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 affected 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.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

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.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

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 Marvel 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.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS