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-

It’s interesting to review a remake a film I have never seen the original of. On the one hand, I’m completely unable to compare it to what came before, but on the other I can look at it with a possibly more open mind than someone familiar with the older material. Obviously, I will be judging this film purely on its own merits. The film I am referring to is, of course, Sofia Coppola's new remake of The Beguiled. 
​
It’s the height of the Civil War. Heroic generals and dashing soldiers wage epic battles, both sides believing their cause is just… but this is not a story about them. This is a story about women and girls, specifically the women and girls living at Martha Farnsworth’s (Nicole Kidman) Mississippi boarding school. While out foraging for mushrooms one day, Amy (Oona Laurence), one of the youngest students, stumbles upon an injured Union soldier. He tells her that his name is Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) and asks for her help. She helps him back to the school, where the women attend to his wounds. But the arrival of this man shatters the former equilibrium of the school, and McBurney’s interactions with Amy, Martha, the teacher Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) and teenaged student Alicia (Elle Fanning) threaten to turn the women’s social order upside down.

In many ways this film reminds me of 2015’s The Keeping Room, which examined the often-forgotten violence inflicted upon and by women during this time period. Coppola’s work, by contrast, takes a more subtle approach, focusing on suspense and tension rather than violence. This includes both the tension inherent to violence (or the threat thereof) as well as sexual tension, and Coppola expertly uses both to ensure the audience is always waiting with baited breathe to see what happens next. In addition to being an excellent suspense film, it is also an enchanting period piece. The sets, costumes, music, and the dialect used by the actors all contribute to paint a beautiful, yet also terrible, picture of life during an era long gone by. 

The other aspect of the film that really stands out is the depth of characterization on display. This film is also a character study, but a character study of its entire cast, examining everything from McBurney’s desire to capitalize on his new-found surroundings to Edwina’s crippling self-doubts to Alicia’s budding sexuality. All of the characters’ desires and fears intricately weave in and out of each other, and we as viewers are permitted to view their interactions, and resulting consequences, much as psychologist might observe a group study. In this respect, the film also reminds me of Coppola’s classic drama Lost in Translation. The film never pushes a narrative or favors any one individual, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions regarding the events they witness. 

The only real complaint I have with the film is that the ending is pretty predictable, and honestly feels a little overly simple after all the tension and suspense that is built up in the film. Although I suppose this might be entirely intentional, since anything else might have broken the tone and feel of the story. But all in all, Sofia Coppola’s interpretation of a classic Civil War tale is perfect if you’re looking for something a little subdued between raucous summer blockbusters. 
​
Grade: A-

Every once in a while, a new creator breaks into the film industry and takes the community by storm. Sometimes it’s a highly-skilled writer, a director with a unique style, or an actor who becomes a darling of the fans. Other times it’s a whole company, such as Pixar (though their luster has dimmed slightly in recent years) or our subject today, A24. Since being founded in 2012, this modest independent distribution company has released hit after hit, including Ex Machina, Spring Breakers, Locke, Under the Skin, Room, The Witch, Green Room, The Lobster, Swiss Army Man, and last year’s Best Picture winner Moonlight. Having started this year strong with Free Fire, they have now followed it up with an excellent little horror film called It Comes at Night. 
​
While sleeping late one night, Paul (Joel Edgerton) is woken by a man attempting to break into his family’s house. After being subdued and checked for infection, the man says his name is Will (Cristopher Abbot) and that he thought the house was abandoned and was hoping to find supplies for his family inside. Will pleads with Paul to help his family, and reluctantly Paul agrees. He and his wife Sarah (Carmen Ejogo) and son Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) take in Will’s family, and slowly get to know one another as they live together. But the threat of infection from the outside world looms always over them, and when push comes to shove, can they trust anyone but family?

It Comes at Night reminds me a lot of last year’s 10 Cloverfield Lane. Like that film, It Comes at Night is a modest, quiet horror film which combines a vaguely apocalyptic setting, psychological horror, and lots of claustrophobia. The tension and fear of this movie comes not from monsters or serial killers, and even the mysterious disease is more of a plot device than anything else. Rather, the terror of this film comes from being trapped in a confined space with people you don’t know, and don’t trust. It’s an excellent depiction of the psychology of individuals in stressful, catastrophic situations, and how self-destructive behavior frequently results. And just like 10 Cloverfield Lane, the film makes sure to always keep the viewer guessing until the very end, never quite revealing all of its secrets.

A small film like this heavily relies on its characters, and all of the actors perform admirably. Edgerton provides the anchor of the film, while Ejogo provides an excellent foil in terms of personality, and the two possess good on-screen chemistry. Abbot also acts as a sort-of-foil and sort-of-antagonist once the trust between the two families starts to unravel. And the mostly-unknown Harrison Jr. gives a surprisingly strong role, matching the more veteran performers punch-for-punch. The cinematography is also great, expertly capitalizing on the tight, indoor spaces of the house to enhance the feeling of claustrophobia and isolation in order to increase tension. 

Although it won’t satisfy those horror fans anxious for blood, guts, and lots of screaming, It Comes at Night is a perfect film who prefer more subtle horror. Focusing on trust and paranoia, it is the first psychological horror film of the year. If you’re up for a (quiet) scare this weekend, than you can’t go wrong with A24’s most recent gem.

Grade: A

It seems that this week’s movie releases have a theme. “What is that theme?” you say. Well, I’m glad you asked. It is the same theme that NUFEC has been using for our special once a month weekend meetings: So Bad, It’s Good. Because why enjoy watching a brilliant piece of art when you can laugh at a terrible hunk of garbage? Of course, we don’t charge members to watch such gems as Con Air, Nine Lives, and Rocky IV, but if you need a laugh, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is a big (unintentional) one.
​
Our story begins with Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), son of the cursed Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom). He is a crew member on a British naval vessel, whose captain refuses to heed Henry’s warnings against sailing into the uncharted Devil’s Triangle. The ship is promptly boarded and captured by the undead sailors of Captain Armando Salazar (Javier Bardem), who lets Turner live so he can carry a message to his arch-nemesis: Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Sparrow, meanwhile, has resorted to bank robbing due to his dearth of a ship. It is isn’t long before events force Henry, Sparrow, his old foe Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and an astronomer named Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario) together as unlikely allies. 

Somewhere on the vast digital sea of the internet, a bad fanfiction writer is really pissed that Disney used their Pirates of the Caribbean script without permission. But honestly, Dead Men Tell No Tales is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time (along with Song to Song). Almost every aspect of the movie is terrible, but special mention goes to the writing. The script was actually written by Jeff Nathanson, who is also responsible for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Speed 2: Cruise Control, which should really tell you all you need to know about this movie. The plot is mostly nonsensical, with Sparrow, Turner, Salazar, Carina, and Barbossa all having different objectives, forcing the story to take numerous contrived turns and forcing everyone to fight for the limited screentime. Plus, the story relies really heavy on all the mystical bullshit that the earlier films in the series at least attempted to minimize. There’s magical artifacts, ancient curses, scantily-clad witches, and undead sharks out the wazoo in this film, despite said magical elements being generally one of the least-liked aspects of the earlier films. 

The dialogue writing is also atrocious, which frequently overlaps with another gripe about this movie: most of its attempts at humor are painfully unfunny. Some examples illustrating both of these problems are as follows:

1.  Early in the film, a British colonial governor opens a new bank, only to find a hungover Jack Sparrow inside the vault. Before his guards can shoot our beloved hero, a half-naked woman also emerges from the vault, and the governor is informed that “Sir, that is your wife!” Ha ha.

2.  Carina enters a shop specializing in scientific instruments, and examines a large, fancy telescope. The shop’s proprietor, a (17th century) nerd, walks in and proclaims that “No woman has ever handled my Herschel before!” I guess Baywatch didn’t get enough mileage out of the awkward, nerdy guy who can’t get girls trope. 

3.  There is a scene in which Jack encounters an old acquaintance of his who tries to force him to marry his large and unattractive daughter, who Jack refers to as “It” for the duration of the scene. Because apparently Hollywood thinks making fun of unattractive women is hysterical in the year 2017!

Oh, did I mention that the movie reenacts the infamous vault-dragging scene from Fast Five, except they do it with horses and drag the entire bank building through the streets? Or that Javier Bardem is criminally wasted on a character that sounds like a cross between a whiny Spanish emo and someone with a hole in their throat from those old anti-smoking commercials? Or that Johnny Depp actually seems to have been drunk for the filming of the first half hour of the movie? Or that his character who was once an occasionally noble hero is now a complete dick completely relegated to the role of (ineffective) comic relief. Or that…

I could keep going, but I think by now you get the gist of it. I wasn’t expecting this movie to be great. But I was not prepared for it to be this laughably bad. The only parts of it that are actually watchable are a couple of the action scenes, which are occasionally entertaining- one particular scene involving a guillotine is reminiscent of the very creative water wheel fight from the second film. But as soon as anyone opens their mouth, whatever enjoyment I was able to gleam was instantly shattered. The only reason I would say anyone would want to watch this movie is if you want to have a So Bad, It’s Good event with your friends. Between this and Baywatch, you could make a whole evening out of it. Of course, I make no guarantees about your mental state afterwards.

Grade: D-

As a huge film buff, I follow movie news quite closely. As a result, I see quite a lot of movie trailers (although probably still far fewer than anyone who still has cable). Over time I’ve gotten pretty good at analyzing trailers, and I can usually tell from them whether a film is going to be worth seeing or not. Although it’s certainly not a science- Suicide Squad’s trailer still trips me up. Ever since I saw the first trailer for Ridley Scott’s Alien: Covenant I expected it to be another Prometheus. Turns out, that is exactly what it is, for better or worse. 
​
In the year 2104, the starship Covenant is on its way to a remote planet to settle a new colony. While conducting repairs following a solar flare event, the crew picks up a signal seemingly of human origin, despite there being no records of any previous expeditions in their region of space. Changing course to investigate, they find a strange, hidden world full of life and perfect for human habitation. But they also find something else…something very dangerous. Featuring an ensemble cast including Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, and Michael Fassbender, Alien: Covenant is the sixth installment in the Alien franchise (if you include the two films that many fans pretend don’t exist). It is a direct sequel to 2012’s Prometheus, taking place ten years after the events of that film. Fassbender reprises his role as the android David, while simultaneously playing another android named Walter.

To get right to the chase, if you liked Prometheus, then you will like Covenant, and if you didn’t care for the last film that you likely won’t care for this one either. This film has all of the same strengths and the same weaknesses of its predecessor. On the positive side, the film is absolutely gorgeous, with cinematography, special effects, set design, and other visual aspects being out of this world (sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun). The pace of the film is brisk, with the action kicking off early on rather than taking time to build suspense as is typical of films in the series. And the action is very-well done, particularly the extra-grisly alien kills, which are truly a sight to behold and probably the highlight of the film.

However, everything that people complained about regarding Prometheus is still present. Many of the characters still act really, really dumb. Which honestly doesn’t bother me that much considering that most real people don’t make great decisions under extreme pressure, but it does get frustrating watching characters in these movies make the same tired mistakes over and over again. Worse, the muddled philosophical concepts of the last film are back, because apparently Scott seems convinced that the Alien movies need to be about something more than unfortunate space farers being murdered by ravenous beasts. Whether or not these films should have a greater meaning is a topic for another day, but I will say that, if he wishes to go that route, Scott needs to write the philosophical bits better. Because he already made one movie featuring androids droning on about philosophy, and believe me it works much better in Blade Runner than in these films. 

So basically, Alien: Covenant is more Prometheus, which by itself should tell you whether this movie is worth your time if you’ve seen that movie. For those unfamiliar with the franchise, the film is worth a watch if you can tolerate dumb characters and inane metaphysical babbling so you can get to the good stuff. I.e., aliens ripping said dumb people apart in delightfully creative ways. But then again, xenomorphs aren’t everyone’s cup of tea.

Grade: B-

Recently I have been pondering the question of why there seem to be so few good fantasy films. It’s odd that we seem to get at least one or two good science fiction films every year, but it’s quite rare to get an actually good fantasy film. It might be because the genre of fantasy in all mediums frequently struggles with staying out of Tolkien’s massive shadow, or simply because fantasy films aren’t made that often. Guy Ritchie (Sherlock Holmes [2009] and The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) has now joined the fray with his interpretation of the Arthurian mythos, and it is… interesting, if nothing else.
​
I say "interpretation" because King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is only very loosely based on the classic myths. Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) was once a Prince, until his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) murdered his father and usurped the throne. After years of living in exile and on the streets he has nearly forgotten his royal lineage, and heads a gang of thieves and thugs in the slums of Londinium. But when a chain of events leads to him drawing the sword Excalibur from the stone, he is thrust into the role of revolutionary against his will, aided by a ragtag group of rebels including a warrior named Bedivere (Djimon Hounsou), an archer called Goosefat Bill (Aidan Gillen) and a mysterious mage (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey).

The best way I can talk about this movie is by separating its narrative and technical aspects. On the one hand, the former category is somewhat lackluster. The plot frequently seems to forget that it is supposed to be a movie about King Arthur, and goes off on tangents that have little to do with the meat of the story. Honestly, it sort of feels like a script that was originally just a normal fantasy film which had Arthurian elements tacked on during rewrites. The acting is hit-or-miss; Hounsou is badass and Gillen gives the film some much-needed levity, while Jude Law has fun chewing the scenery as the obvious card-carrying villain. Hunnam plays a strangely deadpan King Arthur, and Bergès-Frisbey is good though her English is not the most fluent. Overall, the narrative is pretty bog-standard fantasy fare.

On the other hand, the choices made by the creative team for the technical aspects of the film are highly unusual and interesting. Guy Ritchie continues his trend of super slow-mo action scenes he pioneered in his Sherlock Holmes adaption, adding in some weird camera angles and funky fight choreography which gives the action scenes an almost 300-esque style. The editing is often incredibly fast-paced and sometimes non-linear, especially during the exposition scenes, and features such things as cross-cutting montages and flashbacks interspersed with flash-forwards. Most interesting of all is the score by Daniel Pemberton, which I can’t really think of a good comparison to, but suffice to say it is definitely not what you expect from a fantasy film. 

This is one of those films which I think is more interesting than qualitatively good. For the most part its a fairly standard fantasy action flick, but it’s not a complete loss. My recommendation is to go see it if you either really like hyper-stylized action/fantasy film, or if you’re intrigued by its unique film-making style. For anyone else, this is one sword that is probably not worth the effort to pull from its stone.

Grade: C- (narrative aspects), A- (technical aspects)

The first Guardians of the Galaxy film was a huge surprise to me. It was the first Marvel film that I could watch as anything more than a popcorn action-flick with my friends. Its colorful space opera aesthetic, quirky characters and (most importantly) its humor and charm blew me away. It opened the door for Marvel movies to be not just cool superhero movies, but parts of a much more diverse franchise, which has continued with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. This one not only makes you laugh, but it also makes you feel.
​
Following the events of the first film, the self-proclaimed Guardians of the Galaxy have capitalized on their new-found fame by becoming “heroes for hire”, charging exorbitant fees for their heroic feats. But after a job for an alien species called The Sovereign goes south, the crew is rescued by someone unexpected: a man called Ego (Kurt Russell), who is Peter Quill’s father. As Quill finally learns about his mysterious parentage, the crew embarks on a new adventure. Along the way, they collide with faces both familiar (Gamora’s sister Nebula and the space pirate Yondu) and new (Ego’s empathetic sidekick Mantis). Oh, and Groot is now Baby Groot.

Surprisingly, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is simultaneously the wackiest film in the Marvel franchise and one of its most serious. The film maintains the original’s goofy sense of humor and quirky characterization, and really ramps up the silliness even during most of the action sequences. Everything we loved from the first is still here: Drax’s complete literal-mindedness, Peter and Gamora’s flirty banter, Rocket being a crazy psychopath, and (of course) more 70s pop music. The film also expands on its comedy by branching into significantly raunchier jokes and outrageous celebrity cameos, including Sylvester Stallone (and not to mention the best Stan Lee bit yet).

And yet, Vol. 2 is at times a very serious film. The movie ventures into significantly darker territory than the first, indeed darker than most Marvel films. The stakes are much higher than the previous film, and although the action scenes are often weird they also possess much more dramatic danger than is typical for a superhero film. There’s much more emphasis on character development, showing vastly more complex and nuanced characters than the first film generally portrayed. And the themes of the movie, concentrating on what makes a family, are completely earnest and sincere. The film is, dare I say it, somber at times. 

And yet, there’s also a really funny joke about Kurt Russell’s penis. And that pretty sums up this film: when it isn’t doesn’t make you laugh, it makes you feel. And sometimes it makes you feel while you’re laughing. While in the hands of less-talented cast and crew it could have easily become an incoherent mess, James Gunn has yet again made what is easily one of the best entries in the Marvel franchise. It may not be as unique and original as the first one, but it’s even sillier and packs a significant emotional punch. Whether or not you’ve seen the first one, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a film that shouldn’t be missed.

Grade: A