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

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

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

Back in 1970, two of the most important people alive met in secret to discuss pressing matters.  Elvis Presley was the biggest rocker of his time, and quite possibly the biggest rocker of all time.  Nixon served as the President of the United States, holding control over the military and foreign relations.  Liza Johnson's (Return) film revolves around the awkwardness of these two completely unique individuals meeting.  Often times, the tone is humorous to portray how odd this occurrence was for the president.  

The film is a period piece that subtly thrives on style and fashion.  All of the costuming reminds us of the seventies, full of old-fashioned jackets for Presley's crew and formal garb for Nixon's White House workers.  Johnson uses the costuming considerably well, fitting the audience into the 70s without forcing cliches into their eyes.  Still, we remember that things were a lot different back in the day!  Smoking and gun laws are constant topics throughout the film, furthering our knowledge of the time period.

The casting choices are quite interesting, originally shocking me in the trailers.  Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects, House of Cards) once again portrays a POTUS, but this time he plays one that is unexpected.  Nixon was a very traditional guy, and Spacey portrays him well.  The even more iconic role of Elvis Presley is played by Michael Shannon (Man of Steel).  This casting choice looked like a miscast role from the trailers, but Shannon proves that he is a flexible actor.  Shannon is capable of playing Elvis, but this is not the flashy Elvis that we have come to expect.  The mannerisms are there, but the enthusiasm is lacking a bit.  Still, I was impressed that Shannon was capable of playing such a different role than his usual castings provide.

The Bottom Line: The story is interesting and subtly stylish, even if Michael Shannon is an odd choice to play the King of Rock n' Roll.

Score: 6.5/10

In 1971, Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most well-known experiments to date.  The experiment involved random individuals who were hand selected to play roles as prisoners and prison guards.  The experiment was supposed to last for two weeks, but ended up being cut short because of the findings that Dr. Zimbardo gathered.  The Stanford Prison Experiment retells the story of Zimbardo's work in a haunting fashion.  What starts off as a paid job for twenty-four male students ends up escalating into something that no one expected.  The film handles the event extremely well, taking us inside of the prison simulation that ended with results that are still hard to comprehend today.

Director Kyle Patrick Alvarez (C.O.G.) takes us into the cramped space that Zimbardo created for his experiment, masterfully giving a claustrophobic portrayal to the audience.  Capturing the tone of the experiment, Alvarez creates a haunting reimagining of what the "prisoners" went through after signing up.  The film features performances by actors that I have barely seen on screen.  All of the performances are crafted from the original experiment, giving the film a genuine cast.  Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Almost Famous, Big Fish) plays the role of Dr. Zimbardo and capably puts himself in the shoes of a man whose experiment turns for the worse.  A few other actors do a nice job in their respective roles are Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Suicide Squad) and Michael Angarano (Almost Famous).  Miller shows us what was going on in with one of the prisoners, who felt mistreated and had a mental breakdown.  On the other side of the picture, Angarano plays one of the guards who gets carried away with his role.  In his role as Christopher Archer, Angarano terrifyingly takes control of the prison.

This is a film that leaves the audience pondering the outcomes of the experiment.  The experiment shows us that people can become power-hungry if they are placed in specific roles.  There are also implications of ingroups and outgroups, where people join up with others who are in similar situations as themselves.  Some of the prisoners banded together to rebel against the guards, while some chose to follow along with what the guards made them do.  The guards often ganged up on the prisoners, taking the experiment to the extreme via the use of physical brutality and mental harm.  The film brings us visually into an experiment that is hard to imagine from simply reading the thesis.  In writing, the reader can get an idea of the experiment, but we can only truly understand what was going on through visual interpretations.

The Bottom Line: The film gives the audience a fascinating peek into an experiment that had to be called off because of certain interactions among the guards and prisoners.

​Score: 7.5/10

Image credit: ​By Zahra Borhan - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49047896

With such a star-studded cast, I was afraid that this film would fall into the trap of many other films.  Often when an ensemble cast such as this one is put together, films will lack any sort of development.  Spotlight proves that an ensemble made up of renowned actors can still provide strong performances.  The true winners of this cast are Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, and Stanley Tucci.  They flesh out each others characters so well, that the audience cannot help but feel the explosiveness of each actor's performance.  I also think that Rachel McAdams did a decent job, but her acting has almost never taken me to a step above average performances.

 The film takes a bit to grasp its footing, but once it does it unravels into a focused mystery.  As the characters uncover new information, the audience joins in the journey towards writing a news article.  It amazed me to see just how long the one article took.  Each character meticulously works through their pieces of information, but somehow the film does not seem simple.  This is like a lecture where the teacher is so good that the student learns everything without dozing off.

Tom McCarthy's film before this one was The Cobbler.  Personally, I did not see The Cobbler but I am still wondering how this transformation could have happened.  From casting Adam Sandler to casting Ruffalo, Keaton, Tucci, and McAdams.  How is this possible?  Maybe the answer is Tom McCarthy.  Maybe he is back and ready to take over Hollywood.  One can only tell by seeing his newest film.

The Bottom Line:  This star-studded cast unravels a web of deception in the most engaging way possible.

​Score: 9.4/10

After a long weekend away from reviewing, I have returned with the second review for Ridley Scott month!  However, this film granted a dull biography on Christopher Columbus's life.  A wasted cast, poorly paced timeline, and odd score add up to create a lackluster film that uses a grand scale to underwhelm its audience.  Gerard Depardieu gives off a strong performance with what he is given, but ceases to bring the audience fully into the film.  I loved his speeches, but they seemed too short and the movie felt too driven away from his performance.

The film moves from place to place, which is expected in a film about an explorer.  But, the pace is offbeat, causing the audience to feel transported into confusion.  While in one scene, Columbus is in San Salvador, the next scene he is in Spain talking to Isabel.  This leaves a huge gap that left me feeling like I was lacking quite a bit of information.  Of course, a film cannot span a whole person's life in two hours and thirty minutes, but maybe Scott should not have focused on his whole life if he could not manage to firmly connect each piece of the story.

Lastly, the soundtrack to the film felt completely out of place.  As a student who has studied music, I enjoyed the music on the soundtrack (mainly the theme), but could not find its connection to the film.  It just felt too grand and modern for this period piece, detracting from the setting and causing a sense cheesiness with its electric sounds.  Certainly, Vangelis is a unique composer for film but he should not have composed this type of music for film.

The Bottom Line: If you are a fan of Ridley Scott, this film might be a disappointment because it fails to become the epic that it strives to be.

Score: 6/10

This film starts off the month focused on Ridley Scott as a director, and what a film it was to start off with.  I must admit that this film was not as good as I was hoping.  It was a bit too blockbustery feeling for me when I expected a bit more of a character developing war film.  From a technical aspect, this film has some great action and beautiful visuals.  However, I expected more than just a bunch of action and a less than par script.

The first hour of the film felt pretty repetitive with its foreshadowing of what was to come.  After all, I already knew that bad things were going to happen based on the title of the film. Yet, every single scene at the start of the film had characters acting overly superstitious and reminding each other that they will be successful in their mission.  I wanted a bit more backstory on each character, rather than their premonitions into the future.  This made the script feel pretty bland and poorly written.  

From a technical aspect, this film was beautiful with its yellow lighting during the action sequences along with some pretty cool views of black hawk helicopters.  If you are a bit squeamish, this film is not for you.  There is quite a bit of blood and gore, making me feel a bit nauseas at times, but also bringing the viewer further into the action.  Of course, the film was accompanied by a great original score by Hans Zimmer, pulsing along with the action.  And as many other war films do, Black Hawk Down has a great compilation soundtrack.  

The Bottom Line:  This film is great from a technical aspect, but fails to create any solid characters that the audience feels connected to.

Score: 7.5/10