It remains the most unlikely and surprising movie mega-franchise, yet that’s exactly what the “Fast and Furious” films have become. Now we are eight movies in (yes, EIGHT) and it has done nothing to lessen its position as a box office juggernaut. “Furious 8” had a worldwide debut of $532.5 million, shattering the global record for an opening weekend. And after three weeks it has already cleared $1 billion. Not bad for a series once about street racing in Los Angeles.

I heard it speculated that the previous film got a box office boost from being the last installment featuring Paul Walker following his sad, untimely death. That may be selling the franchise short. Since it’s identity shift in 2011’s “Fast Five” the series has steadily grown in budget and gross. “Fate” sports a whopping $250 million budget which helps it follow its successful formula – bigger, louder, and more over-the-top that its predecessor.

The gang’s all back plus a few (or should I say the family is back since that is the one thin but central running theme). Big names have steadily been added including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Kurt Russell, and Jason Statham to name a few. But this is still Vin Diesel’s show and he returns as Dominic Toretto. Dom is enjoying his honeymoon with Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) in Havana, Cuba. That is until he is confronted by a shadowy cyberterrorist ominously named Cipher (Charlize Theron).

Cipher has a big secret and uses it to force Dom to do her bidding. Doing so requires him to turn on his family and go rogue. Hobbs (Johnson), Letty, Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges), and Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) are approached by the mysterious Mr. Nobody (Russell) and tasked with stopping Dom before he enables Cipher to carry out her nefarious master plan.

F. Gary Gray takes the directing baton from James Wan and crafts a FF installment that hits on every cylinder particularly for fans of the series (interesting fact – “Fate” has already become the highest grossing film for an African-American director). Writer Chris Morgan returns and has now written six of the franchise’s eight movies. It can’t be easy for Morgan to meet the ‘bigger, crazier’ expectations nor can it be a breeze for Gray to capture it with such mammoth studio demands. For the most part they pull it off.

Now don’t get me wrong, “Fate” still requires you to turn off an entire portion of your brain. It’s absurdities can’t be calculated by the human mind. But it works because it maintains a keen sense of self-awareness. It knows it’s nuts and doesn’t shy away from it. In fact it has fun with the craziness of its scenarios. It consistently flashes its vital sense of humor which is absolutely essential. And one thing about it, you can sense everyone on screen is having a blast (I say that despite the much publicized real-life heat between Diesel and Johnson. But don’t worry, all it well now between the two stars meaning a ninth installment is all but assured).

Like most of its predecessors “The Fate of the Furious” is true to its ambitions. Fans of the series are sure to be pleased; detractors will be able to use their same arguments. I tend to enjoy these things. They’re goofy, action-packed, escapist entertainment. That’s why I had a good time with “Fate”. The characters are still fun, the action is a hoot, and the story had enough interesting turns to keep me engaged. Still, let’s be honest, these will never be considered ‘great movies’, but there seems to be enough under the the hood to keep it going. How long it can continue, well, that’s the real question.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

When it comes to Meryl Streep one thing is for sure – you can expect her to put out a new movie each year. And if you’re a betting man or woman you can consider it a sure thing that she will get some type of awards attention. Her 2016 effort, “Florence Foster Jenkins” has once again led her to a Best Actress Oscar nomination despite it feeling like an incredibly familiar Meryl Streep performance. 

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is a weird one – a bit off-balance yet entertaining. It’s an offbeat biopic about a New York City socialite and music lover and I bet you can guess her name. It’s 1944 and Florence (a quirky character custom-made for Streep) spends her time and fortune promoting opera and who aspires to be a singer. The problem is she hasn’t an ounce of talent. Her husband St. Clair (Hugh Grant in his best role in years), a failed Shakespearean actor, knows she can’t sing but he doesn’t dare reveal that truth to her.

That becomes a bit tricky after Florence decides to invest more time into her singing ‘career’. St. Clair goes out of his way to protect her from the truth including paying off her voice coach and secretly screening those who attend her small performances. At first it seems a bit nutty, but we quickly learn Florence has a terrible disease. So is St. Clair looking out for her or is he looking out for himself? It’s never that clear thanks to another layer of the story regarding St. Clair’s secret mistress Kathleen (Rebecca Ferguson).

As this stranger-than-fiction story unfolds it’s hard to gauge exactly how we are to approach it. Much of Florence’s flamboyance and caterwauling is framed as comedy and effectively so. But later the film wants to scold us for laughing even though it basically does the same thing. It’s a strange and confusing moral high ground to take.

Something the film nails is the casting. Streep excels with these eccentric characters that she constantly falls back on at this stage of her career. Hugh Grant is very good as is Rebecca Ferguson in a much smaller role. But it’s Simon Helberg who steals the show. He is a hoot playing the skittish yet ambitious pianist Cosmé McMoon. He’s hired to be Florence’s personal piano player but is dumbfounded by her horrible singing. Helberg can be wildly expressive which adds to the humor.

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is an impossible movie to nail down. It’s a veritable stew of comedy, drama, and commentary. Yet despite being uneven and a bit stodgy, it’s hard not to be sucked in by its quirkiness. It can be laugh-out-loud hilarious but also tender and heart-breaking. At the same time it does little to stand out and its uneven story is a problem despite being entertaining.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

The true story of a 53 year-old milkshake machine salesman who builds a fast food franchise may not come across as compelling cinema. But when that franchise is none other than McDonald’s and the salesman is as fascinating as Ray Kroc, let’s just say there is plenty there to anchor your interest.

McDonald’s has come a long way since its humble beginning in 1940. What started as a barbecue restaurant in San Bernardino, California has become a global phenomenon. Currently McDonald’s employs nearly 450,000 people and sports over 36,500 locations worldwide. They are everywhere. My wife and I even came across one while strolling down Paris’ famous Champs-Elysees? Ray Kroc’s shrewd and ambitious vision turned McDonald’s into a multi-billion dollar franchise and he barreled over anyone who got in his way.

Ray is played by Michael Keaton, a crafty actor with plenty of variation to bring out his character’s many layers. When we first see Ray it’s 1954 and he’s peddling milkshake machines to drive-in restaurants across the midwest. Despite numerous failing business ventures he still manages a modest comfortable living with his supportive but neglected wife Ethel (Laura Dern). But contentment isn’t in Ray’s vocabulary. He firmly believes he’s one deal away from his ship coming in.

After a small California diner named McDonald’s orders six of his five-spindle multimixers a surprised Ray heads out to San Bernardino to check out their restaurant. There he meets the owners, the sociable Mac (John Carroll Lynch) and his intuitive brother Dick (Nick Offerman). Their family-ran diner is built on the idea of good food and fast service (Dick defines it as a “symphony of efficiency”). Ray immediately sees the franchise potential and persuades the reluctant brothers to let him in as their partner.

The screenplay from Robert D. Siegel (who also wrote 2008’s “The Wrestler”) was inspired by Ray Kroc’s 1977 autobiography but also an unauthorized biography. This enabled Siegel to learn the good and bad sides of this complex man. He and director John Lee Hancock move through Kroc’s story with a clear-eyed rhythm, hitting most of the high points and avoiding any lulls. They portray the businessman as both sympathetic and repulsive. Siegel himself said that after seven viewings he still didn’t know whether he liked Ray Kroc or not.

Underneath its biopic epidermis is a surprisingly rich character study that can be as shrewd as Kroc himself and that doesn’t shy away from looking at him with a skeptical eye. It also gives Michael Keaton good material to work with. He is magnetic and endlessly charismatic, so much so that we remain glued to him even as our impression of his character sours. Offerman is also very good as is Dern. Unfortunately she gets left behind (as does a lot of the of Kroc’s personal details) in favor of the business end of the story. But you could say that’s an authentic portrayal – business before everything else.

Over the years McDonald’s has certainly changed. The food you now get is a far cry from the delicious all-beef patties we see on the McDonald brothers’ grill. And it’s funny, the same can be said for the Ray Kroc character. He’s a much different person by the end of the movie. That’s what makes “The Founder” such a fascinating watch. Sadly it hasn’t gotten much traction in theaters, but hopefully people will give it a look. It’s a great way to start the 2017 movie year.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

There are moments in the historical war picture “Free State of Jones” where everything feels right – from its impassioned story to its artful attention to period detail. But then there are times when the flow of the narrative falls apart and the filmmakers seem to be biting off more than it can chew. Such is the dilemma with this riveting yet frustrating Civil War era mini-epic.

Oscar nominated writer Gary Ross pens the screenplay and directs this fictional story based on the historical account of Newton Knight, a southerner who led a group of deserters and escaped slaves up against the confederacy. Ross focuses on Newton and his impact on Jones County, Mississippi from the height of the Civil War through to the Reconstruction Era. Ambitious and  thoughtful, but a bit more than his film can handle.

A perfectly cast Matthew McConaughey plays Newton. McConaughey almost naturally projects what you need from this character – scraggly unkept beard, tired and worn face, seamless southern drawl. We first see him performing his field medic duties for the Confederates at the Battle of Corinth. His war-weariness and disillusionment finally reach their boiling points and he leaves his unit. Wanted as a deserter, Newton is forced to hide in the swamps where he befriends a group of escaped slaves.

Their numbers begin to grow as more deserters break ranks and seek refuge in the swamps. Ross settles here a bit and builds some relationships particularly between Newton and a young house slave named Rachel (warmly played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw). We also see a growing unease as desperate Confederates begin ransacking local farms and stealing crops to supply the failing war effort. Newton’s newly founded militia fight back across southeastern Mississippi until the war ends in 1865.

From there Ross ventures into the Reconstruction Era which is where his story begins to lose its footing. The smoothly paced narrative gives way to a chopped up historical checklist of events that are interesting but terribly underserved. Post-war subjects such as local manipulation of slavery laws, freedman voter registration, KKK violence and democratic election fraud are addressed by title cards or brief segments. The story is constantly leaping forward in time never staying on a subject for more than a few minutes. It leaves the impression that Ross ran out of time, ran out of funds, or maybe both.

It’s really a shame because Ross doesn’t shy away from the issues be it southern slave persecution or northern indifference. But he skims over the latter stuff leaning on didacticism over drama. The final third ends up being the film equivalent of history CliffsNotes. And there are instances where time could have been used better. We get a series of flash-forwards to a court room sequence some 85 years into the future. It’s not that effective and it took time away from more interesting parts of the story.

Newton Knight has remained a controversial figure. While Ross portrays his legitimate heroic side, he strategically prunes a portion of Newton’s personal life that you could call objectionable. After the war Newton lived on a farm with his wife AND his common-law wife (the Rachel character). He had fourteen children between the two women. This other layer of Newton would have been fascinating to explore. Then again the film struggles to cover everything it does include. But when it is on point “Free State of Jones” is a well-made film that’s both gripping and informative.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Director Alexander Sokurov’s love for art and culture was made evident in 2002’s “Russian Ark”. Using a single 95 minute take, this historical drama explored over 33 rooms in Saint Petersburg’s Winter Palace (now part of Russia’s State Heritage Museum). The film is impossible to categorize. It’s rich with dramatic elements while at the same time examining three centuries of Russian history.

Fast forward 14 years to “Francofonia”, a similarly difficult film to classify but equally stimulating in its exploration of art and history. This time Sokurov’s focus is on the Louvre museum in Paris, but it’s not just about the building or its history. There are several interconnected layers built around it that Sokurov comes back to again and again. The Louvre is the most important character in the film, yet it mainly serves as the anchor for Sokurov’s contemplation and reflection.

“Francofonia” hops back and forth between the past and present, between fact and fiction, between historical accounts and provocative metaphors. In an almost documentarian style Sokurov’s own narration carries us through his mélange of subjects offering an assortment of information and perspectives.

One of the film’s focal points is the relationship between the French director of the Louvre Jacques Jaujard and German officer Franz Wolff-Metternich, the Hitler-appointed overseer of French art and culture. The two met during the Nazi’s occupation of Paris during World War 2 and worked together to save and preserve the Louvre’s collection. The dramatization is presented in bites and surrounded by a medley of historical and artistic thought.

Sokurov takes time to examine the origins of the Louvre, Hitler’s march into Paris, and the mindsets of Parisians and the French government. He documents the hiding of the Louvre’s paintings in different châteauxs south of Paris – a desperate attempt to keep them out of Hitler’s clutches. All of this is visualized through some incredible old reel footage and photos.

But if that weren’t enough, Sokurov also takes time for deep, thoughtful meditations on art. Some of the focus is on the art itself such as the unique European intimacy with portraits or the timelessness of early civilization pieces. Other meditations ask some compelling questions. For example why was Paris spared when so many other cities were bombed? Could it be the city was saved by none other than the glorious art itself?

This captivating intersection between art and war is something Sokurov is eager to explore. He reveals how the art of the Louvre and war itself are historically inseparable. In addition to its relevance with the German occupation, the film shows the ghost of Napoleon roaming the museum halls reminding everyone that he was responsible for bringing much of the art to the Louvre – many pieces being spoils of his war victories.

Much more could be said about “Francofonia”. Categorizing it is nearly impossible, but breaking it down is a rewarding challenge. I think the film could best be called Sokurov’s canvass, and on it he presents a collage of thought, reason, and reflection. It is exquisitely shot from start to finish and intellectually honest in how it approaches each of its subjects. It’s certainly not a film for everyone, but I found myself absorbing every second.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS