'Dunkirk' Review

Dunkirk Review:

Bang, Crash, Boom: Nolan Style

BY IAN TAN

Christopher Nolan’s latest offering thrusts us into the battle of Dunkirk that took place during World War II, where over 330,000 Allied soldiers – surrounded on all corners by the German army – were miraculously evacuated.

I’ve always been a fan of Nolan’s work, everything from Memento to the Dark Knight trilogy and even the divisive Interstellar. So when I heard the early positive buzz about Dunkirk, I couldn’t help but be hyped for this film, too.

Unfortunately, I didn’t really like Dunkirk as much as I wanted to. I get that the film is mostly an experiential one more so than a character-driven one, a la Gravity or Life of Pi. While I liked those movies, I could never really immerse myself into Dunkirk.

CGI is a no-no for Nolan. Those are real Spitfires right there. 

Yes, the visuals are stellar, and the action – especially the Spitfire dogfights – are second-to-none in terms of craftsmanship, and needless to say, Hans Zimmer’s score is riveting, heart pounding and exhilarating to say the least. The IMAX footage here, like in Nolan’s previous works, is as grand and immersive as ever. But because of the lack of interesting characters, none of the set pieces thrilled me the way they should have. 

In fact, the creative decision to ignore any proper character development was a bit of a downer for me, as I couldn’t find myself really caring about anyone, or anything in this film besides Mark Rylance’s mariner character and his family on their little boat. As a result, I was never truly engaged in all the action and scurrying and evacuating, which left me feeling a bit empty. For the most part, Dunkirk was an emotionally void war film to me.

It's the BFG!

Again, I understand that the lack of creating sympathy for the characters was a deliberate choice by Nolan, but it’s just not one that sticks well with me. I have to say I’m a little bit disappointed, but I’m glad a lot of people like it. I just wish I could see what everyone is seeing in this movie. I admire Nolan’s vision for the film, and I believe he achieved everything he wanted to out of it, but it’s just not my cup of tea. 

I’d still recommend seeing it in IMAX though, if only for the fact that it is a grand Christopher Nolan spectacle, after all. Plus, all the effort put into making this film as realistic as possible to the real-life evacuation is commendable and the filmmakers deserve their work to be seen on the largest screen possible.

'Transformers:The Last Knight' Review

Transformers: The Last Knight Review:

Business As Usual

BY IAN TAN

Their posters, unlike the movies themselves, get
better and better with each film

When it was announced that Michael Bay would return to direct Transformers: The Last Knight, I died a little bit inside. I’m happy with the technical and visual level Bay has set for the franchise, but by the time Age of Extinction came out in 2014, I really thought it was high time Bay left the director’s chair to make way for someone else to breathe new life into the franchise. However, I did have hopes for The Last Knight, not for any reason to do with Bay but because of the new writers room that Paramount set up to expand the live-action Transformers’ mythology and create a shared cinematic universe. Additionally, Bay and the writers promised that The Last Knight would boast more Transformers lore and mythology than the others that came before it. So, I was obviously excited to finally see a Transformers film dive deep into the mythos of the Autobots and Decepticons.

With a story conceived by Oscar-winning writer Akiva Goldsman and written by Iron Man (2008) scribes Art Marcum and Matt Holloway, as well as Black Hawk Down writer Ken Nolan, I thought that this Transformers movie would finally, finally be the one to break the mold and be, I dare say, great.

Bay sure loves his magic hour shots

Long story short, I was wrong. This isn’t the great Transformers movie I was hoping for.

Now, I’m usually one to defend Michael Bay. I’ve always thought he had it in him to direct a truly great Transformers film, but with every film in the series he’s directed, including The Last Knight, he’s proven me wrong. In all of these films, I’ve seen very, very tiny glimpses of great Transformers stories struggling to escape Bay’s penchant for obnoxious characters, unrealistic and corny dialogue, cheesy humour and rapid-fire editing. And sadly, The Last Knight isn’t that much different.

Okay, it’s better than the overlong and tedious Age of Extinction and the atrocious Revenge of The Fallen, and the story is more engaging and less paper thin as Dark of the Moon’s, but it isn’t as good as it could have been considering all the new writing talent behind the film.

Who needs Dinobots when you have a three-headed dragon?

There’s some good stuff to be found here, though. I felt that the overall story this time was pretty interesting, with Athurian legend and World War II put into the mix. The characters too, are more involved in the plot and are way less annoying than the characters in the past films have been, and each character has their own time to shine. There are even a couple of times where we get some genuinely good character moments. And needless to say, the visuals – especially in 3D – are terrific; the best they’ve ever been since the first film.

Unfortunately, none of that good stuff rises above some of the typical Bay-ness that this film is smothered with. There are still moments of cringe-worthy attempts at humour (especially with Merlin in the film’s opening sequence) that ruin the dramatic weight of what should be serious scenes. Also, the editing is as clustered and as fast-paced as ever, quickly moving from one story beat to the next before you can fully digest what happened in the scene before. And it’s really this movie that shows how weak Bay is at directing proper emotional scenes for characters. While the script does include some good character moments, Bay doesn’t seem to have a handle on how to make them as emotionally impactful as they probably were on paper, save for the relationship between Sir Anthony Hopkins’ character and his robot butler Cogman.

Carry on, Cogman 

All in all, I do think that The Last Knight is one of the better Transformers films, but considering the $260 million dollars Paramount invested into this film and the talented team of writers they got to elevate the film’s story, they really should have come up with something way better. Well, if I have to be completely honest, they shouldn’t have let Bay touch The Last Knight. Every bad thing about this film is a result of Bay’s direction and poor storytelling capabilities. I think the film has a decent script with an interesting story and more meaningful characters than the last four films did, but ultimately, it’s not a script Bay should have directed. In another director’s hands, this film might have worked out well, but with Bay at the helm, it’s just business as usual for the Transformers franchise.

Score: 6.5/10

'Power Rangers' Review

‘Power Rangers’ Review:

Go Go?

BY IAN TAN

Together we are more.

I’m a little embarrassed to say this but I’ve never seen a single Power Rangers episode in my life, so this was my very first experience watching anything Power Rangers related.

The film tells the story of five ‘teenagers with attitudes’ who, by coincidence, discover five different ‘Power Coins’ at a mining quarry that leads them into a mysterious spacecraft. Soon enough, they are tasked to take on the mantle of ‘Power Rangers’ and to stop the evil Rita Repulsa, who plans on destroying their hometown of Angel Grove. However, things aren’t so simple as the team cannot defeat her until they “morph” into Rangers, but in order to do so, they must settle their differences and learn to work as a team. And so begins our Power Rangers story. 

I honestly had no real interest in this film. The marketing didn’t work for me and the source material didn’t capture my interest as a kid, so I had pretty low expectations for this. But props to director Dean Israelite and the filmmakers for crafting an entertaining superhero origin story. 

So we superheroes now?

A good amount of this film works because of its characters. The five leads, namely Jason, Billy, Kimberly, Zack and Trini are fleshed out enough for us to care about them, and the actors behind these characters are charismatic and share good chemistry with one another. But it’s really RJ Cyler who steals the show as Billy/the Blue Ranger, who puts the film’s heart in the right place and is especially effective during the film’s more emotional moments. Bryan Cranston was also a good choice to play Zordon, the Jor-El-like mentor to the Rangers, and Bill Hader was entertaining as the talking robot Alpha 5. Elizabeth Banks was alright as the evil Rita Repulsa. She wasn’t as over-the-top as I expected her to be, and she’s a far cry from being a Loki or a Joker. She was about as serviceable as any typical Marvel movie villain.

In terms of action, Power Rangers delivers the goods, but only towards the last half hour of the film, when the Zords (controllable dinosaur-like robots) come into the picture, but this isn’t really an issue, as the characters - and the actors behind them - are enough to keep us engaged in the story, even with a lack of action set pieces for the majority of the film.

 

Dinobots?

This isn’t a complaint, but I feel like the film borrows a lot of elements from recent blockbusters, namely Man of Steel, Chronicle, the Transformers films, and Pacific Rim. For a while I was worried that the movie would end up feeling like a rip off of these films, but it turned out to be more of a ‘best hits’ of those movies, which isn’t a bad thing. It could’ve tried taking some more original and creative routes though. Another one of the minor gripes I have with the film is its humour, which was hit or miss for me. A number of times, these teenagers said things that sounded a little childish for their age, and made me cringe a little, especially in the first half of the film.

But at the end of the day, Power Rangers was fun. I had a good time with it and am looking forward to seeing more of these characters in future films. Good job, Lionsgate.

Score: 7.6/10

'Beauty & the Beast' Review

Beauty & the Beast Review:

#BeOurGuest

BY IAN TAN

From the director of Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Parts 1 & 2 comes the live-action retelling of the Disney classic, Beauty & the Beast… this can’t be good.

Nah, who am I kidding? It’s Disney.

Let’s start with the good stuff. Over the past two years, Disney has been very successful (commercially and critically) at adapting a number of their animated classics into live-action counterparts. Cinderella, The Jungle Book and even Pete’s Dragon were solid live-action adaptations of old Disney animations, and so is this year’s Beauty & the Beast.

The cast, for one, does a splendid job at bringing the beloved characters to life. Emma Watson suits the role of Belle nicely, channeling the right amount of charm, fearlessness and humanity to the character. The same can be said for Dan Stevens, who plays the Beast. However, the standouts were really Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson and Nathan Mack as Lumiere, Cosworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip respectively. Although mainly providing the voices for these characters, these A-list actors bring a level of charisma and emotion to these characters that wouldn’t be present had they been voiced by anyone else. Another highlight was Luke Evans as Gaston and Josh Gad as Lefou, both of whom seemed to really enjoy playing their roles, Evans especially.

 Can't touch this

Beauty & the Beast also benefits from stellar production design and costumes, much like 2015’s Cinderella. The interiors of the Beast’s castle and Belle’s little provincial town are beautifully realized and gorgeous to look at. However, I did find some of the character designs a little weird, especially being so used to their looks from the animated film. For instance, I’m not a big fan of Lumiere’s live-action design; it just didn’t feel very Lumiere-like to me. Ewan McGregor nailed the character’s voice though. I also really liked the Beast’s look. I was curious as to how much emotion could have been articulated with him looking the way he does, and I was very pleased to see how effective the CGI work for the Beast was, and Dan Stevens’ performance really brought out the character's humanity. 

 

Cogsworth was the best

As for flaws, the biggest one for me was probably the predictability of the story, which follows the animated version almost to a tee, save for some additional character backstories. Besides that, there really isn’t anything new story-wise in this live-action retelling of the tale as old as time. It’s a safe way to please fans of the classic, but I was hoping for just a little more innovation in the story and characters, kind of like what they did with The Jungle Book just recently. Another thing that I felt the original did better was its emphasis on the iconic rose, which in the cartoon felt like more of a ticking clock than this movie made it out to be.  As a result, the stakes didn’t feel as high as they did in the animated film. Also, the relationship between Belle and the Beast didn't grow as organically in this new film as it did in the original, which was a wee bit disappointing to me since their relationship is the where the heart of the story is supposed to be.

Humbug

Overall though, 2017’s Beauty & the Beast is still an enjoyable, magically Disney time at the movies, even if it never really surpasses the quality, heart and originality of the 1991 classic.

Score: 7.4 out of 10