SPOILERS AHEAD
 
"Shazam!" flawlessly captures the playfulness and creativity of being a kid. It follows fourteen-year-old foster kid Billy Batson (Asher Angel) — who receives magic powers from a wizard named Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) — and his foster brother and superhero fanatic Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Grazer), as they fight a villain named Dr. Sivana (Mark Strong), who harnesses the power of seven deadly sins, in the form of large demonic creatures, and aims to steal Billy’s powers for himself. The film also features many of Billy’s other foster brothers and sisters who, along with Freddy, end up getting magic powers as well.
 
"Shazam!," the latest film in the D.C. Extended Universe, solves many of the problems that critics and fans identified in the series’ previous installments. Most notable is that in “Shazam!” the characters are actually relatable.  We learn in the film that Billy’s mother had left him at an early age, after which he shuffled from foster home to foster home. As a result, Billy is motivated by a desire for a family and a sense of belonging. Billy’s motivations are grounded and sympathetic, making him an engaging and endearing protagonist.  Moreover, while previous installments like “Justice League” and “Suicide Squad” juggled too many tones and couldn’t settle on an overall character and feel for their films, “Shazam!” sticks to a silly and playful tone (the continuous stream of well-paced jokes will keep viewers laughing throughout), which fits the original tone of the character Shazam from D.C. comics — unlike “Man of Steel” which took the inherently optimistic and happy character of Superman and placed him in a dark and gritty film. 
 
Additionally, the film humanizes the villain, Dr. Sivana, and doesn’t portray him as a one-dimensional, uniquely evil stock character. The very first scene of the movie shows us a young Dr. Sivana, who just like Billy, doesn’t feel at home, and is hated by his family. In Billy’s case, these experiences of being without a home gave him the desire to help people.  In Dr. Sivana’s case, very similar experiences made him angry and resentful, which inspired him to harness the power of the seven deadly sins. As a result, viewers can sympathize will Dr. Sivana, and understand what motivates him.
 
It was really hard for me to find anything bad about "Shazam!," but there are a few things that could be improved.  The special effects could be better, but on a relatively low budget (at least for a superhero movie) of only $80 million, the shortcomings are understandable. As a regular watcher of C.W.’s “Arrowverse” shows, I can sympathize with having to pull of a lot of big scenes with superheroes on a shoestring budget. The soundtrack didn’t blow me away either, but it still fit the movie well. The positives overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives; taken as a whole, “Shazam!” is a fun, nostalgic movie that will make viewers feel like they are a 14-year-old kid having fun again.

Grade: A/A-

In case you couldn’t tell from the train wreck of a title, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is an utter mess of a movie. It really seems like J.K. Rowling just threw a bunch of her leftover worldbuilding notes from Harry Potter together, adding only the bare minimum of connective tissue needed to assemble a somewhat logical narrative.

The film’s plot is ostensibly quite simple. Magizoologist Newt Scamander and his friends, with guidance from the legendary Albus Dumbledore, try to find and protect Credence Barebone, a young but terrifyingly powerful wizard, as he is hunted by both the harsh and overbearing Ministry of Magic and a group of violent extremists led by outlaw Gellert Grindelwald.

Unfortunately, the story ends up being incoherent, both by over-complicating the plot and some remarkably poor storytelling choices. After an inoffensive opening sequence, the film starts to go downhill, with two early reveals that undo all of the consequences of the first film’s conclusion. The film then splits into roughly half a dozen different plot threads, tied together in some of the most contrived ways imaginable. It’s a shame too, because each of the storylines probably would have been compelling had they been properly fleshed out. Poor editing exacerbates the clumsiness of the already convoluted narrative. Some of the scene transitions are so abrupt that I wondered if there was something wrong with the copy of the film being shown at the screening.

The film doesn’t manage to stick the landing either. Most of the last half hour is taken up by a series of plot twists, each more over the top and less meaningful than the last. And the climax of the movie should have massive repercussions for the film’s heroes and the wizarding community as whole, but Rowling apparently didn’t think it was important to actually show us how the protagonists deal with events that just irrevocably changed all of their lives.

The film also does a less than stellar job at handling its large cast. All of the significant characters from the first film return, and the film introduces a gaggle of new ones. Theseus Scamander (Newt’s brother), Leta Lestrange (Newt’s ex and now Theseus’s fiancée), Nagini (yes, really), and Nicholas Flamel (an immortal alchemist) are all jammed into the movie. None of them are well developed or necessary to the plot. Nagini, especially, is completely extraneous. Not only is it absurd to reveal that Voldemort’s pet snake from the Harry Potter series was actually a cursed human witch the whole time, she serves absolutely no purpose in the movie. Her only role is standing around and looking mildly horrified at the events unfolding around her. Leta comes the closest to having a coherent arc, but the mangled storytelling robs her character development of the emotional heft it should have.

Newt and his allies, the non-magical human Jacob Kowalski and the Auror (wizard cop) Tina Goldstein, fair a little bit better, but only because they are already established characters. These weirdos with hearts of gold are pretty much exactly the same as they were the last time around. If you found them charming in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (I certainly did) then you’ll find a lot to enjoy here. The exception (and not in a good way) for the returning characters is Queenie Goldstein. In a pretty significant departure from her previous characterization, the telepath comes off as consistently selfish, manipulative, and gullible with no real redeeming qualities.

But you know what? Despite the movie’s many, many flaws, I didn’t hate it. Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Dumbledore are delightful, most of the jokes land well, the creatures and magic spells are clever and stylish, and the wizarding world is as fascinating as ever. Grindelwald, too, is deftly handled. He is a far more human monster than Lord Voldemort, but that makes him an incredibly effective villain. His softer approach to fascism and skill at presenting a compelling message makes it all too clear why his brand of bigotry would appeal to the wizarding populace. In particular, his speech to the witches and wizards of Paris, a chilling depiction of the malleability of the truth and the capacity humans have for violence, is  J.K. Rowling’s best piece of writing in the film.
 
Grade: C+/B- (I can’t decide and these grades are meaningless anyway)

Bohemian Rhapsody? More like Bohemian Crap-sody, am I right?
 
I really thought this was going to be a good one. A bio-pic of Freddie Mercury had a lot of potential. But the more I think about it, the more I realize director Bryan Singer took a great story and watered it down to the point of intense blandness.
 
There seems like a lot of material available regarding Mercury that could make for an interesting film. He was the son of immigrant parents who seemingly didn’t approve of his career, which compounded upon his feeling like an outsider. He was a closeted gay man and had a complicated relationship with a woman to whom he was married before he came out. He engaged in the kind of sex and drugs that we generally associate with rock gods of that era. And he famously contracted AIDS at the height of the initial epidemic, and his death from the disease increased attention on finding a cure.
 
Well what if I told you the movie barely addresses any of these elements of his life? Rhapsody acknowledges all of these issues, sure. But it never feels like the film takes the time to talk about any elements of Mercury’s life substantially. Everything is glossed over in this hard-to-place sheen that makes the whole movie feel unfocused and impersonal. I don’t feel like I learned anything about Mercury, the person or the character.
 
And Mercury is really the only character in the movie with even an attempt at depth. Rami Malek’s performance is good, but the lack of focus on any elements of Mercury’s life fails his efforts. No one else in the movie even comes close to interesting. The other members of the band are relegated to tertiary characters, and the rest of the supporting cast are either lifeless nothings or unremarkable stereotypes.
 
There are moments where the film distracts you from it's monotony. The cinematography is pretty interesting, with a few stylistic shots and angles that give Queen the vibe it deserves. Seeing the band put together some of their most iconic songs is interesting, especially “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “We Will Rock You”.
 
The last 20 minutes of the film are just a recreation of the Live Aid performance from 1985. And while this is kind of dope, because it’s just 20 minutes of listening to Queen perform, the minute it is over you remember that you could have just watched the actual Live Aid performance on YouTube for free. You then realize that the only interesting part of the movie is Queen’s music and that you could be in your living room listening to A Night at the Opera and not in a movie theater trying not to sing along because you are surrounded by strangers trying to watch a mediocre movie.
 
I really believe that a documentary about Queen would have been better than this. Talking to the actual band mates about Freddy and the band might have added to some energy to this sloppy, boring mass. I was entertained, sure. But not because the movie is good. Because Queen is awesome and it’s hard to fuck that up.
 
Grade: C

​It’s a tale as old as time: Aspiring Entertainer Female meets Established Entertainer Male, they fall in love, Established Entertainer Male elevates Aspiring Entertainer Female’s career, he becomes Declining Entertainer Male and she becomes Established Entertainer Female. Well, it’s at least a tale as old as 1937, and screenwriters Bradley Cooper and Eric Roth did the bare minimum to update it for Cooper’s directorial debut A Star Is Born.
 
The impetus of the relationship in this film hinged on questionable power dynamics that feel sexist and inappropriately timely. Jack (Cooper) wields his power as a famous musician to relentlessly try to woo Ally (Lady Gaga) until she abandons her life to travel with him after they spend a single night together. Ally’s position as a budding singer herself made Jack’s advances and belief in her talent hard to resist. No matter Jack’s intentions, which prove to be fairly altruistic, it was easy to feel unsettled by this all-too-familiar Hollywood story which usually ends differently. I’d like to forgive these outdated gender politics because this film is, of course, based on a story that originated in 1937. It perhaps wouldn’t have been a true remake if Cooper and Roth had veered from this, but they each hold enough clout to champion a film that feels a bit more modern.
 
Setting all this aside, Cooper and Gaga had palpable chemistry that was hard not to root for. Though both of their performances were uneven, Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga each had scenes that made me question whether I was being too critical. Cooper’s character Jack is a charming piece of shit, which he believably embodies. Jack is tragically and frustratingly flawed, which somehow endears him to the audience and Ally even more. But save for a few emotional peaks, Cooper’s performance was pretty flat and showed minimal depth. I was much more impressed with Gaga, despite her character Ally coming off as a caricature at points. The film often felt autobiographical to Gaga (and many pop stars), as Ally struggles to be accepted as a musician because the industry likes the way she sounds but not the way she looks. The moments that touched upon that issue felt the most genuine. And it almost goes without saying, but any shaky acting was instantly excused whenever she took the stage to perform.  
 
There are a handful of elements to this film that I wanted more of, and some that I wanted less of. The few minutes when Anthony Ramos was on screen were completely joyous. He is an incredibly talented multi-hyphenate who we will be seeing more of very soon (Monsters and Men, out soon), but I wanted to see more of his sweet character Ramon in a film whose turbulent leads quickly become daunting. This is definitely a personal preference, and one that not every viewer will agree with, but I wanted more music. It is clearly the strongest part of the film. “Shallow” is a safe Oscar bet for Best Original Song, and will be fodder for so many covers that I am not looking forward to. Even though he probably wouldn’t have written, directed, and starred in a musical movie if he didn’t, I was still impressed to see that Cooper had genuine musical chops. Every time Ally and Jack play “Shallow” (yes, it obviously happens more than once) is a high for the film, and I am so excited for the Oscars and/or Grammys performance of this song.
 
The aspect of the film I wanted the least of was actually the story. I found myself completely apathetic to Ally and Jack’s backstories, which served mostly to suffocate the narrative and artificially acquaint us with the characters. It was easy to connect with Ally and Jack even if their stories began when the film did. The inclusion of their families as secondary characters felt extraneous. My main issue is actually that I wanted less movie, which is a recurring pattern for almost every iteration of A Star Is Born. Cooper’s version is around two hours and fifteen minutes, and could’ve easily been ten to fifteen minutes shorter without detriment. The 1954 and 1976 versions both come in at an unreasonable three hours and two minutes, which is essentially inadmissible in today’s short-attention-span society. The original 1937 version is just under two hours, which is the absolute longest any of these films should be.
 
Going into the film, I was convinced that A Star Is Born would be either my favorite or least favorite film of the latter half of 2018. But after watching it, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just an okay film with incredible moments that make its flaws forgivable.
 
Grade: B+

I think it’s been well-established by now that 2017 has been one of the weirdest years in memory, and the year’s cinema has certainly contributed to that. If I had told myself a few years that I would get to see an R-rated X-Men movie, a sequel to Blade Runner, and a Lego version of a Batman movie (and that they would all be awesome!) I certainly wouldn’t have believed it. So now that the year’s almost done, what’s one more crazy concept to add to the list? Guillermo del Toro’s fantasy romance The Shape of Water is not only just the right amount of weird, but it is a phenomenally well-acted and all-around lovely film. 
​
In a small apartment above a decrepit movie theatre in early 1960s Baltimore lives a woman named Elisa Eposito (Sally Hawkins). A childhood left her without vocal chords, so she communicates exclusively in sign language. Every night like clockwork she takes the bus to a government research facility outside the city where she works as a member of the cleaning staff. One night she catches a glimpse of the facility’s newest research project being wheeled in: a bizarre fish-like humanoid referred to as “the Asset” (Doug Jones). What follows is quite probably one of the strangest love stories in the history of cinema. 

The Shape of Water is one of those movies where you have to accept the base concept or you can’t go anywhere with the movie; namely, a mute woman falling in love with a fish man. But while this easily could have fallen into the realm of camp, it doesn’t. The first reason for this is the screenplay, expertly written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. As bizarre as it sounds, this is one of the most touching romance films I’ve seen in quite some time, being built off the kinship Elisa feels with the Asset due to their shared status as outcasts. Interestingly, although the story is built around del Toro’s trademark whimsy and eccentricity, it is significantly less dark that most of his previous work. Though there are certainly some horrific moments in the film, most of them based around the horror that humans can inflict on those they perceive as different from them. It definitely channels elements of Pan’s Labyrinth in this regard, but in sum total it is second only to his giant robot movie Pacific Rim in terms of a light tone. 

But what really brings the story to life is the phenomenal acting. Sally Hawkins gives an amazing performance in which all her lines are delivered by subtitled sign language, along with expert physical acting such as facial expressions and other things that are generally overlooked in a normal acting role. I fully expect her to get a nomination for Best Actress at the Oscars this year. Doug Jones also showcases his amazing physical acting, delivering a great performance under huge amounts of practical special effects, although the characters general silence (both in terms of vocalization and sign language) prevents him from shining as bright as he could have. Michael Shannon delivers a great performance as the film’s antagonist Richard Strickland, who personifies the more unfortunate aspects this era of American history including sexism, racism, and just general fear of anyone different from ourselves, though the well-written script prevents him from ever falling into strawman or card-carrying villain territory. The supporting cast is rounded out by a great performance by Richard Jenkins as Elisa’s closeted artist neighbor Giles, Michael Stuhlbarg as the chief scientist investigating the Asset with a big secret he keeps from his employers and Octavia Spencer as Elisa’s coworker Zelda, although I think she was a bit underutilized in the film. 

Finally, the film is absolutely gorgeous and extremely evocative of the 1960s in which it is set. The sets are wonderfully constructed and manage to summon up both a warm art-deco feel and a cold sterility in the case of the research facility. The film effortlessly blends his retro aesthetic with del Toro’s trademark magic in a similar manner that Pan’s Labyrinth and Crimson Peak adapted to their eras. And like the former of those films, The Shape of Water does not shy away from the uglier aspects of its history, prominently showing how sexism, racism, and homophobia shaped the lives of countless people, not even to mention the oppressive weight of the Cold War looming over everything. It’s a wonderful, if unconventional, period piece and a fascinating look at a more fantastical version of a well-visited era in cinema. 

The Shape of Water is a beautiful film in every sense of the world. Visual splendor combines with stellar acting, a tight script, and del Toro’s unique magic to craft a romance film wholly unlike what anyone expects to see in their local theatres in the 21st century. Whether you’re a fan of del Toro himself, romance, fantasy, period pieces, or simply unique storytelling, you can’t go wrong with this movie. Give it a shot, you won’t be disappointed.

Grade: A

Lady Bird is a nearly perfect coming-of-age story.  While it’s not quite a reinvention of the genre, it’s one of the best examples of how to do it right.  Writer and director Greta Gerwig has crafted one of the most genuine and insightful examinations of teenage life in recent memory.  She deftly weaves sharp dialogue, deeply empathetic characters, and a moving narrative together to create a film that surpasses others of its ilk.
​
Spanning the senior year of high school, the film depicts Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson’s (Saoirse Ronan) fraught relationships with family members, friends, boyfriends, and her hometown of Sacramento.  Deeply frustrated with nearly aspect of her life, she consistently rebels against reality.  She applies to colleges she lacks the grades for, pretends to live in houses her family couldn’t possibly afford, and rejects her given name in favor of her invented nickname.  All she wants is to leave everything she knows behind and get very far away from Sacramento, or as she disdainfully calls it, “the Midwest of California.”

Lady Bird’s mother serves as the main target of her war on reality.  The harsh, demanding matriarch of the McPherson family (a wonderful performance by Laurie Metcalf) is the polar opposite of the vibrant, impetuous Lady Bird.  Each of the women desperately wants the other to respect and understand them, but is completely unable to empathize with the opposing viewpoint.  Alternately funny, uplifting, and heartbreaking, the tumultuous relationship between the two provides the emotional and narrative core of the film.

The rest of the movie’s 93-minute runtime is packed to the brim with snippets of life at a Catholic high school.  The film’s wit and perceptiveness help the familiar narrative beats come off as genuine rather than clichéd.  Lady Bird navigates the traditional hazards of leaving adolescence: drama club, prom, disappointing romantic partners, experimenting with drugs and alcohol, etc.  However, the script smartly emphasizes the surprisingly complex inner lives of the well-worn archetypes (the straight-laced best friend, the shallow rich girl, the brooding rebel, etc.) that inhabit its version of 2002 Sacramento.  As a result, the film always feels true to the characters and the time and place they exist in, regardless of the retread territory of the stories.  

Lady Bird herself perfectly embodies the contradictory nature of being a teenager.  She’s both significantly wiser and more foolish than anyone gives her credit for and she bounces between charmingly awkward and frustratingly obstinate at the drop of the hat.  This complexity is captured endearingly by Saoirse Ronan’s winning, expressive performance, which is the best in her impressive career.

In the film’s most powerful moments, Gerwig uses Lady Bird’s characterization to explore the poignant consequences of the emotional upheaval that accompany growing up.  The impatience and anxiety of waiting to go out into the world can hide the true value of people and places until it’s too late.  Lady Bird obsesses over the flaws of her family and home, and, as a result, blinds herself to their beauty.

Grade: A

Well, the Wonder Woman era was nice while it lasted. Justice League is a return to awful form for the DC cinematic universe. It might be a leaner, more light-hearted movie than its predecessors, but it’s only a marginally better one. At least the plot’s coherent: when New God Steppenwolf invades Earth with his army of demonic insect people, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit superpowered allies to defend the planet. Apparently just aping the tone of Marvel’s The Avengers wasn’t enough- they had to borrow the narrative as well, even down to the magical, power-generating box the villain’s plan revolves around.
​
Chris Terrio and Joss Whedon’s script is most egregious in the first act. The film lurches from scene to scene with practically no connective tissue between them. Awkward exposition plagues many scenes, particular those involving Amazonians or Atlanteans. A steady stream of genuinely funny quips and banter just barely keeps the first forty minutes from being painful to watch. Thankfully, once the plot setup is finished and the disparate narratives connect, the quality of the writing improves. However, lackluster resolutions to character arcs and clumsy franchise planning continue to disrupt the movie.

The rote story at least introduces the movie’s best quality: the members of the Justice League. DC finally seems to have realized that their heroes shouldn’t be dour assholes. Charming character interactions, both funny and heartfelt, make for the most effective scenes in the film. Notably, an observation Batman makes about Superman’s humanity provides a more compelling examination of the two characters than the entirety of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) endear themselves immediately, while Gal Gadot is once again effortlessly charming as Wonder Woman. Even Ben Affleck’s Batman and Henry Cavill’s Superman manage to display a modicum of warmth and humor. The Flash’s neuroticism and inexperience and Aquaman’s gruff machismo contrast perfectly with the unflappable Wonder Woman and world-weary cynic Batman. The supporting cast of Amy Adams, JK Simmons, Amber Heard, Connie Nielsen and Diane Lane fare more poorly, though through no fault of their own. They each appear for couple of scenes and deliver some plot-relevant information before being shuffled off.

Justice League manages to stumble in areas where director Zack Snyder’s films generally excel, with a surprisingly bland visual style. A surprisingly large portion of the movie takes place in dull, cramped building interiors or in front of green screens. Noticeably poor CGI rears its head as well. The not-quite-right upper lip resulting from the digital removal of Henry Cavill’s mustache is particularly distracting. Even when the movie does break out the spectacle, the striking imagery of Snyder’s previous work is nowhere to be found. Diminished too, are his trademark visceral, epic action sequences. Arbitrarily placed slow motion and indifferent cinematography hamper enjoyment of the fight choreography. Danny Elfman’s score is similarly lackluster, and the music is largely forgettable.  The only memorable moments are taken directly from Elfman’s prior work on Batman Returns and Hans Zimmer’s Man of Steel soundtrack.  

Justice League effectively addresses many of the shortcomings of the DCEU, but fails in so many other areas, even franchise strengths. They’ve finally got the characters right, but creating an engaging narrative remains elusive. Hopefully there will eventually be a movie worthy of the Justice League’s superheroes, but this isn’t it.

Grade: C

​Richard Linklater’s latest feature follows the story of Vietnam veterans Sal Nealon (Bryan Cranston), Larry “Doc” Shepherd (Steve Carell) and Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburne) reuniting under tragic circumstances. Doc enlists the help of his friends to take it upon themselves to bury his son, a young Marine killed in Iraq. That’s all you need to know going into Last Flag Flying because it really is something special. Heartwarming, true to life and absolutely hilarious above all else. The premise of this movie is anything but funny, yet somehow Linklater manages to deliver a superb comedy-drama that never loses momentum and stays engaging all the way through to the last frame. 

All of the three leads are incredible but Bryan Cranston shines here. His performance as the nihilistic Sal rivals that of his work in Breaking Bad and easily ranks high among his film roles. He gets a chance to sink his teeth into the soul of this disillusioned vet who is just over the bullshit he has seen in his life. Sal has a refreshing level of honesty and an utter lack of filter. He will hook you in from the opening scene in the bar. Some of his best one liners materialize when he squares off against Mueller who is his mirror image. They both have strong philosophies and get at each other’s throats trying to make sense of the other’s way of life. Doc is the emotional anchor is this trio as his tragedy is the driving force and the reason these old friends embark on this bittersweet trip. I almost see these characters as three variations of the same man. Sal is the bitter extremist, Mueller is the peaceful sage and Doc lands somewhere in between. 

Backstory is handled well in the film. There are no forced, unnecessary flashbacks to past memories. Instead, the audience has to rely to on the strength of this cast to get the impression that Sal, Doc and Mueller have had shared experiences off camera. These men reminisce about Vietnam and it is clear that that war has changed all of them in profound ways. They come to terms with the fact that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The next generation of soldiers will soon feel the same level of disenfranchisement that they do. My favorite moment comes when the three vets are laughing about an inappropriate memory and for the first time, we see the heartbroken Doc crack a smile and join in. At that instance, you can tell these people used to be close brothers in the good old days who have sadly grown out of touch and forged their separate paths. 

My only gripe with the movie is that it sort of lacks a plot. There is a story being told here but it is extremely character driven instead of a series of events being triggered in order for things to happen. This is really a road trip movie so the majority of scenes are in cars, trucks and trains as the men unpack their issues. If anything, it’s just strange. The actual story seems to just be an excuse to get these individuals talking to one another and reliving their glory days. That’s fine by me when the emotional journey is this good. At a runtime just over two hours, you can’t really go wrong with this one. The movie respects your time and trusts that the characters will keep you laughing and occasionally make you reflect on the unpredictability of life. 

I cannot recommend Last Flag Flying enough. It will probably be in limited release but if you don’t catch it in theaters, check it out when it hits VOD. It is a gem of a movie that I hope finds its way to more people because it is surprising and touching. 

Grade: A-

As a film buff, I find it fascinating to see how filmmaking styles have changed over time. From the classic Westerns of the 60s to the film noir of the 40s to the testosterone overdosed action flicks of the 80s, each time period has its own distinct charms. And every so often, a film is made in conscious emulation of the style of an earlier era, and takes on elements of both time periods. Kenneth Branagh’s adaption of Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express is one such film, combining the grace and elegance of times long since passed with visual flair enabled by 21st century cinematography. 
​
It is the 1930s, and famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is returning from a case in Jerusalem. Desperate for a vacation, he decides to journey home on the luxurious Orient Express, with the three day trip from Istanbul to Paris giving him ample time to relax and catch up on his reading. Shortly after departure, he is approached by a paranoid man named Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp), who believes his life is in danger and desires a bodyguard. Poirot, cautious about Ratchett’s colorful past, declines. But when the train is trapped in a mountain pass by an avalanche and Ratchett is found with numerous stab wounds, Poirot takes it upon himself to determine which of his fellow passengers is a murderer. 

Murder on the Orient Express is a film which simply oozes style and splendor. From the gorgeous period dress to the rich cinematography and the expertly crafted sets, this is a film which defines the luxury of the time period in which it is set. Unlike many modern remakes of classic stories, Branagh resists the temptation to spice the film up much for modern audiences. Like the classic murder mysteries of decades past, the film maintains a steady and even tone throughout. Physical action is minimal, and most of the focus is on Poirot as he gathers clues and interviews the passengers. While in the hands of a less-skilled director this could have spelled disaster, the wonderful cast and smooth script make sure the film never drags during its 114 minute run time.

Speaking of the cast, all the members are excellent. Along with the aforementioned Branagh and Depp, the passengers include Judi Dench as a deposed Eastern European princess, Willem Dafoe as a vaguely-Nazi Austrian scientist, Michelle Pfeiffer as a husband-hunting socialite, and Josh Gad as the victim’s exasperated assistant, not to mention Penelope Cruz, Daisy Ridley, and more. Each of them give a wonderful performance, even if some their accents are a little all over the place. But Branagh’s Poirot is the really fascinating character in the film. A man obsessed with balance and perfection of all sorts with an unshakeable moral compass, Poirot describes himself as a man cursed with only being able to see the world “as it should be, not as it is.” Of course, as anyone familiar with the source material knows, this is a case that forces Poirot to challenge his rigid view of right and wrong, and accept that maybe there is space between how things are and how things should be. 

A stylist, graceful, and well-acted who dun’ it, Murder on the Orient Express is a must-see for fans of mysteries and period pieces, as well as Christie faithfuls of course. Even if you don’t fall into one of those categories, this film should make excellent counter-programming to the autumn superhero line-up. This is the kind of film that you don’t see much anymore, and I urge you to give it a shot while you can. Its not often we get such a fascinating glimpse into the past.

Grade: A-