I was critical of Atomic Blonde before even seeing it because I thought I knew what to expect. Based on Antony Johnston’s graphic novel The Coldest City, this film is about an MI6 agent, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron), who is sent to Berlin just before the fall of the Berlin Wall to investigate the murder of a fellow agent. Subsequently, her superiors instruct her to uncover a missing list of international spies, which includes the identity of the elusive double agent “Satchel.” Upon arriving in Berlin, the icy, collected, and rather glamorous Broughton is forced to work with the unpredictable Agent David Percival (James McAvoy), who immediately chafes Broughton’s steely composure.
​
Yes, this movie is perfectly in line with the most foreseeable spy movie tropes: Theron’s character is powerful, sexy, smart, and unbelievably fit. She’s edgy yet feminine, insubordinate yet respected. Broughton, like James Bond, is a consistently overdressed badass who manages to both engage in sex-capades and single-handedly fight off hordes of well-armed men with her bare hands. Soviet/KGB stereotypes also run rampant in this movie, particularly when Broughton’s superiors inform her of her mission and she bitterly whispers, “Soviets.” 

Other critics might criticize this adherence to the secret agent stereotype, because in regards to the protagonist’s characteristics Atomic Blonde does not offer anything outstandingly novel. I however, find that this is part of what makes the movie so fun. After all, who would go to see a spy movie about an underwhelming, sexually frustrated secret agent?
Furthermore, Broughton’s character manages to be revolutionary in several ways. Like many of Angelina Jolie’s characters (see: the Tomb Raider movies, Wanted, and Salt), Theron’s character subverts sexist stereotypes that women are inherently weak or that they need men to save or seduce them (or both). Importantly, Lorraine Broughton’s sexuality is also addressed with a subtle complexity completely absent in any action film I’ve seen before. When McAvoy’s Agent Percival first appeared onscreen, I rolled my eyes, anticipating that they would fall in love or lust. Sure enough, they soon shared a scene wrought with predictable sexual tension. However, they never slept together--and that’s very important. I commend the writers for not linking the main male and female protagonists just because they’re there. 

When the movie eventually does address Broughton’s sexuality, it does so through flashbacks of a past relationship with the agent whose death she is investigating, and later through sex scenes with French agent Delphine Lasalle (Sofia Boutella). I was refreshed to see the depiction of a powerful queer female without her queerness being made into the main spectacle. The film also illustrated a level of depth and complexity in Broughton and Lasalle’s relationship that is totally unprecedented in the realm of spy movies.

As far as the film’s editing, its sound production impressed me the most. Atomic Blonde is rife with 80s music to both remind you of the time period and to establish a fun tone that offsets the movie’s frequent violence (think: “Stuck in the Middle with You” in Reservoir Dogs). Much of the music is diegetic--it is coming from radios, headphones, and stereos within the world of the film. Consequently, the music becomes muffled or stops and restarts intermittently. This was a delightful touch, though at times the source of such music was unclear or inconsistent.

The visual editing was conventional and I didn’t note any particularly daring shots. The set, on the other hand, was beautiful in its dimly lit, neon-punk drabness. The filmmakers did a spectacular job of setting the tense, deeply dissatisfied mood of partitioned Berlin in late 1989. I especially loved the gritty details of the scenery and the way the costume designers turned James McAvoy into a walking manifestation of the city’s punk reputation. My chief complaint about the visuals is the incessant product placement via Charlize Theron (Lorraine Broughton wears “Boy” brand. We get it.).

Go see Atomic Blonde. I doubted it would be worth the hype, but it is. Theron, McAvoy, and Boutella deliver powerhouse performances and are invigorating to watch. Boutella (who stars in The Mummy, which also came out this year) especially stands out, holding her own with her seasoned costars. Atomic Blonde is filled with both unexpected plot twists and exceedingly predictable dialogue, but I’m not sure I’d go see a spy movie expecting anything less. 

Grade: A 

Last week I reviewed a film I had been excited about for a long time, Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. If you haven’t seen it yet (and you really should), a big theme of the film is that heroes don’t always fit the image of the triumphant victor. Heroes can come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes start as the unlikeliest of people. One of these mostly unknown heroes is our subject for today: Georg Elser, one of the men who attempted to kill Hitler. 
​
Growing up in early 20th century Germany, Elser is by all accounts an ordinary German. He was the son of a farmer who grew up to become a craftsman and a musician. Fun-loving and flirtatious, Georg’s favorite pastimes are playing his accordion in the local tavern and chasing after pretty young women. Although he’s friends with a group of local Leftists, he doesn’t have a political bone in his body. That is, until the Nazis come to power. After watching his village be swept up by Nazi propaganda and seeing his friends imprisoned for their political beliefs, Georg eventually comes to a simple conclusion: Hitler must be stopped, and he might as well be the one to do it. 

The strength of this film is two-fold. Firstly, Georg Elser’s story is an incredibly powerful one. A completely ordinary person who decided to stand up for what was right, his is a name that should be known the world over, and hopefully this film helps to accomplish that. Although I don’t want to start on a rant, I believe that a film with this simple message is needed now more than ever. We must be reminded that even the most unlikely person can do the extraordinary. 

Besides the power of the story, the film is also very well-made. Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, the film uses a parallel narrative structure, flashing between Georg’s original life and eventual radicalization and his time being interrogated by the Nazis after his plot failed. This structure keeps the film moving along at an even, but not rushed, pace. In addition, Georg Elser is played very well by Christian Friedel, who expertly conveys the full range of this man’s transformation, from summer skinny-dipping to painstaking bomb construction to defiance under excruciating torture. My only major complaint about the film is that it missed one good opportunity, which is the time that Elser spent imprisoned in a concentration camp following his arrest, though I suppose that could have turned it into a very different kind of film. 

In many ways this film reminds me of last year’s Denial, a small film which focused on the topics of hate speech and Holocaust denial. Just like that film, this one is leant much greater power by the environment it is being born into. Both of these films are, in their own ways, both warnings and reminders to us. Reminders of how we must stand up for what we believe in, and warnings of the terrible consequences which will result if we don’t. 

Grade: B+

I’m sure it’s a cliché to say so at this point, but Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite directors. He has made some of my absolute favorite films, including one of the most unique films of the 21st century (Inception) and what I think remains the best superhero film ever made (The Dark Knight). While I understand why some of his films are not as well-loved as others, I still love all of his films (yes, including Interstellar). I was always fully expecting for Dunkirk to be great, but even still I was blown away by yet another modern cinematic masterpiece. 
​
Before I saw the film, I was puzzled at the film’s run-time: 106 minutes, Nolan’s shortest feature since his feature-length debut Following released nearly twenty years ago, and a full hour shorter than his last two features (Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises). The reason for this became apparent as soon as the film started: if it was any longer than that, it would give audience members heart attacks. Dunkirk is one of the most intense and visceral films I have ever experienced. The tension starts immediately, when British soldiers come under sniper fire in the first scene, and does not stop until the credits start rolling. The film is relentless and does not give you time to take a breath- our heroes are constantly at risk from sniper fire, mortar shells, torpedo attack, dive bombers…the list goes on. The film barrels along like a runaway freight train, as soldiers desperately escape one death trap only to immediately fall into another. 

When I saw Dunkirk, it was screened in the pseudo-IMAX screen at the AMC Boston Common, and even without a full IMAX set-up it was one of the most intense film experiences I have ever seen. The film’s sound design is incredible, and when combined with an IMAX sound system you really do feel like Nolan just threw you into a battlefield. I can’t imagine what this film is like on a full-size IMAX screen, but I fully intend to find out. Be warned though, this is not a film for the faint of heart, young children, or people with heart problems. Because at the end, it almost did feel like I had been holding my breath for 106 minutes. 

Unlike most of Nolan’s past films, Dunkirk places a huge emphasis on tension, and Nolan executes this masterfully to keep you on the edge of your seat at all times. In this film, objects as innocuous as a door lock or a fuel gauge become focal points of unbearable anxiety, threatening death the same as any bomb or bullet. And the tension-building is not limited to the visual, either. The film’s score is very unique, because just like the suspense in the film it never stops- it begins in the first scene and keeps going as one continuous stream until the credits. The centerpiece of the score is a ticking clock, and although (metaphorical) ticking clocks are extremely effective in building suspense in a film, I never thought a literal one could be used so effectively. 

Like most Nolan films, the film is visually incredible. Nolan worked with the cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema on Dunkirk, who also worked on his previous film Interstellar, yet this probably surpasses that film. Some of the shots in this movie were simply jaw-dropping and I don’t understand how they pulled them off. Either Hoytema was somehow able to cram an IMAX camera into a Spitfire, or else they used some of the most convincing practical effects I’ve ever seen. In fact, nearly all the effects in this movie were practical: they really did fly Spitfires around to get amazing aerial photography and use real Royal Navy ships instead of painting them into the scenes in post-production. Unlike the heavy CGI style which has become the Hollywood standard nowadays, films such as this with practical effects and great cinematography will never look outdated. 

The only minor complaint I have about the movie is the that fact that it uses a non-linear narrative structure, which makes the film a little hard to follow at certain points. However, I understand why Nolan elected to use this style. By showing the scenes out of order, he is able to depict the land, sea, and air portions simultaneously, something which would not have been possible had he shown them sequentially. This, in turn, would not create the same level of intensity as showing them all at once. So even if it’s a tiny bit confusing, I view it as a small price to pay to achieve the desired result. 

In many ways Dunkirk is not a war movie in the conventional sense. Rather than being about winning a battle or defeating an enemy, it is about survival. Essentially, it is a 106 minute war epic about running away. And yet, in war, sometimes mere survival is victory. Dunkirk, more than any war movie I’ve ever seen, truly communicates the chaos and terror that is a battlefield. It is incredible in every way, and is yet more evidence that Nolan is one of the greatest directors of our time. I could talk about this film even more, but it’s just making me want to go see the movie again. Which I will, on a true IMAX screen this time. I highly recommend that you do the same.

Grade: A+

In most respects, film-making is a craft no different from woodworking, weaving, or smithing. It is a skill which is honed over time, and each apprentice practices their craft in a slightly different manner. Cinema has its master craftsmen like any other art; instead of Van Gogh or Isambard Brunel we have our Quentin Tarantinos, Steven Spielbergs, and Hayao Miyazakis. We also have many beginning apprentices, some of whom will eventually ascend to the height of the masters and…some who won’t. And then we have our Luc Bessons. He’s like cinema’s Steven King: sometimes he makes a Leon: The Professional and sometimes he makes Lucy. And sometimes he makes a film located between those two extremes such as The Fifth Element or, it’s spiritual successor, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. 
​
It’s the far future, and humanity has become a space-faring species. Although Earth is still the capital of human-controlled space, the true heart of human civilization is Alpha: a massive roaming space station home to tens of millions of beings from thousands of different species. Protecting this grand city are a group of elite agents, including our heroes- the cool and suave lady-killer Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and his beautiful and snarky partner Laureline (Cara Delevinge). Following a mission to retrieve an extremely rare alien being and Valerian’s latest failure to seduce Laureline, the two discover a conspiracy which threatens to destroy the city of Alpha.

Ever since the first trailer for this film dropped, numerous comparisons to Besson’s earlier sci-fi film The Fifth Element have been made. And, having seen the film, I can tell you that most of these comparisons are apt, as it shares many of that film’s strengths. Like its predecessor, Valerian is a fun, colorful, sci-fi adventure film that never takes itself too seriously. Although ridiculously-detailed CGI is a dime-a-dozen these days, Valerian distinguishes itself by pure visual inventiveness, featuring such scenes as our hero retrieving stolen goods from a mobster while the mobster is an alternate dimension and (alien) Rihanna constantly shape-shifting while pole dancing. It’s very reminiscent of the colorful and chaotic cacophony which was The Fifth Element, which isn’t too surprising since some of the visual design of that film was done by the author of the comic book Valerian is based on. 

The action sequences, while not jaw-dropping in the way of a John Wick film say, are still fun and decently well-choreographed. There’s also a healthy variety among them, from fist fights to shoot-outs to being chased by giant alien monsters and the obligatory giant space battle. The action keeps the film’s momentum going, and there’s hardly a dull moment between the action and visual splendor. Finally, and possibly most importantly of fall, is the fact that film never loses its sense of fun. Even once the (albeit fairly serious) plot reaches its climax, the protagonists still face the final fight with smiles and a snarky joke. 

However, the film also has some fairly major flaws. In particular, the acting is, to put it charitably, poor. Both of the leads were grossly mis-cast. Dane DeHaan is very clearly trying to play a Han Solo-esque suave ladies’ man, and it just doesn’t work. He delivers all his lines in this strange, gravely, obviously fake monotone, and he ends up acting more like a thirteen year-old’s mental image of what a “cool dude” is like. Cara Delevinge does somewhat better, but only when her character is allowed to make sarcastic comments or punch people in the face; when she has to deliver dialogue, she falls flat as well. The chemistry between them and Clive Owen in the supporting cast saves it from being a complete disaster, but I still can see this movie being used as an example of the importance of proper casting in film school in five years’ time. In addition, the plot is somewhat generic and predictable, although of course no one goes to see a movie like this for the impeccably-written dialogue or profound dramatic moments. 

So like I’m sure many others will do, I will end this review by once again comparing it to The Fifth Element (or, if you’d prefer a more recent film, the Wachowski’s Jupiter Ascending). It is a fun, action-packed sci-fi adventure flick with huge charm and potential along with some serious problems which prevent it from fully capitalizing on that potential. And yet, it still manages to be pretty fun despite, or in some cases even because of, its flaws. It may not be the smash success of the year, but I’m positive it will have a devoted cult following a few years down the road. So if you’re interested in a little silly fun in your summer blockbuster, Valerian and Laureline will be happy to oblige. 

Grade: C+

As someone who reviews movies for a living (well, actually for fun, but anyway) I obviously see a lot of movies. Even just counting new releases, I probably see more films in a year than many people see in several years. Even still, I can’t see everything, and a few things slip through the cracks. The new Planet of the Apes films, Rise in 2011 and Dawn in 2014, were two such movies. I’ve only seen the both within the last year or so, and as I watched them I was immediately regretful that it had taken me so long to see them. So, when the opportunity to review the third film in the series came up, I jumped at the chance. Fortunately, War for the Planet of the Apes is just as good, and possibly even better, than the previous installments. 
​
Five years after the events of the last film, relations between humans and apes have deteriorated to open, if sporadic, conflict. Caesar (Andy Serkis) still leads his tribe in the forests of what was once California. Caesar despises the fighting, and shows mercy to his enemies whenever he is able, but the conflict has gone on too long for him to be able to stop it. In order to escape the war, the tribe is planning to migrate to a new home across the desert where the humans won’t find them. But the night before they set out, the humans launch a major attack. Led by the ruthless Colonel (Woody Harrelson), they slaughter numerous apes, including Caesar’s wife and oldest son. Vowing vengeance, Caesar sets out to confront the Colonel, accompanied by Maurice (Karin Konoval), Rocket (Terry Notary) and Luca (Michael Adamthwaite). Along the way they meet new friends, including a young mute girl (Amiah Miller) and a chimpanzee named Bad Ape (Steve Zahn), and Caesar must confront the hatred of humanity which is growing in his heart.

Much of the marketing material for this film played up the “war” aspect in the title, which gave me some concern as the action parts were generally my least favorite parts of the previous films. Hell, another critic I know even said that he was mostly looking forward to “monkeys on horseback dual-wielding machine guns”. And although the film does have a little bit of that, for the most part it continues the subdued drama of the previous entries in the reboot series. Compared to other big-budget block-buster films, War for the Planet of the Apes is fairly slow-paced, has pretty sparse dialogue, and a huge emphasis on absorbing characters. The action is mostly concentrated at the beginning and the end, but the middle of the film is where its soul really is. When we see Andy Serkis giving his all through the impeccably-animated CGI, when heart-wrenching drama scenes are communicated almost entirely through sign language, when Caesar realizes the possibility that he may become consumed by his hatred the same way his nemesis Koba was, that is when you realize how head-and-shoulders above other blockbusters these new Apes films really are. 

Just as in the previous films, the scenes I was most engrossed in were the quiet drama scenes, and all the actors perform amazingly well. Andy Serkis, in particular, really deserves an Oscar for this, although I’ve heard arguments that a new category may be necessary due to the melding of a human actor and animation technology. The other ape actors, who with the exception of Bad Ape do not speak, expertly convey emotional depth through their facial expressions, body language, and signing. Unlike the previous film, this one includes long sections with no human characters on-screen, or no speaking humans in the case of Amiah Miller's character. It's a bold move which really pays off, as you come to understand the apes on their own terms rather than in relation to human characters. On that human side: Woody Harrelson, although occasionally slipping into chewing the scenery mode, admirably portrays a man filled with fear of anything that is different than he is, a character which should ring true now more than ever. And Amiah Miller, at age twelve, has become the second awesome child actress of the year (along with Dafne Keen in Logan). 

Of course, none of this acting would be possible without the incredible animation technology used in this film. However, apart from the apes themselves, this film defies the modern Hollywood trend of CGI (More! Bigger! Brighter! Faster!) and keeps its effects mostly subtle, matching the subdued tone of the film overall. It takes guts to use as little FXs in a big-budget blockbuster as this, and I applaud the creators for electing to make such a reserved action film. Even better, the film substitutes any visual oomph lost from the effects with absolutely gorgeous cinematography, with the snow-capped mountains of Alberta standing in for those in Northern California, and features lots of long-takes to show off both the scenery and the effects work that is present. All of this helps to contribute to the muted and even occasionally somber tone of the film. 

The film is not quite perfect though. There are a few plots holes that seemed to have been overlooked, it runs maybe a few too many minutes longer than it needs to, and the ending feels a little Deus ex Machina-y. But in the grand scheme of things these are minor gripes. Honestly, it’s well-made enough that after a while you start to forget that you’re watching a film about CGI apes and it just becomes an enchanting and touching…well…human story. I can’t ask anything more than that.

Grade: A-

I feel like I have said this many times, but I still feel the need to reiterate this point every time a Marvel movie comes out: I think the MCU is starting to have a negative impact on the superhero genre and on the greater landscape of how studios are choosing to make summer blockbusters. Sure, movies like Deadpool and Logan continue to break the mold and innovate, but that is one studio (FOX) deciding to do something fresh with the genre. Overall, it still feels to me as though Marvel is breeding complacency among audiences to accept the same film over and over again, sighting only an extended universe as a means of distracting you from the fact that you just watched a re-packaged version of the last MCU film. 
​
And what’s frustrating as a film critic is that it really isn’t my job to analyze what this phenomenon might mean in the greater scope of the film industry. My job is to tell you whether or not a movie is good. And because the Marvel films keep cranking out movies that range from good (B+) to decent (B-), it looks like I am constantly recommending that people fly to the theatre to see what I just said is probably damaging the industry. So I leave this introduction as a warning to those who follow the superhero genre as closely as I do. While the review you are about to read is positive, and Spiderman: Homecoming is a decent film, I fear that movies like it (I’m looking at you Doctor Strange and Wonder Woman) are breeding a more complacent audience and, thus, a more complacent Hollywood.

That being said, I can’t deny the charm of Spiderman: Homecoming. After the mediocre The Amazing Spiderman and abysmal The Amazing Spiderman 2, Homecoming feels much more true to the Spiderman character I want out of a movie. Tom Holland plays a younger, more charming yet believably socially isolated Peter Parker, who is trying to balance a normal high-school life with super-heroism. After assisting Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in Captain America: Civil War, Parker is disappointed in his lack of meaningful superhero work, constantly hoping Tony will call him in for more official Avengers work. But when Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), a mechanic who was screwed over by Stark, starts building and selling weapons using alien technology, Parker faces the challenge of dealing with a devastating threat on his own.
​
Spiderman: Homecoming immediately defines itself through its lead. Holland is the best to play the character so far, a charismatic and likeable lead that might be one of the most charming members of the MCU right now. He plays both Peter Parker and Spiderman flawlessly, and it’s certainly a step up from the duller protagonists of MCU outings like Doctor Strange and the Thor series. He is the anchor that keep the rest of the film in check, because the majority of the film's other elements are far more standard Marvel-fare than our main hero.

Name an MCU stereotype. This movie has it. Predictable story, dull villain, forgettable score, good but not overly noteworthy action sequences. Without Holland, this film would have been on the lower end of the “acceptable Marvel” scale. But his charm is enough to carry us through the conventions of an otherwise average movie.

At times, the movie also manages to set itself apart from the other Marvel films tonally, something that is rare in the standard MCU fold. Spiderman: Homecoming is not exactly the John Hughes movie I wanted it to be, but it does manage to escape into that vibe every once in a while. It certainly helps that Peter’s high school friends, Ned and Michelle (Jacob Batalon and Zendaya), are two of the more likeable characters in the supporting cast. Ned, Michelle and Peter work off each other very well, and it definitely seems to imply at the end of the film that we will see more of them in future Spiderman films. It’s the times where the movie scales back to a personal level and looks at Peter’s “normal” life that I found myself having the most fun.

So I find myself at the same point I always do with MCU movies. I can’t deny that I liked the film, and that I would love to see Holland on screen as Spiderman again. But I also can’t deny that I feel like the MCU is leeching into the summer blockbuster in a way I don’t want to support. The conclusion that I have come to is this. This movie is going to make a ton of money: that much is inevitable. So we aren’t going to make any difference if we don’t see it ourselves. What matters is that the movie was good, another piece of light Marvel fare to distract us from whatever we’ve got going on for a short two hours. So go nuts.

Grade: B