Review - Dunkirk (2017)

A masterful third-act

Dunkirk lacks any drama, which is probably the biggest flaw of the film which is otherwise flawless.

Of all the war movies I have seen, Saving Private Ryan is probably the best - albeit not without minor quibbles. That film was released way back in 1998 and yet watching it today, it remains an emotional and visceral experience. 19 years later, our modern cinematic virtuoso, Christopher Nolan has brought Dunkirk, which has been hailed as the best war movie ever made by multiple critics. Agreed, when you know it is Nolan, you don't need anything else to validate. Standing at a spectacular 94 on Metacritic, it is probably the Nolan's most unanimously loved film. But is this film as good as it is being proclaimed?

Evacuation of Dunkirk took place early on during World War II. The allied troops were completely surrounded by German army on the French land and they were pushed deep into the shores of English Channel. Around 300,000 soldiers were stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, waiting to be torn apart by enemy air raids or for a miracle that might rescue them. What Churchill called 'a colossal military disaster', Dunkirk was certainly an important chapter for World War II. We all know the outcome, most of the soldiers were indeed saved and it certainly was an early blow to the Axis. Nolan obviously assumes that you know your history and hence he wastes no time to explain any background. There are some title cards which do impart some information, but if you are going to watch Dunkirk, it is better that you read a paragraph or two about it on Wikipedia. 

The opening of Dunkirk is sheer cinematic excellence - we follow a British private Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) as he escapes the titular deserted town from the Germans. As he reaches the shore, the camera sweeps through the vast stretch of sandy beach and the blue ocean, and along with thousands of soldiers scattered like ants. Just then, a roaring sound of subsonic German planes renders all of the men crawling down on the land, covering their ears with their hands. Among many of the film's iconic shots, we see bombs dropping off, one by one, approaching Tommy in a serial order. The shot ends with Tommy surviving the "bomb-line", but not without a flurry of sand deluging him.

Nolan, having written the script as well, divides the film into three temporal perspectives - the land, one week; the sea, one day; the air, one hour. The land covers the journey of Tommy and how he survives the constant bombardment and shooting by the enemy while waiting to be rescued; the sea covers a mariner named Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), how he sails to Dunkirk to rescue the stranded, along with his son, Peter and a teenage acquaintance, George; and the air covers Farrier (Tom Hardy), a British Royal Air-force pilot, assigned with the task of taking down the German planes. We follow each of these perspectives in a cross-cut fashion and the finale leads to intersection of all these strands in a neat, effective result.

Nolan's forte has always been brilliant use real-life props and sets. Obviously, he has employed digital visual effects, but you do appreciate the fact that they have been avoided as much as possible. In fact, real aircraft have been used for the film. The outcome is a set of multiple dazzling action sequences, which are not just breathtaking to behold, but also fully immersive in their approach. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema conjures one stunning imagery after another - the entire air perspective consists of the best aerial photography ever shot for a film. The sound design also deserves to be mentioned here, and for the first time, Nolan's use of bombastic and deafening sound seems completely justified. 

After so much of praise, is it the case that the film is indeed one of the best war film ever made? The answer is sadly, a no. With all the technical aspects and innovative structure of its storytelling, Dunkirk's major flaw is the lack of an emotional core. Worse, it is actually intentional - Nolan wanted it to function as a third act of any war movie. But this approach backfired. There is no back story for any of these characters and they have been written as a generic placeholders for the military roles. Even with veteran actors like Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance, the film fails to deliver any empathic connection. It all plays out like one action sequence after another - even though thrilling and perfect as they are, they cannot act as a substitute for dramatic heft. 

Just like Interstellar, Nolan's over-indulgence has restrained him to achieve what his vision clearly does. Thrilling, soaring and absolutely worth watching on the biggest screen you can get, the film is unfortunately mechanical and emotionally aloof. Only if Dunkirk had its first two acts, it could have been a masterpiece.

3.5/5

Review - The Circle (2017)

Sharing is caring.

Yeah! Tom Hanks presenting an iPhone launch event!

Do you post stories on Snapchat more than you drink water throughout the day? Do you obsessively put your selfies on Instagram and refresh the app to check likes? Do you prefer to shoot a live video of your vacation instead of actually being in the moment? If your answer to all of these questions is "yes", then The Circle might just prove an eye opener for you. If not, then you are in for a pretty bland cinema with bits and pieces of interesting themes scattered throughout. More often than not, you would rather scroll down your Facebook feed instead of looking up at screen. 

Based on a dystopian novel by Dave Eggers, the film is about a young college graduate Mae (Emma Watson) who lands a job in a Facebook/Google-esque company called The Circle. Headed by a charismatic CEO named Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), the social-networking company is like a dream for any employee - vast, green campus with so many things to do that you won't find even in a big city, a hefty paycheck with awesome medical benefits. For obvious reasons, Mae falls for it. So much that she goes transparent - that is to say, she volunteers to put on a small button like camera on herself and broadcast her daily life to every single person linked with The Circle. Yes, it does sound like a Facebook-Live version of Keeping-Up with Kardashians, the only issue being Mae's life is pretty boring as compared to anything Kim does on the show. Really boring.

Even with talented actors like Hanks and Watson, the film sinks - and the blame must be put on the screenwriter. Without bothering to explain the technical hurdles in order to maintain such a gigantic social platform, the film loses it with the absurdity of how most of the people feel that its OK to go live and broadcast every single hour of your life. The film goes to such an extent that it shows people from government supporting this horrible idea - and those few who are skeptical, refrain to protest until the very end. Worst of all, there is hardly any conflict. There is no antagonist and even the protagonist is disappointingly confused and one-note. Watson and Hanks are mostly presenting big ideas in front of a large awe-struck audience, just like an iPhone launch. The film gets redundant to such a limit that you lose any interest in the story. 

The film is labeled as techno-thriller - the techno part is certainly there, but unfortunately there are no thrills. The only one moment near the finale ends up with a conclusion which we don't see happening onscreen. By the last 20 minutes or so, the film appears as if to be redeeming itself with a shift to the right track - exploring the financial exploitation by privacy invasion and a possible global revolt against a scheming tech giant. But it all ends too soon without any proper pay-off. The Circle flirts with some really interesting notions which have been previously dealt by masterpieces like Truman's Show and on a broader political level by V for Vendetta. But it does nothing to flesh out its characters or even provide a substantial commentary on the issue it is tackling. The Circle is indeed a disappointment.

PS. The logo of 'The Circle' company is pretty similar to SBI logo (just rotate it to 45 degrees counter-clockwise)

2.5/5 

Review - Moonlight (2016)

A little film that could

Even though the film's protagonist is played by three different actors, all them embody his spirit perfectly.

How often do you get to see a film based on a black, poor and gay protagonist winning an Oscar for Best Picture? Certainly not very often. In fact, it took 89 years for the AMPAS to overcome their inherent racism and homophobia - you can even argue that most Oscar-winning black movies were about slavery, or their struggle during civil rights movement. So Moonlight has certainly broken variety of barriers - but is it really as good as it is being proclaimed?

Moonlight depicts life of an African-American boy named Chiron in three chapters - Little, Chiron and Black. These chapters deal with him growing up in poor Miami neighborhood with cocaine epidemic on the rise, constant school bullying and his struggle with his sexuality. On paper, Moonlight appears to be a soul-sibling to Richard Linklater's wonderful Boyhood - but without a main protagonist who has the "privilege" of being white, straight and opulent. In fact, on many levels, the film remarkably deviates from the normal, acceptable narrative of coming-of-age dramas.

Technically, the film is meticulously crafted. Every scene, every moment is well thought. From cinematography to background score, from editing to sound design - each and everything falls well into the place, like a puzzle fitting perfectly into its position.

Barry Jenkins has created a little precious gem - a realistic document of how growing up in a poverty-stricken and hyper-masculine environment may damage vulnerable young children. Moonlight makes a point against homophobia and lamentable position of non-white Americans. However, lack of a concise conclusion dilutes the dramatic impact of its ending. But even with its minor flaws, Moonlight should be celebrated - it is a little film that could.

3.5/5

Review - Manchester by the Sea

The tale of never-ending grief

Manchester by the Sea is a sad, sad film. The protagonist of this film is constantly grieving, never coming to terms with his tragic past. He is stuck, never moving on, even when life literally throws bundle of opportunities towards him for doing so. The film makes this point - if you have messed up real bad in your past, your future won't be a blissful joy. But bigger issue for the film itself is this - will you spend over two hours watching a suffering man wearing a same sad expression and mumbling most of the time?

Clearly enough, the film is not an easy watch. Cassey Affleck stars as Lee Chandler, an ill-fated janitor who has got the custody of his 16-year old nephew after untimely death of his brother. Lee for much of the film (except for some flashbacks) is melancholic, hardly taking interest in any living or non-living thing. Earlier in the film, we see him reacting on the news of his brother's death -  stoic, almost blank albeit with a hint of concern. He sees his brother's dead body, again, with the same old expression on his face. You wonder, what is wrong with this man?

Kenneth Lonergan, also directing this film, has written the script in an intriguing fashion. The film is told with alternate cuts of flashbacks and present proceedings, which creates a sense of mystery, especially regarding Lee's troubled past. It does unfold near the film's half-way, and it is indeed shattering - a mistake, or rather a gigantic blunder which has not only destroyed Lee's own life, but also his family's. 

The present timeline of the film deals with Lee slowly taking the role of his father-less nephew's guardian, even though he feels strongly evasive about it. The demons of his past however, are ever troubling him, even taking a toll on his mental state. Lee hoards an ocean of repressed anger, mostly directed towards his own self, which often manifests via violent outbursts of drunken brawls. The dynamic between Lee and his nephew is particularly interesting, and it is perhaps the only "fun" part of the film where Affleck's coerced guardian tries to understand peculiarities of the teenage boy.

The film is soaked with melancholia. The sky is ever dark and overcast, there is always snow around and not even a single ray of sunshine hits the frozen surface. Cassey Affleck plays his part extremely well, he's subtle and reserved. Even in the scenes where there was some scope of dramatic fireworks, he remains grounded and true to his character's psychological state.

But that also means that there is nothing in this film which bounds the audience to its characters. The overwhelmingly dreary tone and sluggish pace doesn't help either. Worse, there is no narrative arc in this film. Lee's character is at same state in the end as he was in the beginning, there is nothing to take back home. As a dramatic film, Manchester by the Sea fails, but as a character study of depressed soul with a tragic past, you cannot get anything better than this.

3/5

Review - Arrival (2016)

Story of your life

Amy Adams gives a remarkable performance in Arrival.

It's a tricky task to put Arrival into a certain genre, or to be specific, under "Science-Fiction" category. Yes, there is much science and fiction going on in it, but unlike many others, the film is like a dreamy, melancholic piece - a swan song of sort, which pulls your heartstrings more than exercising your cerebral thinking. It moves you in ways which sci-fi films don't. Thanks to outstanding work by Amy Adams and equally masterful direction by Denis Villeneuve - Arrival defies common genre boundaries by every sense.

Sometime in near future, twelve extra-terrestrial space pods arrive at various locations across the globe. The capsule like enclosures hover some twenty feet over the land and none of the life form which resides within them seem to be coming out or making any contact. "Why they are here?" is the billion dollar question which needs to be answered right away. As media and general public all over the world becomes more anxious and fearful about the nature of these spaceships, military forces start to take precautionary action and teams of scientists are assembled to uncover their truth. 

Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguist professor at a university in Montana. Having worked with military intelligence before, she is recruited by the army for a top secret mission - to communicate with the alien beings and discover their actual motive of arrival at Earth. She is joined by Physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) on the mission, and as tensions rise all over the world, both of them together start a series of sessions. Starting with rudimentary form of communication with chalk and slate, Louise and Ian take baby-steps, one day at a time to learn the alien language.

The alien language is particularly amusing and visually striking. The circular loops of inky-black wisps may refer to a word, sentence or even an entire notion. The aliens themselves are a cross between a giant humanoid and an octopus, albeit with seven legs. Their voice (much credit to the sound design team) is eerily outlandish and yet, not so threatening. As the sessions continue, both Louise and Ian learn about the exotic loop symbols and much of the film's middle portion is devoted to it. By the last thirty minutes however, Eric Heisserer's script takes a mind-boggling twist. I would rather not divulge that twist here, but let's say that it makes this film a worthy companion to recent celebrated works like Interstellar and Gravity. To drop a tiny hint - the film brings up alluring notions about your past memories, your losses, your decisions and how they all ultimately affect your life. 

Beautifully shot and aptly paced, Arrival is technically flawless. The design of creatures and the pod is strikingly original, while the use of Max Richter's On the Nature of Daylight is deeply moving. Adams is subtle and quite understated for much of the film, but her scenes near the end deliver a powerful emotional punch on the audience. The film is literally carried on her shoulders, and much like Sandra Bullock in Gravity, she carries it with strength and robustness.

During the opening voice-over, Adams' character says "I'm not so sure that I believe in beginnings and endings. There are days that define your story beyond life." Like a palindrome, the film has no beginning or an end - it's a sequence of events and memories, and irrespective of which end you traverse it, you would always go through the same emotions and same feelings. With brilliant central performance by Amy Adams, Arrival is unique and surprisingly emotional film. The film's last minutes make a grand statement about life, and combined with the effect of the opening and the last shot, you take home much more than mere science-fiction.

3.5/5