Darkest Hour

Year: 2017

Director: Joe Wright

Starring: Gary Oldman, Lily James, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ben Mendelsohn, and Stephen Dillane
Tagline: Never, never, never surrender
Synopsis: Winston Churchill's tumultuous first weeks as prime minister during WWII.

Review

If you haven't heard of Joe Wright's Darkest Hour, that's unfortunate.  The film is brilliant and already getting awards buzz.

The story follows the first few weeks of Winston Churchill's first term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  Neville Chamberlain has resigned after a vote of no confidence.  Hitler's armies are steadily taking over all of Europe.  British and French troops are retreating to Dunkirk.  Some parties in the government believe a treaty with Germany is Britain's only hope of survival.  Into this scene strides fiery and tenacious Winston Churchill: the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

The story primarily rests on Winston Churchill, portrayed by (a completely unrecognizable) Gary Oldman.  I will be stunned if Oldman is not nominated for Best Actor.  He fully embodies the role.  His intellect, charisma, temerity, vulnerability, and wit carry the film from start to finish.  For a film entitled Darkest Hour, there is a surprising amount of humor, much of which emanates from Churchill's keen wit.

As some of the characters freely admit, Churchill is a somewhat fearsome, offputting individual.  His wife regrets that others don't see him as she does or love him as she does.  This is where Lily James' character, Elizabeth Layton, comes in.  Elizabeth was one of Churchill's personal secretaries.  In the film, she not only serves to typewrite his speeches, she serves to be his link to the common people.  She provides his first glimpse at the strength and resolve of the British people.  She also provides a way for us as the audience to approach the seemingly unapproachable Churchill.

It's always interesting to watch a story like this from the safe side of history.  We know the outcome.  That the film remains engaging and gripping is a tribute to the filmmakers and actors.

I'll admit, there were times when I wanted to take Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax (both proponents for negotiations) by the lapels and shout at them that a treaty with Hitler and Nazi Germany would be ludicrous, dangerous, and ultimately disastrous.  They had no idea what Hitler and the Nazis were truly up to.  And they didn't know.  But we know from this side of history.  WWII was not a repeat of WWI.  Our modern perspective can make some characters' reasoning appear baffling.

Although the events of Darkest Hour took place almost 80 years ago, the story is ever relevant.  It is a story about leadership, true leadership.  It is a story about standing up for what is right, rather than what is easy.  It is a story about raising a light in the darkness.  And it is inspiring.

One random note: director Joe Wright clearly loves the visual nature of typewriters.  There were many extreme closeups for dramatic emphasis.  Typewriters and Winston Churchill were both about words and the placement thereof.  It works well.  (It's a bit sad how visually boring modern technology is by comparison.)

The film is rated PG-13 for thematic material and some swearing.  It also shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Churchill spends large portions of the film smoking and/or drinking.

Darkest Hour is a really good film that turns into a great film by the third act.  It deserves the awards buzz it is getting.  And it deserves a view.  It also pairs nicely with another of my favorite films from this year: Dunkirk.  (Operation Dynamo -- the code name for the evacuation of Dunkirk -- was a crucial part of Churchill's first few weeks in office and helped him gain the approval he needed.)  If you enjoy WWII dramas or good dramas in general, don't miss Darkest Hour.


*** Spoiler Section ***
There are two scenes in the film which turned it from being a really good film I was glad I was watching into a great film I look forward to owning and watching again.

The first scene may very well have happened.  It starts with Churchill -- who battled with depression -- being comforted and encouraged by his wife.  She then lets in a visitor: none other than King George VI.  What follows is a terrific, honest exchange.

The second scene probably didn't occur in reality.  But it works brilliantly in the film.  On his way to meet with the War Cabinet, Churchill goes rogue, leaves his chauffeured car, and takes the Underground instead.  What follows is a humorous but stirring scene between Churchill and common Londoners, all of whom are ready to fight on and never surrender.  Fictitious it may be, but it is great nonetheless.  It's the kind of scene we wish had really happened.

Quotable Quotes

• "How do you drink during the day?"  "Practice." -- King George VI and Winston Churchill
• "Will you stop interrupting me when I'm interrupting you!" -- Winston Churchill to Lord Halifax
• "What just happened?"  "He mobilized the English language and sent it off to war." -- Parliamentarian and Lord Halifax
• "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!" -- Winston Churchill

Ferdinand

Year: 2017

Directors: Carlos Saldanha

Starring: John Cena, Kate McKinnon, Bobby Cannavale, Lily Day, David Tennant, and Jerrod Carmichael
Tagline: Built to fight.  Born to love.
Synopsis: Ferdinand the bull just wants to enjoy the flowers, but the world sees him as a fighter.

Review

I've always sort of known the character of Ferdinand the bull.  I probably saw the Disney animated short as a kid.  But all I remembered through the years was the image of a bull, sitting under a tree and smelling the wildflowers.  I didn't know how well the short story would transition to feature length.  The answer is: tolerably well.

Ferdinand is one of those likable animated movies that entertains you in the moment but is largely forgotten soon thereafter.  It didn't feel long, but there were certainly scenes thrown in to expand the run time and to appeal to the kiddos.  But overall the story is straightforward and true to the source material.  It's enjoyable.

Ferdinand himself, voiced by wrestler-turned-actor John Cena, is the best part of the film.  He's a great character and Cena really brings him to life.  He's charming, lovable, and funny.  Ferdinand carries the weight of the movie and keeps it on track.

As for the rest of the characters, well, they seemed like the stock characters you get in most kid's movies.  Lupe the goat actually got on my nerves pretty quickly.  The only unexpected character was Angus, a Scottish hairy coo who can't see well because his hair is in his eyes.  (I suppose I liked him simply because he's a Scottish hairy coo.)

Ferdinand is sweet and funny, but sometimes it tries too hard in the latter category.  The horses (with stereotypical German male model accents) were unnecessary and there only for added humor.  Ditto for the random "dance off" between the horses and the bulls.  Mildly amusing, but mostly filler.

The biggest problem with Ferdinand is that all the best parts of the movie were in the trailers.  There were very few surprises and even fewer additional jokes.  If you've seen the trailers, you've basically seen the movie.

That said, Ferdinand was enjoyable enough and kids will like it.  The message of being true to yourself comes out without feeling forced.  If the kids need a movie and they've already seen Coco, by all means, see Ferdinand.

*** Spoiler Section ***
I'm not sure it's much of a spoiler, since the scene is hinted at in the trailer, but the scene in the arena with El Primero is pretty good.  Ferdinand is poked and prodded to fight but ultimately refuses, choosing instead to sit down and face the matador's sword.  That scene was well done and hit the right emotional notes.

Quotable Quotes

• "If this rock moves before I count to three ... [a bird swoops in and takes the rock]  What could you possibly need that for?!" -- Ferdinand
• "Your turn!" -- Ferdinand to the other bulls about resuscitating the rabbit
• "Face on fire!" -- Ferdinand

Approaching the Manger with Confidence

In the classic Christmas film Mr. Krueger’s Christmas, the titular character has a dream that finds him as a visitor to the Nativity scene.  As he approaches the Christ child – the only one aware of his presence – he notes his own humble attire and lack of any gift.  Still, he approaches.  He approaches with expressions of gratitude and love.  But he also approaches the manger with confidence.  As he kneels at the manger, Willie Krueger kneels before not only his Savior and King, but also his trusted and beloved Friend.

A few years ago, Elder Jorg Klebingat taught us ways to approach the throne of God with confidence.  At this Christmas season, can we not also think on ways to approach the manger of Christ with confidence?  In doing so, we can take guidance from those who were there.

Mary approached with deep reverence as she “kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”  Joseph approached with obedience as he “did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him” and protected both Mary and the Christ child.  The shepherds approached with gratitude, “glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen.”  The wise men approached with sacrifice, traveling far and bearing treasures to offer a King.  Moreover, they each approached Christ and the manger with humility.

Reverence, obedience, gratitude, sacrifice, and humility: these were the gifts they brought to lay before the manger.  In doing so, shepherds and magi, handmaid and carpenter could also approach with confidence.

The final verse of “In the Bleak Midwinter” reads: “What can I give Him, poor as I am? / If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb. / If I were a wise man, I would do my part. / Yet what I can, I give Him – give my heart.”

Before we start rockin’ around the Christmas tree, before we dream at a Yuletide fire, before we assemble for our family feast, let us first remember to gather at the manger.  And may we, like Mary and Joseph, the shepherds and the wise men – and yes, even Willie Krueger – kneel there with gratitude, humility, and confidence.

Merry Christmas!

The Man Who Invented Christmas

Year: 2017

Director: Bharat Nalluri

Starring: Dan Stevens, Christopher Plummer, Jonathan Pryce, Anna Murphy, and Justin Edwards
Tagline: How Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol and created a tradition
Synopsis: After three flops, Charles Dickens decides to write a Christmas story, which leads him on a personal journey as well.

Review

The title of the film is a bit misleading.  The story is more about how Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol than it is about how doing so reshaped the traditions of Christmas in Victorian England.  Some sense of the latter comes across.  But that may be because I've read about Dickens' influence and could read between some of the lines.  Title aside, The Man Who Invented Christmas is an enjoyable holiday film.

I don't know how many liberties the film takes with the truth.  Dickens did write A Christmas Carol in a pinch.  His last three works hadn't sold well, and by the time he had the idea to write a Christmas story, it was about six weeks until Christmas.  It's likely unknown how much inspiration Dickens drew specifically from the world around him or from encounters he had.  But even if fiction strays from the facts, the gist is there.  And it helps bring A Christmas Carol to life in a new way.

The more familiar you are with A Christmas Carol, the more you will enjoy The Man Who Invented Christmas.  I've read the story many a time.  I loved seeing all the details that would show up in the story (like the brass door knocker and the chain-clad safe) and hearing words that would eventually come from Scrooge's mouth.

The story centers on Charles Dickens himself, and Dan Stevens brings the author to life with energetic zeal.  Dickens is almost manic-depressive as he feverishly tries to write the story only to be interrupted left and right.  The chief distraction is his own father: a kind and generous man who is also an incorrigible spendthrift.  Dickens characters also take on lives of their own in his imagination.  Ebenezer Scrooge -- brilliantly portrayed by Christopher Plummer -- follows Dickens around as both inspiration and critic.

The heart of the film is the climax of A Christmas Carol.  It's almost frustrating to watch Dickens wrestle with the ending of his tale, which for us is a foregone conclusion.  Can a "covetous old sinner" like Scrooge really change?  Yes.  He can.  He must.  But Dickens isn't so sure.  And in order to write that redemptive ending, Dickens must first come to terms with his own ghosts of the past and the shadows he can't let go of.  Thus Dickens and Scrooge find their redemption together.

It doesn't entirely work, but it works well enough to be satisfactory in the film.

The film is rated PG for thematic reasons.  I don't remember any swearing.  There are a few dark/scary moments.  Any child who can handle A Christmas Carol can manage this take on it.

Unfortunately, the film didn't get a lot of press.  Nor did it get a very wide release.  You may have to hunt a little in order to see it.

The Man Who Invented Christmas doesn't quite live up to that title.  Nor does the "making of" capture all that makes A Christmas Carol the timeless literary masterpiece it is.  But as a fresh take on a familiar tale, it is an enjoyable film.  It will get you in the holiday spirit, even if it doesn't fully explain how Dickens' work revived that spirit.  I enjoyed it and will likely watch it again next Christmas.  But now I need to go watch Muppet Christmas Carol again.


*** Spoiler Section ***
Dickens gets A Christmas Carol published in time and it becomes a huge success that helps rekindle the spirit of Christmas in Victorian England.  OK, that's not really a spoiler.

Quotable Quotes

• "I'm the author!"  "Allegedly." -- Charles Dickens and Scrooge
• "People will believe anything if you are properly dressed." -- Charles Dickens and John Dickens
• "No life is useless that lifts the burden of another." -- Charles Dickens
• "No!  You can't kill Tiny Tim." -- Tara
• "I knew you and I would make something great together." -- Charles Dickens to Scrooge

Coco

Year: 2017

Directors: Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina

Starring: Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, and Alanna Ubach
Tagline: The celebration of a lifetime
Synopsis: In following his dream to become a musician, Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead where he must uncover the truth behind his family's ban on music.

Review

Before the feature film is a (not-so) short film: Olaf's Frozen Adventure.  It was a bit twee at points.  It was much longer than it needed to be.  But by the end, it was better than I'd expected and it made me smile (mostly because of Sven and a hawk).

On to Coco!

In a return to what it does best -- original stories that tug at your heartstrings -- Pixar has crafted yet another winner.  I've seen it twice already and look forward to seeing it again.

Although it didn't strike me immediately, I later realized that Coco is Pixar's first musical.  Others of their movies feature songs in the soundtrack, but they don't have the characters themselves breaking into song.  Well, there is Mike Wazowski's "Put That Thing Back Where It Came From," but that doesn't really make Monsters, Inc. a musical.

Coco is a realistic musical.  By that I mean the characters sing in a way that wouldn't be strange in the real world.  Miguel sings at a talent show.  Ernesto sings in a musical production.  This isn't the kind of musical where a character breaks into song to express their emotions and the entire village joins in with harmony and choreography.  Not that there's anything wrong with that kind of musical, but the realistic approach suits Coco, which has enough non-realistic things going on.

The songs are short and fun and suit the film and the characters.  The main song of the film is "Remember Me," and it has been stuck in my head since I saw the film.  There are actually three versions within Coco, two of which will tug at your heart.

Pixar has raised the bar once again in terms of animation.  Coco is breathtakingly beautiful.  The lights, the colors, the marigold petals, the alebrijes, all are gorgeous to look at.  Think back to what Andy and Sid looked like in Toy Story.  Then look at Miguel and Hector.  Animated humans have come a long way since Pixar's early days.  Even the differences in hair and water textures from The Incredibles to now are amazing.  And if that wasn't enough, I read that the animators took the time and effort to ensure that all guitar playing in the movie is accurate.  Miguel is correctly fingering the music when he plays.  Impressive.

I love the humor of Coco (and, let's be honest, of most Pixar films).  The jokes aren't forced, manic, or crude.  They flow naturally from the characters and the situations.  We chuckle at Miguel's family because we recognize ourselves and our own families.  Dante (the Xolo dog) is also fun.  He has some great facial expressions.

Coco would be a good film if it were simply beautiful and funny.  But it's more than that, which is what has long set Pixar film's apart.  Coco has heart.  It's not about Miguel hanging out with skeletons on the Day of the Dead; it's about Miguel connecting with his family in both the living world and the land of the dead.  Miguel's passion is music.  But as his journey continues, he realizes that family is most important of all.  Coco is about treasuring the family we have and remembering the family that has gone before us and the legacy they left us.  Honestly, Coco is like one brilliant, poignant plug for family history work.

The film is rated PG for thematic reasons.  It is a movie that deals unashamedly with death after all.  If your kiddos were OK with The Incredibles they'll be fine with Coco.

Coco is all about what Pixar does best.  It's not quite up to the same level as Finding Nemo, Up, or WALL-E, but it comes pretty close and is a fitting addition to the Pixar lineup of heart-tugging films that take us where we've never been before.  Go see Coco.  Then go home and call your parents/grandparents.


*** Spoiler Section ***
That Hector is actually Miguel's great great grandfather didn't surprise me.  I'd put that together when Hector first showed himself to be a musician.  The fact that Ernesto never questions that he has a great great grandson, and never asks about his family, says quite a bit about Ernesto's character in life and in death.

I went into the film wondering why it was named "Coco."  As the film unfolds, it becomes clear.  Mama Coco is the link, the link between the living and the dead.  She is the link between Miguel and Hector and between Hector and the world of the living.  Coco is why Hector did some of things he did.  And Coco is why Mama Imelda did some of the things she did.

Quotable Quotes

• "I asked for a shoe shine, not your life's story, kid." -- Mariachi player to Miguel
• "I'm terribly allergic."  "But Dante doesn't have any hair."  "And I don't have a nose, yet here we are." -- Clerk and Miguel
• "We need to borrow your guitar."  "Like how you borrowed my van, and my mini fridge, and my femur?!  Where's my femur, Hector?!" -- Hector and Chicharron
• "Aw, that's such a sweet sentiment.  And such bad timing!" -- Hector to Miguel

Justice League

Year: 2017

Director: Zack Snyder

Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, Jeremy Irons, Amy Adams, Ray Fisher, Diane Lane, and Ciaran Hinds
Tagline: You can't save the world alone.
Synopsis: With an otherworldly invasion already beginning, Batman must enlist Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg to unite and save the world.

Review

I grew up watching iterations of Batman and Superman.  I knew their backstories inside out before I'd ever even heard of Iron Man or Captain America.  So as Justice League drew closer, my hopes were high that it would turn out.  Batman v. Superman had filled me with doubt, but Wonder Woman gave me hope that DC could pull it off.  In the end, some of Justice League worked well and some of it didn't.  It's not a great film, but it is an enjoyable one.

First, let's start with some of the problems.  Then we can end on the highlights.

Lego Batman once said, "I only work in black.  And sometimes very, very dark grey."  We get it, he's the Dark Knight.  But the dark and gloomy aesthetic of the DC films is getting old.  Every scene feels moody and visually subdued in blues and greys.  This feels true even when we have colorful characters like Wonder Woman or Flash.  The dark aesthetic is especially jarring when compared to Thor: Ragnarok, which I had seen a few days before.  I understand that DC wants to show itself different from Marvel ... but this might not be the way.

Batman has one of the greatest rogues galleries (villains who oppose him) of any superhero.  Clearly, DC can do excellent, memorable villains.  Steppenwolf isn't one of them, at least not in this iteration.  He wants to take over the world (typical) and reform it like his own (which sounds a bit like General Zod).  He's powerful, without question.  But Steppenwolf is bland.

Another problem with Justice League is that it feels way too similar to Avengers: Age of Ultron at times.  Steppenwolf's parademons are similar to Ultron's army of robots: plentiful and expendable.  They are the perfect fodder for our heroes to show off their skills.  Further, both villains make their base of operations in eastern Europe.  And both villains are bent purely on the destruction of all life on earth.

There are other similarities with Age of Ultron, and other problems with the story, but they are in the Spoiler Section.  Suffice it to say here that the story is enjoyable, but not great or memorable.  Justice League brings nothing new to the superhero table.

The music in Justice League is a mixed bag for me.  I didn't like the choice of songs that were used a couple of times.  Some of that is my own musical taste, but they didn't seem to fit.  The score itself was interesting.  It borrowed the themes from the recent Wonder Woman and Man of Steel films.  But it also subtly incorporated at times some older themes.  Superman's theme from the Christopher Reeve movies is used briefly.  And there are hints of the Batman theme used in the Tim Burton films.

Despite the film's flaws, it is undeniably fun to see these heroes come together and learn to fight side by side.  The film focuses mainly on the motives and histories of Batman and Wonder Woman.  They have some good moments together as they learn from each other and prod each other forward.  The Flash brings some much-needed humor to the film.  He's socially awkward.  As he says: "I need friends."  He's also new to heroics, which makes him a nice balance for the more mature and seasoned Batman.  Aquaman is the tough cynic (who has a great scene involving Wonder Woman's lasso of truth).

Cyborg, though, felt like the weak link.  At times he seemed more like a convenient plot device than a character the film knew what to do with.  His personality seems to have one side: angst.  Yes, his backstory lends itself to being angst-filled.  But he felt the least-developed of all the characters.

In addition to the heroes, we've also got Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, Lois Lane, and Martha Kent.  Each of them play their parts well.  And all the roles (superheroes and allies) feel like they have the right actors.

While Justice League can't begin to compare to the humor found in most Marvel films, Justice League does attempt to have more fun and doesn't take itself as seriously as previous DC films.  Batman and Wonder Woman both have a subtle humor to them.  Alfred offers some great sarcasm and droll wit (as only Jeremy Irons can deliver).  But much of the humor centers around the Flash.  And it mostly works.  The film is a step in the right direction, but it's still missing the humor and heart that made Wonder Woman a winner.

The film is rated PG-13.  I don't remember much language.  The rating is almost entirely for the superhero violence, which might even be a bit less than the previous DC installments.

I enjoyed seeing Justice League.  And I will likely buy it so I can watch it again.  Is it a great film?  No.  But it's got some fun moments.  And it's a step in the right direction.  The movie is partly about not losing hope.  I believe there is still hope for DC films.

There is a mid-credits scene for fun.  There is also a post-credits scene to tease future films.

*** Spoiler Section ***
Superman returns.  That should come as a surprise to nobody.

This is where Justice League is again too similar to Age of Ultron.  Bringing Superman back to life is highly reminiscent of bringing Vision to life.  There is even an almost identical conversation about the wisdom of such a plan.  Some heroes are all for it, driven in part by their own guilt.  Other heroes are against it, because bringing beings to life or back to life is pretty serious stuff.  And in both films, the doubters eventually acknowledge that it was a good idea (as Superman and Vision do the heavy lifting of defeating the villain).

Another qualm I had with the film was, why was Lois Lane plan B and not plan A?  They are bringing Superman back from the dead.  From the dead.  Having four armed strangers (well, Wonder Woman is only a near-stranger) confront him when he first comes back seems like a bad idea from the start.  Why not go straight to the one person he would most want to see?  Then maybe the heroes could have focused on protecting the Mother Cube of World-Destroying Power rather than let Steppenwolf just lazily pick it up off the ground.  Just a thought.

One last thing.  They can explain Superman coming back from the dead.  But how do they explain Clark Kent coming back from the dead?

Quotable Quotes

• "I don't believe it.  Who are you?"  "A believer." -- Terrorist and Wonder Woman
• "Save one person."  "Then what?"  "You'll know." -- Batman and Flash
• "I miss the days when one's biggest concern was exploding wind-up penguins." -- Alfred
• "This wasn't the plan."  "No.  It's the team." -- Batman and Alfred
• "I work with children." -- Wonder Woman (in reference to her teammates)

Thor: Ragnarok

Year: 2017

Director: Taika Waititi

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Mark Ruffalo, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Anthony Hopkins
Tagline: Thunder will reign.
Synopsis: Thor must enlist the help of Hulk, a Valkyrie, and the ever-mischievous Loki in order to save Asgard from Hela, goddess of death.

Review

When I saw the first trailer for Thor: Ragnarok, I was nervous.  I wasn't sure about the music or the retro 80s vibe.  And after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, I wasn't so sure I liked the comedic direction Marvel was taking.  Within a few minutes of the film, though, I was sold.  Thor: Ragnarok is terrific.  Terrific I say.

First off, this movie is perhaps the funniest Marvel film to date.  From start to finish (and post-credits finish), there is humor.  Thor has developed a sense of fun and irony, especially as he deals with Loki and Hulk/Banner.  Loki is as wonderfully sarcastic as he ever was.  And a number of other new characters steal whatever scene they are in.  The comedic timing is spot on, including Stan Lee's obligatory cameo.

Thor finds himself on the far-off world of Sakaar, which is a long way from the noble and proper Asgard.  The world is colorful and eclectic and personified by Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster.  Such a manic place lends itself to the humor the film is going for.  Thor's "journey" to first meet the Grandmaster is perfectly trippy and musically recalls another off-kilter character/film (but I won't spoil that).

Thor: Ragnarok has a terrific cast of characters.  As I said, Thor is allowed to be more fun and humorous.  But at the same time, we see how he has also matured since his first outing.  His relationship with Loki is as complicated as ever.  But pairing him with Hulk/Banner is what works so well.

The first Thor film had a very Shakespearean vibe to it (it was directed by Kenneth Branagh after all).  While that tone is long gone for Ragnarok, this film has two characters who struck me as being very Shakespearean: Valkyrie and Skurge.  Their character arcs are nothing new.  Rather, they are more archetypal.  And in both instances, that works.

Hela has the distinction of being Marvel's first main female villain.  (Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy is only a secondary villain.)  She is a scene-stealing, scene-chewing villainess with sharp knives and an equally sharp tongue.  I got the impression Cate Blanchett loved every minute of it.

Dr. Strange has a brief role in the film (as teased in a mid-credits scene in Doctor Strange).  Though the sequence isn't long, it is funny and works well to keep the every-sprawling Marvel Cinematic Universe connected to Earth and the myriad characters linked to each other.

Of the new characters, the rock-like alien Korg was my favorite.  He's voiced by the film's director, Taika Waititi.  Pretty much everything his unexpectedly high voice says is quotable and put a grin on my face.  He possesses a dogged optimism and self-deprecating humor.  Korg is the best.

Humor and good characters are one thing, but if you don't have a good story to tie them together, you've lost me.  Fortunately, Thor: Ragnarok has a good story to go with it.  Sure, it's another superhero tale and not Shakespeare.  But it still has one of the strongest stories of a Marvel film.  Nearly everything in the plot and story works together seamlessly.  The story ties the zaniness, the sarcasm, the spectacle, and the impending world destruction all together.  And it works.  It works better than its predecessors.  And it's a whole lot of fun along the way.

The film is rated PG-13.  There is some language.  I'll admit, I don't remember it being a lot, but then again, the film I'd seen previously swore quite a bit.  So Thor might just have been mild by comparison.  Still, it was nothing beyond what other Marvel movies have done.  The level of violence is also about the same.  Thor has a shirtless scene (because I'm fairly certain that is written into his contract).  CGI Hulk has a brief bare backside scene.  There are a couple more mature gags.

At this point, there are so many Marvel superhero movies, it's hard to pick favorites.  But Thor: Ragnarok is definitely in my top 5.  Maybe even my top 3.  I look forward to seeing it again.  If you haven't seen it yet, get to it.  And be sure to stay through all the credits.

*** Spoiler Section ***
Thor loses an eye.  I didn't see that coming.

My only complaint about the film was how Lady Sif and the Warriors Three were handled.  Sif wasn't in the film because of scheduling conflicts with actress Jaimie Alexander.  But they might have at least mentioned her and accounted for her absence.  And I was sad by how unceremoniously both Volstagg and Fandral were dispatched by Hela.  Hogun at least gets to die fighting.  But the three aren't ever mentioned again.  Yes, Thor has a lot on his mind, but it would still have been nice to have him acknowledge that three of his best friends are dead.

Given my (admittedly slim) knowledge of Norse mythology, the ending of the film felt appropriate.  Ragnarok isn't something that could be avoided or prevented.  It's something to rebuild from.

Lastly, the three cameos during the Asgardian play are terrific.  Sam Neill is Odin.  Chris Hemsworth's brother, Luke, plays Thor.  And Loki is portrayed by none other than Matt Damon.

Quotable Quotes

• "That's a crown?  I thought those were eyebrows." -- Thor to Surtur
• "I've been falling for 30 minutes!" -- Loki to Dr. Strange
• "I tried to start a revolution, but didn't print enough pamphlets.  So hardly anyone turned up." -- Korg
• "He's a friend from work." -- Thor about the Hulk

Murder on the Orient Express

Year: 2017

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Michelle Pfieffer, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Josh Gad, Willem Dafoe, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr., and Judi Dench
Tagline: Everyone is a suspect.
Synopsis: Hercule Poirot must deduce a murderer aboard a luxury train stranded in the snow.

Review

I've never read the Agatha Christie novel.  Nor have I seen any other adaptation.  So I went into Murder on the Orient Express having no idea who the murderer was.  That greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the film.

This was also my first real introduction to Hercule Poirot.  (I'm not sure the spoof version in Murder by Death should count.)  I found Branagh's take on the eccentric Belgian detective to be quite enjoyable.  He has humor, intellect, and just enough heart.  Poirot has most of the best lines in the film and I enjoyed his dry humor and straightforward manner.  While he certainly has an ego, I never felt it became overbearing.

The rest of the cast of characters are well-played but not very fleshed out.  I suppose it is hard to get to know characters who are all on their guard.  They are all suspects and all suspicious of each other.  It was nice to see Daisy Ridley in a role other than Rey (in Star Wars).  And it was interesting to see Josh Gad in a completely non-comedic role (he's the voice of Olaf from Frozen and plays Le Fou in the live action Beauty and the Beast).

Murder on the Orient Express is a period piece.  It takes place in 1934 aboard a luxury train travelling through Europe only to get stuck after an avalanche blocks the tracks.  I enjoyed the cinematography.  The opening scenes nicely set up the time period.  And the claustrophobia of the train cars/compartments is well-used and reflects the characters' own feelings of being trapped and closed in on.

The mystery is well laid out, with plenty of clues, twists, and red herrings.  I've always enjoyed mysteries, so watching Poirot unravel the case was fun.  It kept me engaged, though the film's pacing did slow a bit during his investigation.

The film is rated PG-13, but it's the tamest PG-13 I've seen in a while.  Kids wouldn't enjoy it because of the subject matter and pacing.  I don't recall any swearing, so if there is any, it's mild.  There are a few mild innuendos (watch the trailers, that's about it).  Obviously there's a murder.

Murder on the Orient Express is old-fashioned storytelling.  It's a bit slow at points, but I grew up with films that require a bit of patience.  The story is intriguing, which is why it's still around 80+ years later.  At some point, I look forward to watching the film again, now that I know the end.  It will be interesting to see how everything fits into place.  I would also be pleased to see Kenneth Branagh return to the role of Poirot in another adventure. 

If you are looking for an old-fashioned whodunit, I recommend booking passage on the Orient Express.

*** Spoiler Section ***
Nope.  No spoilers here.  I will say that the ending surprised me.  Not entirely though.  It all clicked into place in a satisfactory way.

Quotable Quotes

• "Forgive me.  I am Belgian." -- Poirot
• "I know your mustache." -- Miss Debenham
• "You're Hercules Poirot."  "Hercule.  I don't fight the lions." -- Miss Debenham and Poirot
• "You are allowed a coincidence." -- Poirot to Princess Dragomir
• "If it were easy, they would not call me 'great.'  Next theory."  -- Poirot to Bouc

Only the Brave

Year: 2017

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Starring: Josh Brolin, Jennifer Connolly, Miles Teller, Jeff Bridges, Taylor Kitsch, and Andie MacDowell
Tagline: It's not what stands in front of you; it's who stands beside you
Synopsis: The story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots based out of Prescott, Arizona.

Review

Only the Brave tells the story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, one of a number of hotshot crews to fight the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona in 2013.  I remember hearing about the story at the time.  It made national headlines.  In case you don't remember the story and don't want the film to be spoiled, I'll say no more until the spoiler section.  But I knew the story before going into the film.

With all the disasters and tragedies the nation and the world have seen lately -- including devastating wildfires in California -- this is a timely film.  It's about ordinary men doing extraordinary things as they risk their lives for the sake of others.  These firefighters are heroes.  But they're also real and flawed.  Only the Brave admirably pays tribute to their humanity and their heroism.

The story centers on Eric Marsh, the supervisor of the hotshots crew (played by Josh Brolin), and Brendan "Donut" McDonough, a rookie (played by Miles Teller).  We get to know both men, see some of their personal lives, and watch how firefighting affects them.  And we come to care about both men.  We get to know some of the other members of the 20-man crew as well and watch them bond and come together.  Jennifer Connolly plays Eric's long-suffering wife, Amanda.  I don't know of any other actress who can portray raw emotion as capably as she does.

It could be said that fire is a character as well in the film.  It's hard to say how much was real and how much was CGI, but the visuals in Only the Brave are top notch.  The film gives the viewer a sense of what wildfires can do, how unpredictable they can be, and how beautiful and terrifying they are.  That's as close to a wildfire as I ever hope to be and I truly stand in awe at those who run toward them rather than away.

The film is rated PG-13.  There is language throughout, including two uses of the F-word (all or partial).  There is also some crass language and drug references.

Only the Brave is a compelling story and a well-made movie.  As one of the reviews I read put it, it's a movie that sticks with you after the credits roll.  And it will leave you with a greater appreciation for the sacrifices firefighters make in the service of others.

*** Spoiler Section ***
For much of the movie, I wondered how exactly it would end, or rather, how it would all wrap up.  With a true story like that, it can be a fine line between fitting tribute and sloppy sentimentality.  Only the Brave remains a fitting tribute to the very end as our focus shifts to Brendan and Amanda and how they struggle and eventually cope with the pain and grief.

The pictures at the end also bring it home that these were real mean with lives and families that they didn't get to return home to.

Quotable Quotes

• "If this isn't the greatest job in the world, I don't know what is." -- Eric Marsh
• "That was six years ago!  I've changed.  This relationship has changed me." -- Amanda Marsh to Eric Marsh
• "You wanna talk about it?  Or are you going to do your John Wayne thing." -- Amanda Marsh to Eric Marsh
• "If you give me a chance, I won't let you down." -- Brendan "Donut" McDonough

The LEGO Ninjago Movie

Year: 2017

Director: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, and Bob Logan

Starring: Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Jackie Chan, and Olivia Munn
Tagline: Find Your Inner Piece
Synopsis: Six teenage ninjas must defend Ninjago -- their hometown -- from the evil warlord Garmadon ... who awkwardly happens to be the dad of one of the ninjas.

Review

Meh.

After the unexpected delightfulness of The LEGO Movie and the manic fun of The LEGO Batman Movie, I had moderate hopes that The LEGO Ninjago Movie would follow in their square, bricky footsteps.  I was disappointed in that hope.

I wouldn't necessarily say LEGO Ninjago is a bad movie.  It isn't that it is poorly made, has gaping plot holes, or is boring.  It's just meh.  The story and message are predictable.  The characters are mostly generic.  Many of the jokes fall flat.  And the music is an odd assortment of repurposed songs.  LEGO Ninjago lacks the originality and creativity of its predecessors.

It also lacks their heart.  For a movie that talks a lot about feelings, the film feels ultimately devoid of any true emotions.  The characters expressed emotions, but they never earned or elicited any out of me.

There were a few moments that made me chuckle though.  The brief appearance of a fuchsia ninja was my favorite.  I also appreciated the scene that utilized the Wilhelm scream five or six times in a row.

If you really need a movie to take the kids to, you could do worse than the LEGO Ninjago movie.  It's harmless enough.  And you might get a few laughs out of it.  Just don't expect adventures like those of Emmett Brickowski or LEGO Batman. 

Quotable Quotes

• "Can I be the element of surprise?" "No.  That is the Fuchsia Ninja."  "Surprise!" -- Lloyd, Master Wu, and the Fuchsia Ninja
• "Right now yours are the wrong hands." -- Master Wu
• "Are you crossing your fingers behind your back?"  "No.  I literally can't do that."  -- Lloyd and Garmadon (who has claw hands like every other LEGO)
• "You have unleashed Meowra." -- Master Wu

Dunkirk

Year: 2017

Director: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Aneurin Barnard, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, and Kenneth Branagh
Tagline: When 400,000 men couldn't get home, home came for them.
Synopsis: This is the story of the Dunkirk evacuation during WWII, as told from three interwoven perspectives: the land, the sea, and the air.

Review

Wow.  Seriously.  Wow.  Director Christopher Nolan has crafted an incredible film in a way that only he can.  Dunkirk is beautiful, gripping, mesmerizing, and an all around well-made movie.

Every component works together to create a film that will stick with you long after the credits roll.  The cinematography is amazing.  They actually strapped cameras onto old British Spitfire's in order to get some of the aerial shots.  The film feels real because so much of it is real.  CGI can do a lot these days and is more realistic looking than ever, but it still cannot compare to real planes, real ships, and the real world.  Dunkirk has all of that.  In fact, some of the actual little ships (private boats and yachts) used in the Dunkirk evacuation were used in the film.  If you ever splurge and see movies in IMAX, this is one to see large format (which I did).

Working right along with the visuals is Hans Zimmer's incredible soundtrack.  The music is so fully integrated into the film, it feels impossible to say where the noises of the film end and the music begins.  They feel one and the same.  Throughout the score is the sound of a ticking clock, highlighting the fact that time is as much the enemy as the Germans in this rescue/evacuation.  (Interesting note: the ticking noise was recorded from Nolan's own pocket watch.  He's that cool.)  What really got to me -- as a bit of an Anglophile -- was how Zimmer incorporated "Nimrod" from Edward Elgar's Enigma Variations during some of the most climactic moments.  You might not recognize the name, but you may well recognize the very British melody (so well loved it was used during the closing ceremony of the London Olympics).  That particular musical cue adds a dramatic punch like no other music could.

As amazing as the visuals and soundtrack are, they are both tools in Nolan's arsenal to tell a gripping story.  And Dunkirk is gripping.  The subject matter itself is larger than life: the evacuation of 400,000 men.  But how do you tell that story in a coherent manner?  Nolan seems to be the king of the non-linear narrative and he brought his A game here.  The film involves three interwoven stories, each of which occurs for a different duration of time.  The film seamlessly moves back and forth between the three stories (and thus different time frames) in a way that was never confusing.  As the film continues, we realize just how interconnected the three stories are.  And it is brilliant.

One interesting decision Nolan made with Dunkirk is that it is more the story of the evacuation than of individuals.  We follow various individuals throughout the film and see the events through their perspectives, but it isn't a character driven film.  Nor is there really any character development.  And in this film, it works.  Even though the characters don't have arcs, they all feel real.  We may not know many of their backstories, but their actions are all believable.  They are each, to some degree an Everyman.  There are moments of heroics.  And there are moments of selfishness.  None of them feel forced.

One of the more fleshed out characters is Mr. Dawson, the owner of a boat that accepts the call to sail to Dunkirk and bring back men.  We are given some of his history, which helps us understand some of his words and actions.  But what I love about Mr. Dawson is that he is the embodiment of the British attitude of keep calm and carry on.  And it's not a front.  It truly is his character.

In preparing for this film, Nolan apparently watched a number of silent films.  Dunkirk is not a talkative movie.  Body language accounts for much of the emotional story telling.  For instance, there is a moment when Farrier (an RAF pilot) must make a decision.  There's no one for him to talk to.  He doesn't say a word.  But you can see it in his eyes and in his subtle movements as he makes his choice.  The moment is a brilliant example of visual storytelling.

One of the most striking things about Dunkirk is the lack of Germans.  Except for a couple of shadowy, out-of-focus soldiers at the end, we don't see a single German soldier.  They are represented only through gunfire and planes.  It really contributes to the idea that in the evacuation, the overarching antagonist was time.

Unlike most war movies, Dunkirk is rated PG-13.  There is violence, but it is not gruesome or bloody.  But there are bodies.  The film, however, is intense.  Really intense.  It hits you in the opening minutes and never lets up until the credits roll.  Be prepared to be on the edge of your seat.  The film also has some swearing, though I only remember them in one particularly stressful scene.

If you can't tell, I loved Dunkirk.  It is one of the best, most well-crafted movies I have seen in years.  I saw it again this weekend.  It's just as epic and incredible the second time.  And it fully deserves to be seen in IMAX.

*** Spoiler Section ***
For much of the movie, I wondered how exactly it would end, or rather, how it would all wrap up.  Nolan did not let us down.  Having Tommy -- weary but relieved to be home -- read aloud Winston Churchill's rousing "We shall fight on the beaches" speech works well.

The end is all the more bittersweet as we realize how much Farrier (the pilot) has sacrificed.  He has landed his plane in enemy territory and is now a prisoner of war.  While over 300,000 men made it home, he didn't.

Quotable Quotes

• "He's on me."  "I'm on him." -- Collins and Farrier
• "Is he a coward?"  "No, George.  He's shell-shocked.  He's not himself.  He may never be himself again." -- George and Mr. Dawson
• "You should be at home!" "There won't be a home if we allow a slaughter across the Channel." -- The shell-shocked soldier and Mr. Dawson
• "You can practically see it from here."  "What?"  "Home." -- Commander Bolton and Captain Winnant

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Year: 2017

Director: Jon Watts

Starring: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey, Jr., Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, and Laura Harrier
Tagline: Homework can wait.  The city can't.
Synopsis: Teenage Peter Parker deals with the struggles of high school while trying to prove his worth as Spider-Man.

Review

I'll get straight to it: I was disappointed.  I wanted so much to completely love this new iteration of the neighborhood web-slinger.  And there is much to love in Spider-Man: Homecoming.  And because it got so many things right, I'm all the more saddened by where it dropped the ball.

The trouble is, I can't really explain why I'm disappointed without spoiling important plot points.  So if you want to see the movie, by all means, go see it.  And maybe the things that are stuck in my craw won't bother you.  I seem to be in the minority on this one.

But let's get into what I can discuss without spoilers.

Tom Holland is the best Peter Parker.  Hands down.  He was terrific in Captain America: Civil War and proves himself capable of carrying his own film.  He brings a nerdy, teenage charm to the role.  Although Holland is in his 20s, he believably passes for an awkward teenager who doesn't even know how to drive a car, even though he can pick one up with his bare hands.  It's also refreshing to see a superhero who has little to no idea what he's doing.  He's making stuff up as he goes along.  He goofs and blunders.  A lot.  Yet his heart is always in the right place.  I look forward to more adventures with this iteration of Spidey.

I'll admit, Ned -- Peter's best friend -- started getting on my nerves not too long into the story.  But he is a believable addition to the story, as are all Peter's classmates.  The film is as much a high school story as it is a superhero story, which helps ground it.  It's also a nice change from the world-saving of other Marvel movies.  This is our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

As with other Marvel movies -- yes, I acknowledge that this is technically Sony -- there is a good deal of humor in Homecoming.  Much of it flows naturally from the characters, especially Peter and Ned.  I also quite enjoyed Spidey's interactions with "suit lady."  Spidey's suit is a bit over-equipped.  And it's quite humorous.

Going into the film, I was worried about Tony Stark's role in it.  But I liked how they used him.  He sort of serves as a mentor, but not necessarily a very good one.

Which leads me to Uncle Ben.  I get that the filmmakers didn't want to do yet another origin story for Spider-Man.  But to not even mention Uncle Ben even once?  That seemed strange and left the film lacking.  Uncle Ben is a key character in Peter's life and in his learning to be a man/hero.  Without Uncle Ben, it felt more like Peter was only ever trying to prove himself, and not necessarily trying to do the right thing for the sake of the right thing.  Yes, I wanted some version of the "with great power comes great responsibility" line.  It's a lot more emotionally powerful and resonating than Peter being told he doesn't deserve his suit, which is what Tony tells him.

After Tom Holland, the best part of the film is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka the Vulture).  He isn't after world-domination.  He's not out for revenge.  He's a businessman and a self-proclaimed scavenger (more properly a thief).  As such, Adrian is a welcome change from the villains we've been encountering in all these superhero movies.  He's is also smart, pragmatic, and ruthless.  He's also doggedly loyal to his family and friends, which keeps him realistic and even makes him a little sympathetic.

I wanted so much to love Spider-Man: Homecoming.  And there is much in the film that I thoroughly enjoyed.  But the plot holes (detailed below) really dampened my appreciation of the film.  There were also a few things I could have done without, such has the half-uttered F-bomb or Ned using "watching porn" as an excuse (he's not, but that's the explanation he gives for why he's alone in a computer classroom).  Despite its flaws, there is much to be hopeful about with this new iteration of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.  And I do look forward to his future adventures.

*** Spoiler Section ***

Homecoming makes a big point about establishing that it takes place shortly after the events of Civil War.  And yet the theme of Civil War seems to be completely forgotten in this movie.  At no point is Spider-Man ever held accountable for all the messes he makes.  And he makes a lot of messes during the film.  He's a kid with superpowers after all.  The worst that happens is Tony takes his suit.  That's it.  The government (and Tony) spent an entire movie trying to hold Captain America and the others responsible for their actions in saving the world, yet now there are no repercussions at all.

For instance, an alien bomb goes off in a teenager's backpack inside a national monument.  And there are no repercussions for that?  No inquiry as to where an alien bomb came from or how it got there or why?  If nothing else, where's J. Jonas Jameson shouting about how Spider-Man is a menace?  Because in this film, Spider-Man is a bit of a well-intentioned menace.

Also, how is it that a highly classified, incredibly secure Damage Control storage facility doesn't have a single security camera?  Not one.  Spider-Man is allowed to just hang out in the facility with nobody the wiser.  And then he sneaks out on a truck.  His blue and red outfit aren't exactly camouflage.  Nobody noticed?  Nobody cared?  Or is Tony Stark now paying off everybody to leave his protege alone?

If those were the only plot holes, I could forgive them and move on.  But the one that irked me the most was what happened with the Vulture.

Nope, I didn't see the Vulture as Liz's dad coming.  Not at all.  And that made it perfect and made that scene genuinely tense.  It was terrific.  I was on the edge of my seat watching Peter fidget while Adrian puts all the pieces together.

And then there's the confrontation between Spidey and the Vulture.  It's a brilliant scene.  The Vulture actually uses monologing against our hero before bringing down a building on top of him.  Clearly the Vulture is smart, clever, and ruthless.  Which is why what happens a few scenes later irks me to no end.

Spider-Man has, yet again, thwarted Vulture's best-laid plans (albeit making a big mess in the process).  Spidey knows that Adrian is the Vulture.  The Vulture has already shown on multiple occasions that he has no qualms with killing Spider-Man.  And yet, when he finally has a dazed and disoriented Spider-Man in his clutches, he drops him and turns his attention to a box of arc reactors.  He just leaves Spider-Man to regain his senses and come after him again.  It makes no sense and is completely out of character.

And then Spidey is the one shouting that the Vulture armor is about to explode.  Adrian has worked with alien technology for over eight years.  He should be smart enough to recognize his wings are on fire and that he is in danger of a serious malfunction.  But he doesn't.  Again, it makes no sense and doesn't fit with the character.

It's as if the script writers got to the end of the movie and suddenly realized they'd created a villain that 15-year-old Spider-Man had no chance of defeating.  So they simply dumbed down the villain in that final scene in order to give Spidey a chance.  The movie deserved a better resolution than that.  Spider-Man and the Vulture deserved a better resolution than that.

Lastly, I truly hope that Michelle isn't going to be the MCU's "MJ."  She is not MJ and I simply cannot fathom her and Peter becoming a couple.  I truly hope Kevin Feige was serious when he said calling her MJ was a joke.

Quotable Quotes

• "I'm nothing without this suit!"  "If you're nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it." -- Peter and Tony
• "Can you summon an army of spiders?"  "No, man!" -- Ned and Peter
• "You gotta get better at this part." -- Aaron Davis, regarding Spidey's interrogation tactics
• "So how long have we been in here?"  "37 minutes."  "What?!"  -- Peter and Karen (aka suit lady)

Cars 3

Year: 2017

Director: Brian Fee

Starring: Owen Wilson, Cristela Alonzo, Armie Hammer, Nathan Fillion, Chris Cooper, Tony Shalhoub, and Bonnie Hunt
Tagline: It's not over until lightning strikes.
Synopsis: Even anthropomorphic race cars get old.

Review

First off, can I say how much I love Pixar shorts?  They are terrific and "Lou" is no exception.  It's cute, clever, funny, and tugs at the heartstrings.  I loved it.

As for the feature film itself ... well, I didn't dislike it.  It's way, way, way better than Cars 2 (which it didn't even acknowledge).  Did we need Cars 3?  Not really.  And I have nothing against well-thought-out sequels.  [I love Finding Dory and can hardly wait for The Incredibles 2.]  But this film seems to be mostly a retread of the original film.  Sometimes that tactic works.  Sometimes it doesn't.  I suppose if nothing else, the merchandising from the Cars franchise helps pay for original stories like Coco, which comes out in the fall.

One thing is undeniable, the visuals in Cars 3 are amazing.  There was one scene where it was such beautiful scenery, I had to remind myself that this is an animated film made on computers.  It looks so good.  Pixar continues to excel.

I was, however, disappointed with the music.  The soundtrack is mediocre, as is the score.  Yes, I have high expectations for Pixar scores thanks to Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, WALL-E, Up, and Inside Out.  If Cars has a main theme, I can't think of it.  The music is just there, like an obscure background character: noticeable, but not memorable.

As for the story, it is serviceable, albeit predictable.  Kudos though for a kids movie being about the difficulties of getting older and losing your edge.  When the story was about Lightning and his relationship with Doc Hudson (aka the Hudson Hornet), that was when it really pulled me in.  When it was about the races themselves, not as much.  I was also disappointed that the major plot point in the first teaser trailer -- Lightning crashing -- was far less dramatic and pivotal to the story/character development than promised.

If you're a fan of the first Cars film (or have kids who are fans of it), there's much to enjoy about this one.  If you are looking for a way to beat the heat on a hot summer day, Cars 3 is an admirable way to spend 90 or so minutes.  It's rated G and is clean throughout.

*** Spoiler Section ***

The climax didn't surprise me.  It is clear from the scene on the beach that Lightning is unwittingly training Cruz, not the other way around.  Thus it is inevitable that it is Cruz, not Lightning, who wins the race against Jackson Storm.  It is a strange rule, though, that allows for the climax.  I guess it does have basis in the real world of racing, but it seems intrinsically unfair to switch cars, allowing a fresh car to go against tired ones.

What did surprise me was Sterling's turnabout regarding Cruz.  Granted, he seems a bit untrustworthy from the start.  But there is nothing in his previous behavior that naturally leads up to him telling Cruz to leave.  Of course he wouldn't want her to race, but he has no compelling reason to send her away so that she can't at least watch.  The confrontation feels forced.

Quotable Quotes

• "I decide when I'm done." -- Lightning
• "The beach ate me." -- Cruz
• "Don't fear failure.  Be afraid of not having the chance.  You have the chance!" -- Sally
• "Tell her all the crabs have gone night-night."  "I -- I can't say that.  You tell her!" -- Lightning and Smokey

Wonder Woman

Year: 2017

Director: Patty Jenkins

Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, and David Thewlis
Tagline: Power. Grace. Wisdom. Wonder.
Synopsis: Diana, Princess of the Amazons, ventures to the outside world to help stop World War I.

Review

Wonder Woman had the unenviable task of having almost the entire weight of the DC extended universe on her shoulders.  She more than proved herself up to the challenge.  Wonder Woman is now one of my favorite superhero movies, DC or Marvel.  This is what a superhero movie should be, primarily because Diana is what a superhero should be.

Diana/Wonder Woman was (easily) the best part of Batman v. Superman.  She was intelligent, enigmatic, and fierce.  Her solo outing and origin story are worthy of the character teased at in that first glimpse.

Gal Gadot is Diana.  Her charisma mixed with an intelligent naivete carry the story.  This is her hero's journey, from a sheltered island paradise to the unimaginable horrors of WWI trenches.  It is also her journey of self-discovery, as she learns just what she is capable of.  And it's a joy to watch.

But what is best about Diana is her inherent goodness.  She has a firm belief that it is her duty to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.  She and Steve Rogers (aka Captain America) could have some swell conversations about ideals.

Her own Steve -- Steve Trevor -- is also a good man, albeit one who has become jaded by years of brutal war.  He provides a good balance to Diana.  Chris Pine holds his own next to Gadot, which is no small feat.  His character, rather than relegated to sidekick or comic foil, is in many ways shown to be Diana's equal.  Their onscreen chemistry keeps the film rolling along smoothly and humorously.

Wonder Woman is very much a superhero movie and has plenty of action, explosions, and -- of course -- villains to be thwarted.  The climactic battle does become a bit cliched, but nonetheless works within the story.  The best scene may well be when Diana crosses No Man's Land.  I'll leave it at that so as not to spoil anything.  But it is epic.

Also epic is Wonder Woman's theme music.  It was the best part of the Batman v. Superman soundtrack and it is even better here.

I thoroughly enjoyed Wonder Woman.  Was it perfect?  Not entirely.  And there were a few things that kept it in the PG-13 realm that I could have done without.  But it is one of my favorite superhero films, right up there with Captain America: Winter Soldier and The Dark Knight.  Wonder Woman has action and adventure.  But it also has humor and heart.  If you are wondering if you should see it, wonder no more.

*** Spoiler Section ***

There are two main spoilers in the film's climax.  Admittedly, neither came as a surprise to me.  It isn't that they are poorly set up.  The film does a good job handling both.  But the one felt somewhat inevitable and the other I was suspicious about from the moment I looked at the cast list.

That Steve dies is sad.  He's a good guy, which is precisely the point.  He is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others.  Diana is not the only hero in the film.  And his death is, in some sense, needed to help complete Diana's journey to being a hero among mankind.  She has been disillusioned.  She has seen the worst in men and women, the darkness in their hearts and deeds.  Steve is able to balance that out by showing the best.  He is flawed, but still good and striving for the light.

I was pleased and intrigued that Ares turned out to be Sir Patrick.  It makes him a much more interesting nemesis with much more subtle ambitions and plans.  It was his "peace at any cost" mentality that struck me as being off.

Quotable Quotes

• "I will fight, for those who cannot fight for themselves." -- Diana
• "Have you never met a man before?  What about your father?"  "I had no father.  My mother sculpted me from clay and I was brought to life by Zeus."  "Well that's neat." -- Steve and Diana
• "You lied to them?"  "I'm a spy; it's what I do." -- Diana and Steve
• "It's about what you believe.  And I believe in love.  Only love will truly save the world." -- Diana

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Year: 2017

Director: Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg

Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, Kevin McNally, and zombie sharks
Synopsis: Captain Jack Sparrow searches for the Trident of Poseidon.

Review

I'm quite fond of the Rotten Tomatoes website, and it is rare that I see a movie given a rotten green splotch.  Yet my curiosity won over and I opted to venture forth once more with Captain Jack Sparrow.

Well, it's better than the last one.

That's not saying much though.  On Stranger Tides had plot holes so big you could sail the Spanish Armada through them.  Dead Men Tell No Tales isn't all bad.  It has aspects I appreciated.  But let's start with the struggles.

One of the chief problems with Dead Men is that it tries to tell too many stories.  Whose story is it?  We are first introduced to Henry Turner, son of Will and Elizabeth.  And though we spend much of the story with him, his narrative line isn't all that interesting.  Jack of course is central to the story, but his antics are -- yet again -- focused solely on staying alive as yet another cursed villain wants him dead.  We are also introduced to Carina, who serendipitously wants to also pursue the film's MacGuffin in order to resolve her daddy issues.

But wait, there's more.  Hector Barbossa is also back with his own personal agenda.  The villain has his own storyline -- including an excellent flashback when Barbossa gets him monologing.  And then there's a British officer who ... um ... is somehow necessary because somebody else needs to be chasing all the other characters.

Henry's and Carina's stories are the most compelling.  But Henry's is largely sidelined and Carina's is frankly far-fetched.  She claims to be a woman of science (for which she is branded a witch [Seriously?]) and yet she is pursuing a mythical object.  She also seems far too accepting of some of the plot twists.  The whole film, Henry and Carina feel like bland imitations of Will and Elizabeth (characters who were exceedingly more likable, interesting, and charismatic).

Going in to Dead Men, or any of the Pirates films, I didn't expect great, logical cinema.  But this one has moments that are simply ludicrous (I'm looking at you, St. Martin bank).  And there is much that is simply pointless, adding nothing to the story and offering only cheap "laughs."  Did we need Sir Paul McCartney as a pirate?  No.  Did we need that bizarre wedding?  No.  Where did that even come from?

Despite the action, the first two thirds of the film drag.  But then, unexpectedly, things pick up for the climax.  Once we have all our protagonists on the same (familiar) ship, the story holds together better and kept my attention.  Finding the Trident of Poseidon and fighting the ensuing final battle -- while not without problems -- were entertaining enough and well-paced enough to temporarily make me forget all the slog we went through to get there.  And I'll admit, the finale provides some nice closure to the franchise.

Other than the climax, Dead Men does a few other things right.

Captain Salazar (played by Javier Bardem) is a worthy addition to the franchise's villains.  He is intelligent and intimidating.  And his crew are interesting as well, visually that is.  But the most impressive thing is the Silent Mary, their ship.  Watching the ship rise up and strike down opposing ships ... yup ... that's cool.

I was, however, disappointed that Captain Salazar didn't seem to live up to the code he supposedly espoused, at least while alive.  He makes a point to tell Barbossa that he didn't kill men, he killed pirates.  Yet he and his crew have no qualm killing the officers and crew of two British ships.  Granted, the Spanish and the British weren't exactly on historic good terms, but it does undermine Salazar's supposed sense of duty and honor without explanation.

And although ridiculous, I'll admit that the zombie sharks are also pretty cool.  Why they have rotting shark carcasses on the ghost ship I have no idea.  But just add water and boom!  Zombie sharks to chase down Jack and Henry.

The music is also still good.

So, is Dead Men worth the voyage?  That depends on how much you enjoy the franchise.  If you still think Jack Sparrow is the greatest pirate ever, by all means go enjoy his rum-induced antics.  Stay through the credits.  There is a bonus scene which opens the door for yet more adventures.

*** Spoiler Section ***

OK, how many of these films has Hector Barbossa been in?  This makes four out of five if memory serves.  And at no point has there been an inkling that he has any interest in stars, the Trident of Poseidon, or the daughter he left at an orphanage.  All of that I can accept.  Pirate.  But then he meets Carina and suddenly she is both his heart's desire (per the compass) and his "treasure"?  And Carina accepts it, just like that?  That's a bit harder to swallow.

I've never been all that fond of Jack Sparrow.  In the original film, I liked Will Turner the best.  So the ending of At World's End irked me, to say the least.  It didn't help that when I saw the movie the person I was with wanted to leave immediately, so I missed the semi-redemptive post-credits scene.  Flash forward ten years and I did finally get the closure I wanted for Will and Elizabeth.

The film ends and everything is all neatly tied up.  Will is free from the curse and with his beloved Elizabeth.  Henry has Carina.  Jack has the Black Pearl.  Jack and the franchise can sail off into the horizon.  Roll credits ... and cue post-credits scene that brings yet another character back from the dead and opens the door for another sequel.  <face palms> 

Quotable Quotes

• "Find Jack Sparrow for me and relay a message, from Captain Salazar.  Tell him: 'Death will come straight for him.'  Will you say that to him, please?  I'd tell him myself, but dead men tell no tales." -- Captain Salazar to Henry
• "Guillotine?  Sounds French.  I love the French." -- Jack Sparrow
• "I once knew a Spaniard named ... something in Spanish." -- Jack Sparrow

ISFS

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Year: 2017

Director: James Gunn

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Vin Diesel, Kurt Russell, and Karen Gillan
Tagline: You only get one chance to save the galaxy twice.
Synopsis: The further adventures of the misfit Guardians of the Galaxy.

Review

When the first Guardians of the Galaxy came out in 2014, it was unexpectedly different from everything else in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It was weird and zany and a lot of fun.  How does Vol. 2 fare?  It's still weird, still zany, and mostly fun.  But it can't quite recapture the freshness of the original.  Considering how much I enjoyed the first one, this one left me disappointed.

The film's opening sequence is, however, stellar.  As the Guardians do battle with a multi-tentacled space monster in the background, Baby Groot obliviously dances to ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky" in the foreground.  And it is terrific.  The whole sequence reintroduces us to the characters and why we want to root for them.  The opening set me up for a better movie than I got.

As with its predecessor, Vol. 2 uses a popular mix of songs from the 70s and 80s.  And the music is part of the story, part of who Peter Quill is.  So even though I don't necessarily like all the songs they include, I appreciate how they work within, and add to, the story.  I will likely never be able to hear "Brandy" by the Looking Glass without thinking of this film.

Another thing I appreciate in the film is the theme of family.  We see deeper into each of the Guardians and also into Yondu and Nebula.  Every character is broken in some way or another.  That's why they come together so well.  And there is a lot of bonding in this film and discussion of what it means to be a family.  Maybe too much, as certain characters seem to shift uncharacteristically far based on how they were portrayed previously.

While the film does a good job with characterization, the plot feels a bit weak.  It wasn't as compelling as the previous story.  It didn't help that the villains/antagonists all seem petty and weak in terms of their motivations.  The main villain started out interesting but ended up feeling bland.

My biggest qualm with the film was its adult content.  The first film certainly pushed the envelope for what is acceptable in a Marvel Studios film.  This one nudges it even more.  There was more crude humor.  And while nothing is explicitly stated or shown, it's very apparent that the Ravagers visit a robot brothel.  The film is definitely not for kids, so it is irksome that it is has toy lines very much marketed toward kids.

While I don't think it lives up to the first film, Vol. 2 is still, overall, a fun trip to the movies.  But be advised before you bring the kids.  And if you didn't like the craziness of the first one, Vol. 2 isn't going to win you over either.  Oh, and there are a whopping five mid-credits and post-credit scenes.

*** Spoiler Section ***

Why do Ravagers have such cool funerals?  They are basically space pirates, yet they have all these neat traditions for a funeral.  It was fun to watch, but felt incongruous with their portrayal.

Quotable Quotes

• "You look like Mary Poppins."  "Is he cool?" [pauses] "Yeah, he's cool." -- Peter and Yondu
• "Does anybody have any tape out there?  I wanna put some tape over the 'death' button." "Nobody has any tape!" -- Rocket and Peter
• "All you do is yell at each other.  You're not friends."  "No ... we are family." -- Nebula and Drax
• "No raccoon or tree creatures were harmed during the making of this movie.  However the same cannot be said for the handlers of the raccoon and tree creatures." -- End credits

ISFS

Born in China

Year: 2017

Director: Chuan Lu

Starring: John Krasinski (narrator) and a lot of fuzzy animals
Synopsis: Follow the stories of pandas, snow leopards, snub-nosed monkeys, and chiru (Tibetan antelope).

Review

I've reviewed quite a few movies on this blog, but this is my first documentary here.  Born in China is a Disneynature film that came out on Earth Day.  It stars giant pandas and snow leopards and showcases the beauty of China.  What's not to love about that?

The film follows four different animal families over the course of a year.  To see the magnificent snow leopards in their natural habitat is, for me, worth the cost of admission alone.  And the panda mommy and baby are cute and cuddly too.  There are also a few shots of a red panda, which might be one of my favorite animals.  And the monkeys are cute enough as well.  Antelope/chiru aren't really my thing, but their story was interesting nonetheless.

If you're expecting a documentary like Planet Earth, don't.  Visually I'd say it is of the same caliber.  But the narration -- provided by John Krasinski -- is definitely geared toward kids.  It's informative, but got a bit twee at times.  And there was quite a bit of animal personification going on.  Overall though, the narration does a good job balancing information with humor.

The film has an overarching theme of families and the importance of them.  I did appreciate that aspect.  And while the similarities with human families were certainly stressed, the filmmakers also acknowledge that animal families are quite different.  Even the four different animal families in the film are different.  You've got the chiru herd, a clan of monkeys, and single mothers with the snow leopards and pandas.

Although this is a G-rated Disney film, I was impressed that it didn't shy away from the realities of the animal kingdom and the circle of life.  It did so in a tasteful manner that's as kid-friendly as you can probably get.  But the fact remains, one animal's survival depends on another animal's demise.  And not every animal survives the film.

If you love animals and gorgeous scenery, I'd say Born in China is worth a gander.  Or it's something to take the kids to if you need to get out of the house.  Did I mention cute pandas and gorgeous snow leopards?

Quotable Quotes

• "She considers this marmot ... no she doesn't." -- Narrator about the snow leopard's dinner plans
• "The herd is many, but the herd is one." -- Narrator

ISFS

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Year: 2017

Director: Bill Condon

Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson
Tagline: Experience the tale as old as time
Synopsis: Disney's animated classic gets a live action update.

Review

Disclaimers:

1. If you want to go see this live action version of Beauty and the Beast and haven't already, go see it.  Read this review after.  It will all be spoilers.
2. The 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast ranks in my top five favorite movies.  Ever.
3. I had a lot going on emotionally when I saw this live action film.  Some of that might have affected my enjoyment thereof.
4. This is not a short review.

Still here?  Okay then.

You may have sensed this coming from the disclaimers: I was disappointed.  I didn't really like this live action version of Beauty and the Beast.  I don't hate it.  I think it is a decent movie and the visuals are pretty amazing.  But it cannot hold a candelabra to the original.  So even though I went in with mid-level expectations, I left feeling thoroughly disappointed.

I'll limit my critique to three areas: music, story, and characters.

Music
I'll give Emma Watson, Josh Gad, Luke Evans, and even Ewan McGregor credit.  They all do an admirable job of singing their iconic songs.  But as much as I love Emma Thompson as an actress, as a singer she is no Angela Lansbury.  And that was all I could think about during "Beauty and the Beast."  It's the titular song, an Academy Award winning song.  And the warmth and hope that Angela Lansbury imbued into it are lacking.

Of the four new songs, three feel like mere filler.  I would much rather have heard the songs from the Broadway version.  The film teases with an instrumental version of "Home," but no more.  That said, the Beast's solo "Evermore" is terrific and a suitable addition to the film.  It is what's needed in that moment and Dan Stevens' voice manages to be both rich and growling as needed.  "Evermore" was one of the few highlights of the film for me.

Story
This version follows the animated version in many respects.  But as a live action film, it tries to expand the world.  Some attempts work better than others.

For starters, the nature of the curse changes.  Beast's household are slowly turning into objects, becoming less and less human as each rose petal falls.  Rather than living indefinitely as objects, their ultimate fate will be turning forever into lifeless objects.  That does up the ante for them, but it also adds a darker tone and makes the situation and the curse seem more hopeless and cruel.

The film also addresses how the entire village could be oblivious to an enchanted castle not far from them in the woods.  They've all lost their memory of the place and its inhabitants.  Both of those elements work.  But just how much does the curse affect them?  The townspeople still become a mob and set out to kill the Beast for no reason other than Gaston's fear-mongering demagoguery.  At the film's end, I found it difficult to simply dismiss their behavior toward the Beast, Maurice, and Belle.  Throwing in a Mr. Potts and an overbearing wife for Cogsworth added nothing.

One thing the live action Cinderella did well was give more backstories to the characters.  This Beauty and the Beast tried to do that ... but only half-heartedly.  It's a given that Belle's mother is deceased.  Trying to make that more dramatic by having her mother die of the plague in an old Parisian windmill doesn't add anything to the story or to our understanding of Belle.  All it explains is why Maurice wants to live in the clean air of the countryside.  [Side note: Having the enchantress give the Beast a magical book makes no sense, does seem cruel, and feels like a haphazard plot device to facilitate this moment of backstory.]

As for the Prince/Beast, his backstory simply feels lazy and cheap.  His mother dies and his father raises him to be spoiled and selfish.  That's it.  And it bothered me because it seems to take away much of his personal responsibility or accountability.  It's his father's fault.  That cheapens his growth and change in the story.  I'm not saying parents can't emotionally stunt and scar their children.  But the film throws it out there as a shortcut, rather than exploring any depth to the Beast's story.

Characters
The characterizations were what I had the hardest part with.  Nearly every character feels like a watered-down imitation of the lovable and lively version in the animated film.

We'll start with LeFou.  Is he gay?  Yeah.  Is a big deal made of it?  No.  Will your kids ask about it?  I don't know.  Should you talk to them about the movie anyway?  Always.  [That's a soapbox that I may someday get on ...]  It's probably good to explain to kids that LeFou and Gaston have a toxic relationship, platonic or otherwise.  Honestly, the few hints thrown in didn't really faze me.  They don't add anything at all to the film.  But they don't detract either.  And of all the characters in the film, LeFou is actually most like his animated counterpart.

With the animated Gaston, you know from his first moment on screen that he really is arrogant and boorish and not at all suitable for Belle.  He insults her book then gets it muddy!  It's instant dislike.  This Gaston wasn't like that.  Yes, he seems full of himself and far too self-assured.  But you don't feel any immediate distaste for him.  Belle's first interaction with him in the film actually felt rude on her part.  It takes a while for his downward turn and it comes about in a way that makes him feel more bi-polar than villainous.  I'm not sure if the film-makers did that on purpose, or if they simply took for granted that people would dislike him immediately.

Gone is the eccentric inventor who builds overly complicated and dangerous machines.  In this telling, Maurice is an artist and tinker.  He seems to specialize in music boxes.  (I didn't know you could make much of a living at that in a little town.)  Rather than being odd, he's perfectly sane, though bearing some sort of emotional scarring from his wife's passing.  While I missed his lighthearted goofiness, Maurice is more of an active participant in the plot this way.  He openly defies Gaston on more than one occasion.  And that works in this retelling.

The animated bookseller has been replaced in this version by a chaplain who keeps a meager collection of books in the church.  He and Belle appear to be friends.  At the climax, it's clear during Gaston's "kill the Beast!" rant that the chaplain is having none of it.  Good for him.  But I then expected him to come to the aid of Belle and Maurice in some way.  Nope.  He simply vanishes.  He isn't seen attacking the castle.  But he does nothing and says nothing to stop them.  It felt like the filmmaker's simply had no idea what to do with his character, so he simply disappears.

I had a hard time with the household objects.  They feel too much like objects and not enough like people.  They all feel like pale imitations of their animated counterparts.  If they are going to look less human or humanized, then the voice acting needs to compensate by adding more life and humanity.  I didn't feel like any of the actors brought that.  None of them feel endearing.  Moreover, some of the story changes led to characterization changes.  They feel selfish or at least self-centered.  Everything Lumiere or Mrs. Potts do for Belle feels like it is part of a scheme to bring Belle and the Beast together to break the curse, rather than out of genuine concern for Belle's comfort and well-being or for their master's happiness or personal growth.

I'm sorry, but in many ways, the filmmakers killed the Beast.  I have nothing against Dan Steven's portrayal.  I think his voice is great.  And as previously noted, his song "Evermore" is the best part of the film.  But that is not the Beast from the animated version.  They gave him father issues instead of personal issues.  They made him more jaded and cynical and robbed him of the lovable innocence and innate goodness he has in the animated version.  And the CGI of him feels so dark and soulless.  What happened to the intensely blue human eyes that showed the man within the monster?  The film also changes two of my favorite Beast moments.  In the animated version, after the Beast scares Belle from the West Wing with a fit of anger, he then realizes his mistake, immediately regrets it, and does a face palm.  It says so much about who he really is.  The other moment is when the Beast gives Belle the library.  In the animated version it is a big moment.  He is so excited he can hardly contain his giddiness and he wants the moment to be absolutely perfect.  In this version, the Beast shows her the library and then gives it to her almost as an afterthought.

I love Emma Watson.  She's a talented actress.  She simply is Hermione Granger.  But she isn't Belle.  How much of that was her and how much of that was the script she was given I don't know.  But she was not the character I know and love, the character I've sympathized with for 25 years.  She feels less charming and a bit more ... jaded and as though she has a chip (a small chip) on her shoulder.  Her rejection of Gaston's proposal feels more harsh.  Her sacrifice for her father is only to give her time until she can escape.  She seems to approach the West Wing and the rose more out of rebelliousness than out of innocent curiosity.  And when she expresses her love for the dying Beast, I found I didn't really believe it.

One change I do like in this version is integrating the enchantress character (Agathe) into the story.  I like that she remains watchful over the villagers.  The impression I got was that she even leads Maurice (somehow) to the castle.  How else to explain a path that appears one night and disappears the next.  So I guess she knew that Belle would rescue her father and ... somehow things would come together?  It's an odd bit of matchmaking, that's for sure.  Mostly I like that she is there during the climax, not participating at first, just observing.  The visual of her breaking the glass dome around the now petal-less stem is striking.

Conclusion
Like I said, I didn't hate the movie.  And maybe at some point I'll give it a second chance when I'm in a better mood.  But for a movie about seeing beyond superficial appearances, for me there isn't much beyond the flamboyant/Gothic facade.  The magic, the warmth, the charm, and the joyfulness are all missing.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch the animated classic again.

Quotable Quotes

• "Have you really read all of these books?"  "Hmph.  Some of them are in Greek."  "Is that a joke?  Are you joking now?" -- Belle and the Beast
• "Nobody deserves you!" -- Gaston to his reflection in a mirror
• "I am not a beast!" -- the Beast to Gaston