Wind River (2017)

Desolate and secluded is what “Wind River” is as a crime thriller for the modern-western push. Taylor Sheridan directed this film with Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen as the two leads. It took forever for me to see this film. First it premiered at Sundance back in January, then had a limited release at the beginning of this month, and only this past weekend did it get its wide release. I was both excited and relieved when it showed up as available on Fandango. I must say the wait was worth it.

Renner plays Cory Lambert, a hunter and tracker on the Wind River reservation in the middle of Wyoming who needs to help rookie FBI agent Jane Banner (Olsen) solve the mystery behind the death of an Indian teenager. From the start I was hooked by the premise and depth of character development from Renner who gave this manly outdoorsman a broken heart. A hunter who wants to do the right thing. It’s surely one of his best performances that shows the type of range he has as an actor.

Olsen too showed me and the audience the strong and vulnerable side of female strength. She is basically a fish out of water who’s taken out of her normal routine and put into a situation that required her to put all of her training to good use. That and having to wear winter boots for the first time in her life. Both Renner and Olsen gave stellar performances that drew them both together in order to survive in the wilderness and to convince us that they can surely act.

My biggest take from this film is that it shows small films can be powerful still in this modern age of grand sci-fi epics. Once in a while, a small budgeted film like this comes around and brings a big gulp of fresh air to my cinema loving lungs. I had that same feeling with “Hell or High Water” (2016), another modern-western written by Sheridan. “Wind River” followed super hero movies such as “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. II”, “Wonder Woman”, and “Spider-Man: Homecoming”. It’s not going to make as much money or become as popular as these. Its storytelling, simple sets, good acting, and use of the terrain and weather brought out the human side of film-making.

Elizabeth Olsen (L) and Jeremy Renner (R) in “Wind River”

Dunkirk (2017)

Christopher Nolan slaps us in the face to wake up at the very first scene of his first war epic with. “Dunkirk” (2017). This film is about 400,000 Allied soldiers who are trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk, France, and need to get off before the Germans annihilate them. It stars Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, and Kenneth Branagh who all play British servicemen who need to defy the odds to survive and get home. They all have different stories to tell and Nolan does it with precision and great attention to detail. He definitely did his research to get all of the details right with this film to get us hooked and involved.

Any director that can successfully mix movie genres and be successful with it deserves the upmost respect in my opinion. Quinten Tarantino did it with “Inglourious Basterds” (2009) by mixing a World War Two movie with a western, and now Nolan mixed a WWII movie with a thriller. He does this by never showing the Germans. We never see their faces, and the only evidence of Germans involved in this battle are the Luftwaffe bombing and mowing them down, and bullets zipping past the protagonists’ heads from the German infantry. Not having any visual of the enemy, but yet they’re still killing you is terrifying!

Some of the most horrifying scenes in this movie doesn’t involve any devilish villains, intense action, or gory images, just some bullet holes and scared faces of British soldiers. That kind of film making and storytelling takes a lot of patience and direction to have it pulled off effectively. It’s a smaller movie with very little dialogue. To be honest, it doesn’t need to be big like other war epics I’ve seen. Nolan did it just right with the cast he had, the budget he had, and the production that he had. He did a lot more with less.

One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard from others who’ve seen this film (my wife included) didn’t like this movie because of lack of character development. You never remember nor do I think hear any of the soldiers names. For me, I never got annoyed with that concept. I argue that you don’t need to know their names. What you do need to know are their faces. It’s their faces you care about throughout this whole event. It’s their eyes that tell their history and their situation. Every time these characters were trapped or struggling to survive, I gripped my chair praying they get out alive. No matter what they did Germans were trying to kill them. Whether it be with rifles, planes, or submarines, the Germans were determined to destroy them.

This isn’t much of a spoiler, but I went into this movie blind, and was surprised that this movie took a non-linear approach to the story. I was confused at first with night and day scenes crossing over with different smaller events going on inside the bigger plot of the evacuation. I finally put two-and-two together when I saw one character in one scene, then at a completely different scene that took place in the past. I loved it! I as the audience was putting all of the pieces of this movie together without the help of subtitles spoon feeding it to me. That’s why I love Nolan films because he knows that the audience is smart enough to get it, and arguably he has the smartest movie fans (me included).

Kenneth Branagh in “Dunkirk”

Spider-Man Homecoming (2017)

This is the third series of movies to focus on Spider-Man directed by Jon Watts. First was Toby Maguire in “Spider-Man” (2002), Andrew Garfield in “The Amazing Spider-Man” (2012), and now we have Tom Holland in “Spider-Man: Homecoming” (2017). I’m happy to say that this film satisfied me tremendously. First with the fresh take on the character by casting a much younger actor who can pull off a teenager very well, and by incorporating him seamlessly into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which started with “Captain America: Civil War” (2016).

He is both innocent and immature, and has superpowers at the same time that makes him a very inexperienced and lovable character to follow. He sees a crime happening, gets involved, and causes more trouble for everyone in the process. If you know Batman, and what he does to criminals in a usual night out in the city, imagine a fifteen-year-old trying to do the same thing just weeks after becoming a superhero with no training. You will laugh until you keel over.

Michael Keaton’s character Vulture is an understandable one and I think to be the best villain in the MCU so far. He’s a guy who was cheated out of his business by Stark Industries and feels justified to turn to a life of crime. He’s not an evil villain. Most villains in superhero movies have been branded as all out evil and psychopathic monsters who don’t care about anything or anyone. That’s not the case with Vulture. He’s not motivated to wipe out an entire race, destroying the planet, or conquering the universe. All he’s accomplishing is earning a living for himself and his family. Keaton is the kind of actor who can show that he’s a down to earth kind of guy that we can all relate to in one way or another.

A new Spider-Man, a new director, a new villain, and a new universe is what this franchise needed to successfully put him back into the highlight of superhero movies. He’s been set into future movies, and doesn’t overpower anybody or anything that would contradict his stay in the MCU. Marvel proved that in Civil War, and Sony and Marvel’s shared Spider-Man has been a benefit for everybody who loves the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

Tom Holland in “Spider-Man Homecoming”

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

“War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017) is the third movie of a trilogy that I dare say is one of the strongest trilogies ever put to the big screen. Matt Reeves directed this ape epic after having directed its predecessor “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” (2014). His vision and direction of  Andy Serkis in “War” puts the capstone on Caesar’s character arch that truly tests his limits with both humans and apes. It’s a touching and cruel story about this advanced chimpanzee who seeks revenge on The Colonel (Woody Harrelson). It’s a well written story that gets deep into philosophical and personal conflict with what it really means to be human and ape.

My favorite part from this movie is the very first scene where we see apes and humans fighting in the woods. I personally think this is one of the strongest hooks of any movie in the last decade. It shows “guerrilla” fighting at its finest with both sides using the trees and terrain around them to outsmart each other. It gets very brutal with opposing forces slaughtering each other with bullets and spears. This is my kind of battle scene where both tactics and intensity merge flawlessly.

This leads me to say that that was the only time we see a battle, not a war between apes and humans. I would really have loved to have seen a third act battle where this war could have taken full swing as what we saw in the beginning, but the film takes us on a different direction that was more personal for Caesar. I wouldn’t have put the third act in the direction Reeves did, but it works for what it is. It just takes the “War” out of “War for the Planet of the Apes.” “Dawn” showed us an intense battle scene with Koba and the apes attacking the humans with machine guns and apes on armored vehicles, and I was hoping that we would see something like that on steroids in this film. That’s really my only complaint. Still good though. Whew! Dodged that spoiler!

I’m still amazed that the film crew didn’t train apes to act in this movie. Fox’s visual effects and CGI is so good in this film that every strand of fur and wrinkle on theses apes are so convincing, particularly the eyes. All three films are like this. Their attention to detail truly made me forget that these apes are performed by actors in motion-capture suits. This just shows how far CGI has come in the last decade. Human faces are still tricky to look convincing, but ape faces are very much to the point where anyone can believe they’re real. Maybe an ape will get an Oscar nomination, and then be disqualified when the academy finds out that a human gave the performance.

Andy Serkis as Caesar in “War for the Planet of the Apes”

WONDER WOMAN (2017)

Gal Gadot returns as the Amazon in Patty Jenkins’ heroic epic set in 1918 at the closing of World War I. This film had a lot riding on it. It needed to introduce a female superhero who had never had her own theatrical lead (just limited to TV and her supporting role in Batman V Superman (2016). It needed to be better than the prior DCEU films, since all of them have been divisive with critics and fans.

One of my favorite things about this film is the time period. World War I is one of the most forgotten wars in in motion picture-next to the Korean War. Not many movies cover these wars anymore, particularly a super-hero film. Patty Jenkins and Warner Brothers took a risk to make a superhero film that takes place during a war that the majority of today’s movie-going audience don’t know much about. This film took the genres of period war film, and a super-hero film and merged them successfully. The Lasso of Truth merged with Maxim machine guns is a true nerd’s dream come true!

In BVS, I was underwhelmed by Gadot’s performance due to her lack of emotions and her very stale vocals as an actress. In Wonder Woman, I am very relieved to say that her acting chops has drastically improved with Jenkins’ direction. She did direct Charlize Theron to an Academy Award win back in 2003 for “Monster”. Jenkins knows how to direct actors and she doesn’t have much experience with action scenes. I was impressed with how the action scenes were executed by how the Amazon’s fought the Germans and how Wonder Woman fought the Germans in close quarters combat.

One of the biggest gripes I have with this film is it’s use of German accents when it was unnecessary. I was taken out of the movie when the Germans were on screen and they spoke English with accents. Their dialogue wasn’t  that long and could’ve been subtitled, which would have been more authentic to what this film was close to being. What really made me cringe was that Pine’s character, Steve Trevor speaks German, but when he’s around all German’s he speaks English with a German accent. That’s just stupid. Subtitles people!

In the end, this film was fun to sit through and experience the history of Wonder Woman as it is meant to be. It’s fresh, funny, loving, and action-packed. It also feels very secluded from everything else. I am very excited to know that the DCEU has this film under its belt and that Wonder Woman will appear again in “Justice League” coming this fall. I have hope for the DCEU and looking forward what they have to offer. I wasn’t a fan of Wonder Woman before, but now I am.

 

Chris Pine (L) and Gal Gadot (R) in “Wonder Woman”

Logan (2017)

James Mangold delivered to us a moving story about a man who’s lost hope and finds what it means to love one last time, and this happens to be a comic-book movie. It runs deep with emotions brought in by veteran Wolverine actor, Hugh Jackman, and veteran Professor Charles Xavier, Patrick Stewart. Both of them gave their best performances, which I think have been the best in any comic-book, and with Mangold directing them led to an emotional roller-coaster ride.

The first thing diving into the body of this review is how real this movie felt. The plot was really simple about Wolverine and Xavier getting a fellow mutant girl named Laura (Dafne Keen) to the U.S. – Canadian border away from Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) and the Reavers. There are no green-screens, no convoluted plot, no large gathering of characters to fight a bigger foe, no superhero costumes, no flying, no large machines, and no multiple plots. It’s a singular plot with the story following Logan. To make it more real, we have Logan in the near future whose healing ability is failing him. He can die if beat up and stabbed enough, and boy does it get close to that.

Jackman and Stewart are a powerhouse duo on screen together. Their dialogue and chemistry on screen makes for some of the best character development and harmony I’ve seen in a film in a very long time. I truly believed them when they talk about their history and all of the hurt and turmoil they’ve been through. Stewart as Professor Xavier in his frail and old body, and Wolverine in his pain and hidden love for the professor and long-time mentor give them a very humane bonding. It’s a touching story.

This is by far the most compelling, most brutal, most honest, most frightening, most real, best acted, and overall best X-Men movie out there. I left that theater with an emotional drain that I couldn’t escape. It left a deep impression on me on what happens to us when we get old, and what legacy we want to leave when we’ve completed our mission on this planet. It’s a very metaphorical and spiritual approach on life, but very appropriate with what this movie aims at. It makes you think about life.

Patrick Stewart (L) and Hugh Jackman (R) in “Logan”

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

My son and I went to go see “The Lego Batman Movie” starring the voice talent of Will Arnett and directed by Chris McKay. Our initial time was sold out so I bought tickets for the next time available. This left us playing in the arcade for 40 minutes. We played a Batman car racing game, air hockey, and a snowmobile game. My wife calls them snowmachines. Must be the Alaska girl in her.

Once we got in the theater and the movie was coming on, I knew we were in the right place. The opening fight scene with Batman and the villains was one of the best hooks in a movie so far in the year. The new Batman song playing during the fight is so catchy and fun that I can work out to that song all day and break into a dance routine. The song and the fight told Batman’s persona so well with him showing off his talent as a fighter and being self-centered to the point it’s funny.

The biggest positive I have for this film is how true it is to Batman. McKay and his production team were on par with this. Bruce Wayne is as self-centered as his alter ego and it works for him. And the voice Arnett gave Batman made him come alive. I got to understand his background and learned why he is the way he is. There is a reason why he never stays with one woman, why he stays out of the spotlight in his personal life, and why he is such a “dick” to Robin throughout most of this movie. What was even more true to Batman is how his two minute feud with Superman was more real and understanding than what Zack Snyder’s two-and-a-half hour “Batman V Superman” (2016) gave us. Plus it was way more funny.

I wasn’t all that impressed by Zach Galifianakis’s voice performance as the Joker. It wasn’t horrible nor distracting, but not memorable. Not sure why Mark Hamill didn’t reprise his epic voice talent for the Joker. I can understand why they chose a more popular comedian to voice the villain, but the voice still isn’t all that impressive. That’s me nit-picking. Doesn’t derive the fun out of it. Still enjoyable.

This is a great movie. A worthy Batman movie that doesn’t hold back from making fun of itself with great comedy, great storytelling, great characters, and great personality. This is a movie full of heart and good family moments that blend well together. This film makes me and my son love Batman even more.

“The LEGO Batman Movie”

Silence (2016)

Martin Scorsese took a 180 degree turn from his regular gangster and city-life themed films to direct this quiet epic set in seventeenth century Japan. He derived from the norm before with the family film, “Hugo” (2011) that was a great insight to what he can accomplish. “Silence” only adds to Scorsese’s library of wonderfully crafted movie making. It’s a simple movie with no epic battles or awe-inspiring scenes, but it’s beautiful. The cast is stupendous with all of them giving convincing perfomances. Even the minor roles filled by Ciaran Hinds, Tadanobu Asano, and Issei Ogata were all compelling and tremendous.

Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver play two Catholic Jesuit priests who travel to Japan to find their mentor played by Liam Neeson when Christainity had been outlawed. The film follows these three characters, but the lead role falls on Garfield as Father Rodrigues who is tested to the limits of insanity for his religion. He lost 40 pounds for this film, studied with the Jesuits, and portrayed a man who practically lost everything and shows his reactions and deepest thoughts immensely. I am a religious man who keeps the commandments as best as I can, read the scriptures, pray, and attend church every Sunday, but I have no idea how I would handle what Rodrigues went through. I don’t know what I would do.

Film-making is an art form, and the craftsmen behind this film definitely  show it with what comes on-screen. The art direction (I still call it that after the name changed to production design at the Academy Awards) is very detailed and plays well with the actors on set. I really thought I was watching a screenshot of the past, 400 years ago. The costumes were very well detailed and worn precisely how the shogunate Japanese wore them. And the makeup was finely applied so I couldn’t tell what was real and what was a prosthetic. All of this makes for good illusion. I got fooled by what they did in this movie.

I was a little surprised that Howard Shore didn’t write the score for this film. Others he’d composed for Scorsese had been “The Departed” (2006) and “Hugo” (2011). They were very good and effective scores ,and I believe this was a missed opportunity to create a beautiful and memorable score for a Japanese epic. I’m sure Shore was busy or he would’ve done it. The score was solemn and very forgettable.

This is the second film released this year connecting Garfield to religious conviction. His first one was “Hacksaw Ridge” (2016) about a Seventh-Day Adventist who enlists in the Army and refuses to fire a weapon (You can find the review below). These two performances of Garfield’s are very similar about a young Christian man having his faith tested at the hands of the Japanese. Two separate instances that took place centuries apart. They both serve as a basis of faith. I know a lot of people who think Hollywood doesn’t make movies about religion anymore, but these two films very well make religion a forefront for the audience to take in. Mel Gibson and Scorsese both do this very well. “Silence” has a place in today’s cinema. It’s for the secular and the faithful.

Andrew Garfield (L) and Shin’ya Tsukamoto (R) in “Silence”

La La Land (2016)

It is so refreshing to see a film as good as “La La Land” in an era when movie-making appears to be getting lazy. That’s not the case in most situations, but it feels like it with films so rushed and produced only to make the box office. Every movie ever made is meant to make money, but when they solely rely on the box office, the movies can be very bland and unfulfilling. “La La Land” is a film that gets every emotion out of you. Even more so than “Inside Out” (2015). (That’s saying a lot.) “La La Land” has a terrific message, a touching love story, a beautiful and memorable score, exciting songs, and superb performances from its actors. The best part of this film is the whole movie!

Damien Chazelle directs this musical epic who I think is one of the most talented upcoming directors. This whole film definitely reflects  his love for music and classical movie-making. His project follows two people, a struggling jazz pianist named Sebastian played by Ryan Gosling, and Mia an aspiring actress with a fear of failure played by Emma Stone. Both fall in love and are faced with balancing their passions to their talents and their passions for each other. As a married man sitting with my wife watching this film, it brought us closer together as a couple who loves good musicals-let alone good movies.

I watched a lot of movies this year with forgettable and bland scores. I’m looking at you Marvel! I was also looking forward to Michael Giacchino’s score for “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”, but was disappointed with no whistling melodies. Justin Hurwitz’s score for “La La Land” brings new life in my life. It’s very recognizable, hip, beautiful, emotional, and easy to whistle. I get a  lot of satisfaction when I’m able to whistle a melody from a film. A recognizable and captivating score, even the simplest melody can do a lot for a film. When a score comes on, you should be able to think of that character or scene. I can recognize Mia’s theme, Sebastian’s them, their love theme, and all of the scenes. I just like a movie more when its music gets me all giddy inside.

Like “The Revenant” (2015), “Gravity” (2013), and the “Pianist” (2002), “La La Land” takes us on single cuts with us following the camera every where. I prefer less cuts than most people, and boy was I pleased with the camerawork and motions this film took me on.  I could focus on the characters and the scene as a whole without cuts distracting me. It was as if I was looking at a moving photograph. Funny to mention that because that’s what motion picture is. But with the way the film was shot makes it more true to that statement.  CinemaScope really came through with this one. It took me back to watching 1960s musicals with large scale shots of the whole production.

The marketing for this film has been the most honest marketing for any production I’ve seen in a long time. Every frame and shot in the trailer is in the movie! The first trailer I saw of this musical was so catchy, brief, and motivating. I need to refer back to “Rogue One” again (sorry for the negative publicity). Half of the clips from the trailers never made it into the movie! I was so annoyed with that. I understand that editing isn’t finished when the trailers come out eight months prior to its release, and “Rogue One” went through re-shoots. I was so relieved sitting in the theater for “La La Land” watching all of the clips and scenes make their way into the picture. I was sometimes anticipating some of the best shots not making it in. I was so overcome with joy and pleasure when the trailer came through on its promise.

This film is so good that this review can’t detail all of the positives I want to write about it. I can hardly think of any negatives about this film. When I watch it enough times, I’m sure I’ll get nit-picky, but for now I’ll enjoy the freshness that comes with this masterpiece. Eyes moistened in my sockets during the third act, not because of the story, but from the sheer good film-making and production of the whole thing. Everything was where it was supposed to be. All of the actors played their parts perfectly. And the score, sets, and editing harmonized to make the best movie and musical this modern world could have asked for.

Emma Stone (L) and Ryan Gosling (R) in “La La Land.”

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

(SPOILERS)

I saw “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” directed by Gareth Edwards twice now to get a clearer opinion and I think the only way for me to fully get my thoughts down about it accurately and truthfully is to go deep into spoilers. Beware if you haven’t seen the film about these rebels stealing the Death Star plans.

There are a few things in “Rogue One” that bothered me. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big Star Wars fan. I can probably tell you what race Greedo is. Ya. I’m that guy. But with being a Star Wars fan-I am a movie fan first. And a good movie overpowers a Star Wars movie. In this Star Wars movie I’ll start out mentioning the two CGI faces that I wasn’t all that impressed with.  The first one we see was of Grand Moff Tarkin speaking with Director Krennic. Seeing Peter Cushing’s face on someone else really took me out of the movie. Cushing died in 1994 and that makes it more distracting. No matter what you do to a character’s face with CGI, if the actor is dead, it will always look fake. Was the CGI good? Yes. Was it convincing? No. Good effort though.

The first two acts were blurred into one. It was a bit dry and I fell asleep during the second act when I watched this film the second time. A lot of moving around from different planets, which got me distracted from the main plot of the film. I would have preferred a more direct and linear approach by following Jyn Erso and Captain Cassian Andor on their mission only. They would have their team from the beginning. This way, we would be more invested in Jyn’s mission and her friendships with all of the soldiers around her. “The Dirty Dozen” (1967) does a really good job with this. This other route they went was really boring. I never thought I would fall asleep during a Star Wars film in the theater. I saw the film already, so I knew what was going to happen, but I didn’t care enough to stay awake for it. I jolted myself awake when they get to Scarif. Don’t fall asleep during that fight. It’s worth staying awake for.

I loved the third act of this film as it brings our heroes, villains, and weaponry to the same place on Scarif. Rebels verses Imperials at its finest. Stormtroopers get blown up, blaster fire goes in every direction, the Rebel fleet meets two star destroyers, Scarif troopers throw grenades, AT-ACTs stampede, and the Death Troopers get dropped into the midst of the firefight and cause some heavy damage. Smoke rises, ships crash, bodies fall, everything I wanted in a Star Wars “war” film. This film definitely delivered on that front.

My biggest gripe about this film is it gives us location subtitles. I hate these whenever they come on screen. This is just me, but I feel that it really undermines the audience’s intelligence by reminding us where we are in the movie. First it was Eadu, then Jedha, then Yavin 4, and finally Scarif! There was that planet that Galen Erso gets caught on and the comet station where we first meet Captain Cassian Andor. I didn’t care about those places, hence I can’t remember. I always get taken out of the movie with these things, and what’s worse is we have never seen these in any other Star Wars film. They don’t belong there.

The best part of this film for me was Darth Vader slicing up rebels, berserker style. When Vader’s lightsaber lit up, he proved to us (the audience) that he is the scariest and most destructive living being in the galaxy. He uses every single force power to take out a dozen troops. Force throw, force pull, and a ton of lightsaber moves. This was not Anikan. This was Vader at his roughest and deadliest. The entire movie could have sucked, and this scene alone would save it from a negative review. I would have preferred seeing more Vader in a more key role such as Tarkin was.

I like the movie, but I won’t give it anything more than that. For me to have loved this film would to take out the location subtitles, give more back story to its characters, give me an opening crawl, compose a more memorable score with a melody, less side characters, moving Easter eggs around (R2-D2 and C-3P0 show up randomly for no reason), and more Vader in a plot driven scene. Again, let me reiterate that I liked the movie, but I (as in we) need to like good movies and expect it from Star Wars. I wanted to “love” this chapter of the saga, but I wouldn’t be honest with myself if I said otherwise. So looking forward to “Episode VIII” next year.

Diego Luna (L) and Felicity Jones (C) in “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”