Once again, Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar) reminds us that war is a very scary thing with his new feature film.  Of course, it would not be a Nolan film without a few twists and turns in the storytelling method.  Rather than focusing on a perfectly linear storyline, Nolan chooses to give the audience bits and pieces of multiple events that are going on at roughly the same time.  While his method is effective in creating the chaos that war ensures, the film often feels cluttered and somewhat hard to follow.

Each character has a role in the war, but we are never given much development or background for any of them.  There are quite a few notable actors that are capable of grand performances, but the script seems to hold them back at times.  Kenneth Branagh (Valkyrie), Cillian Murphy (Inception, The Dark Knight), Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies, The Other Boleyn Girl), and Tom Hardy (Mad Max: Fury Road, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, The Revenant) round out the star-studded cast.  Former One Direction member, Harry Styles, also joins the acting realm in Dunkirk​.  However, none of them give a jaw-dropping performance for audiences to connect with.    It seems as though Nolan really wanted to focus on the action, rather than the characters.  I can understand his direction in terms of creating a war film, yet it feels weaker than most (if not all) of Nolan's past films.

Technically, this film is a fantastic addition to Nolan's filmography.  The action is intense, with unpredictable war sequences and constantly evolving events.  While I have never been through a war, I imagine that this film portrays what it would be like very effectively.  To add to the intensity, Hans Zimmer (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Dark Knight, The Lion King, Inception​) creates another score for Nolan.  Similarly to the score of Inception, Zimmer cleverly meters his score so that it swells with the action.  The pomp and circumstance of the score also reminds us of where the events are taking place.  This is a truly symphonic composition that fits into a classical film score genre.  Surely, we will be seeing an Oscar nomination for the constantly running film score. 

The Bottom Line:  As a war film, Dunkirk is a masterpiece for the eyes and ears.  Although, it does lack the intriguing character development that previous Christopher Nolan films have.

Score: 9.4/10

Image credit: ​By Photograph by Richard Goldschmidt, www.piqtured.comDerivative by Keraunoscopia - Derived from File:Christopher Nolan, London, 2013.jpg, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26638525

Matt Reeves (Let Me In) concludes the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy with a long-winded and riveting piece of blockbuster-cinema.  War for the Planet of the Apes does what a lot of trilogies cannot, which is end on a high note.  All three of the films in the franchise are good, but War for the Planet of the Apes is easily the best installment.  Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings) clearly worked hard on his portrayal of the lead-ape, Caeser.  The trilogy centered around his character and audiences can relate to him more than they can relate to their own species.  

The linear storytelling that War for the Planet of the Apes uses works well for the blockbuster.  The story never dulls or slows down.  Rather, it constantly progresses with new revelations about certain characters.  Every character in the film has a background that is relevant to the story.  Caeser, Maurice, Rocket, and Luca return with new developments in their storylines.  However, we also get a lot of fresh characters to connect with.  Bad Ape, Nova, and The Colonel add different ideas and backgrounds to create an original story.  

As Caeser, Andy Serkis once again stuns audiences with his performance capture.  There is nobody better at performance capture than Serkis.  Every movement he makes is authentic and believable.  These are not the sub-par effects that partially ruined the Star Wars prequels.  As one of the few human characters at the center of the story, Woody Harrelson's (No Country for Old Men, Zombieland) performance is also fantastic.  This is a fitting role for him to portray as a villain with a deeper background than the surface shows.  Throughout the film, he gives chilling speeches that remind us of current human ideologies.

As a whole, the story is unique to the rebooted series.  Of course, there is a war going on between humans and apes.  Yet, there are other things going on as well.  The movie is not as simple as the title makes it seem.  Matt Reeves and his writing crew clearly did not want this film to be a summer blockbuster with meaningless explosions and shallow characters.  The conclusion of the film is emotional because of how well-built the characters are.  I would love to go on another adventure with these characters and hope that Serkis can find the time to advocate for another installment.

The Bottom Line:  War for the Planet of the Apes is a thoroughly-crafted blockbuster conclusion to the new Planet of the Apes trilogy.

Score: 9.5/10

Image credit: ​By Gerald Geronimo, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15934608

Rebooting film franchises can be a tough journey for filmmakers because of the repetitive nature of reworking an original storyline.  Recent reboots have been decent and Rise of the Planet of the Apes is no exception.  Admittedly, I have not seen any of the original Planet of the Apes films.  Yet, I feel as though the premise is well-explained in the first installment of the new trilogy.  When I saw this film the year it was released, I thought that it was slow and at times boring.  However upon re-watching the film, I realize that the dull moments are still necessary for the future of the franchise.

Many of James Franco's (127 Hours, Spider-Man, This Is the End) acting roles before this film were cheesy and hard to take seriously.  Coming off of the disappointing end to the Spider-Man trilogy, Franco re-establishes himself as a serious actor in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Franco's depiction of Will Rodman stands out as an emotional portrayal of a moral human, which is hard to come by in this franchise.  Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist) cleverly sets up two warring parties, often times making the audience question if human actions are good or bad.  The film made me cringe and PETA might take issues with the realistic abuse of CGI animals.

The greatest moments of this film occur whenever Caeser walks across the screen.  The CGI looks extremely realistic, bringing the audience into the center of the storyline.  As a master of performance capture, Andy Serkis (​The Lord of the Rings) once again brings a computer generated image to life.  It is impossible to tell that the apes are not real.  Clearly, this is not a man dressed as an ape.  Overall, the special effects are jaw-dropping and as the franchise continues, the effects keep getting better and better.  Although there are only a few action sequences throughout the film, they are perfected and never overdone.  

The Bottom Line:  While Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not the explosive blockbuster that audiences may have hoped for, it does set the franchise up for successful future installments.

Score: 7/10  

Image credit: ​By Partha Sarathi Nath - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49728224

Before I went into this movie, I had a basic idea of the tone that Brett Haley would be going for.  The audience around me was older, which is seemingly Haley's target audience.  Based on my previous viewing of I'll See You In My Dreams at SIFF 2015, I expected something similar.  Just as I'll See You In My Dreams nearly invoked me into a trance, The Hero is an equally draggy and inactive film.  This film would play better in a nursing home than it would on the big screen.

The film has a star-studded cast, but never takes off.  The only exciting part of this film is the pleasure of listening to Sam Elliott's (Hulk, Up in the Air) voice for an hour and a half.  The cast is not bad, but the writing is just so-so.  There are a few chuckles here and there, but nothing too clever pops up.  The subject matter is deep and clearly relatable for older actors, but I never felt the connection to Elliott's character that I should have.  There is only one or two emotional scenes in the film, which had the potential of being a tearjerker.  Krysten Ritter (Jessica Jones, Breaking Bad), Laura Prepon (The Girl on the Train, Orange is the New Black), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder​) do a decent job in their respective roles, but feel interchangeable.  Any actors in similar age groups could have portrayed these characters.

Another problem that I had with the film was the dull color palette.  Haley basically replicates the palette from his previous work, sacrificing creativity for reality.  If the color palette were a bit more exciting, my eyelids wouldn't have felt so heavy.  At times, flashbacks try to bring the audience into the perspective of Elliott's character.  Yet, these deeply symbolic flashbacks are vague and uninteresting.  The symbolism is easy to figure out, mostly involving aging and death.  It feels as if this film has been made too many times before.

The Bottom Line:  The film subject and slow story drags down the acting abilities that Sam Elliott fans have become accustomed to.

Score: 6/10 

Bong Joon-ho (Snowpiercer, The Host) has built a vastly successful filmography for himself, and this film is no exception.  The first film that I watched by him was The Host, which turned out to be an interesting thriller/horror.  Yet, Joon-ho never fails to add comedy to his films, creating a wholly original tone.  He has created his own genre, which meshes a whole bunch of different genres into one.  Unfortunately, I thought that this detracted a bit from Okja because it was too slapsticky.

Joon-ho's film tone is so odd that it often catches me off-guard, making me fall out of the film's message.  If there was not any comedy in Okja, I would value the message a lot more.  While most of the acting is fantastic, I am still pondering what Joon-ho was doing with Jake Gyllenhaal's (Donnie Darko, Nightcrawler) character.  As Johnny Wilcox, Gyllenhaal goes way overboard with his voice and eccentric attitude.  This is one of the worst roles I have seen in a Joon-ho film.  Clearly, Joon-ho wanted Gyllenhaal to be a comic relief for the dark subject matter, but he really is too much.

Luckily, the rest of the acting is more serious and deserving of praise.  I loved Paul Dano's role as a vegetarian rebel leader.  Dano seems to have struck gold with his recent successes in diverse roles ranging from Prisoners to Swiss Army Man.  Tilda Swinton's (Adaptation., Doctor Strange)  character is similar to her character in Snowpiercer, which is fun to watch but really odd at the same time.  My favorite casting choice for the film would have to be Seo-Hyun Ahn (The Housemaid​) as Mija.  Mija is a stubborn, but also innocent character which Ahn portrays perfectly.  I'm glad that less familiar foreign actors and actresses are finally making their way to American audiences! 

With the quirkiness of the characters and subject matter, the cinematography and CGI effects are still beautiful.  The first quarter of the film is a broad image of a Korean countryside where Okja and Mija live.  The shots are epic and open space fills the screen with natural beauty.  When we move into the city, Joon-ho maintains his grand film scale.  The action sequences are fluid and every shot is worthwhile.  Of course, Okja has no noticeable flaws.  The super pig graces the screen as if it is an actual giant pig.

The Bottom Line:  Although the tone is a bit quirkier than usual, Bong Joon-ho maintains his filmography with another pressing subject.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59614492

After hearing about the success of this film in the festival circuit, I had to check it out myself.  I, Daniel Blake is a story about friendship and love.  The film is predictable and familiar, but still intriguing with a good storyline.  The titular character is a sad image for audiences that can connect with the complex topic.  Daniel Blake struggles to receive state welfare after obtaining an injury from a previous job.  The main reason why he cannot get what he needs is because of regulations towards the welfare state.  Without going into too much detail, watching Blake's struggle with money starts off as a depressingly bleak look at current economic policies.  Luckily, we get to watch Blake connect with other characters to share his optimistic outlook on life.

Dave Johns (Daniel Blake) and Hayley Squires (Katie) are a great duo, constantly bringing emotion into their roles.  There is a scene in this film that reminds me of the emotion brought up in the argument between Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams in Manchester By The Sea.  If you don't like slow character development, then this movie might not be for you.  There is not a lot of action and crazy things rushing around the screen, but there is the subtlety of emotion provided by the cast.  I had not seen a film from Ken Loach (The Wind That Shakes the Barley) before this one, and I'm interested in watching more of his works now. 

The film is very heavily British and sometimes hard to understand because of its foreignness to American audiences.  I would recommend seeing it with subtitles because I would have missed a lot of dialogue without them.  Some research on the British healthcare system might also work in the viewer's favor, but it is not necessary if you have a basic understanding of the welfare system.  Furthermore, a general outline of the film is predictable for this genre.  There are no real twists in the film, with the typical dramatic themes that Paul Laverty (The Wind That Shakes the Barley​) chooses to follow. 

The Bottom Line:  While this film is well-acted and quite emotional, it is predictable to viewers that are familiar with the genre and style of this filmmaking.

Score: 7/10

James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now, The End of the Tour) returns with this new film about the evolution of the digital age.  Ponsoldt's previous films were more focused on life itself, but now he has taken his turn at displaying the influence of modern technology.  The topic has been dealt with many times in the past few years, so The Circle halts to contain a wholly original storyline.  However, I was still shocked by a lot of the content and situations that the main characters witness.  For a generation that is constantly plugged in, the conglomeration of camera footage invading privacy does not seem too far off.  After all, data mining is already occurring and gaining more transparency.

While the film delves into this deep subject, audiences get to enjoy the performances of professional actors.  Emma Watson (Harry Potter) is authentic even after the release of her giant Disney blockbuster.  She is vastly different in this role, showing that she is capable of taking on diverse parts.  It is nice to see smaller actors such as John Boyega (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) and Ellar Coltrane (Boyhood) also involved in this project.  Both Boyega and Coltrane bring genuine characters to the screen.

Of course, the big names in this cast created the early buzz for the film.  Patton Oswalt (Ratatouille, Young Adult) and Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump) act well in their roles, but unfortunately there is not enough screen time for either of them.  To me, their characters were the most interesting aside from Watson's.  Hanks plays a big business CEO who at first seems like a morally inspiring character, but later turns into something else.  As always, his dialogue keeps my ears attentive and the words roll right off of his tongue.  He is one of the greatest actors ever, but was wasted a bit in this film.

Another issue I had with The Circle has to do with the timing of events.  Everything moves too quickly without a lot of time for the audience to understand what is going on.  The overall concept for the film is simplistic, but the nitty gritty details could have made the subject matter more interesting and different from previous takes on privacy and modern technology.  All of the build-up continues until the very end, where we are left with an unsatisfying finish.  It's as if Ponsoldt never really finished the film.  At the end, the credits start to roll and the audience has no idea what happens.  Often times I can live with that, but this just felt unfinished and sloppy.

The Bottom Line:  Overall The Circle includes good acting and an interesting subject, but several filmmaking choices leave room for perfection.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: ​By Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21288731

If the unhealthy food at McDonald's is not enough to reduce your visits, the portrayal of Ray Kroc in The Founder will surely turn you away from the company.  Although I have eaten at Mcdonald's many times (too many times) in my life, I never knew the history of the fast food empire.  Since I only have this film as a perspective of the franchise's history, I cannot tell if Ray Kroc was actually a complete sales shark or if this film is terribly biased towards one side of the story.  The film basically claims that Kroc stole the restaurant company from Richard and Mac McDonald, which might be accurate.  What started off as a family restaurant became a worldwide phenomenon based around the model of speed.  

Although there are star actors in this one, the performances feel forced at times and never hit the depth of emotion of similar films.  Coming off of vast success in Birdman, Michael Keaton seemed poised to take on any role as a lead actor.  Unfortunately, this one was a miscast with Keaton forcing a personality that is fake.  Hopefully this role won't lead him downwards from the peak of success, but I have high hopes for his role in Spider-Man: Homecoming.  Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation) and John Carroll Lynch (Gran Torino) are decent as the McDonald brothers, but their talents feel wasted with small parts.  If there was a bit more heart in the script, there could have been a lot of room for fearless performances.  Yet, The Founder falls far from similar pictures like The Social Network and The Wolf of Wall Street.  

Another issue that I had with this film was the pace of events.  The film opens with almost no backstory for Ray Kroc.  Our minds are implanted with the fact that he is just a cheating salesperson.  If I were given more outlook on his upbringing, I would have had more of a connection with the character.  Nothing about this character is moral or good.  Surely, there is another trait that we can at least appreciate about Ray Kroc.  The film is rushed into paperwork signings and contracts, without stopping to show the audience the actual process of Kroc's success.  He seemingly does nothing and succeeds, making him an even less likeable character.  

The Bottom Line:  A broken pace and forced acting create a boring look at the fast-food takeover that Ray Kroc committed.   

Score: 6/10

Image credit: ​By Memorias22 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58336632

For a three hour runtime, this is one of the quickest paced movies I have ever watched.  Scorsese (The Departed) directs this biopic about Jordan Belfort, one of the many salespeople who took advantage of others for their own gains on Wall Street.  I have not yet read Belfort's book, but I imagine that it is just as crazy as the film adaptation.  Drugs, sex, and all sorts of raunchiness progress the film forwards at a relentless pace.  Just when I wondered what could happen next, surprising events unfold as Belfort and his gang constantly get high and make millions of dollars.

A trio of acting dominates the storyline with Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, The Departed, Titanic) at the helm.  Leo's portrayal of Belfort balances on a tightrope of lovability and immorality.  Even with his wishy-washy character, Leo leads the film in what is his best performance to date.  Don't get me wrong, The Revenant is another great film in his filmography, but nothing beats the authenticity of this role.  The other two screen-dominating roles are Jonah Hill (21 Jump Street, Superbad) as Donny Azoff and Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Dallas Buyers Club​) as Mark Hanna.  At a time when Jonah Hill was starting to take off, he plays the perfect henchman for Belfort to work with.  Azoff is an oddball character that is shrouded in mystery.  No actor could have been a better fit for this role.  Alongside Hill and DiCaprio, McConaughey shines bright as a mentor for Belfort.  Even though his role is short-lived, he is iconic and exciting to watch.

It still amazes me that this film is directed by Scorsese.  The Wolf of Wall Street is not for all ages, but geared toward a specific audience.  Anyone who is interested in economics might take offense with the film and its display of Wall Street crookedness.  However, at a time when everyone dreamed of being rich, the film played well to young adults.  Honestly, who doesn't dream of a life with the comfort of Jordan Belfort's.  Of course there were clear flaws with living this sort of life, but you have to admit that being able to buy a yacht and go wherever you want in the world has an appeal.  Scorsese's character study is able to appeal to wannabe millionaires even with a story as immoral as Belfort's.

The Bottom Line:  Fine acting and a quick pace push this drug-filled film forwards, creating a piece of art that will be remembered by anyone who dreams of being rich.

Score: 9/10

Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta, Black Swan, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith) has played a lot of large roles, but she has never filled the shoes of someone as iconic as Jackie Kennedy before.  Her performance makes her almost unrecognizable, blending in as Jackie without a trace of pretend.  She looks just like her, sounds just like her, and I imagine that she took some time researching the mannerisms of the former First Lady.  At times the story drags a bit, but Portman is fun to watch throughout the full film.

When the trailers came out a few months back, I was not exactly sure what the timeframe of the film would be.  The film takes place right after the assassination of JFK, spanning over only a few days.  By choosing to focus on a very short time period, Pablo Larrain's (Neruda​) direction is centered around the character rather than big events.  For this reason the film chugs along slowly so that the audience is forced to study Jackie's thoughts and actions.  This is a full character study after an event that formed the main character.  It is nice to see that Jackie is the focal point, rather than her popular husband.  It is not often that directors choose to create a story around a strong female character.  Yet, that is the beauty of contemporary indie filmmaking.  We finally get good roles for actresses to portray.

To create the connection between the audience and Jackie, Larrain uses close-up shots, putting us directly in front of the character.  We see every ounce of emotion in Portman's facial expressions, proving her abilities as a lead actress.  Personally, I was not alive at the time of the events that take place on screen, so the grainy footage also adds to the film's time period.  A good amount of the film looks like it was taken from cameras that were actually filming in the 1960s.  That sounds weird, but these subtle decisions in filmmaking create an authentic atmosphere for the audience.  

The Bottom Line:  Portman's authentic acting and Larrain's superb direction re-create an interesting story that younger generations haven't been exposed to.

Score: 9.0/10