear there is little beneath the surface of this story, that it feels like a (rather well) warmed over spy story which we've seen hundreds of times before. The film feels more insterested with its shockingly lit sets and deliciously choreographed fight sequences that it does in investing weight to its plot. It feels more interested in highlighting the surface bruises on its heroine more than developing who she is underneath. There is an insidiousness to the male gaze the film employs in its coverage of its female subject. We get to look at superspy Lorraine but never see who she is. This could have been employed in an interesting way if it was presented as her obfuscating our view of her, but that never rings true. Instead the camera just feels lascivious and leering.

And this speaks to my main disappointment of the film which takes a bit of spoiling of the plot to discuss so stop reading here if you don't want spoilers.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, about half way through I began seeing signs that the story may be taking us in a direction that was not what I expected. That the film was inverting the roles of hero and villain and asking us as the audience who always feel compelled to side with the protagonist of the film, to question why and how and what is the nature of right and wrong, especially in global politics or the world of espionage. There is something about the nature of the "spy genre" which allows us to accept people acting horribly (murder and other cruel acts) because they are "saving democracy" or even "saving civilization" itself. I thought Atomic Blonde taking us to a place where we'd have to question that by making Lorraine the "villain" of her own story, or inversely a hero who defies our western governments and makes us question who are the good guys.

And Atomic Blonde plays this little cat and mouse game with the audience right up to the end where a scene which feels fairly tacked on, shows us it's just a long con game. She's played the Brits on behalf of the Americans and she saves western civilization. Oh good, we can sigh our sense of relief that all is right with out understanding of right and wrong. But the film's failure to be more interesting than a standard spy film tied with the clumsy and sort of obvious way it handles this, was disappointing. It doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the eye candy of the film but, like eating candy, I left without any real satisfaction.

And the promise of something more substantial being left unfulfilled brought this into stark relief.

Atomic Blonde
Starring: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Sofia Boutella, Bill Skarsgard, John Goodman, Toby Jones
Director: David Leitch
Writer: Kurt Johnstad

A Ghost Story (2017)

A Ghost Story manages a delicate balance of poignancy and humour. It's premise and execution are inherently silly but it is handled so sweetly, so deftly, that once can't help but embrace it. The only difficulty I had with it is its varying pacing issues. At times the film felt it was stuck and other times rushed.

Loss, connection, legacy. So much is explored in this rather intimate and focused story of a man after death. Unlike the traditional way of telling similar stories, think Ghost, there is no McGuffin which needs to be accomplished. Instead film maker David Lowery just lets his subject watch the world move on without him. Its beautiful and simply tragic. The circular story may be a bit on point and most of the time I felt I knew exactly where it was going, but the feelings in it resonated so strongly that it felt more confirming than "predictable."

But what truly makes A Ghost Story work is Lowrey's deftness. He keeps his story hyperfocused on narrow details. This works as a device since the film seems to be exploring isolation but also works in keeping us invested in this story. But there are times I felt he got too focused.

Lowrey chooses a few scenes to draw out, almost endlessly. Was he trying to create a feeling of timelessness, of being stuck? I'm not sure but I know it did pull me out of the film. Watching Rooney Mara eat a pie, angrily, for what felt like half the film, was jarring. Other parts of the story would feel like we were skipping around without time to get a real feel for what's going on.

Yet over all the story pulls us back in until the beautifully cryptic ending which ends up being far more satisfying than one would expect. A Ghost Story will haunt you and I guess that's really what it's trying to do.

A Ghost Story
Starring: Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara
Writer/Director: David Lawery

Dunkirk (2017)

Christopher Nolan has delivered on all the promise and build up that has been brewing over his war epic. Dunkirk is one of those films that is an outstanding experience for audiences. He breaks all the rules about films are supposed to be made, about how war films specifically are to be made, and he shows us why by bringing us a masterful film.

One of the great successes of Dunkirk is how economical Nolan is. There is no "filler" in this story. He doesn't do the typical structure when making a film about a historical event. Normally we see a build up to that event through setting out location, seeing who the major players are (and often then telegraphing how they are going to end up), and slowly building the tension until the event happens. Instead Nolan plays with time and character creation by just flat out telling us and it works. Then he drops us right in the heart of the action right away and for his surprisingly short running time just leaves us in it. And all of this gives us a visceral experience which is very much unlike your typical war movie, and perhaps much more stunning.

War films face a particular challenge in the age when the majority of western audiences haven't experienced war. Achieving any sense of reality is difficult for audiences who have no idea. Many films, quite rightly, shove the violence and horror down our throats. War is hell and we should see that, not some glorified justification for the deaths of hundreds, thousand of people that help us sleep at night. However Nolan here takes a different path. His characters face death and violence and horror but he doesn't dwell on any of it. He makes us feel it richly but doesn't drown us in it. Through his interweaving stories he manages in his relatively short time to make us feel it all.

Another thing that sets Dunkirk apart from the average war film is how it inverts the genre's general trope. This is a film about survival not about killing. It's about enduring not winning. Dunkirk doesn't fall into the traps of needing to triumph over evil, the general excuse we use for war. Instead it is about showing what it is like to live.

And his film ends as abruptly as it started. It doesn't proselytize. It just brings some of the boys home. Dunkirk feels like a slice of life, but in the midst of death.

From its radically different structure to its hauntingly beautiful cinematography which reminds you why we see films on a big screen, Dunkirk is a wholly original and incredible film. I maintain one piece of criticism. Nolan chooses purposefully to tell only a white male point of view and I think that's a mistake. There are those who jump through hoops to justify this by trying to bend history to argue that no women or people of colour were a part of this event (which isn't true) or to minimize their presence contribution. And this is why it's a mistake. Every experience is valid, including the point of view of the majority of soldiers involved who were white British men. But when the passion to continue to exclude the experience of the rest is still so vividly powerful, choosing to leave out those voices is a way of justifying that passion. For me the movie would have been stronger to see a more complete experience of Dunkirk.

But that doesn't mean that Dunkirk isn't still one of the best films you can see all year. And it certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't ensure you see this on a big screen where it can be fully appreciated. Dunkirk shows the work of an artist at the top of his game, at the top of his craft.

Dunkirk
Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, James D'arcy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy
Writer/Director: Christopher Nolan

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Luc Besson is not my vibe generally but I'm not so turned off him that I can't enjoy his films if they hit something for me. I was pretty much on board for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets in it's first half hour, but when I say pretty much there were some things bugging me which I couldn't put my finger on right away.

The film is straight up, unabashedly proud B-movie mania. The dialogue is intentionally clunky, the costumes delightfully cheeky, and Besson's throw logic out the window style is on full display. It is immersive in the world, not universe, it is creating. It's got all the Barbarella vibes of mid-20th century sci-fi and it enjoys it. It's got it's white savior colonialist critique going strong, and the visuals are out of this world.

I think the failings for me came down mostly to casting. I love Dane DeHaan and I think he's still waiting for his big break. But he is so wrong cast as Valerian. His demon child, nerd boy energy just doesn't play into the roguish hero he's supposed to be playing And Cara Delevingne (why is she an actress?) with her Avril Lavigne Mean Girls sneer has no where near the gravitas to pull of the Leia inspiring character Laureline. And the two have absolutely zero chemistry. After the first half hour it came to me that I wasn't buying into their characters at all, the two leads. Wooden Delevingne and miscast DeHaan were distracting me with their flat falling banter all the way through and it completely took me out of the story.

There are other bad casting choices too. Ethan Hawke's sleezy cameo felt disjointed. Casting Rihanna as an abused showgirl who says "I deserved that" after being hit felt completely wrong as well.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets feels like the kind of film which spent its whole wad on how it looks and did little to fill it with the kind of interesting folks needed to make this glorious universe feel lived in, make us want to be there. It's a bit shiny but hollow. It's not a terrible ride and I wasn't bored despite the long running time but I also wasn't invested.

Valerian feels like a missed opportunity. There could have been something amazing here and instead there just isn't.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen, Rihanna, Ethan Hawke, Herbie HancockKris Hu, Rutger Hower, John Goodman
Writer/Director: Luc Besson

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

The thing about genre films is how they often can tell stories about us, the real us, which more "realistic" films cannot. They get to the reality, the truth of who we are. Many people struggle with genre films, not able to appreciate the fantastic elements, dismissing them as silly or for children. I've read a number of commentaries recently misreading the "comic book" genre as vapid or trivial. In reality, genre films can often offer some of the most pointed examinations of our culture. Often it is through watching the otherworldly that we best see our world.

The modern Planet of the Apes series has been one of the best examples of this. By its very nature it is admittedly pulpy yet it has achieved some of the most poignant story telling to grace the screens recently. One of the most brilliant aspects of this is how the films force us into self-opposition. We are humans yet it is humanity which is the story's villain, or perhaps more accurately, the story's antagonist. We empathize with the Apes and it is their struggle which resonates. We are positioned to see from the perspective of the other and in fact we can't see any other position. It is a cinematic equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome and it's power is remarkable.

This power comes from the incredible story telling that has gone into these stories. Our current cinematic tendencies are to follow story arcs as trilogies and War is the culmination of that trilogy. This is what it has all be building to and writer/director Matt Reeves doesn't disappoint, saving the most powerful tale, the tale of humanity's self-destruction, for the last. War is a powerful meditation of what it means for a culture, a society to survive, what our role in that is, and what the cost to us is of our wars. Told through a story where apes are the heroes and humans are the villains we are forced to face our own humanity as we likely couldn't in a story about a real war.

The other aspect of this franchise which is so fascinating is how it is changing the way we look at performances. Andy Serkis has acted on screen in traditional roles but it has been his motion capture work which has had the most impact. He's been King Kong and Gollum, but it is Caesar which has become his triumph. While we never see his physical features in these movies, his performance remains one of the most incredible of any actor in any film. His Caesar is an icon. He has reinvented the character from his initial villainous roots into a champion of modern cinema. It is breathtaking to see.

The real power of War for the Planet of the Apes comes as the film builds to its remarkable climax. None of it is what you'd expect. And it emotional resonance is somewhat overwhelming. This is a masterfully made film which sweeps you up in its narrative and delivers an extraordinary experience.

There is a legitimate critique of the film's lack of use of female characters. The series' use of female characters is problematic at best and War struggles with issues around this like its predecessors. While it doesn't ruin the film, it does make one ask how much stronger the film could have been with that consideration.

I feel sorry for those who cannot let themselves experience stories like these, genre stories of such grace and insight, and are missing out on one of the most human of stories we'll see all year.

War for the Planet of the Apes
Starring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Amiah Miller
Writer/Director: Matt Reeves

The Big Sick (2017)

The Big Sick is mostly just like any other entertaining romantic comedy. It's shtick is that it's about the discomfort and complications arising from an interracial romance between a Pakistani-American man and a white American woman. While that is interesting in itself as a piece that feels of the moment, the film doesn't rely on that and instead builds a fairly charming if familiar rom-com vibe of it's own.

The movie's story hangs together mostly due to the personalities of its leads Kumail Nanjiani and Zoe Kazan. Each basically play themselves and the charm comes from their cutely awkward interactions. The film isn't laugh out loud funny, it's more awe-shucks funny, the kind of film which will make you smile pleasantly more than guffaw.

There is a tonal shift when the film's main plot point (not spoiling it if you've seen the trailers) happens and Kazan's character becomes sick. The interaction between Nanjiani and her parents, played (also charmingly) by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano, is equally enjoyable. In fact, the awkwardness outlined in the trailer isn't really the focus. The enjoyable part is watching them bond, not watching them have conflict.

In fact by the end of the film I wasn't sure if I was more interested in the love story or the bond between the boyfriend and the parents. It's all quite lovely and touches all the right buttons to be a crowd-pleaser. But I'm not sure The Big Sick ever reaches beyond that. It's story remains overtly accessible and affirming, never exploring a theme too complicated, never becoming more than just charming. The film almost seems to be braving a more fascinating ending but then veers back towards comfortable rom-com territory. So it's pretty much what you would expect from this genre and will be satisfying that familiar way.

The Big Sick
Starring: Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, Roy Romano, Adeel Aktar
Director: Michael Showalter
Writers: Kumail Nanjiani, Emily V. Gordon

Spider-man Homecoming (2017) and the Spider-man franchise

Spider-man is one of the biggest superheroes in pop culture, certainly Marvel's biggest overall name despite the waning and waxing of other characters. He's one of those characters everyone knows like Superman and Batman, and like those heroes, he's had his share of films, TV shows, and reboots.

Sam Raimi's 2002 film Spider-man remains the quintessential Spidey film. It is relentless in its "classicness." Raimi's approach is to stick to just the archetypal elements of the story. He sets out the origin story quite quickly and efficiently. He employs the most recognizable versions of the characters from white bunned Aunt May, to red haired Mary Jane, to mad scientist billionaire Norman Osborne, to J.K. Simmons nailing J. Jonah Jameson. And he hits all the classic story beats; the spider bite; the photography, letting the burglar get away, Uncle Ben's death, to the relationship between Osborne and Parker. It ever gets the New Yorky-ness which is such a part of who Spidey is. The story gives such a rounded and complete explanation of his powers, his motivations and does so in a succinct and effective manner which ends up being completely entertaining. Raimi nails it.

Sure Raimi is essentially a B-movie maker and you can't take the B-movie out of the director but generally his slightly campy, direct and simplistic approach works. Yes the Green Goblin is horribly executed but I would argue that Osborne himself fares better. Also I have always been critical of how much the film rips of Superman the Movie down to almost specific details, but I've come to appreciate the stylistic choice of this as a way of following the classic superhero origin story archetype. It is a strong homage. The upside-down kiss is iconic. The Spidey/Goblin conflict is the defining origin for this character. I'll always have a soft spot for the way the film sets so many of its scenes in my old NYC hood. The movie series fell apart by the third film which went a bit bonkers but before that this was recognizably Spider-man and it was a great deal of fun.

Then came the Amazing Spider-Man reboot which tried to grittify or ground Spider-man in a more realistic world. Garfield's Parker was less nerdy, more artsy outcast and the added spy/mystery elements, along with switching the love story to the doomed Gwen Stacey were an attempt to add seriousness to the character. Unfortunately mostly it just fell flat. There was some good chemistry between Garfield and Stone but the Lizard was executed even worse than the Goblin and the whole film felt like a cheap rip off of the same story the first tried to tell. By the disjointed sequel, audiences had lost interest and Spidey was headed for a new reboot.

Then, along comes the very successful Marvel Cinematic Universe at Disney which has almost all the other Marvel heroes fighting together but no Spider-man, no crown jewel. Suddenly we have a chance for Spidey to join with his contemporaries. And he makes a big splash in Captain America Civil War by returning to his roots as an awkward yet brilliant teen filled with all the gosh darn optimism that was missing in Amazing. So the question is where do we go with this big league character in his return to solo film?

Well it turns out that Jon Watts found something that has been missing from all the live action Spider-man films so far. Spider-man Homecoming focuses on Spidey's life as a teenager. It is essentially a slice of life film about what it's like to be a high school student and a superhero. I have often thought that graduating Peter Parker in his first outings was a mistake, as it took us away from one of the essentially Spider-man things, the boy next door. Spider-man is different cause he's a kid. Homecoming captures that and captures it beautifully.

Homecoming successfully makes a different kind of Spider-man film. Tom Holland's cameo was certainly my favourite part of Civil War and he continues that chemistry here. It was best that the film didn't get into Spidey's origin and just assumes we know it (with only off hand references to it). We don't need to see that again.

But the thing that pulled me out of the film is something that's likely a big draw for everyone else. Tony Stark. I appreciate the way the film is tying Spider-man into the larger Marvel universe but I would have preferred that Iron Man remain in the background a bit more, perhaps acting through Happy and not actually appearing and overbearing each scene he's in. I know he remains popular, but for me Tony Stark's shtick is becoming almost as tired as Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. His constant appearances reminded me of the way I feel the Marvel films have used Tony Stark as a cheat. Need a reason something is the way it is in the Marvel Universe. Just have Stark pay for it. And the films have never successfully addressed Stark's strongman tactics.

All of this is compounded in Homecoming as so much of Peter's world is at the whim of this unaccountable billionaire. Also, I wasn't in love with the idea that the Spidey suit is a minor version of the Iron Man suit. There is a line in the film which stands out. "If you aren't anything without the suit, you shouldn't have it." I felt like saying "if you aren't anything without Iron Man, you aren't worth having your own film."

My other critique is another Marvel Universe trope, the bad villain. Vulture is also just yet another version of Iron Man. However, he's certainly a lot better than the Lizard so I guess we have that going.

Unfortunately I felt the sequel, Far From Home, descended even more. One of these days I'd like to see what they could do with Tom Holland in a Spider-man film that is a Spider-man film and not another chapter in the MCU. Something along the masterful lines of the animated Into the Spider-verse? Now that's a film that gets it, and is probably the strongest film in the franchise. Maybe we'll get there eventually.

Spider-man Homecoming
Starring: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Marison Tomei, Zendaya, Robert Downey Jr.
Director: Jon Watts,
Writer: Jonathan Goldstein, John Frances Daley

Beatriz at Dinner (2017)

The trick to Beatriz at Dinner is how it plays its audience. In a masterful and layered performance, Salma Hayek plays the title character in a way which puts you off. She is the centre of the film, yet the audience is made to feel uncomfortable with her. The film doesn't use any of the devices films usually use to connect you to their protagonists and instead uses many of those conventions to align the audience with the film's "villains." This puts us in a difficult and awkward place while watching the film.

It would have been easy to situation her are the endearing heroine, standing smugly against the elites. We could have cheered her bravery and mourned her tragedy, self-righteously, leaving feeling affirmed in our liberal goodness. But Beatriz at Dinner doesn't go there. In her refusal to accept social norms Beatriz makes us squirmy. Although she exhibits qualities we are all supposed to admire (honesty, sincerity, compassion) it is these very things that turn us off. The film is masterful for exposing the hypocrisies of western class-ism.

John Lithgow is great as the man we are supposed to hate but remains charming. It is a great example of how we excuse evil when it comes in an approachable package. And it all adds up to one uncomfortable evening making us question a lot about who we are and who we think we are. Writer Mike White is excellent at making audiences squirm and Beatriz at Dinner is a mature and thoughtful piece with him at his best.

Beatriz at Dinner
Starring: Salma Hayek, John Lithgow, Connie Britton, Chloe Sevigny, Jay Duplass
Director: Migeul Arteta
Writer: Mike White

Okja (2017)

I think there are basically two reasons why Okja didn't work for me. The first is I don't normally enjoy "kid and their pet" movies. I know they are a popular genre but they rarely speak to me. The other is that normally I don't enjoy absurdist approach. I understand director Bong Joon-ho's approach here, but I found it pulled me out of the film too often.

These two elements are what the film Okja is based on. Bong Joon-ho makes his comment on capitalism, the food industry, and colonization by juxtaposing two view points. First the earnest, heartwarming relationship between young girl Mija and her ultra adorable "super-pig," a giant hippo like animal she has raised at a multinational's request, a biological organism designed by that multinational to be a source of food. The second the world of "adults" who are presented as acting as absurd, buffoon like, as possible. In his heavy handed way, Bong Joon-ho tugs sentimentally at our heart strings with the "kid and their pet" subplot and instills in his audience disgust in the horrible methods and behaviors of all the adults Mija interacts with.

The adult characters are so over the top ridiculous we can't help but hate them. From the corporate types (lead by Tilda Swinton chewing scenery like she's on Dynasty), to the television personalities (personified in the disastrously evil Jake Gyllenhaal) to the incompetent and motivationally suspect animal rights activists, anyone who isn't Mija or her grandfather is a caricature of a human being.Yes it is clear what is going on. It's hit us over the head clear. It is far too much hand holding for my tastes.

Bong Joon-ho, as in his previous works, visually stuns us. There is enough beauty here to make it enjoyable to watch. And the scenes with Mija and Okja are lovely if not a little sickly sweet. I'm just not sure I was able to care after all this sugar.

Okja
Starring: Tilda Swinton, Ahn Seo-hyun, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, Steven Yeun, Lily Collins
Director: Bong Joon-ho
Writers: Bong Joon -ho, Jon Ronson