a little kink on the triptych execution - ***1/2

Director Christopher Nolan came up with the idea to tell the story about the Dunkirk evacuation 25 years prior to making the film while he was sailing along the English channel with his wife.  He wrote the story with very little dialogue, waited some more until he gained much experience in making large scale films, co produced it with 3 other countries and started filming in May of 2016.

World War II France,  the German army had successfully trapped the Allied forces on the North part of France, barricaded by a small perimeter around the beach of Dunkirk.  At the danger of losing the entire British army to the Germans, Great Britain decided to execute operation Dynamo which affected the evacuation of 400, 000 soldiers.  This movie is an impression of what happened in Dunkirk in 1940 during the days between May and June.

This film has Christopher Nolan written all over it.  He took complete control from script to directing, post and pre-prod.  The film triumphs in telling the story with very little dialogue, thus paying much attention to details.  Along with historical consultant he interviewed the surviving veterans and came up with a factual picture surrounding the events about the rescue.  But he also took it upon himself not to make the film political nor character-based.  It became more about telling what generally happened in Dunkirk according to how he sees it.

The story is told as a triptych, meaning it is told through three perspectives.  In this case there is the perspective from land, the air and the sea. At the onset there is a title when a perspective starts to be told then you realize you are watching three stories and then when all three stories are rolling the story starts to get confusing, but generally you just needed to know if they will all survive.  Generally to me it is a good film but felt like I was disregarded as the audience and so I find myself disconnected. 

Dystopia in biblical proportions - ****

Pierre Boulle wrote the book La Planete de Singes in 1963 and was translated into english as Planet of the Apes.  The book was adapted into film in 1968 and spawned four more sequels due to its success. This then translated into different forms from 2 tv series , to books and other media like comics.  War of the Planet of the Apes is already the third installment of the second reboot, taking it up from Tim Burton's 2001 release.  The first two being Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014).

The story happens 5 years after Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the simian virus has mutated into something that also affects humans.  We find the apes led by Caesar (Andy Serkins) still at war with the humans, but now there is also another enemy called Alpha-Omega, a group of military fanatics led by Colonel (Woody Harrelson) bent on preserving the human's role as the dominant race and controlling the spread of the virus within humans by killing infected humans.

The movie boasts of a gripping and poignant narrative with conflicted and multi-layered characters masterfully told thru flawless special effects and backed by music and sound that help sustain the scene and push the story forward.  There is almost nothing in the film that I didn't like.  First of all , modern technology has gone so far that the animals portrayed here seem so real and that their emotions are succinct with how humans naturally react.  There is this suspension of disbelief that these apes are true and intelligent and capable of communicating and human emotions.  Caesar here has developed into a powerful leader and has developed into someone like Moses of the Bible who is tasked to lead his people to the "promised land'.  There are apes here who do not talk and so for the scenes where there are no lines, you hear musical scores that help support the conversation among animals.  I love the characters that this movie has created from Caesar who is at war with himself,  will he help lead his people or will he take care of a personal vendetta that he has with Colonel.  The Colonel, is the antagonist in this story has his own conflicts and you see that the real war is not out on the field but it is really within the characters.

Just a few scenes which I thought were predictable, but I understand that this is also a commercial movie that needed to fulfill some viewer expectations but I am willing to ignore that.  Overall I love this film a lot I am very glad I watched it.   And this movie came at a right time when I was really looking forward for a nice film after all the not so nice films that came along for the last couple of months.  

Spider-Man on retrograde - ***1/2

This is a second reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise, not counting the early Spider-Man films between 1977 and 1981 starring Nicholas Hammond.  (see Spider-Man early films) Its story takes off from Spider-Man's "gig"  in Captain America-Civil War, wherein we find the Avengers fighting each other and Iron Man plucks Peter Parker from New York and brings him into the Avengers stand off to break the balance, thus cementing his presence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The Homecoming here has a double meaning, one is the homecoming party in high school and the other a home coming welcome to Spider-Man into the MCU.

We find Peter Parker younger than himself compared to the other Spider-Man films.  He is fifteen years old in Junior High studying in Midtown School somewhere in the Bronx.  He has his powers already from being bitten by a radioactive spider and is bent on being a super hero, a title he so desperately wants to deserve with the approval of his mentor Tony Stark.  His struggles are typical for a fifteen year old except that his powers make him different than the rest and he tries to find his place in the world by fighting crime and staying grounded at the same time.

Tom Holland bested over a thousand aspirants for this role.  He was chosen based on his chemistry with Robert Downy Jr. and Chris Evans after a couple of screen tests.  And he was really perfect for this role.  His Peter Parker is a normal kid with some vulnerabilities and his Spider-Man is a very determined would-be super hero.  Also doing a good job here is Michael Keaton as the villain Vulture.  His character has many dimensions, he is a businessman but he is also a family man,  his character does not want to destroy the world he just wants to give a good life to his family.  So it was hard to completely hate him, his is a villain you can sympathize with and be scared at the same time.

If it were not for the surprise twist,  this story was just too simple to be interesting.  I was struggling to watch it and realized that maybe I am not the target market for this film..  The story feels like a young adult novel that got translated into film because essentially it is a coming of age film  but on a super hero level.   Being a regular guy trying to be a super hero, Spider-Man finds a match with regular guy at the onset of being a villain, and everything is sort of scaled down.  But this would be a good view for the young because Peter Parker here can be a good role model for the teenagers.