Wooo. What the fuck, movies? Why you so worst? Here’s last year’s list.

As always, my list is half a “most disappointing” list and half a “these movies are truly awful shit” list. This was another year where I was light on movies that I could include on this list. Ghost in the Shell narrowly avoided being on it, but you could consider it a bonus 11th spot since I think dependent on mood I could easily swap it in for the current 10th spot. Also, Little Evil could probably take the place of any on the back half of this list because that movie was a piece of shit but I kind of forgot about it when writing this whole thing so call it the bonus 12th spot?

I’ve had more time this year for movies and hobbies and fun shit and 2017 was a very obliging year for distractions and escapism. Makes sense, I guess? Still, every year brings its movies that should have been good, but weren’t, and ones that were just pure trash and maybe even a little evil like gift-wrapped packages sent straight to us from some kind of belligerent cinema demi-god that wants us to suffer. And suffer we have! At least a little bit. Because even in a year as stacked as 2017, you’re still going to get a Transformers movie. Read the rest of this entry »


I’ve never done a list for games any previous year I’ve done year-end lists (which have always been strictly for movies). I don’t follow music closely enough and honestly, I don’t really follow games closely enough either. At the same time, so many games get released every year that I definitely play enough new ones (and more or less complete them) in a given year to do a small year end list. Some people have asked me to do one for games in the past, too, but I never have. I do periodically review games, such as this massive piece on Mass Effect: Andromeda (spoiler: it’s not on my best list) but have not reviewed any of the games on this list so what I have to say about them here will have to do it. This “Top 5 Games” list should be a bit of a tasty appetizer, I hope, before I get into the movie lists. This is the seventh consecutive year I’ve done them on WordPress, by the way. I’ve been doing them for over ten years if you go back to old Livejournal posts (but let’s not).

Some housekeeping: This list won’t feature some of the really anticipated games, partly because I won’t include games I have played but not beaten (like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild) but also because I’ll be leaving off Early Access games as well. I’d like to include Ark: Survival Evolved, since it’s great and probably best-in-class for its type of game, but it would feel a bit disingenuous to do so since I’ve been playing it for like two years and haven’t really gotten into it for a while, which includes all the new content they’ve been doing for the past year and since it finally went full release. There’s also that some of my favorite gaming experiences this year (Darkest Dungeon, Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun and Owlboy stand out) came when I was catching up on last year’s games. And no, I still haven’t played Undertale. Other disclaimers? Well, there’s always the fact that some games are considered “new releases” on particular consoles which can be a problem for a list like this in that I’m not even sure if I failed to include certain games I technically could due to the platform I played them on. And, as always, there’s the disclaimer that this list is subjective and more about me categorizing my favorites than trying to make a case for why everybody’s list should look like mine (which they should not and do not).

Remember, folks: this shit is just for fun. Read the rest of this entry »



I’ve got to try and knock this one out quickly because this movie will not make my end of year list and I have this feeling I’m going to get slapped over it even though the reality is that no one is gonna care. 2017 is too good a year for this perfectly fine and occasionally poignant coming of age story to break into my list. It’s on a lot of other peoples’ and that’s totally cool. I’m not here to say it’s a bad movie but I definitely have some issues with it that I needed to write about. That stuff is more likely what’s going to get me into trouble with people who really loved Lady Bird and likely did not see in it what I saw.

In one sense, I found it underwhelming because it’s a movie that I’ve basically seen before. And so have you. Its emotional honesty is a little more pronounced, its set-ups and pay-offs a little truer to life and ambiguous, and its specific angle of observation is so specific that a certain category of viewer is going to feel like this movie is speaking directly to them. I like that about it and I think that’s the stuff that is most directly responsible for how well this film is being received. But there’s another reason it’s doing so well and this is because, thematically, it is essentially validating the perspective on youth that people who are not young tend to have.  There’s a way to read this film as being totally about growing beyond your past, but I think that’s disingenuous and requires taking the film on faith when too much of the text is devoted to examples of people’s attempts to be forge their own identities, whether its piercings or nicknames, being trivialized and walked back in favor of convention and reinforcement of boundaries.

I think writer-director Greta Gerwig might be the kind of millennial who’s totally cool with having to cover up her tattoos and she has, intentionally or not, made a movie steeped with that kind of lame, superficial social conservatism. As a result I think that as much as it might be true to life in some of its observations of what being young was like in 2002, it’s still a film about young people but for older people. Personally, I think that’s kind of disappointing especially in a coming of age story about people who are my age and what life was like, very broadly, for us. I identified with living my dumb little dramatic teen life with the War on Terror as a backdrop, but there was very little else in this film that spoke to my experience. As a result, my criticisms may seem too specific to my own biases to really be objective and I’m okay with that. You may see a very different movie than I do in Lady Bird and I think my critical approach is less about trying to convince anyone that it’s overrated and more about explaining why I didn’t love it. It feels like we have to look to the nerdy, fantastic, and escapist to find reflections of actual rebellion, transgression, and radical change. Did Lady Bird need to be those things? No. But I’m a bit tired of stories that want us to go back to the way things were when we really need to find a way to move on. Read the rest of this entry »


These two do all the heavy lifting. They have a lot of chemistry without which this movie wouldn’t even work a little bit.

Bright is, in its own weird way, as divisive a movie as The Last Jedi. But kind of in reverse? General audiences seem to like it but critics fucking hate it. Well, I don’t hate it. I think it’s pretty great for what it is, but what it is seems to bother some people that don’t want to meet it on its own terms. I don’t really blame them, the way I might with other films, but it is worthwhile to point out that many of the criticisms are misguided. For one thing, can you blame this movie for being derivative of David Ayer’s own earlier work if that was entirely the point of the exercise? You can’t ignore that Bright basically remakes/recycles parts of Training Day and End of Watch and mixes in elements from a host of other movies and games, including Alien Nation and Shadowrun. It’s a big ol’ stew and it is frequently messy, but is that in itself bad or dumb? I say no. At the same time, I get why it might result in a lot of skepticism and impatience for viewers.

Max Landis wrote this movie for Ayer to direct (he also rewrote it) precisely because the concept was a mash-up of Ayer’s best cop movies and what is best described as “fantasy shit” (there’s a little more to it, but just a little). I’m not saying this makes it a good idea, or a good result, but it’s also kind of dumb to ignore where this movie came from when there’s no way it should ever be viewed as this independent self-contained thing. It’s not even a self-contained story. One of the more reasonable criticisms of it is that it feels more like a two-hour pilot for a TV show than it does a movie, especially with its ending. After watching it, I definitely wanted to hang out in this world more (and with these characters) and I’m not surprised that Netflix immediately green-lit a sequel. This project just feels like the start of a bigger story, rightly or wrongly. Landis and Ayer are both divisive figures themselves. They’re both white dudes who have gotten into trouble for speaking for non-white non-dudes in the wider discourse if identity politics and representation. They both seem to essentially mean well but have difficulty getting past their own privilege and the way it informs the way they talk (about race especially). Landis is viewed by many as a douchebag millennial poster-boy whose main talent is nepotism (his dad is John Landis) and occasionally clever remixes of other peoples’ work. He occasionally earns those opinions, but I think his work has been mostly good. Channel Zero and Chronicle are legitimately good things. Dirk Gently seems okay, American Ultra was okay, and Mr. Right was like an alt-version of American Ultra that is better, lesser known, and fairly underrated. Ayer, on the other hand, seems to shit out gold in one hand and… well, shit out shit in the other. This is a guy whose last two movies were Suicide Squad and Fury. To say he has a range in quality is an understatement. Even before that he seemed to be making one good movie out of every two, though I’d argue that both Sabotage and Harsh Times (his weaker ones) are head and shoulders better than Suicide Squad. Get these guys to make a movie together and the hope is that it combines what both of them are best at. I think on that level, we’re mostly getting just that but what your reaction is will depend a lot on whether you’re even here for whatever Max Landis and David Ayer are doing.

Though I thought it was a fun movie that had some dramatic and thematic legs, I can’t argue against the fact that Bright doesn’t really work when either of the two halves of its make-up is examined on its own merits. Bright is too derivative of its director’s own earlier work to stand up as a cop movie. Its world-building and fantasy elements are similarly familiar (derivative) for people who’ve seen or read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings. So your mileage on this whole crazy thing is going to vary depending on whether this fusion can work for you. Tropes and iconography can be referenced in a way that is meant to do all the work for the audience to buy into a world, which was one of the biggest problems with Suicide Squad. Landis is maybe better at that stuff than Ayer and I would argue that the litmus test for enjoying what Bright is doing is whether you think he/they pulled it off here. Bright expects you to understand the iconography and tropes enough to roll with what it’s doing, the hope being that the fusion will add some depth to what are too fairly shallow halves. That depth of world is necessary to buy into it enough to roll further with the movie’s themes, which are really about power, class, and race relations. This is the real meat, because this movie is very political. It’s not a super deep dive on any one of these points, but there is something to be said for the fact that the movie doesn’t treat race, class, and power as separate issues, instead drawing connections and pointing at the things “SJWs” have been saying since before there was a dismissive and ironically shitty acronym to describe people who stand up for other people. I think that identity politics and progressive messages (representation, tolerance, etc) are the kind of thing you have to re-iterate from as many facets and angles as you can. That didn’t used to be the approach. Stories that talked about race or class tended to ignore the other side of the coin, failing to make necessary connections between the ways these social issues are linked. There’s also that privilege makes people stubborn so maybe this movie’s orcs will be what finally clicks race and class intersections in street gang culture for some white boy watching it on his computer, one tab on Netflix and the other on InfoWars. Maybe seeing orcs in Crips drag is what does it. I doubt that’s expressly what Ayer or Landis are trying to do, but it isn’t lost on me that the more narratives (and types of narratives) speaking to these issues the better. The dudes who are very predisposed to watching The Last Jedi or Bright may not be the same dudes who watch Selma or Get Out or even Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri but all of these movies are saying some things in common that they, maybe more than anyone, need to hear. Read the rest of this entry »


Don’t get much more confrontational than that.

Holy fucking shit.

Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri is something special that almost never comes along. It effortlessly explores the lives of characters that could so easily be vile or heroic, in the reductive but entertaining way cinema favors, and humanizes just about all of them. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a film with a truer to life portrait of the scummy ways humans behave toward each other tempered by the compassion that can redeem us if only we can find it. Even so, Three Billboards never runs the risk of being preachy or dry. It’s always infused with the effortlessly meaningful and entertaining dialogue for which Martin McDonagh (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) has become known. Instead of being forced or distracting, the stylized dialogue reflects and enhances the humanity of the story. It splits you open and makes you laugh in equal parts as you listen to it and find the characters and their inner lives through it.

I knew that this one was getting a lot of praise and positive notice for months before it went wide enough for me to finally see it. But in no way did I expect it to be as good as it is. Every time you think that the film is going to take a cliched, well-worn route through its drama it just doesn’t. There’s always a surprising angle, and each one is more witty, sharply observed, and gut-punch poignant than the last.

I was a little disappointed in Seven Psychopaths after the masterpiece of In Bruges but maybe that movie warrants a reappraisal because it’s hard to watch Three Billboards and not wonder if it’s you that missed something from McDonagh, who is firmly establishing himself as a contemporary of the Coen Brothers. He’s a genius of dark, misanthropic humor but I think his track record for being extraordinarily naked and earnest with the emotional damage of his roster of entertaining assholes sets him apart and dodges the easy comparisons, which are unfair but somewhat understandable given the way these filmmakers all seem fascinated by the absurdity and pervasiveness of human darkness.

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW. BEST TO GO IN BLIND. Read the rest of this entry »


The most important character in the movie.

I’ve been on a looooong blogging hiatus (again). I don’t know why! I just haven’t felt like writing movie reviews. I’ve been doing a lot of writing, though, just not film criticism. Trying to get my shit together to write a Blade Runner 2049 review kind of derailed the last attempt I made to get this thing going again. That’s why it’s funny that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is what’s bringing me back: I feel very similarly about both movies. The hiatus could also be because of guilt for not finishing my “Living with Late Stage Game of Thrones” feature. I left it too long, too much distance grew between me and it, and the water cooler conversation died down. Maybe I’ll resurrect it when I do a rewatch. It’s gonna be another whole year at least until Season 8 so there will be time for both. Plus, you know, my end of the year lists are only a week or two away and I need to sharpen the old pencil.

Anyway, back to what we’re all here for: the latest Star Wars movie, already a fucking box office juggernaut. Forgive me for dedicating a paragraph (who am I kidding?) to the cultural context but The Last Jedi is super divisive right? I don’t know about that. There’s a lot of shady stuff going on with the internet discourse on the movie, including reports of brigading and bots manipulating its audience score on sites like RT and Metacritic. Another great reason to actually read fucking reviews, people. I don’t know how true any of it is. I don’t pay a lot of attention to aggregator sites for a lot of reasons and I also think it’s pretty normal for fanboy audiences, who are the type of people that will register their opinion (especially if it’s easy, like a like/dislike toggle) on the internet, to skew the aggregates and corners of the internet discourse. Reddit is by no means representative of the general population as it predominantly serves and is dominated by a particular demographic. My advice is to remember the context when you come across the various opinions out there, including mine. Think for yourself. Read reasonable people engaging in reasonable critical discourse. Look up the definition of “Mary Sue” and “plot hole” before you toss those terms around. I know it’s the internet and being wrong is really chic right now but just a little effort. Please?

My custom is to save the third paragraph of my preamble to give a bit of a non-spoilery taste of what I thought of the movie. I think Star Wars: The Last Jedi is incredibly ambitious and sinks a little under the weight of that. I think it’s flawed but also brilliant and packed with so much interesting shit that it dwarfs other Star Wars movies (or all of them put together) in sheer complexity. It’s so loaded with ideas, especially about Star Wars, that it’s probably really difficult to get them all in a first viewing. It’s also full of misdirection and direct commentary on and dismissal of The Force Awakens, which is a big wedge issue for audiences. I know that I had trouble parsing some parts of the movie and relied a lot on the critical discourse around it (the non-fanboy kind) to help me crystallize my own thoughts. I settled on “I need to watch it again” because I’m like anyone else: my expectations, anticipation, hype, and predictions get all tangled up with the movie I actually saw. That always breeds a little disappointment which has to kind of be worked off to appreciate the thing itself. I think the so-called Last Jedi backlash is a result of people who haven’t really done that yet (or never will). To those people, Rian Johnson included a very special message toward the end of the movie, a tiny thing that is not a spoiler to describe: one rebel soldier licks some white dust off his fingers as they prepare to defend the dusty not-Hoth rebel base. “Salt.” he says. And hoo boy is there a lot of saltiness about Star Wars. There always has been. Even The Empire Strikes Back had a reappraisal before it became “the best Star Wars“. For a few years, Return of the Jedi was by and large considered the better film. Wrap your heads around that, fanboys.

As others have said in most of the reviews being written about The Last Jedi, this is a movie about generational conflict which carries the torch that The Force Awakens lit. It zooms in and solidifies themes about inheriting a broken world from a preceding generation that broke it. It’s an allegory for Star Wars itself and could easily have propped up a middle chapter that was just about passing the torch to the new generation. Its allegorical nature better justifies its plot structure, which is basically The Empire Strikes Back in reverse. All the pieces are there: each of the major new characters gets to have a moment where they pick up that torch, in theory, but Rian Johnson does not stop there. The torch is also used to burn everything down, or try to, sometimes very literally. In the process he takes all these new characters we like and reshapes them with depth and purpose while also redefining old favorites. That’s gonna rile people up. It’s not what we expect. It may not even be what we want. But Johnson is betting that it’s what we need and I think he may be right.


Read the rest of this entry »


We’re gonna do something a little different today. We’re gonna talk about Game of Thrones and how to receive it at the end of its run, which we’re rapidly approaching now. The title of this post implies I’m going to be negative about the show, but it’s quite the opposite and so the title is kind of sarcastic as I watch people get really over the top about what they think the problems with the show are now that it’s “off book”. I usually only write movie reviews on this blog. I don’t know why that is. I have a lot of blogging ideas, but maybe not enough energy? I often think “hey, I’m gonna write something” and then I don’t. A time or two, I’ve had more ambitious writing projects for this blog and they just kind of petered out. Speaking of which, the biggest one was my Season 2 recaps which I was writing like five years ago and never finished. Remember those? I got to the sixth episode, way further than I remembered before checking.

Anyway, this is not that. I’m not looking to recap this latest season. I’m more looking to defend it, I guess. To explain it. To process it alongside all the people trying to do the same, but with an emphasis on addressing some criticisms it consistently gets that I think are more or less invalid. But I will also talk about the criticisms that are completely valid and perhaps even stumble across a few that you haven’t already heard or thought of. So this, in some ways, will be a sketchy overview of the entire show but using examples specifically drawn from this latest season and probably a little from last season as well. Keen eyed readers will notice the connection here is that these are the so-called “off book” seasons and there are plenty of reasons for that. So let’s start with there, eh?

But before we do, a little disclaimer. In some ways, this post may seem confrontational but I’d argue that it’s no more so than any of the negative reviews I write where I make you feel bad for liking shitty movies. You should feel bad. I’m not sorry. In this case, I am really just going after the laziest criticisms of an exceedingly good show while also making room for what I see as real problems with it. It will be easy to accuse me of erecting strawmen to make my arguments, but Game of Thrones is so water cooler at this point that we might as well be drinking Dornish wine out of the fucker. This means that it’s pretty easy to find the discussions where people are saying the things I refer to. You’ve likely thought them or said them a time or two yourself. I know I have. If you don’t want to give me the benefit of the doubt, check out reddit or Facebook (any social media platform really), the comments sections on sites that recap/review individual episodes, etc. Go ahead, this can wait.

It goes without saying, or should, that what follows are my opinions based on my observations and reasoning. I may get some details wrong, or I might miss something or fail to anticipate a solid counter-argument. Please let me know by commenting below. It would be fun to have a higher level discussion about this show than comparing it to Dungeons and Dragons. Also, don’t get the idea that I just love this show and everything they do. I have my beefs with it (Tyrion, for example), but this first part of what is planned to be a series of essays is going to be more in the form of apologia and will contain less direct criticisms. They’re coming, though, I promise.


Read the rest of this entry »


Nice try.

This is a tough one. In order to be a good critic, I have to get my biases out of the way. The Dark Tower books are pretty personal for me, so this movie was always going to be personal for me. I first read The Gunslinger when I was thirteen, pulling it down off the shelf to be my first Stephen King book, because the back cover said “fantasy” and the book seemed thin enough to get through quickly if I didn’t like it. I was living in a small town in Saskatchewan, halfway through what would be a pretty terrible year there. A year where I needed frequent escapes from bullying, poverty, and the brewing frustrations and confusions of puberty. I needed something like The Gunslinger, much like Jake Chambers maybe, and the series delivered. I followed it since, waiting for King to hurry up and finish with ten times the anticipation and fear than I could ever feel about A Song of Ice and Fire. I always knew that a movie version of The Dark Tower was inevitable, and that it would be a difficult sell (especially now) as is. I followed the production of this movie with a lot of trepidation but always a little bit of hope. As it neared release, article after article came out to talk about how troubled its production was, how compromised and messy the movie would be, and I settled down to very low expectations. And yet, this movie surprised me by how truly awful it is. I haven’t seen a movie this bad since Assassin’s Creed and it’s bad in almost exactly the same ways.

I’m not a megafan of anything, seldom letting fandom get in the way of what I like to think is an honest and critical appraisal of the stories and media I engage with. That said, there are two basic approaches to a movie like The Dark Tower. There’s approaching it as an adaptation and approaching it as a movie like any other. People generally conflate their reactions, especially if they don’t have a vested interest in film criticism as a craft, and so you’re gonna see a lot of reactions that blur the lines between reacting to how The Dark Tower fails as an adaptation and how it fails as a movie. But it does fail at both. If it was just a bad adaptation, I would be far more forgiving. I’m cool with adaptations that beat out their own path or try to present another take on a thing. My critical history is full of remarks to this effect, so I don’t think anyone could say that I don’t like The Dark Tower just because it’s a “bad Dark Tower movie”. Most of this review will be about how it’s just generally bad, but I will also talk about it as an adaptation. ‘Cuz I have to at least a little bit. I owe it to that kid who walked through Mid-World and beyond with Roland’s ka-tet.

Brass tacks is that The Dark Tower is exactly the kind of gutless, cut to death, and misguided genre movie that is cynically trying to ride the coattails of other genre hits. Particularly, in this case, the recent wave of “YA” movies, some good and some bad, which are made from “YA” books, some good and some bad. The Dark Tower puts minimal effort into every single distinguishing element until the result is boilerplate and meaningless. It casually name-drops bits of lore from the books like its trying to win a #nocontext contest and its few characters are underserved, inconsistent, and rushed through a movie that is probably thirty minutes too short. The result is incredibly rushed, messy, incoherent, and probably mostly frustrating for people who didn’t read the books but actually like fantasy and lore and shit. Those people will have precious little to grab onto here, as almost nothing is explained or presented in the movie meaningfully.

To try and summarize it in a sentence: imagine looking forward to Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings and getting Eragon instead. That, on every level, is what The Dark Tower is like.

SPOILERS, SAY THANKYA Read the rest of this entry »


They just can’t quite carry it.

So I was very in for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. There’s a bunch of reasons, but foremost among them is that I fucking love this kind of whiz bang, go for broke science fiction. Throw me all the weird tech and weirder aliens. I am down for the French comic book sensibilities, especially the ridiculous fashion, and I’ll even put up with the clunkiest dialogue this side of a Syfy Original. This is my kind of movie and if there’s any kind of nested audience for the Valerians of the world, it’s me.

However, this is no Jupiter Ascending situation. It’s safe to say that if you didn’t like that movie, you will loathe this one. In most ways, they are dissimilar, but it’s hard to not be reminded of the slightly more serious but also more coherent and well-plotted Wachowski Sisters’ foray into manic space opera. The same genre DNA gave birth to both films, though Valerian is a direct adaptation of a seminal French comic while for Jupiter, the comic Valerian and Laureline was just one of many influences it wore on its sleeve. Many might also compare this one to the Guardians of the Galaxy films, but I’d caution against that since kicking this movie while its down (it really bombed) to that extent just seems cruel.

If you like imaginative space opera and come for just the visuals, world-building, and literally hundreds of weird and wonderful aliens, you may be able to put aside this movie’s narrative problems and enjoy it. I mostly did. Valerian is dizzyingly ambitious, so it’s tempting to brush aside that it doesn’t really work. And while the story is nothing special, it plays out in an offbeat way and is packed to the brim with worthwhile diversion. There’s hardly a frame in the first half of this movie that won’t light a scifi fan’s mind up. It has that same special quality Jupiter Ascending had where every five minutes, there’s a new idea that you could make a whole movie out of. For example, the concepts and mechanics of Big Market, a virtual bazaar in another dimension, are just a set-piece here, but the whole of the upcoming Ready Player One will deal with somewhat similar ideas. Valerian has imagination to spare but suffers from an overindulgence in its own poorly executed dramatic core, which aggressively sucks, and also fails to trust its own plot enough to avoid a third act recap sequence that, frankly, was where the movie really fell apart for me. I love Luc Besson, even when he makes a bad movie (Lucy) and while I might summarize Valerian as “The 5th Element for kids” and while that might sound good… it’s only really two thirds good. That said, the opening ten minutes are straight up wonderful and honestly worth the whole movie. Read the rest of this entry »


This looks like just another war scene, but it’s threaded with horror. That’s this movie in a nutshell.

I was pretty conflicted about Interstellar and I’m kind of conflicted about Christopher Nolan in general. I, to an extent, agree with most of the criticisms that dog his work. But I also think Inception is one of the best movies ever made, with his Batman movies being some of the most overrated. To say I had low expectations for Dunkirk would be disingenuous because I had no expectations for Dunkirk. Good or bad. I was curious because it was a wartime event that hadn’t been covered in a huge movie, at least as a focus piece (Atonement has Dunkirk-related scenes). I was also curious to see what Nolan would do with a war movie, since he’s been doing high concept genre stuff for almost his whole career. On some level, I suspected that Dunkirk was about the safest move Nolan could have made after Interstellar failed to light the world on fire. I was wrong about this being a safe movie, but my lack of expectation was rewarded by one of the most pleasant and arresting surprises I’ve had in a theater for a super long time.

“Pleasant” is not really a word that you’d associate with this movie except maybe in the way I just did, where I’m really talking more about the feeling of surprise. Dunkirk is not so much aggressive as it is relentless and that energy, an almost constant rising action toward a very rewarding climax, is mostly steeped in the emotional resonance of horror even as it is delivered with familiar tropes of the war genre (duty, courage, banding together, grandiose and personal heroism, and so on). So while this is definitely a war movie, it’s also the second best horror movie of 2017. It is intense and it’ll make you squirm in your seat. A lot. All this while being one of the least violent, but loudest, war movies since Saving Private Ryan changed the game. What helps is Nolan’s mostly unsentimental point of view. This movie is not full of the customary jingoism and sentimentality of the American war film (these elements are present sparingly, and are mostly earned), but nor is it political in the sense of having a clear message about “war” except perhaps that it is something you survive rather than win.

There have been criticisms that there’s no story or characters here, but I think it’s interesting that Nolan stripped down his usual reliance on plot, exposition, and high concepts. He has the most trouble with plot and theme across his work, and these things are less important in Dunkirk than is the craft of telling a story through moving pictures.  There’s very little dialogue, so character comes across subtly through facial expressions and the few important choices that are available to each person. Dunkirk has a small, intimate cast, and approaches the historical events with a clever and almost seamless editing conceit of showing events at different points as if they are happening all at the same time… until they are. Dunkirk is a tremendous movie, and one that deserves to be seen at the best theater you have access to.



Previous Posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers