2018 Best Picture Nominees – Darkest Hour

So you’re telling me there’s two nominated films that are about the same historical event?!

Hello everyone and welcome back! Soggz-Blogs will be returning to a much more regular schedule, with new posts once every two weeks alternating between this and a new Podcast that I co-host — you can find episode 1 here!

As you may have already guessed, I’ll be kicking things off by seeing all the Oscar nominees for Best Picture and reviewing as many as I can. I already wrote a review for “Dunkirk” back when it was released, so be sure to check that out here

________________________________________________________________________

[SPOILER FREE]

“Darkest Hour” is directed by Joe Wright and stars Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill in his time as Prime Minister during WWII. If you know me, you know that I’m pretty sick of WWII movies unless they do something unique, and luckily I found this one to fit that bill. It definitely helps that this was more of a biopic focused on one important historical figure and the people around him, making for a character-driven film. However we also really get to see the political side of early WWII rather than the front lines of the battles themselves. I went to see this pretty late and I was exhausted from the day, but I was still hooked and enjoyed myself due to the energy this movie had.

The main reason why I think this movie will rank high on my favorites list for this years nominees is simple: Gary Oldman. For the love of God, someone give this man what he deserves because everything about his acting was exhilarating. When I take into account everything I knew about Winston Churchill, it felt like I was looking into a very high quality and dramatic recording of what he was actually like. Oldman even got Churchill’s lisp and manner of speaking down perfectly, and if someone doesn’t stop me I will sit here and gush about how Oldman retold history so well and disappeared into the person he was tasked to portray. I bought everything about this man’s craft and it was a constant thrill in every scene.

Moving on from how impressed I was with a single actor’s performance, I appreciated and enjoyed other aspects of how this movie was made. I thought the cinematographers did a very good job of keeping the focus onto Churchill even as he interacted with everyone else. There were some subtleties in the way some scenes were filmed and I wish I had the vernacular to elaborate but trust me, they’re there. Even in the first scene where Churchill was introduced, a viewer with no prior knowledge of who Churchill even is could make an educated guess about what kind of leader he was, and I think the camera work had something to do with that.

The most interesting scenes, in my opinion, of the whole film are the ones that show Churchill’s War Cabinet. Here is where you really get to see what you learn in school about the kind of leader he was, including his flaws. Coincidentally enough, the main conflict of the war this movie focuses on is the Dunkirk Evacuation, and to be honest (oh Lord the Nolan fanboys are going to hate me), I liked this perspective more. You really get to see the War Cabinet and everyone around Churchill lose hope about ever bringing the soldiers home safely, but you also see Churchill keep pressing on and clear his own doubts about his position in the process. They’re two very different perspectives and I liked things about both, but this film really got across that feeling of the weight of the world on one man who’s already being questioned by almost everyone around him. On top of all of this, there’s one scene at the end that I don’t want to talk too much due to potential spoilers, but

“Darkest Hour” sets out to show us how one man dealt with an immense responsibility despite it being one he had worked for his whole life, and I think it accomplished this with a lot of help from stellar performing. Seriously, even if you hate movies like this, if you appreciate the hell out of amazing acting then that alone should be a reason for you to catch this one.

I’m giving “Darkest Hour” a Soggz-Blogs rating of 8.5/10

The Thing about Cinematic Universes..

Let’s ignore the fact that I disappeared for a few months because life is crazy and just go into a deep dive on Cinematic Universes. So I recently, like a few optimists out there, watched the movie known as “Justice League”. I also, like a majority of the population, saw “Thor Ragnarok”. Additionally, me and a few other nerds on r/marvelstudios spent weeks praying for a trailer for “Avengers: Infinity War” that was given to us last week and blew all of our minds…and just happened to break the record for most viewed movie trailer on Youtube.

I know that not writing reviews for either Thor or Justice League were very out of character for me (although not as out of character as Batman was…), so just to be really quick about it:

  • I loved “Thor: Ragnarok”. It was unexpected, the improv feel made me happy, I got to see more obscure comic book things I never thought I’d see on the big screen, sure it was pretty weightless on the universe when compared to the Ragnarok comic book but I’m fine if we goof off with Thor and Hulk before we get real for “Black Panther” and before the potential for a major shake-up in the next two Avengers movies. Lastly, Jeff Goldblum is a national treasure and I won’t accept anything less.
  • “Justice League”…I’m not mad, I’m just frustrated. There is a decent movie in here bogged down by unfortunate tragedy behind the scenes, bad production decisions separate from that, and absolutely horrible executive decisions. However, the more I think/talk about it, the more I actually do get mad because it finally became very obvious that whoever is making the decisions behind the DCCU doesn’t actually care about the characters and what they’ve done for people (there is an entire generation of us that grew up on the Justice League Animated Series). I’m sick of being an apologist about it, this thing was a mess and frankly I’d be okay if they cancelled the DCCU.

Between the overwhelming success of Marvel Studios (coming up on their 10th anniversary) juxtaposed with the potential $500k loss on “Justice League” for the DCCU, the laughably bad attempt at a “Dark Universe” by Universal, Sony literally making a deal with Disney so that Spider-Man can be better, and the upcoming X-Force from Fox that spawned from the success of “Deadpool”…It’s becoming obvious that studios are struggling and scrambling to achieve what Marvel Studios has. In this post I’ll attempt to limit being an MCU fanboy/gushing over my idol Kevin Feige to try and pinpoint why studios that are trying this “Universe” thing are failing.

(P.S: Vanity Fair published this article for the MCU’s 10 year celebration, I’ll be referring to it quite a bit.)

hybxnqn

Making a Franchise Before Making a Good Movie

dark_universe_movie_release_date_calendar

Take a good look at that picture. That was a promotional image released by Universal for their “Dark Universe”. Objectively it looks cool, especially the inclusion of A-list celebrities, so what’s the issue? This thing was circulating the internet BEFORE the first film in the franchise, “The Mummy”, was even released. Universal jumped the gun to announce and plan this multi-billion dollar list of movies…and the box office revenue/critical reception to the first film speaks for itself. Here we are now with rumors of the thing possibly being cancelled due to top members of the production teams wanting out.

It was pretty gutsy of them to go for the power move, but now it just looks silly. Its even more embarrassing than that scene in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” where Harry literally walks down the aisle of Sony’s slated “Sinister Six” movie that we now know never happened and never will.

It’s great that you want to be ambitious and bold, even Feige took a huge risk with the initial phases of the MCU. Still, we come back to the fact that that first Iron-Man movie was absolutely amazing and is still the gold-standard for superhero origin movies, not to mention that the Avenger initiative wasn’t brought up once in the movie until the credits rolled. In some of these other franchises…the first movie wasn’t exactly great (“Man of Steel”, “The Mummy”, “The Amazing Spider-Man”) and felt the need to rub their non-existent franchise in your face. It was a “start smaller and build” strategy for Marvel, versus a “We have a Franchise coming up, the first movie will be out in a year” strategy for the others, and that is a HUGE difference when it comes to building fans as well.

Overreacting and Overcorrecting

If you’ve been paying attention, you might remember that a very common theme in production for the DCCU movies included extensive re-shoots and even re-writes. Justice League had to go through so many changes that they had to use CGI to remove Superman’s mustache that actor Henry Cavill needed for another role. The “Suicide Squad” script was heavily revised after the accidental enormous success of Fox’s “Deadpool”, and a ton of movies were announced and had casting rumors after response to “Batman vs Superman” and “Suicide Squad”, notably an Affleck directed Batman movie and a possible Gotham City Sirens movie starring Margot Robbie. At some point, it felt like DC was making it up as they went along and that isn’t on accident.

By changing their scripts, movies, and production plans on a whim, Warner Bros. showed us that this giant narrative they’re trying to accomplish wasn’t being given much thought. Rather, they were being extremely reactionary to the criticism and little praise their movies got. Now obviously things change for studios and it is good to cut what isn’t working and what is, but it’s like they would open up Facebook the day after their movie showed, compile every stupid comment they could find, and make huge executive decisions off of those.

For example: Suicide Squad’s reception was bad > but people liked Margot as Harley Quinn > Let’s announce “Gotham City Sirens” > What about all the issues about this movie? > They wont care once we announce “Gotham City Sirens”, we’ll seem progressive and it’ll be fine.

Similarly, think about the X-Men movies and “Days of Future Past”. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a damn good comic movie, but it arguably did seem like a response to the frustration behind “The Last Stand” and the success of “First Class”. If that doesn’t seem odd to anyone, think about “Apocalypse” (yikes) and the hinting of a very obvious intention to re-start the Phoenix Saga in a future movie…even though it would make more sense to do something new rather than to keep fixing Brett Ratner’s screw-up.

tumblr_inline_oi3vcps1ax1s9uxe8_500

Interfering with Creators

It’s such a shocker that the most successful movie DC had was the one where Warner Bros hired a good director and gave her a lot of creative freedom! That was sarcasm, that isn’t shocking it all. It also isn’t surprising that the less-than-successful MCU movies were the ones where Feige was least involved and Ike Perlmutter was still making huge decisions. I really don’t have to emphasize that the most successful comic-book movies had talented directors with creative freedom, that should be obvious. Yet somehow, bad decisions kept being made and in 2017 I got to see Batman suck in a movie for the first time since I watched “Batman Forever” (so many regrets).

Actually Caring

It warms my heart to read the Vanity Fair article and find out that Feige, like so many comic-fans/movie-nerds, is just an innocent fanboy with a desire to see his favorite characters represented properly on the big screen. That is the kind of person that should be in charge that rarely ever gets to be. What needs to be realized is that a lot of these characters that studios can “build a universe” around are all unique and can hold a lot of significance to a lot of people. Often times, people don’t even want to see a character in a live action movie because they’re scared it’ll be ridiculous (such is the case for me and Batman Beyond). So when executives view these characters as simple cash cows or good PR for their corporate image, it feels a little insulting to the fans. Again, this should be obvious, yet here we are.

Well that’s enough rambling about comic movies for now, see you soon for my review of *inhales*…THE LAST JEDI!!!!

Movie Review – The Lego Ninjago Movie

All cats involved in the production in this movie were all great pets that I’m sure were misunderstood.

Have you ever been the only childless adult in a theater full of parents and kids? Then laugh uncontrollably when the “My Little Pony Movie” trailer comes on and some kid yells “I WANNA SEE THAT DADDY”? Would highly recommend if you’re feeling like a mad lad.

“The Lego Ninjago Movie” is the third Lego movie and stars Dave Franco, Jackie Chan, Justin Theroux, and others. I remember seeing the trailer for this one while watching “The Lego Batman Movie” and thinking to myself that I definitely wanted to see it, because I’ve had so much fun with these past two Lego movies. Not only do I absolutely love Legos, but the animation style is still pretty darn cool and impressive and it made for a new “sub-genre” in the genre of animated movies. Let me explain:

 

tumblr_otcs1bixng1qgwefso1_400

If you think about the last two Lego movies, they were fresh because it felt like animation that was not only family friendly, but with messages and fun for adults. There was self-aware humor for the franchises they parodied, a lot of sarcasm, a lot of poking fun at the genre as well (especially in the case of “The Lego Batman Movie”). Throw in some A-list celebrities (Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, and SO many more) and you have yourself a great movie.

Whereas “The Lego Batman Movie” had a lot of similarities in theme and structure to “The Lego Movie”, it still felt fresh due to the focus on a character that’s been around for 75 years and making fun of everything that happened in those 75 years (you can peep my review for that back in February here). Unfortunately I have to say that trying to do the same with the Ninjago franchise just didn’t work as well, and caused the formula to be exposed.

Before I get into that, I should note some good things. I think the animation is getting even better (Ninjago city looked better than Gotham did in the last movie) and while the star-studded celebrities may not be entirely present, there’s still some great voice acting from funny people like Dave Franco, Jackie Chan, and Kumail Nanjiani. I laughed a few times, but you also have to remember I have the sense of humor of a toddler sometimes. Regardless, there are one or two small punchlines that kids won’t get, and the action scenes are also pretty sweet. Now that I got that out of the way…

tenor

This movie just felt really predictable and unoriginal. Keep in mind if you know how I roll, you know I think “Its formulaic so I don’t like it” is one of the laziest movie criticisms anyone can say, and most people sound so pompous when they talk about it (and it turns out they haven’t even seen the installment of the franchise they’re bashing 9 out of 10 times). So for me to say that this movie followed a formula is kind of a big deal to me. What bothered me the most is that I always associate the Lego movies with parody and satire…and this plot-line was so generic that it was begging to be parodied? Kid that no one likes, is secretly a super cool hero, Dad is evil, and Uncle is good? I feel like I’ve seen this kind of movie so many times and that a sarcastic interpretation of it with the Lego medium would’ve been a great opportunity…but this was the first time I felt like a Lego movie was exactly what everyone assumed the first one was going to be: A kid’s movie that parents would be dragged to only to be dragged to their local Lego store right after.

Admittedly I might be sounding too harsh, especially if the intention was just to make a family friendly movie. But honestly, my stance on “kids” movies is that they can be powerful and fun for everyone, and we all know that there are so many examples of this. Yeah, you can make a movie that’s just meant for kids, but if you get me into the theater by marketing to me, I’m going to expect something in it for me (especially given your track record with previous movies). So because of that, my opinion on this one isn’t that it’s “bad”…but it’s just kind of there to kill time.

“The Lego Ninjago Movie” gets a 6/10.

tumblr_omjlk5hc861w7c6jjo4_1280

Movie Review – Ingrid Goes West

#Blessed #Ootd #TheWorldIsANightmare

[THERE WILL BE NO SPOILERS OF MAJOR PLOT DETAILS IN THIS REVIEW]

Hello again after a long time! Apologies for those of you who’ve been awaiting the return of Soggz-Blogs (an estimated ~2 people out there), but I took a break from the theater and reviews to keep my mind fresh and actually watch some TV for once! Regardless, I am back doing what I love: going to movies and bringing you my thoughts!

So without further ado, “Ingrid Goes West” is a film that first premiered at Sundance Film Festival in January, and later got a limited release in August. The story follows Ingrid Thorburn (Aubrey Plaza) as a social media stalker who just found her new obsession in Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen), and moves to LA with the sole purpose of befriending Taylor. The movie also stars O’shea Jackson Jr, who I absolutely loved in “Straight Outta Compton”, and overall I was pretty excited to see this movie due to the potential for topical humor. I’ve got to say, I was definitely not prepared for what I got.

This movie ended up being an extremely dark comedy that touches on mental health, the toxicity of social media, and how ridiculous the world is in general. What was insane to me was that despite the fact that all the characters were just really bad people in their own rights, I was actually sympathizing with them and the themes that director Matt Spicer chose to explore. By the end, I was pretty much floored in a similar manner to when I watched “Get Out”, scared but oddly accepting of it.

giphy

In terms of getting the “typical movie stuff” out of the way first, the acting performances were fantastic and really helped sell the characters. Aubrey and Elizabeth were great, and a huge shout-out goes to my man O’Shea…I really hope this guy gets bigger roles in the future because he’s definitely killin’ it. It helps that he had some of the funniest lines in the movie, so props to the writers there. While the plot may have gotten a little predictable and the movie seems like it can put itself in a box sometimes, I do think Spicer made some great directing choices. Specifically, the color scheme in this movie is very bright and vibrant, which directly conflicts with the darker tone of the comedy and plot. This works so well due to the theme of social-media and fake personalities; what you see is vaguely positive vs what is actually going on is super screwed up. This brings me to my next point of something I really appreciated.

Remember “La La Land” and how beautiful it made Los Angeles look? One critic I believe described that whole movie as “A love letter to the city of LA”. So, I’m an LA native and definitely feel that whenever a movie comes out about how great Hollywood and sunny Los Angeles is. This movie did the complete opposite and chose to highlight just how crappy LA can be sometimes and I admired that. Seriously, as much as we all like to think that LA is this magical “City of Stars”, any of us that work/live in LA can point to multiple days where we’ve felt miserable because of the city, people, culture, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I can only think of 2-3 other places I’d want to live at some point in my life…and if I do end up never leaving LA county I wouldn’t really complain, but man it SUCKS sometimes. “Ingrid Goes West” captured that and I found it funny and relatable. Hell, these characters themselves are all just crappy people, but in the moment I found myself not thinking that because they were just doing what stereotypical LA people do.

I usually stay away from plot details except for what is already revealed in trailers, but I REALLY don’t want to go over any plot this time because I want people to see this movie and enjoy the ride. If you’ve read my “What is Soggz Blogs?” section, you know I do this because the theater/cinematic experience means a lot to me and I love it when my readers see a movie because of one of my reviews. With “Ingrid Goes West”, I’m not recommending that people see it to be entertained…I’m recommending it because of how sad it is that these ridiculous antics and crazy things that happen to these characters are very much a problem in the modern world.

source

I know it can be an incredibly cliche “pseudo-intellectual” thing to complain about social media. I know that social media has its huge perks and I think the intention behind creating various platforms was good initially. That being said, it has gotten to a point of being extremely dangerous and “Ingrid Goes West” really gets that message across, sacrificing subtlety in the plot to do so. In the same way that you would see a movie character in a crime-thriller deal with a drug addiction, the character of Ingrid Thorburn’s “drug” is her instagram account. It messes with her life, people shame her for it without understanding her, others glorify it, and every time something bigger is happening, the only thing that makes her happy is her phone. The movie perfectly portrayed an exaggerated, but entirely plausible, look into society’s obsession with “likes”, social media icons, and a false sense of security.

Before even knowing how hefty this movie would be, I actually took a 2 month break off of instagram myself this summer…and when I came back I found myself caring about a lot of stupid things that I didn’t care about when I wasn’t constantly looking and scrolling. The drama this movie used to make a point wasn’t even that far off from the obscurity found in reality, and that’s what made “Ingrid Goes West” such a hidden gem for me.

tumblr_osbdjtqsgs1qgljyuo3_500

While being simple and even a little flawed sometimes, “Ingrid Goes West” gets an 8.5/10 for being very thought provoking and unique. 

Movie Review – Atomic Blonde

I guess blondes have more fun after all.

“Atomic Blonde” is directed by David Leitch and stars Charlize Theron and James McAvoy in an action flick set in the Cold War era (1989). Although, upon watching, this movie has more of an espionage-esque “spy movie” feel to it rather than something like “Die Hard” or anything…okay I’m gonna come clean, I’m a little behind on the action genre (as in I haven’t seen John Wick or Kingsman)…but the point is I watched “Atomic Blonde” anyway and I had fun! Let’s get into details:

Even though it is fairly obvious for these two actors at this point, I feel the need to praise both Theron and McAvoy anyway for being so good at what they do. It’s always harder to play something like a “no nonsense spy/cop” because with most people its just so hard to take seriously, especially if they’re given silly dialogue. Theron and McAvoy were BOTH given some lines I didn’t particularly care for, but I still bought their performances the entire time. Theron’s character of Lorraine Broughton is brutal, intelligent, and ferocious..whereas McAvoy’s character of David Percival is a mystery hiding behind a front he puts up, and this is conveyed pretty well. Great acting always makes movies like this a lot more fun, and I’m glad this casting worked out the way it did.

atomic-blonde

The fight scenes are so ridiculously entertaining, and it feels realistic for a few reasons. For one thing, it is so obvious that Theron put in the time, effort, and work in to train for these scenes. She gave us an intensely physical performance and that alone makes this movie worth the watch. Additionally, Theron’s character doesn’t just breeze her way through every fight with multiple armed/trained KGB agent…she gets punched…a lot. It didn’t feel like a “Black Widow” situation to me where she’s almost never in any trouble even when she goes up against aliens, it felt like this really was a woman who’s mastered her craft and that makes her perfectly capable of fighting multiple bigger opponents at the same time.

Despite these great fight scenes, like I mentioned before, this had more of a spy-movie feeling to it, and a rather gritty one at that. There isn’t much color, and I think that works due to the setting being Berlin (before the wall came down). Even with a more “gray” color scheme, the music and sound design are so delightful because it is engineered to go with the action. So the music will be loud and fun, cut out when someone slams a door, cut back in when Theron throws a punch, etc. Whatever vibe they were going for, it ended up being a lot of fun. There were a few moments where the editing was off and it made a fight scene look more choreographed than natural, but it only happened about once or twice.

giphy

The narrative structure of the movie was kind of weird, and I’m not really sure if it worked for me. Agent Broughton is in an interrogation room recalling the mission with her MI6 superiors, and the actual mission is told through flashbacks. The issue I had is that when the story would get good, there would be a flash forward back to the interrogation room where John Goodman got a line in and looked tense about something, and then we’re back to the mission. I’m not quite sure how they could’ve told the story better, but I just know the back-and-forth took me out of it sometimes, especially when I was hyped after a good scene. In the end, there’s nothing too compelling or original about the narrative either. They tried, but that brings me to my next point.

Who’s bright idea was it to “shamalamadingdong” the ending and throw in 3-4 (I lost count) “twists” in the last 10 minutes of run-time? Seriously, this movie’s ending is so weird and I’m quoting the friend I saw it with: “Wait…so what happened?”. It’s not that they were subtle or they were obvious either, they just..existed. I would’ve rather had them beat me over the head with it with more “on the nose” writing and stop after the 2nd twist instead of doing what happened here. Considering that this was the last part of the ride, the landing just didn’t stick and it left me feeling unsatisfied.

ab5

Despite that rather hefty disappointment, I was along for the ride and felt good about it. If you’re looking for some cool secret-agent moments with great acting and well-choreographed fights, check this movie out. As for me, I’m gonna go ahead and give “Atomic Blonde” a 7.5/10

Movie Review – Dunkirk

“Tom Hardy wearing a mask” is the officially the new “Sean Bean’s character dies”.

[THERE WILL BE NO SPOILERS OF MAJOR PLOT DETAILS IN THIS REVIEW]

Wait…can you really spoil a “True Story” though? Eh, whatever. I hope you guys don’t mind, but I wont be using gifs or anything colorful this time, I’m just going to go at it.

“Dunkirk” is the newest film by critically acclaimed and (pretty much) universally loved by film nerds everywhere director, Christopher Nolan. This movie is based on the true story of the Dunkirk Evacuation during WWII, where British (among others) soldiers were stranded on a beach in northern France while being attacked by Germans, and all hope for these 400,000 men seemed to be lost.

This was a very experimental project, even for Nolan, as nothing about this movie screams “traditional” to me. Personally, Nolan has made two movies that are probably in my top 10 of all time (“The Prestige” and “The Dark Knight”). I admire how much passion he puts in to the things he creates and I was very excited to see this in 70mm IMAX. I feel the need to put this disclaimer in here before the review starts, but I don’t think this is Nolan’s best work despite the hype when reviews first came out. I think at the end of the day, how you feel about this movie depends on why you go watch movies, and being objective is a little tougher than one would imagine. With that, lets get in to details.

To get the obvious out of the way, WOW. This is nothing short of a beautiful visual spectacle, and some of these shots are so realistic and jaw-dropping. If you are interested in this movie at all, don’t wait for the blu-ray. Go see this gorgeous piece of cinematic art in the best format (70mm IMAX or bust). You wont only be doing your eyes a favor…but your ears as well because this is some of the best use of sound in a film I’ve heard. Hans Zimmer…my man…well done, yet again. Everything I’m about to say about the narrative and the tone of the movie is supplemented by the film-making and it adds to the psychological effects that Nolan wanted his audience to feel. Its absolutely breathtaking and heard-pounding..and due to the nature of the film, very nerve-wracking.

So because the narrative has multiple parts to it, the story is structured in a way that it is told via three different viewpoints: the Mole, the Sea, and the Air. I was actually a huge fan of this because we got to see a lot of variation in the toll that the conflict took on these characters in the different scenarios. It really drives home the point that war effects everyone somehow and that despite the same goal, there are different objectives. I personally really enjoyed the parts on the Sea, due to Cillian Murphy’s brilliant acting and the character played by Sir Mark Rylance. There’s even a moment on the sea with a younger character and Cillian Murphy which tore me apart inside, among all the other heavier moments in this movie.

The “villain” in this movie isn’t the Germans, as you would expect in a traditional WWII movie…the antagonist is the feeling of anxiety itself. Once this movie picks up, it doesn’t stop at all, and you’re constantly on the edge of your seat. You’re spending the whole time wondering how/if these guys are going to survive that you forget for a second that you’re watching a movie and not just experiencing panic yourself. Unfortunately, that brings me to the point where the movie lost me, and the reason I’m probably going to hear some backlash.

I understand that in a war situation, especially a suicide mission-esque scenario, that no one’s going to sit around a campfire and say they’ve got a wife waiting at home for them or something, its unrealistic to expect that. However, as real as this movie was trying to be, the story is still being told through the medium of “film”, and film requires characters to latch on to that can reel you in to the story. I can’t remember the name of a single character in this film, much less the kid on the actual poster. That’s an issue for me, because while I love feeling a scenario and a well-structured narrative…movies are about the characters for me. Most, if not all, of my favorite movies have amazing character development and someone I can look at and say “I empathize/sympathize with them” because of what I have learned about their character throughout the film.

However, admittedly, I understand that character arcs weren’t the point of this movie. I said earlier that the villain of this movie is anxiety, and that anxiety stems from the fear that these people aren’t going to survive. I had to sit down, sleep on it, talk to some friends about it…and it doesn’t help that I wasn’t in the best of moods when I saw it. But Nolan wanted to tell a story and make his audience feel a part of it, and I feel like he accomplished this. Even if for some reason he couldn’t, the risks this project took and the originality of it (despite it being another WWII movie) is something to admire. I have a personal preference for good characters in the movies I watch, but this is one of the rare cases where what the director wants goes beyond what I want, and I feel like I must acknowledge that despite the fact that I wouldn’t jump at the chance to watch this movie again.

At the end of the day, “Dunkirk” is extremely thrilling and ambitious. I said at the start that how you receive this movie depends on what you go to movies for, and I hope by now that my audience knows what I look for, but that I do my best to be objective despite personal taste. With that being said, I’m giving “Dunkirk” an 8.5/10.

Go see this one with an open-mind in the best theater you can find, you won’t regret it.

Guest Post – Movie Review: War for the Planet of the Apes

If you weren’t hyped over a Matt Reeves Batman film…well you should be now.

This Piece is written and contributed by one of my best friends, Andrew Park! Andrew currently works as an account executive for the Ontario Fury, a professional indoor soccer team in southern California. Passionate for all things sports, Andrew aspires to turn that passion into a profession of writing for websites such as The Ringer. He graduated from Cornell University with a Bachelor’s in industrial and labor relations, and currently writes for his own blog and podcasts occasionally. Show him some love by clicking here!

______________________________________________________________________________________

The highly-anticipated third act of the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise, director Matt Reeves returns from his success after being brought on for the same role in the second installment, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. A franchise which traces its origins to the novel, La Planète des Singes (translated to Planet of the Apes), by French author Pierre Boulles, the Planet of the Apes, has experienced its most successful stretch of movies in its history. Having been a fan of the first two installments of the reboot franchise, I came into the movie with fairly high expectations, and left — for the most part — satisfied.

giphy6

For the uninitiated, the Apes (note: will refer to the franchise as this from now on) premise is that apes of all kinds around the world have gained a heightened level of intelligence due to the spread of an Alzheimer’s cure gone bad, which has turned into what is known as the “Simian Flu”. Humans have had a fairly negative effect from the virus — death. Heading into War (shortening this too for convenience sake), we find that the humans have decreased even more in number, and are shown as a military faction Alpha-Omega, lead by the mysterious Colonel (Woody Harrelson). The main protagonist of the trilogy, the chimpanzee leader Caesar (Andy Serkis), is joined by the clan of sentient apes he leads, as well as returning characters such as Rocket (chimpanzee) and Maurice (Bornean orangutan). The movie follows Caesar’s journey that hopefully bring two main goals: closure and survival.

As with the previous two installments of the rebooted franchise, War boasts of absolutely incredible CGI and visuals. The movie takes place in wilderness of northern California — Muir Woods to be exact — amidst a very snowy winter. With a movie like Apes, where the movie centers around sentient primates, one would have to assume that the actual apes would not be simply actors in mere costumes, but enhanced with the technology of CGI. The closeups of the faces of characters such as Caesar and Maurice are able to show the subtle changes of emotion where — for lack of a better word — they are certainly “humanlike”. It’s absolutely incredible where cinematic technology has gone, and this movie is the most recent poster child of said technology. The part I was the most blown away was that at times, I felt that Maurice — a completely computer-generated character — felt more realistic than Serkis as Caesar. That’s how amazing the CGI was for this film.

source1
Yes, that’s all CGI. Incredible.

Speaking of Serkis, ever since his performance as Gollum/Smeagol in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it seems that his main calling card has been these CGI roles — one that he does not seem to get enough credit for. Serkis again delivers a masterful performance, further showing that CGI’d (if that is even a word…it is now) actors have as much impact on movies as regular actors. Even as Caesar, who at this point can speak English in full sentences, the list of lines pales in comparison in terms of pure volume as that of a traditional role. But Serkis shows that less is more, and is able to show a leader who is constantly haunted by his checkered past, but still has to maintain an air of confidence as the undisputed and beloved leader of his species.

War brings the “quality over quantity” aspect of screenplay to the table, as the few lines that are uttered by Caesar or acted out via sign language from one of his cohorts still have hard-hitting impact. With the least amount of humans on-screen, despite having the least amount of dialogue of the trilogy by far, it holds up as the most thought-provoking.

This all goes to say that this film definitely has its own flaws that keep it from becoming an absolute masterpiece. Because of the sparse dialogue and frequent subtitle-aided sign language, a more casual viewer is likely to miss certain lines communicated between the apes, as well as the pure facial expressions. The lack of lines places heavy emphasis on the actions of the characters, which does have an effect of drawing out certain sections of the movie. The film ended in a fairly abrupt and convenient manner, which is always a disappointing result to have after such beautiful build-up to the climax.

giphy5

Ultimately, I had a great time watching this — especially having invested time in the two previous installments — and would ultimately recommend this to others who have done the same. Some of the best CGI I have ever seen on the big screen, with some of the best lines and moments of the film delivered without a single word being spoken.

I give War for the Planet of the Apes an 8.5/10.