Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Score: 5 / 5

Hell yes.

Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom is everything I've ever wanted from this franchise. Breakneck action, nonstop ingenuity, absurd humor, and pure terror. It's also (easily) the most beautiful film in the series. Most importantly, it's a total game-changer for the series; this means it often does not feel like a Jurassic Park movie and indeed sets up a potential future for the franchise that completely ignores the Park. But come on, we've had the "Park" movie four times now. If this one hadn't set up a whole new vision, I fear my beloved dino flicks would go, well, the way of the dinosaurs.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Fallen Kingdom picks up three years after the "kingdom" of Jurassic World fell to the Indominus Rex, a monstrous creation that, like all the dinosaurs in Hammond's parks, proved smarter and tougher than expected. As always, life has found a way, and many dinosaurs are still thriving on the ruined, abandoned Isla Nublar. In an opening sequence reminiscent of the very first scene of Jurassic Park, mercenaries sneak into the island's lagoon to harvest DNA from the bones of the long-dead Indominus. Their mission goes horribly wrong.

Meanwhile, the world debates whether the dinosaurs on the island should be saved from the impending volcanic destruction of the island -- good thing the park is already closed! -- or whether they should be left there to die as nature intended. When intervention is formally denied, a private entity (James Cromwell, playing an old partner of John Hammond) develops a plan to rescue the dinos and find a safe haven for them. Who does he select for his mission? Claire and Owen, our favorite lovebirds played by Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt, of course!

This movie is a hybrid of many things, including the bones of previous Jurassic Park films as well as surprising genres. While the previous installments have been primarily action-adventure outings with healthy doses of sci-fi, Fallen Kingdom is, at its heart, a disaster movie with the soul of a horror film. Director J.A. Bayona does what he does best and he delivers the goods for every single minute of the wild ride through volcanic explosions, mad science, gas chambers, clones, and what becomes a haunted house of monsters. Every shot is beautiful and calculated; I'd compare the cinematic artistry of this film to The Last Jedi. These new, glorious visuals pair nicely with the new, complex themes in the series.

(SPOILER ALERT!) Never have the stakes felt this high, because never have the stakes been this high. By the end, we've gone to obscenely dark thematic places. We have cloned people. We have gut-churning choices of life and death and genocidal implications. The final sequence of this film is one of the most absurdly mesmerizing sequences I've ever seen in a franchise movie. It absolutely changes the name of the game in totally unpredictable ways. To summarize: our heroes kill the evil monster and then let all the dinosaurs loose in the mainland. Dr. Ian Malcolm (a glorious Jeff Goldblum, who really always needs more screen time) intones that now we'll have to live with our consequences and coexist with a new dinosaur age: "Welcome to Jurassic World."

And I lost my composure.

It's everything I've ever wanted from the series. Sure, it's a fun ride when there's a mystical island of dinosaurs out in the blue. But how many times can we visit it and expect a different outcome? Exactly once more than before. That narrative is done. The park is gone, as the tagline reads. Ever since I saw an episode of Dinotopia, I've wanted a movie where realistic dinosaurs lived alongside modern humans. And now it's finally happening. I wept openly as the dinosaurs went out into the woods of North America. I shrieked as the Mosasaur picks prey off the sunny California surf. I tried to choke back my joy as a flock of ptero-somethings perched on the Eiffel Tower replica in Las Vegas (that's the post-credits scene, y'all. Dig it!). And of course, we've been hearing about these militarized dino soldiers since the first Jurassic World. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the chaos coming next.

IMDb: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Incredibles 2 (2018)

Score: 4 / 5

Picking up almost immediately after the first film (released fourteen years ago!), Incredibles 2 follows the Parr family as public opinion forces them into hiding. Being super is illegal. With the help of telecommunications genius Devtech --  run by the Deavors siblings -- the Parrs and other supers stage publicity stunts to regain their lost reputations. Of course, when a real villain enters the arena, it's time for the Avengers to assem-- Wait, I mean, it's time for the X--  No, that's wrong. The Justice Lea-- Dammit.

I'm only teasing. There's a lot to be said for a superhero movie that can stand on its own in our current age obsessed with the genre. While some complain of superhero fatigue, the studios are churning out these blockbusters at record pace. Thankfully, writer-director Brad Bird knows what he's doing, and Incredibles 2 steers clear of hijacking other media. Its greatest joys are in its pure optimism, bright colors (and, fair warning, disturbing strobe lights), and enjoyment. There is a time and place for the brooding melancholy of Batfleck, and this movie is for the exact opposite time and place.

While it's not always or entirely my cuppa, I still thoroughly enjoyed this late-coming sequel. Jack-Jack steals his scenes (more of them, this time around) as his powers manifest in random and hilarious ways. Helen (Holly Hunter) gets to have extra fun as Elastigirl, the less damaging of the elder Parr heroes, and her girl power is righteously glorified. Bob (Craig T. Nelson) is left at home to get the kids off to school and care for the baby, which leads to unspeakable hilarity (a favorite scene involves the baby picking a fight with an outmatched raccoon). Violet and Dash navigate school and friends with typical flavor and ultimately come to the rescue of their parents.

Sadly, the best parts of the first one have been abandoned. Fashion designer Edna Mode (Brad Bird) is relegated to essentially a single scene, though it is a fabulous one, as she accepts the position of babysitting Jack-Jack. Fellow superhero Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) is only marginally featured, and his wife is voiced only once. Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener do some nice vocal work as the Deavor siblings. However, as the plot enters its second half, I found myself bewildered and a little annoyed that the character development of the Parr family utterly stopped while more and more new characters entered the fray. A whole cast of supers -- brainwashed and controlled by the Screenslaver -- appears as if only to increase the amount of onscreen fighting before the climax.

A second viewing may help with my final critique, but it stands thus: While I fully appreciate a film that caters to both children and adults, I found the references, allusions, and symbolism of this flick excessively numerous and blunt. Come on, the villain is the "Screenslaver", who hypnotizes viewers through the screen. This isn't Black Mirror! Several times the Deavors declare their intention to "Make Superheroes Legal Again" to riotous applause. Really? And, while the scenes of intense ideological dialogue between the Parrs about how they will function in society and cling to their identity are gorgeous and intelligent and challenging, they were far too brief for me to really appreciate, especially when they were followed by extended mindless action sequences.

Maybe I'm being unfair. But Incredibles was never one of my favorite Disney Pixar products, and this movie -- charming and fun and maybe even important as it is -- reminded me why.

IMDb: Incredibles 2

Hotel Artemis (2018)

Score: 2.5 / 5

The summer of 2028: ah, yes, I remember it well. A riot breaks out in Los Angeles in a war-torn, dystopian future world that looks and feels like a preview of Blade Runner. The cityscape is dark and dank, saturated with rich lights from poor sources in an impressionistic neo-noir fever dream. Intrigued yet? You should be.

The Hotel Artemis lies nestled in a crowded block, identifiable only by the neon light crowning its roof. Its gorgeous interior harbors a secret hospital catering to criminals. What? Yeah, I know. Run by the Nurse (Jodie Foster, who really just needs to be in more movies) and her stern rules -- no guns, no cops, one at a time -- the hotel/hospital seems to operate smoothly, largely thanks to Everest (Dave Bautista), the orderly. The set is gorgeous, costumes are cool, lighting phenomenal, and a solid cast perform admirably.

Unfortunately, the film itself is a confused mess. It features an awkward, futuristic setting with high-tech devices without ever explaining how Los Angeles became this criminal war zone, how or why this hotel/hospital exists, or why anything we're seeing is important as a story, artwork, or even entertainment. The characters are so specific (beautifully so) that we cannot identify with or even sympathize with them, with the possible exception of the Nurse herself. That said, though, even she is so idiosyncratic and -- no thanks to the screenplay -- banally emotional that I was put off. The only character I wanted to like was the Wolf King (because it's a great title and he's played by Jeff Goldblum), who is basically the Big Bad of LA in a decade. And he's the one we're definitely not supposed to like.

What bothers me the most about this film is that it's actually quite impressive, artistically. There are some really cool moments, including Bautista being hilarious and hunky, Sofia Boutella being totally badass, and even Zachary Quinto emoting like crazy through metal bars. But no amount of design and beauty can cover up the fact that the story doesn't quite make sense. Actually, more than once I wondered if this was a sequel to something or a prequel of something. There is no character development or exposition in this movie, and yet the characters and setting are brilliantly thought out. I kept thinking that this would be a nice climactic ending to an earlier story.

Instead, we got a haphazard, half-baked mess that plays out like a game. Who can catch the most references, get the inside jokes, appreciate what we've done? If you can't, you lose.

IMDb: Hotel Artemis

Ocean's 8 (2018)

Score: 4 / 5

Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock), younger sister of the late Danny Ocean, is released from prison and immediately sets out to score a heist. Her target? A gorgeous necklace valued at $150 million. Due to her scheming -- and assembling a team of, you guessed it, seven remarkable women -- this necklace will be out in the open at the Met Gala on the neck of the clueless celebrity actress Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway).

I found Ocean's 8 to be my favorite of the Ocean family films. You can definitely feel that Steven Soderbergh isn't helming this outing, which is difficult to swallow. But you can also feel a pulsing energy and dazzling style that, for me, felt absent in the male-dominated entries. Those were fun and suave, to be sure, but here we have eye-popping flair. My immediate response to this film is that it is more accessible to a casual summer-going audience (or at least audiences with beautiful, badass women on our minds).

For all the glamour of the film -- which is considerable -- it remains a fairly basic caper. Every other move in the plot is predictable, and the major twists are almost annoyingly simple. But I found these rough edges to be more endearing than obnoxious, largely a result of the winning cast. Though the screenplay does them few favors, the ensemble works brilliantly as individuals and off each other as a team. Helena Bonham Carter steals her scenes as an eccentric fashion designer while Rihanna and Awkwafina dazzle as a hacker and thief, respectively. Cate Blanchett (as a fabulous possibly-queer partner-in-crime), Sarah Paulson (a profiteering suburban mother), and Mindy Kaling (a jewelry maker under the thumb of her overbearing mother) round out the rest of the team under Bullock, who is totally winning and convincing as an Ocean sibling.

Oh, and Anne Hathaway is unbelievably (perhaps too much so) nuanced in her character. She's silly and stupid in one scene, terrifyingly unbalanced in another, and arrestingly manipulative in yet another. Just watching her is a masterclass in farcical acting and grotesque affectation. She's magnificent.

I took my mother to see this movie, and we had a grand time. We laughed out loud, gasped appropriately, and walked out feeling thoroughly entertained. I about lost my marbles in one montage of the women walking out of the gala in fully bedazzled formal wear and my mom had to shush me. Really, what else is there?

IMDb: Ocean's 8

Hereditary (2018)

Score: 5 / 5

There's a new trend in horror movies that separates the artists in the audience from the consumers. The consumers want action, want blood, want jump-scares and sex and novelty. The artists want dread, nuance, beauty, craft, and, yes, no small amount of novelty. Sometimes the audiences agree, but often they do not. But the trend involves low-budget filmmaking and expert artistry in ways that subvert expectations, honor conventions while creating something new, and forces attentive viewers to feel their icy grip long after the movie has ended.

Think of The Witch. It Comes at Night. It Follows. The cream of the crop in this new age of horror films. They have to be good, because they have to make a new space. The last decade was dominated by remakes of classics (especially '70s slashers). Our current decade has made horror a television phenomenon (AHS, Bates Motel, Hannibal, and so many more). Anything not on the television is being dominated by movie universes from big studios (Insidious, the Conjuring). So these new films, while still meta-fictionally referencing the tradition, rely not on cheap effects and loud noises to terrify but rather get us to care about the characters while they slowly seek to upend our understanding of horror as a genre.

And Hereditary is no different.

I don't want to share any of the plot with you. Usually I love spoilers and prefer to know the story so that I can focus on the filmmaking techniques, but in this case the pleasure of unraveling the movie as you go along is a major part of the film's strength. Essentially -- and very briefly -- a grandmother passes away, and her daughter's family slowly begins to disintegrate into paranoia, fear, mistrust, and of course violence. Family secrets are dangerous things, and sometimes the things we inherit from our ancestors are even thicker than blood.

I can't speak highly enough of this film, so I'll hit the main points and then just beg you to go see it. First, Toni Collette is incredible. This is the role of a lifetime and easily one of her best performances. As the matriarch of her family by dire circumstance, she embodies the fear and horror we all face as our families begin to fall apart. She is able to contort her face into such grotesque shapes that more than once I wondered if she'd be the next Lon Chaney, and if her visage had been augmented by effects they could not have been creepier.

Second, Alex Wolff plays her son, an incredibly difficult role, with some amazing skill. Forget Timothee Chalamet, this is the young actor everyone should be losing minds over. He spends most of the movie crying and screaming, and I've never seen an adolescent actor do so much with so little. It's like seeing Johnny and Leonardo in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

Third, Ari Aster is amazing. For a first-time feature director, he has an amazing sense of confidence in his craft. Every detail is immaculate. His emotional sense is a masterclass in directing. Every beat of the film is fleshed out, and we are forced to feel every tiny nuance. Each scene induces feelings of cerebral whiplash as the screenplay (also by Aster) turns from almost-funny to aggressively weird and terrifying. And while his film constantly references other films in the genre, it also sets itself apart as a new beast of the genre. Its clearest references are to The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby, but it never feels like a cheap remake or ripoff, as it repurposes those references to fashion its own image.

The film's twists and turns come at breakneck pace. Though the third act doesn't, for me, go where I expected or even wanted, I cannot deny the power of Aster's vision and his faithfulness to it. I can certainly say that this film doesn't just navigate between honoring specific classic films; it navigates effortlessly between subgenres of horror. Think it's a slasher? Home invasion? Haunted house? Possession? Yes to all, but also no. We're being played by Aster and his team, much like the amazing miniatures featured as the mother's artwork. I don't want to give anything away, just know that you really don't know what's coming.

And, really, when it comes to family, who does?

IMDb: Hereditary

Wonderstruck (2017)

Score: 4 / 5

An impossibly optimistic and sentimental film -- the kind I usually pass right by -- Wonderstruck struck me with wonder and even wrung a few tears from my eye.

An odd sort of coming-of-age historical melodrama, the film follows two children as they approach New York City in different eras. Rose (Millicent Simmonds) comes looking to find her mother (Julianne Moore) a celebrity actress in the late 1920s. Meanwhile, Ben (Oakes Fegley) runs away from his Midwest home looking for his father fifty years later. It's a testament to the strength of the young actors that they carry the movie, especially since they both play deaf children. Millicent Simmonds herself is deaf, and the character Ben has recently become deaf in a bizarre accident.

Implausible as the plot may be, thematically it skillfully ties the two stories into one. Writer Brian Selznick has adapted his own work here, and the film plays out like a love letter to youth, to overcoming obstacles, and to New York City. Much like how Selznick's other work adapted into a major film (Hugo) celebrated the beginning of film itself, this film honors the beauty and mystery that are museums, "cabinets of curios" that help us link time, place, memory, and sentiment. In fact, the film plays out like a sort of mystery in that each scene features explicit and subliminal connections to other scenes, weaving a web of interrelated elements to bind the story into cohesion and coherence.

Carter Burwell's extensive score helps too, as its sweeping musical themes latch its hooks into your heart early on. When paired with the fewer scenes featuring Rose -- shot in pristine black and white -- it feels like a silent film, a choice that, I think, could have been applied to the whole film. Instead, the scenes with Ben are often presented along with audio cues, which serve not to help us identify with Ben but rather understand what's happening around him. It makes his loss more disturbing for us, because we are forced to hear things around him and understand him as being different. In Rose's case, we are fully in her world, and everyone else seems the oddballs.

Todd Haynes (Carol, Far From Heaven) continues his trend of impeccably designed and emotionally rich filmmaking, though here he cuts out is usual queer impetus. Rather than focusing on burgeoning sexuality, here he crafts a film about people who are different -- in this case, deaf -- finding family, independence, and beauty in the world around them. By the time the two stories come together at film's end (I won't say how), I felt a little taken advantage of by the film, but it's all so sweet and lovely that I didn't really care.

Sometimes the craftsmanship is so good and the heart is so pure that you can forgive everything else.

IMDb: Wonderstruck

Churchill (2017)

Score: 1.5 / 5

It may not be entirely the movie's fault. It's just so bloody disappointing and boring after Darkest Hour.

Weary from years of war -- and seemingly suffering no small amount of post-traumatic stress -- Churchill tries to explore the mind of Winston Churchill (played by Brian Cox) days before the invasion of Normandy during WWII. He does not think the plan will work and will serve only to massacre young men. Furthermore, he struggles in his marriage and with his secretary, and his peers increasingly run the war in ways that marginalize and trivialize him.

It's difficult to watch this quiet, understated, and terribly prosaic drama about a man who is so often lauded for being so interesting and dynamic, especially at one of the most exciting turns in the war. It's all the more difficult to watch when another -- far more artfully crafted and skillfully executed -- film remains fresh in the mind. More than once I wondered if this film wasn't simply filmed and produced as a television film from the '90s. That's certainly what it feels like. Bland, straightforward cinematography; warm, uninteresting color schemes and lighting; nothing popping out aurally or visually.

Tonally, the film lurches between a moving character study and a sweeping wartime melodrama. The two threads never connect, and we are ripped from the intimately theatrical scenes between Churchill and his wife (Miranda Richardson) and thrust into dense political and strategic meetings with heads of international state who are only fleetingly identified. Brian Cox himself is rather tiring to watch because I never really saw anyone but Brian Cox on the screen; I never saw Churchill. Which might be all the better, because what few Google searches I made on the little questions I had after viewing revealed a surprising amount of controversy over the screenplay. Apparently large elements of the film were thoroughly fictionalized.

As an exercise in historical fiction, however, the film is nevertheless incoherent and unbalanced. There doesn't seem to be any purpose, moreover, for the telling of this story. At least Darkest Hour's fictionalizations served aesthetic and thematic purpose. Here I constantly questioned why this movie exists, what the filmmakers were trying to say or demonstrate, and how it could possibly be important. I have yet to find any answers.

IMDb: Churchill

Upgrade (2018)

Score: 4 / 5

Logan Marshall-Green has always, to my mind, been the poor man's Tom Hardy. They look similar, and while Tom has more acting chops, Logan works hard to match him in cerebral, challenging, and largely unpredictable roles. And while Upgrade (starring Logan Marshall-Green) is arguably a tech-heavy, dystopian parallel to the upcoming super-antihero flick Venom (starring, you guessed it, Tom Hardy), it showcases talents of Logan that I had not seen before.

Upgrade is seemingly the story of one Grey Trace (Marshall-Green), a hardworking mechanic who works with his hands and both dislikes and mistrusts the increasingly robotic, electronic, and digital advancements around him. Set in the near future, the movie depicts a world of surveillance drones, fully automated houses, electric cars (wait...we already have those), and robotically-enhanced people. Really, in many ways, this film feels like a precursor to Blade Runner in its cynicism and suspicion of technology.

Grey becomes paralyzed after a car accident when his wife is killed and his neck is broken by a group of four villainous men. Not long after, a tech genius client offers him an experimental surgery to implant his new invention, STEM. It's a tiny device meant to attach to anything and work to improve it. He agrees, hoping to regain use of his limbs. And, of course, it works! But Grey begins to hear a voice in his head, a man's voice that seems to know far more than he himself. It's STEM, whose consciousness often dialogues with Grey while remaining largely subservient.

With STEM's abilities to connect online, Grey hunts down the men who killed his wife and paralyzed him. This is where the movie really kicks into high gear, and writer/director Leigh Whannell's skills come to violent life. Stefan Duscio's amazing cinematography perfectly captures the unheimlich, augmented reality of the protagonist's body and experience. And then there's Marshall-Green, whose physical work is the best I've seen in a film since Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking. Through some magic of filmmaking and storytelling, we are totally with him as he navigates the world in his new and improved body. We understand his horror when, as he confronts his assailants, he allows STEM to take control of his body and brutalize the baddies.

I don't want to spoil the ending for you, but the film features a couple of twists I simply did not see coming. Sure, it's all a little far-fetched, but it's one of the most effective combinations of science fiction and horror I've seen in some time. Maybe it's just because I like body horror, maybe it's because I like Marshall-Green. Whatever the reason, this was a delightful way to spend a hot summer afternoon.

IMDb: Upgrade

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Score: 4 / 5

From S. Craig Zahler, mastermind behind the 2015 horror Western Bone Tomahawk, comes another gritty, hyperviolent bloodbath. This time starring Vince Vaughn.

What? I know. Vince Vaughn carries the movie as Bradley Thomas, the muscly drug mule and skilled fighter. Under his tattooed and shaved head and grim demeanor, Bradley's actually surprisingly articulate with his few words, and the first act of the film acquaints us with his life. He's done with crime and working to build a solid life for himself and his wife. Unfortunately, the two struggle in their marriage after a miscarriage and some infidelity. To patch things up (this scene was just weird, okay?) Bradley decides to go back to work as a mule, breaking his promise just as his wife broke her vow. It takes two!

All goes swimmingly until one job goes awry for a new client named Eleazar. Suspicious, Bradley fumbles the job and gets arrested. Once in prison, Bradley meets other thugs working for this Eleazar, and we are led to believe he was specifically chosen for this botched-job assignment so he could do far worse crimes inside the prison system. Furthermore, Eleazar has had his thugs kidnap Bradley's pregnant wife, threatening to do really horrible things to her and her fetus (yeah, I'm not even going to repeat the atrocities, but believe me, they're all spelled out) if he does not comply. His goal: to kill a Christopher Bridge, who is located in a maximum security facility.

How does a low-ranking drug mule get to maximum security (if he's white, of course)? Well he has to show how dangerous he is. Bradley picks fights with other inmates and with the guards in a series of brutal scenes that take absolute pleasure in bones breaking and skin ripping and all kinds of horrific effects.

The film proceeds with a cold, calm calculation, which seems ironically at odds with the heated, ultraviolent story. That's why it works. I couldn't have cared less about the super-contrived religious imagery (Bradley has a huge cross tattooed on his shaved head) or the not-so-veiled political issues (prison life, racial and ethnic prejudice, and of course the outspoken conservativism and libertarianism of Zahler, Vaughn, and other frequent collaborators including Mel Gibson and Kurt Russell). Thankfully, these issues are only present upon close examination, a luxury I could not approach as I was too horrified by the film to want to look closer.

That said, when, near the end, we realize that there is no Christopher Bridge, I was so shocked I yelled aloud at my television screen. Much like Bradley, we realize we've been totally hoodwinked, and that Bradley has been summoned to Eleazar's private domain so that he can be tortured psychologically and physically for failing in his latest mission. It's one of the cheapest but most effective tricks I've ever fallen for in a movie. Actually, it felt like something Tarantino would do -- that is, make the movie so palpably and opaquely about violence itself -- except that Zahler actually does it with artistry.

And, really, that's my whole takeaway from this movie. Zahler is basically Tarantino, but classier, smarter, and with a genuine aesthetic sense. That...and Vince Vaughn is actually damn good in this movie.

IMDb: Brawl in Cell Block 99

Imperium (2016)

Score: 4 / 5

Finally got around to seeing this beast of a flick and, let me tell you, it floored me.

Daniel Radcliffe (who, if you're not following his career, is doing truly great work) plays Nate Foster, an FBI agent hunting terrorists. He's recruited by Agent Zamparo (Toni Collette in a thankless but vital performance), who suspects a white supremacist cell of plotting an act of domestic terrorism. Nate is chosen to infiltrate the neo-Nazis and uncover the plot.

That's about it for plot, without giving anything away. Most pleasure from viewing the film comes from the character-driven drama as the eminently likable Radcliffe becomes a muscly skinhead and ascends the ranks of a cabal of evil organizations. Its likeable cast (including Nestor Carbonell, Tracy Letts, and Sam Trammell) help make the film as rich as it is painful to watch.  Of course, morbid pleasure also comes from the research the filmmakers have done into these groups of white supremacists. The costumes are disturbingly on-point. The array of white men feel disturbingly accurate, from punks and thugs who just want to break things and cut people to hardcore anarchist survivalists, from comfortable middle-class culture snobs to full-blown terrorists willing to give up their lives to cause chaos.

I found the screenplay to be especially fascinating. Though the plotting occasionally lacks cohesion, often skipping what I would consider crucial scenes, the dialogue is dense and loaded with layers of meaning. The Nazis speak in aphorisms, euphemisms, and coded language that is at once terrifyingly specific and laughably self-aggrandizing. They think they are far more important and intelligent than they are, which is deeply funny and therefore unnerving. They talk in broad, sweeping terms as if they, often individually, have greater insight into the functions of the world around them (rather, as they see it, against them). More fascinating still is the extent to which the different factions of the movement see each other as irritating, ineffectual, and even threatening.

The film suffers, it's true, when it tries to become a straight-up thriller, focusing its third act on the terrorist plot perpetrated by the Nazis. But the first two acts are endlessly engaging. Though not as passionate or horrifying as American History X or The Believer, this movie nevertheless works best when Radcliffe is on screen, desperately working to convince the Nazis he's one of them. Can he try to prevent a black man from attack without being found out? Can his heart break for brainwashed children without showing it? And, finally, will he give up his life for the terrorist plot if it means cracking open the inner workings of the cell?

I will say, knowing this movie came out two years ago sent chills down my spine more than once. In one scene, Radcliffe joins in a Nazi march that is attacked by anti-fascists. Having seen these kinds of things happen lately in the news may have desensitized me, as I didn't react overmuch to this scene. But surely this movie was sickeningly prescient.

Oh, and one last thought. Just a reminder: Guys. Nazis are BAD. There is NOTHING good about Nazis.

I'd be so down for big studios to make more movies like this that remind us that there aren't "good people on both sides" of our ongoing war against Nazis.

IMDb: Imperium

My Cousin Rachel (2017)

Score: 4.5 / 5

It was high time for a new adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's classic dark romance, and this is it. Step aside, Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland!

Philip (Sam Claflin) prepares to meet his deceased cousin's wife. The poor old man has died abroad, after having sent a cryptic letter to Philip suggesting that his new wife, Rachel, is dangerous. Philip, furious at the specter of this woman for driving his cousin (and foster father) to a premature death, is both horrified and grimly determined when Rachel sends word that she will be coming to England to stay with him in her late husband's estate.

Her arrival, however, sparks a rich romance between the two. Tensions rise as Philip tries to remain objective, but Rachel's confidence, beauty, and intelligence beguile him utterly. Can he trust her? Did she kill his cousin? Might she pose a threat to the young man?

Much like the recent Phantom Thread, this movie is a dazzling display of style and substance in equal measure. Gorgeously realized sets and costumes fashion a world of detail, of passion, of texture. The performances are all passable, but the lead is impeccable. Rachel Weisz plays the title character with a perfect blend of compassion and malice; there's not a moment we can be sure of her intentions. In every single scene, she could be a bereaved widow seeking to navigate a world of men or she could be a conniving seductress seeking blood and power.

Also like Phantom Thread, this film delves deep into the horrors of a misogynist world. Rachel is repeatedly referred to in terms of her relationships with men (wife, cousin, lover). The first time both Philip and the audience see her, she is framed, picturesque, by a large window lit by a large, round moon. As the story progresses, rumors abound that she is insatiable. Her bank accounts have been hopelessly overdrawn, and Nick Kendall (Iain Glen), Philip's godfather, reveals that Rachel's sexual appetites may match her material extravagance. According to the logic of the story, her attempts to cast off patriarchal conventions make her a monster.

This film, I'd argue, works especially hard to maintain the ambiguity of Rachel's intentions and behavior. In fact, whereas the novel implies her guilt more often than not (in my reading), this film, so tightly restricted to Philip's perspective, never actually shows Rachel doing the "bad" things. In fact, I came away from this version viewing Philip as an antihero more than anything, as his outspoken misogyny riddles most of his scenes. He's weak and spoiled, jumping to conclusions, stammering when confronted with conflict, and incredibly fickle when presented with new evidence.

My Cousin Rachel is exactly what a new adaptation should be. A beautiful example of updated artistry, a smart and socially relevant rewrite, and still daring enough to stay faithful to the source material. Indeed, I half-expected the ending to provide an "answer" to the almost 70-year-old story, to take a definitive "side" in the mystery. Rather, like all the best du Maurier tales, it leaves us with a perfect character mystery, inviting audiences to discuss the film for some time after a viewing.

IMDb: My Cousin Rachel

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Score: 4.5 / 5

Wow! I don't know why people keep feeding the negative buzz. Solo is a smash-bang swashbuckling blast of energy and fun. Is it a game-changing entry in the franchise? No. Did anyone really want standalone origin movies about the heroes of the series? No. Is it a Ron Howard movie first and a Star Wars movie second? Of course. But none of these statements make the film bad, and none of these statements should continue to polarize true fans of the galaxy far, far away.

I won't waste time recounting the plot to y'all, except to say that this is the most compellingly plot-driven movie yet, after Rogue One. Though it skips time and space, its intensely focused story revolves around a young Han Solo as he, well, comes-of-profession more than of age. From his Dickensian roots stealing for the fabulously creepy Lady Proxima on Corellia to making the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs (if you round down), Han explores the galaxy and makes quite a name for himself. He meets Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian, and a whole cast of other fabulous characters played by equally fabulous actors.

There's a lot to talk about here, so let's start with more formal elements. The film is gritty and realistic, owing a lot to the aesthetics of Rogue One and the original trilogy. The costumes are nothing short of amazing. The design of the movie is equally brilliant; planets are especially gorgeously realized. The cinematography worked well for me, though I confess irritation that the lighting was so dim; I assume they were going for a natural-lighting vérité kind of look, but I had to squint to try and see details on screen in most scenes. It's very Ron Howard-looking. I also really loved the music, which incorporates familiar melodies in new and exciting ways.

In terms of story, I am of course bitter (still, always, and forevermore) that the "Legends" storylines are not happening. There is a fantastic Han Solo trilogy of books that are some of my favorite in the series all about his origins and young adulthood. Alas for what will never be on screen! And yet I cannot deny the novelty and pure fun the Kasdans wrote for this movie. The humor is good, and with the amazing cast voicing it, it becomes great. The heart and soul of the film is never once anything less than we'd expect from our scruffy-looking nerfherder. And a big reason for that is Alden Ehrenreich, whose swagger and charm is arresting: He's not (thankfully) trying to impersonate Harrison Ford; he's doing his own delightful thing entirely, and when the other players (especially Donald Glover as Lando and Emilia Clarke in a new role) bounce off him, it's all dramatic gold.

Now for the geeky bits. Han CAN and DOES speak Shyriiwook? Cool. We finally get a threatening, larger-than-Jabba criminal organization? Sweet. And -- hold everything -- Darth Maul is alive?? Apparently. He was in the "Legends" and apparently in the new canon he has too. Some Wookieepedia searches later, I learned that he survived and played a part in the animated television series Clone Wars and Rebels. So for those of us who weren't up to speed (which would seemingly be everyone in the theater around me), the moment of his reveal was accompanied by the loudest communal "gasp" I've ever heard in a movie theater. Yes, Qi'ra, the badass Solo love interest who becomes even more badass when she kills her wicked boss (a very creepy Paul Bettany) and ascends the ladder of Crimson Dawn criminality, now answers directly to an older, cyborg Darth Maul, who summons her to work intimately with him on Dathomir.

WHAT? Yeah, I know. It's the stuff of our dreams. So the questions begin. Why would the studio include this problematic character from the shows (and their limited audience) with no greater explanation in the film (e.g. Saw Gerrera)? Surely they plan to incorporate him in other films. But which? Rumors abound of a standalone Obi-Wan Kenobi film of his time between episodes 3 and 4; surely Maul would be the antagonist of that picture. The studio has greenlit a standalone Boba Fett movie, which may combine elements of criminal underworld with the bounty hunters of the galaxy. We just can't say for sure. (And the situation has become more fraught, as the box office returns for Solo were not that great.)

Hopefully, the next standalone Star Wars movie has a less troubled production. In the meantime, don't listen to the haters. Solo is endlessly watchable, fabulous and stylish, and a great way to start the summer movie season. Get out there and buy a ticket!

IMDb: Solo: A Star Wars Story

Deadpool 2 (2018)

Score: 4 / 5

This sequel was, for me, far more enjoyable than the original Deadpool. It doesn't waste time on exposition. It caters hand and foot to its audience. It doesn't even try to play things safe like the first one (thematically, structurally). Ryan Reynolds is even more creepy and sassy as Wade Wilson. And it never really sinks to the sentimentality that lurked under the surface before.

Our foul-mouthed (and, really, just plain nasty) mercenary starts his new adventure with a few bangs and sudden tragedy, when his lover Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) is murdered. Vengeful and suicidal, Wade is taken in by the X-Men. When one mission goes wrong, he and a troubled young mutant are arrested. As this develops, a secondary plotline is born involving Cable (Josh Brolin), who comes from the future looking to kill the kid Wade has taken under his wing.

Heavily plotted, the film has almost no breathing space between breakneck action and whiplash comedy. Which is good if you care about such things, and if the filmmakers are trying to cover up the absurdity of the proceedings. Fortunately, because this is Deadpool, absurdity is the name of the game, and the film brings lots of attention to itself. Its meta sensibilities aggressively take over in the film's final act, and while it's certainly fresh, interesting, and entertaining, it's also more than a little overkill. Overkill, you say? Just wait for those mid-credits scenes of Deadpool leaping through time to kill Ryan Reynolds in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Green Lantern.

And while aggressively crude and/or topical comedy isn't always my cuppa, Deadpool 2 provides other fabulous things for me to sink my teeth into. We finally have Juggernaut! We finally have Cable! And my favorite sequence in the film -- by far -- is the formation and ill-fated first outing of X-Force. It's hilarious and subversive and really just an amazing scene.

Speaking of subversion, whereas the first Deadpool was, I'd argue, anything but game-changing, this film definitely tries harder to fulfill that promise. We do have more explicit queerness between characters, though the representation leaves plenty to be desired. We have strong, independent women, though we also have the main woman used as a plot device and little else. And we have a diverse ethnic cast of characters who are nevertheless riddled with stereotypes. All in all, this film is a perfect example of the problematic issue of representation: Are we satisfied with problematic representation simply because any visibility is good? Or do we need representation of a certain quality to truly progress as a culture?

I don't think Deadpool cares, which is fine. I don't think many of his fans care, which is far more troubling.

IMDb: Deadpool 2