Widows (2018)

Steve McQueen knows how to make an intense movie. Heist movies, by their very nature, are intense, but McQueen takes it to another level. Hans Zimmer's score as well as the moments of tense silence contribute to the mood. There are some gorgeous tracking shots. And Gillian Flynn of Gone Girl fame writes an engaging screenplay full of twists, grit and excitement.The plot is complex, intertwining race, power, money and gender roles. And the cast is all phenomenal.  Viola Davis is a badass.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Magnificent. It is an epic three hour artistic feast. It is a visually stunning movie, surely to win the long overdue master Roger Deakins an Oscar. The colors! The futuristic production design that borrows from and yet somehow also modernizes the original. The epicness of each frame is enough to take your breath away. If you can't tell, I loved the look of the movie.

But of course, the strength and beauty of Blade Runner (perhaps of science fiction generally) is its ability to ask the tough questions. What does it mean to be human? In my opinion, this movie is a very natural sequel to the original. It builds off the established themes and pushes the boundary to the next logical steps. The character, less obviously but very effectively, advances this question of humanity. She is a computer program, pure software. She obeys orders. She is made to order. But does her capacity to love make her human? Does the capacity to love make a replicant more human? Does the ability to reproduce make you human? Is there a more abstract idea of a soul that makes us human? It asks the tough philosophical questions.

Denis Villeneuve has proven himself a phenomenal director of science fiction following Arrival. And in the same style, he has a way with reveals that shocks the audience. I won't give that bit away, but the reveal allows the viewer to discover another theme, and that is insignificance. We may find ourselves very important, but is it possible that our stories are insignificant in the arc of history? It's this willingness to tackle grandiose ideas that makes this sweeping movie a pure epic.

Dunkirk (2017)

This truly is a masterpiece. It is not your typical war film. It does not tread on your emotions. It is not bloody. There is no climactic battle. You never see the enemy. You never see the loved ones on the home front. It is pure war, intense drama.  It is fully immersive. I am now traumatized by that ticking soundtrack by Hans Zimmer (the fan in Morgan's room was making the exact same sound). I saw it in glorious IMAX on 70mm film. Christopher Nolan is the savior of film. Film is somehow old school and also the future of theatrical experiences. The picture was so clear. You could see every face. You wallow in the expanse of the sea and the beach. The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema is stunning, especially in the aerial scenes. The scenes on the boat were not filmed in IMAX. You can see the ratio is different. It doesn't fill the top and bottom of the screen. But I want to say that the picture looked not necessarily sharper but more vivid and real.

Remember, this is a Christopher Nolan film. Nothing is straight. So we follow three different non-linear narratives. The Mole (the beach) story takes place over a week. The Sea story takes place over a day. And The Air story takes place over an hour. The film cuts back and forth between the narratives without telling the audience what takes place when. You see some scenes in the darkness of night intercut with daytime scenes. You see the boat in the background of the plane scene, watching an event that hasn't yet happened in the Sea story. This is all just brilliant editing and storytelling.

Dunkirk is a point of pride for British people. It was a lost battle, an utter defeat, but a successful retreat. America had not yet entered the war. And that is why American's don't really know what happened at Dunkirk. The focus of the film is strictly on the British. The Germans are never named. The French are not shown, controversially. The Indians are not shown, controversially. But that's not the point. The point here is that Dunkirk is a British success story. This is about British pride. And you never lose focus of that.

Hidden Figures (2016)

Hidden Figures is an excellent, straightforward crowd pleaser. It highlights three African American women at West Area Computers division at NASA who faced challenges at every turn. It is an important story for our generation, hopefully inspiring girls and African Americans and other POCs to enter STEM fields. The story draws attention to the fact that minorities need to be so much more brilliant to achieve the same level as less brilliant white men.  Octavia Spencer's character has the foresight to see that her division is about to become obsolete and being so self-reliant, she teaches herself Fortran. Not only that, she teaches her co-workers Fortran to keep them relevant and indispensable. They need to be that much better to keep their jobs. Also, I think it's hilarious that computer was a human job. From the perspective of 2017, it's funny to think about doing all that math by hand. It sounds like a nightmare.

I thought Pharrell and Hans Zimmer's music was very fitting for the era. The acting is all phenomenal.  Octavia Spencer is the Oscar-nominee, but i think Taraji P. Henson steals the show in her pivotal outburst. And Janelle Monae has had some amazing year.                                            

Inferno (2016)

We saw Inferno at the Cineteca di Bologna, because unlike in the rest of Italy where they dub foreign films, they show films in their original language there. They have some respect for movies there. The Cineteca is world renowned for its film restoration and its rich film archive. It's also really cheap to see a movie there. Even though it's clear on the other side of the city, it's worth going there.

Inferno opened in Italy before it opened in the US, presumably because it was all filmed in Italy. And it is very evident. The movie is basically an extended tourism commercial for Florence. And when I went to Florence a few weeks ago, I was walking around recognizing places from the movie. And it's beautiful and lovely. So...it worked!

The movie itself was alright if you can get over the whole product placement thing. I felt like there was some inconsistency with the plot. The treasure hunt clues were certainly not as airtight as National Treasure. I haven't seen DaVinci Code or Angels & Demons, but I'm going to assume those have consistent treasure maps too. Who left these clues for whom and how did we find them? Did we really need that middle clue? Then without spoiling too much, there is a big reveal at the end of the book (according to Will) that does not play out in the movie, though it is sort of hinted to if you've read the book and can pick up on it. And that reveal sort of gives some reasoning and thoughtfulness that was otherwise missing.

They also must've wasted a hell of a lot of money on special effects for the opening scene depicting Inferno. It is wholly unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the plot. 

The Little Prince (Le Petit Prince) (2015)

This is a gorgeous little movie that mixes traditional computer animation with creative stop motion animation. The animation is brilliant. That is by far the best part. I admit I didn't read The Little Prince. So I don't have the same connection to this story that other people have. But it is a touching story with an uplifting moral. There is this strange balance between English and French in this movie. The dialogue is in English but the text is in French. The production is French, but was supposed to be accessible to a wider audience. And yet it has had a difficult time breaking into the American market. I had to see it on an international flight. But I would highly recommend it to all kids.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

There were very high expectations for this film, and I think it fell short. The first hour and a half of the movie is a total mess. It is a series of short vignettes (for an hour and a half!) of seemingly unrelated themes. It relies on you knowing the back story to draw connections between the vignettes on your own, but on the whole they do not really contribute to the overarching story in the film. Speaking of overarching story, there seems to be scenes missing or rather the movie simply skips over the explaining parts and just assumes that you know what's going on. My biggest qualm is that the movie removed these useful scenes, while keeping the useless ones that simply set up more sequels without resolution--such as that inexplicable dream sequence.

The music seemed a little stale. Hans Zimmer is usually a master of the superhero soundtrack. He rightfully recognized that this would be his last superhero movie, claiming that he has run out of ideas. His Man of Steel soundtrack was quite good. I think it might have worked better to have more "Man of Steel" music and less new stuff.

Ben Affleck plays a Batman that is fundamentally different from the Christian Bale Batman that we have come to know and adore. He really plays up the vigilante side of Batman--a back-to-basics of sorts. It is not a bad thing, just different. And I like that the Batcave is underneath Farnsworth House. Actually, more difficult for me was seeing Jeremy Irons as Alfred; for me Michael Caine will embody Alfred always. Wonder Woman was left very mysterious. There weren't really any answers and she appeared out of nowhere. If Gal Gadot's job was simply to be mysterious, then she did it well.

And if you were wondering why are Superman and Batman fighting then you were right to wonder. Don't let the super fans scold you for asking the right question. They shouldn't be fighting. They're on the same side.

And there were no extra scenes in the end credits! What kind of superhero movie is that?

I saw this movie at the historic Senator Theater in Baltimore. It is a gorgeous old movie house and it made the movie going experience well worth it.

The Woman in Gold (2015)

This movie is dramatization of a true story of Nazi art theft and the legal nightmare that Maria Altmann went through to recover the paintings that were stolen from her family.  These five Klimts include the iconic Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, which exemplifies Klimt's golden phase.  This movie combines two things that I like: legal drama and fine art, all set against the backdrop of the Holocaust.  Not only is the story fascinating, it is devastating. The movie is driven by themes of legal right versus cultural right. Klimt has come to be representative of Austrian culture, and his artworks are national treasures. Altmann hires a family friend to be her lawyer, an inexperienced Randol Schoenberg, the grandson of the famous Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg. Altmann came from a wealthy Jewish family in Vienna that hosted the Austrian intellectuals of the day in a renowned salon.  Both characters are steeped in twentieth century Austrian culture, but their families were lain victim to the atrocities committed by Austrians complicit with the Nazis, yet the Austrian government has the audacity to suggest a cultural right to the paintings.

Helen Mirren is excellent as always as a woman torn between the rush of terrible memories Austria reminds her of and the pursuit of what is legally hers.  Tatiana Maslany convincingly plays a young Altmann, whose story is told in stylish black-and-white.  Ryan Reynolds plays the inexperienced lawyer and he comes across as kind of awkward, which is not necessarily a bad thing.      

Interstellar (2014)

Christopher Nolan makes some really special movies.  The unique ideas that he comes up with are always thrilling, mind blowing and thought provoking.  This is no exception.

Interstellar presents some really ambitious, out-there science fiction (in science fiction, you just have to roll with it).  Granted, some of the ideas are unbelievable, especially as you get further into the movie, but I feel like I followed it up to the last 20 minutes or so.  Without giving too much away, the story falls apart a bit at the conclusion.  Nonetheless, the film triumphs at integrating powerfully emotional scenes and human drama with a confusing and complex plot.  

On the creativity front, I was most impressed by the conception of the planets that they visit.  It's hard for us to imagine what the environment of other planets might be like, and Nolan shows us two interesting, well conceived theoretical planets.  The robots are not anthropomorphic, rather they are made up of four bars, that can arrange into different useful formations.  Perhaps the wackiest creative freedoms were taken in the physical representation of higher dimensions.

The visuals are stunning and are especially incredible in the IMAX 70mm format.  The visual effects, especially when in the emptiness of space, or in the unreal environments of the planets, or looking in a black hole or a worm hole, are breathtaking.

Hans Zimmer, as always, has composed a magnificently fitting score for the film.  With the backdrop of empty space, or the varied environments of the different planets, or the expansive corn fields on Earth marred by dust storms, Zimmer's score adapts and shines.

Interstellar features a star-studded cast, from frequent Nolan collaborator Michael Caine, to Hollywood's current it-man Matthew McConaughey.  McConaughey's character and dialogue resemble the soft philosophical ramblings that we've come to know him for in the Lincoln ads and True Detective. Anne Hathaway is also excellent, though she has way too much makeup for someone going to lonely outer space.  I appreciated the casting of Mackenzie Foy as a young Jessica Chastain.  The resemblance is uncanny and Foy proved to be a very capable young actress.

In summary, despite some problems with the plot and the science, Interstellar is a solid film that truly embodies the magic of the movies, featuring imagination, spectacle, and pure entertainment.