REVIEW: “Darkest Hour” (2017)


Lest anyone be confused (and I highly doubt they will be) this is not a review of the atrocious doomsday alien invasion thriller from 2011. Instead this is director Joe Wright’s biographical wartime drama based on Winston Churchill’s early days as England’s Prime Minister. Quite a difference, right?

In early May of 1940 Hitler’s army has made major advances and now stands at the Belgian border preparing to push through in their efforts to conquer what remains of Europe. On May 9th a frustrated British Parliament demands the resignation of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain due to his weakness in the face of the rising Nazi threat.


Behind the scenes Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and his followers are still pulling the political strings. With the backing of King George (played by a perfectly tempered Ben Mendelsohn), Chamberlain seeks to put in someone who will continue to push his agenda. But it becomes clear there is only one man the divided parties will accept – Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman).

By now there should be no one doubting Gary Oldman’s tremendous range. He’s played a drugged-out dirty cop, a Russian terrorist, and a corrupt U.S. congressman. He’s played Sid Vicious, Lee Harvey Oswald, Count Dracula and now Winston Churchill. Thanks to the miracle of makeup and prosthetics as well as Oldman’s innate attention to detail, you instantly buy into this particular portrait of Churchill. The barely recognizable but thoroughly captivating Oldman delivers an Oscar-ripe performance that draws from his varied skill set.

The script is from Oscar-nominated screenwriter Anthony McCarten whose previous work was the acclaimed Stephen Hawking biopic “The Theory of Everything”. Here he pours everything into his lead character. He gives Oldman plenty of opportunities to sink his teeth into the role without resorting to gimmicky “Awards-worthy” big moments. Also McCarten is smart enough not to overextend his story. This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive biopic and the film’s tighter focus works.


A good chunk of the movie highlights the political wrangling Churchill faced by his opposition who desperately wanted peace talks with Hitler. It begins to feel a bit drawn out but most of it is pretty fascinating. And I really enjoyed the personal moments we get especially between Churchill and his wife Clementine (wonderfully played by Kristin Scott Thomas). There is also the relationship between Churchill and Elizabeth Nel (Lily James), a young typist who eventually became his personal secretary. Their scenes are nicely done and offer a window into a different side of Churchill.

“Darkest Hour” maneuvers through Churchill’s appointment to Prime Minister, the political tensions that undoubtedly wore him down, the looming Nazi threat, and Operation Dynamo which saw the evacuation of over 300,000 troops stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk. But the movie never loses sight of the personal side of this larger than life character. At the same time Joe Wright offers up compelling and timely lessons on conviction, persuasion, and the power of bipartisanship – all things our current governments could learn from.



REVIEW: “The Dark Tower”


For ten years a movie adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly popular “Dark Tower” series of novels has been in the works. An impressive carousel of big names have been linked to the project – directors J.J. Abrams and Ron Howard; actors Javier Bardem, Russell Crowe, Liam Neeson, and Viggo Mortensen. But script issues and studio apprehension kept the project on the shelf.

That was until struggling Sony Pictures greenlit the project. More script rewrites were done (rarely a good sign) and Nikolaj Arcel was handed the directing reins. Things looked up with the casting of Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey. As it turns out “The Dark Tower” needed a lot more than star power to make it worth the wait.


As someone who hasn’t read the novels I expected there to be a lot I wouldn’t get. Turns out I was right. The screenwriting team attempts to make sense of things for know-nothings like me, but their efforts range from clunky to nonsensical. For what it’s worth we get some (not all that interesting) exposition which explains things a bit. Other times we get transitions and gaps that make no sense whatsoever. But in retrospect I’m not sure understanding this particular story would cure its ills.

From what I can understand the film is intended to be a direct sequel to the novels. It spans two ‘worlds’ – ours, which is mainly depicted by modern day New York, and Mid-World, a sci-fi Wild West-like parallel universe. It’s there that we meet a Gunslinger named Roland (Elba), the villainous Man in Black (McConaughey), and the mysterious Dark Tower – a structure set in the center of the universe that could end both worlds if destroyed. Elba is the protector, McConaughey wants to destroy it, and so on.

In New York a young boy (Tom Taylor) has visions of Mid-World and the looming threat of the tower’s destruction. He’s chased by monsters working for the Man in Black until he finds a portal to Mid-World where he meets up with Roland. He shares his visions and the two try to foil the Man in Black’s plans.


The film is rich with all sorts of goofy concoctions. There are creatures with fake human skin masquerading as New Yorkers. There is a massive weapon powered by psychic children. I could go on. That kind of silliness could be a bit more digestible if the movie didn’t take it all so seriously. Sure, there are a handful of attempts at humor, but not enough to overtake the serious tone. It doesn’t make this unwatchable, but it consistently fed my feeelings of disappointment.

There are moments of McConaughey doing McConaughey which can be kind of amusing, but ultimately he seems miscast. It doesn’t help that his character is nothing short of dreadful. Elba is good with what little he’s given and you could say he is a reminder of the potential this film had. I would like to see him again in this role with a substantially smarter, less convoluted story and more focused direction. I’m afraid that’s wishful thinking. I can’t imagine another movie in this planned franchise seeing the light of day.



REVIEW: “Dunkirk”


For film lovers a new Christopher Nolan movie should be considered an event. Even for those not completely smitten with his body of work, there is no denying Nolan is an auteur with a bold, modern cinematic voice. He could accurately be called both a traditionalist and an innovator and this fascinating mixture finds its way into each of his productions.

A filmmaker guided by intuition and passion, Nolan has frequently revisited familiar themes all while extending himself across several genres – psychological crime thriller, neo-noir, superhero, brainy science fiction. There is a steady, reliable value to every movie he makes and while this statement can be debated, I’ve yet to see a ‘bad’ Nolan picture. That’s the track record he brings into a new genre with the historical war film “Dunkirk”.


A military disaster trumped by an incredible display of human will and triumph, the story of Dunkirk is a World War 2 story unlike any other. Nolan himself has called it “the greatest story in human history”. In May of 1940 Germany invaded France. British troops were sent to aid the French but were pushed back to the English Channel by the heavily armored German forces. Nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers found themselves surrounded on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. England enacted Operation Dynamo as a means to rescue the boxed in troops. With time running out a call went out to civilian vessels (fishing boats, ferries, yachts, etc) to assist the Navy in the improbable evacuation amid waves of German air and sea attacks.

Nolan’s film immediately drops us into the fire. Aside from some early text, there is no setup or prologue of any sort. We are instantly among gunfire, nosediving fighter planes, and the screams of those men caught between their enemy and the equally threatening waters. And the film keeps us there through its remarkably lean 107 minutes. This is no exhaustive examination and you’ll get no war room banter or ‘meanwhile back at home’ segments. Nolan’s focus is on subjective storytelling therefore he has no interest in pulling us out of the intensity.


To tell his story Nolan breaks the film into three story threads – one event, three intersecting timelines. The first takes place on land and a spans one week (it’s titled “The Mole” which references a long breakwater pier). Here we meet and follow a young soldier from the British Expeditionary Force (a fine debut performance from Fionn Whitehead). We get Kenneth Branagh as a naval commander and the highest ranking officer on the beach, James D’Arcy’s antsy but steadfast army colonel, and a handful of other characters crumbling under the weight of desperation.

The second story thread is titled “The Sea” and takes place within a single day. It places its main focus on an English civilian (superbly played by Mark Rylance) who answers the call to head to Dunkirk. He takes along his son (Tom Glynn-Carney) and a young local eager to help (Barry Keoghan). Without knowing the dangers ahead, the three sail straight into the mouth of war.


The third story is called “The Air” and features some of the most stunning aerial photography ever put to film. It’s breathtaking cinema. Tom Hardy leads a group of three Royal Air Force Spitfire pilots tasked with protecting the soldiers below from German fighters and bombers. Their story spans only one hour yet it offers up some of the film’s most visceral edge-of-your-seat action.

The movie’s unconventional narrative structure weaves us back and forth between these three stories, connecting them at the most unexpected junctures. Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, Jack Lowden, among others have roles in the chaos as well. Nolan (who also wrote the script) places the entire emphasis on his characters’ experience. No backstories or in-depth relationship building. What he gives us is a harrowing survival story set within a framework of sustained suspense and intensity that rarely allows you time to catch your breath.


“Dunkirk” remains grounded in reality throughout. You’ll find no war movie cliches or manufactured sentimentality. Nor does it seek to make judgements concerning the actions of its characters. Nolan composes a careful tension between cowardice and sense of duty but never lays blame or casts guilt. Instead he creates pressure cooker circumstances that pull out a range of genuine human responses. Then he allows his audience the room to make their own conclusions.

A bit more about the presentation. “Dunkirk” is a masterclass on the melding of old school visual techniques, modern film technology and an unmatched creative eye. A notorious proponent of film over digital, Nolan has honed his skills through several movies in preparation for this one.  It was shot on location with cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, it contains a massive cast of extras and it was made with predominately all practical effects over CGI. And with 75% of the film shot in IMAX and the rest in 65mm large format stock, “Dunkirk” is a jaw-dropping spectacle that demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Nolan once said “The theatrical window is to the movie business what live concerts are to the music business.” “Dunkirk” shows that to be true.


A spectacular sound design and one of the best Hans Zimmer scores to date makes “Dunkirk” a penetrating composition of image, sound, and music. It’s light but calculated use of dialogue demands that the focus remains on the terrifying events. But don’t miss the subtle emotional punches along the way. And in the end there is far more intimacy and feeling than you might expect.

The story of Dunkirk was a pivotal early moment in World War 2 and the Dunkirk spirit is something that has lived on through those most closely effected by it. Christopher Nolan brings it to the screen through an incredibly immersive and propulsive experience. This is an extraordinary cinematic journey made by a craftsman at the top of his game. I don’t use the word lightly, but “Dunkirk” is a modern masterpiece that evokes a range of feelings that personify why going to the movies is so special. Simply put, don’t miss your chance.




REVIEW: “Diabolique” (1955)


Henri-Georges Clouzot is a name rarely mentioned among the great French filmmakers. In a way it’s understandable since Clouzot never had the career of a Truffaut, Bresson, Resnais, or Godard. He has never been considered as prominent or as influential. But his signature movies, most notably “Diabolique”, reveal a shrewd cinematic prowess often reserved for the most gifted of his craft.

Clouzot was known for his iron-fisted approach to filmmaking. He was hard on his cast and crew which often led to frustration and animosity. For Clouzot suffering on screen could best be depicted by a suffering cast. He’s been called a tyrannical director who was always angry and who let everyone know who was in charge of the production. But off the set he was different and revealed a surprisingly gentler side.


Practically all of Clouzot’s films toyed with the darker sides of human nature. Many of his characters were devious and manipulative. Much of his subject matter was dark and depraved, often drawn from his own troubled life experiences. It’s all personified in “Diabolique”, a twisted tale of abuse and betrayal that would fit perfectly among any of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies.

The story revolves around a truly messed up situation. Michel Delassalle (Paul Meurisse) is the headmaster of a boarding school for boys outside of Paris. His wife Christina (played by Véra Clouzot, the director’s wife at the time) actually owns the school but her serious heart ailment and his iron hand keeps her from running the place. To make things weirder, Michel’s mistress Nicole (Simone Signoret) also works at the school. What could possibly go wrong?


But there’s a twist (one of many), Christina and Nicole are aware of each other and the roles they play in Michel’s life. Michel is a detestable man, not just due to his infidelity. He is demeaning and abusive to both women which sparks an unusual friendship between them. Eventually Christina and Nicole get their fill of Michel’s mistreatment and together they concoct the perfect crime to knock him off.

Clouzot co-wrote the screenplay which is based on a 1951 French novel that Alfred Hitchcock had intended to adapt. Clouzot beat Hitch to the screen rights and his film became a huge box office success. Another spike in the movie’s popularity would come a few years later when Véra Clouzot died of a heart ailment at age 46. But unlike the malicious, self-absorbed Michel from “Diabolique”, Clouzot was devastated and fell into a deep depression. He would only make one more film after his wife’s death.


“Diabolique” reveals so many layers as it maneuvers from a domestic drama to a psychological thriller. There are even distinct horror elements that show up the further the story spins out of control. There are a couple of particularly haunting scenes made more effective by Clouzot’s strong visual emphasis. But just as unsettling is Michel’s cruelty which the film never softens or tones down. Call it a collective ugliness that works really well.

Even with the moral muck of its story, “Diabolique” is a delight – a tense thriller boiling with suspense. It’s driven by three wonderful central performances and an artful approach by a director known for his adamant demands from his cast. For Clouzot projecting mood and emotion were pivotal in developing the darker tones of his subject matter. “Diabolique” shows just how effective his approach could be.



REVIEW: “Doctor Strange”


As their bank accounts have blossomed Marvel Studios has shown a confidence and willingness to explore nearly every corner of their comic book universe. Obviously they have spotlighted their biggest properties – The Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man and so on. But they have also ventured into other areas occupied by lesser known characters (to some). Here you find movies like “Ant-Man”, “Guardians of the Galaxy” and the latest Marvel installment “Doctor Strange”.

When watching “Doctor Strange” it doesn’t take long to recognize what has become a familiar origin story blueprint for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It’s particularly similar to what we got with “Iron Man” and “Ant-Man” – a deeply flawed individual becomes the possessor of great power, he uses said power to face a sizable threat, he gets a measure of self-redemption, and then he is connected to the greater MCU through a an end credits scene. The names have changed and the powers are different, but it’s more or less the same formula.


Something Marvel Studios does exceptionally well is cast their movies. Benedict Cumberbatch is the ideal choice to play Stephen Strange, a renowned neurosurgeon with a big IQ and an even bigger ego. After a violent car crash costs him the full use of his hands, he has several experimental surgeries all of which fail. Unwilling to accept his fate, Strange seeks out eastern medicine in Nepal. He meets with a mystic known only as The Ancient One (played by a shorn Tilda Swinton) who shows him he must put aside his intellect and look inward to his spirit, something that’s a bit difficult for a raving egomaniac.

The main antagonist is a fellow named Kaecilius (played with the appropriate amount of gruff by Mads Mikkelsen). He’s actually one of the more compelling characters – a sorcerer who deeply believes that he is acting for a greater good. Other characters include Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo, the Anicient One’s right-hand man, Rachel McAdams as Strange’s (sort of) love interest Christine, and Benedict Wong as a faithful soldier/librarian named…well…Wong.

Director Scott Derrickson, most known for his horror movies, was given $160 million which he mostly put to good use. Locations are a highlight with filming taking place from New York City to Hong Kong to Kathmandu. But the film’s bread and butter lies in the special effects which range from merely okay to absolutely astounding. So often Marvel movies focus their effects on blowing up buildings or crashing large objects. “Doctor Strange” offers a new look that deals more with magic and the otherworldly. The visuals look their best when characters distort the dimensions of a cityscape. Think “Inception” but on mystical HGH. Whenever it plays around with the Dark Dimension stuff it doesn’t look nearly as impressive.


Also in line with other Marvel movies is the humor. The MCU has wisely refused to take itself too seriously and the same applies here. The humor comes from a number of sources but most prominently from an inanimate object. The Cloak of Levitation is easily the most recognizable piece of Doctor Strange attire. Here it functions semi-autonomously and some of the movies funniest scenes involve the cloak running around with a mystical mind of its own. There are also a few clever lines where the film understands its absurdity and winks at the audience. It’s a much-needed ingredient.

“Doctor Strange” seemed like another wild stretch by the MCU, but if early box office numbers are an indicator they have another success on their hands. There are definitely some new things being done here most notably in the visual effects. The ending is also a nice diversion from the routine MCU formula. On the other hand, this is a Marvel origin story through-and-through which is getting a little tiresome even for a bonafide comic book fan like me.


3.5 stars

REVIEW: “Dumb and Dumber To”

DUMB poster

I happily admit that I’m one of those guys who thought “Dumb and Dumber”, the goofball comedy from 1994, was absolutely hysterical. The film introduced us to Harry and Lloyd, two of the most good-natured and well-meaning morons ever to appear on screen. Your appreciation for these two characters and their story hinged on your tolerance for absurd and idiotic humor. When done well I love that type of comedy and “Dumb and Dumber” did it really well.

Twenty years (and one awful unclaimed prequel) later the boys are back in “Dumb and Dumber To”. The writing and directing duo of the Farrelly brothers return and, after wading through a difficult production process, the true sequel finally hit the screens. But I have to say I had mixed feelings about bringing these characters back. As much as I adored the first film I wasn’t convinced that the Farrelly brothers could recapture that same moronic magic.


About a third of the way through “Dumb and Dumber To” I was thinking they had recaptured that spark. The characters were twenty years older, but they felt exactly the same as when we left them. For twenty years Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been in a mental institution as a result of his breakup with Mary Swanson. His best friend Harry (Jeff Daniels) has been faithful to visit him every week, at least until Lloyd reveals that he has been faking in order to pull the ultimate gag on his buddy. The two are reunited and Lloyd learns that Harry is sick and needs a kidney transplant. Harry finds out that years prior he had fathered a child so with Lloyd’s help he sets out to reveal himself to his daughter and possibly get her to give him a kidney as well.

Of course all of that sounds completely insane, but it starts off in perfect harmony with the stupidity of the two lead characters (and I do mean that in a very positive way). The film quickly lobs one funny gag after another, some are incredibly over-the-top, others subtle and equally funny. I was laughing a lot. Everything was clicking for me early on and I was reminded of why I loved the original movie.

DUMB AND DUMBER TO, from left: Jim Carrey, Rob Riggle, Jeff Daniels, 2014. ph: Hopper

But then this film runs into a wall. The humor, which energized the first part of the movie, flatlines and my laughter all but stopped. It seemed as if the Farrelly’s ran out of good gags and were straining to fill out their running time. It loses its cleverness, its charm, and its overall likability. Carrey and Daniels still go for it, but the material devolves into a desperate and dull mess. It becomes cruder and ruder and the laughs become more and more scarce. Then there is the end which is more or less nonsense.

I had high hopes for this film, but they were laced with an understandable hesitation. Sometimes movies like the first film should just be left alone. Today’s comedies seem locked into a single, repeated formula that I normally don’t find funny or entertaining. I loved the thought of a film bringing back that idiotic humor that we haven’t seen in a while. For a bit “Dumb and Dumber To” gives us that. But sadly it never maintains it and the unfunny toilet humor and gross out gags take over. It ends up being yet another Hollywood sequel that didn’t really need to happen.