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

Stronger (2017)

Score: 4 / 5

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Jeff Bauman, a real-life victim of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing who lost both his legs. The film Stronger, based on Bauman's book of the same name, would seemingly be about strength, perseverance, and the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mentality of a Clint Eastwood movie (and the racist baloney that comes with his pictures). And, to some extent, the film is all about a man's efforts to rehabilitate.

But Stronger is far more than that: It's a surprising look at a man broken long before the loss of his legs. First and foremost a character study, the film follows Jeff as an underachieving young man whose charm and sweet demeanor belie an apparent inability to commit to anything. He still lives at home with his alcoholic mother, he recently broke up with his girlfriend, and he's always running late. When he does, finally, "show up" to something, namely the finish line of the marathon, cheering on his ex, the street explodes. When he comes to, one of his first conscious thoughts is that he had seen the bomber. The police follow his lead, and before long, Jeff is championed as a hero.

That's where the other characters in this study come into play. Boston itself is a crucial character in the film, often depicted as a mass of people cheering on hockey games and baseball games, holding banners on bridges, and buying each other drinks at the bar. They love their city, and the cry of "Boston Strong" rings out in every other scene. They lionize Jeff, whose family also basks in the glory. The Baumans, numerous and rowdy as they may be, are a "disaster", according to Jeff, but endlessly lovable. Eccentric perhaps to a fault, they are lead by Miranda Richardson in one of her very best performances.

Parts of the film are hard to watch, as it's not until the very end that Jeff gets his act together and embraces his new life. Constant fights between him and his mother and his girlfriend (Tatiana Maslany in a thankless but impressive performance) are interrupted by scenes of Jeff breaking down, alone, in bathrooms and elevators, binge drinking with his immature buddies, and traumatic flashbacks to the bombing. What started as a film about a single man's journey to rehabilitation quickly becomes a complex odyssey of a man coming of age, accepting responsibility, and navigating a world of loving relationships he had previously squandered.

It's also a film about a city, a thriving, pulsing community more intimately connected than many I've seen on screen. It helps that the filmmakers shot most of it in Boston and with local actors and non-actors. Some of the main players are even the people who were present at the marathon that day, and first responders to the crisis. That augments the realism of the film, as does the magnificent cinematography, much of which consists of long takes and carefully constructed blocking. I'd say the screenplay is important here as well, but so many of the scenes include what appears to be improvised dialogue that I'd have to include praise for acting as well.

Though it's pretty straightforward -- and I think more could have been made of the story -- Stronger is a charming and heartfelt movie, one that keeps you interested even as it slaps you with clichés. But for a movie that staunchly refuses to turn its protagonist into a hero (while everyone else wants to do just that), it makes for a fascinating character study and inspirational afternoon viewing. Plus, Jake Gyllenhaal is just wonderful.

IMDb: Stronger