The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

Interstellar.

Review #2322: Interstellar.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Joseph "Coop" Cooper), Anne Hathaway (Dr. Amelia Brand), Jessica Chastain (Murphy "Murph" Cooper; Mackenzie Foy as 10-year-old Murph; Ellen Burstyn as elderly Murph), John Lithgow (Donald), Michael Caine (Professor John Brand), Casey Affleck (Tom Cooper; Timothée Chalamet as 15-year-old Tom), Wes Bentley (Doyle), Bill Irwin (TARS - voice and puppetry and CASE puppetry), Topher Grace (Getty), David Gyasi (Professor Romilly), and Matt Damon (Dr. Mann) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer)

Review: 

“It’s been a really interesting challenge. When you say you’re making a family film, it has all these pejorative connotations that it’ll be somehow soft. But when I was a kid, these were family films in the best sense, and they were as edgy and incisive and challenging as anything else on the blockbuster spectrum. I wanted to bring that back in some way.”

Honestly, the best way to talk about a movie like this is to just go with it. In 2006, Kip Thorne (a theoretical physicist, writer, and future Nobel Prize winner) and Lynda Obst had come up with trying to work with each other again, having previously collaborated on Contact (1997), in which Thorne's study of wormhole space travel had been incorporated into the screenplay (as written by Carl Sagan, a close friend of Obst). Thorne had theories involving “warped space-time" that eventually found Jonathan Nolan assigned to write that outline into a narrative. When the original director in mind (Steven Spielberg) had other ideas in mind to work on, Christopher Nolan expressed interest to direct and to incorporate his own ideas for the screenplay (evidently, the first hour of the film, set in the not-too distant future with inspiration taken from the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, is pretty true to the original screenplay while one particular shape for the climax came from C.Nolan). Thorne had set out two guidelines for the Nolans in having a film that wouldn't "violate established physical laws" while having wild speculations spring in some sort of science. He later wrote a book on his experiences as a consultant on the film (The Science of Interstellar). The effects by Double Negative had the use of digital projectors to go along with miniature effects from other collaborators for spacecraft (incidentally, that one famous image of an actual black hole came out in 2019). Released in November of 2014, Interstellar was a pretty fair success in its time, with probably the visual effects receiving the most praise (for its 10th anniversary, select theaters showed the film again in 70mm IMAX).

I do wonder if I would like this film better on a re-watch a few years down the line. In fact, the reputation of the film suggests that, well, for all the engineer and craftmanship, the mysteries really can have love as one of the ways forward. It is worthy spectacle and also a mash of human interest for 169 minutes. Time is the important factor in the great vacant reaches of spaces that ultimately lend one to the immeasurable pull of hope in the strange margins. The best way to go with the movie is to watch with as little to really know about it as possible, one in which you don't look for tricks but just try to absorb the film piece by piece. It does not leave one impatient to get to space because of the general commitment shown by Nolan and company to let things breathe in a place filled with blighted surroundings (consider this is a film where textbooks talk about the Apollo missions as one of waste and elaborate conspiracy). In a film with plenty of worthwhile effects, it also happens to be a movie with a worthwhile cast to support it all, since it basically is a fable of people who have to learn to look up again, ones who cannot just be caretakers or "stay" where they are. McConaughey has the calm sense to make it all work in maneuvering charm that is worth playing out for a journey beyond the stars. That first third (rough estimate) in the fields of a blighted world with him and the on-screen youth in Foy and Chalamet to go along with Lithgow make for an earthy quartet to balance out the inevitable when one is brought into the mix of Caine (reciting one particular poem) and the reasoned grace from Hathaway. Of course, the other key is in the latecomer in Damon to round out a look on human nature in all of its facets when confronted with danger, loneliness, love, or the space between (of course, Irwin is there too to convey the robot voice and puppetry to really round out the highlights, I didn't forget that). The enjoyment of the film is in layers, really, managing to walk the frontier tightrope (as one might say) in drawing a sci-fi epic in the eyes of a family and where that leads for meaningful stakes in what really matters most when it comes to the immeasurable qualities of survival. There are plenty of moments that one will find astounding, such as say, the tidal wave sequence or the manual docking sequence to go along with the eventual "clicking together" moment that rewards the curious with threading the needle in not just being a cop out for the sake of sweeping it all up. In totality, it is a pretty neat movie when viewed all the way through in execution in ways that can only be understood for those with the patience to six through such a worthwhile journey. I can't call it my favorite Nolan movie, but it is worthwhile enough to recommend on the best screen possible to absorb for all that it brings beyond the stars. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome again to December 20, the anniversary day for Movie Night, which is now 14 years old. I apologize for the lengthy delay between reviews, I simply wanted to take some time off to refresh myself so that I close out 2024 by not "phoning it in". Surprise: today is a doubleheader day.

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Tenet.

Review #1618: Tenet.

Cast: 

John David Washington (the Protagonist), Robert Pattinson (Neil), Elizabeth Debicki (Katherine "Kat" Barton), Dimple Kapadia (Priya), Martin Donovan (Fay), Fiona Dourif (Wheeler), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Volkov), Himesh Patel (Mahir), Clémence Poésy (Barbara), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Ives), Michael Caine (Sir Michael Crosby), Kenneth Branagh (Andrei Sator), and Denzil Smith (Sanjay) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk, and #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises)

Review: 
No question... the most ambitious film we’ve made. It’s a film of great ambition and great scale that takes a genre, namely the spy film, and tries to take it into some new territory, and tries to take the audience on a ride they might not have had before, and might not be expecting."

What one knows and doesn't know about this film likely could make for a good discussion between friends. But, dear reader, are we really friends when looking upon the flow of time or just strangers in the night? I imagine that statement probably made about as much sense as Tenet ultimately does in the long run: figure it out later after the experience is over. Honestly, the curiosity to doing this film came about months after its release into theaters (you may or may not recognize that fact with all the other things that happened in the year) - there was buzz and other such talk, but it seemed right to just wait it out for release at home (a release on physical media, mind you, as I will fortify myself on the hill of physical releases and/or cinema releases in a pandemic-less world forever). While the script took six years for Nolan to develop, images and concepts for the film were there in his head over the past two decades. He wanted to make a spy film that captured the excitement of films like the James Bond features (for which he is a fan of) that would be like working from a memory rather than specifics. It does not contain as many visual effects shots as his other films like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but the creativity in its execution with certain sequences can't be overlooked, including a sequence with a real plane being used for an explosion, and I am sure the inversion scenes will catch one for a loop.

So, after all that hubbub in the twilight, how is the overall film in entertainment? Oh, it is a fine movie. If one tries not to understand it but instead feel it, they hopefully will get a feeling of enjoyment rather than the worst-case scenario of frustration. It is likely a film that will require a second viewing not so much to try and absorb more of what it really is all about but more just to see how it resonates in its excitement and narrative decisions from viewing to viewing. But ask yourself: how many folks will go through the time of 150 minutes and decide to do it twice to try and improve upon fine spectacle? I imagine that I will do the film over again at some point in time, probably when I ever look back upon one of Nolan's other big-scale films involving science fiction in some way such as Interstellar (2014). In other words, some of it made sense, some of it will probably make sense another time, and the rest falls somewhere in between, one that will please those who desire a bit of cerebral interest while making the action folk have a bit of glaze in their eyes. Washington, a former high school/professional talent that found his first prominent role in the TV show Ballers (2015-19), certainly hits the mark when it comes to collected pace and on-the-go charm, which is required to make sure he isn't lost in the action pieces. Pattinson (having done quite a few smaller budget films over the past few years that received some notice) does well here, a worthy one of the time needed in following his instincts for a crisp and interesting performance to go right with Washington when needed (reportedly one of his inspirations was an attempt at trying to do an impersonation of author Christopher Hitchens). Debicki also does well with those moments of balance between calm and growing tension that makes a key effort in interest and grace. Branagh definitely seems to touch upon the "Bond villain" aspects a bit, right down to the attempt of a Russian accent and for what the film needs it goes alright in fatalistic interest. Others have their moments, such as an elusive Kapadia, but the real star proves to be in the staging of action, which for the most part is pretty good (sound mixing jokes aside, because the magic of subtitles makes me worry less), and I imagine that finding out more about the nature of those effects being created will be thought of just as much as folks who try to level out all the explanations about exactly how much Tenet makes/doesn't make sense. It is playing a game on us, and the way to win is to just sit back and not hurl at the ride. The opening opera sequence is quite a ram-shackling highlight, alongside a sequence that one gets to think about twice involving action. As a whole, it is a strange piece of ambitious entertainment, one that will strike at the heart of curiosity for those wanting something with a bit of thought placed into the trappings of action and sci-fi, although for others it will just seem opaque in the measure of its plot alongside other aspects; in short, one can call it the most intriguing film Nolan has ever made, or find it to be one of his lesser efforts - I find it to be right in the middle. If one needs a puzzle, sometimes one just needs to feel up to it to see how it all goes, and Tenet will certainly prove a curiosity for it.

Well, the year is up, and this happens to be the tenth review on New Year's Eve for Movie Night, which seems apt enough to mean covering a film from 2020 (a most quiet year for new releases when one focuses on everything else instead). Happy Holidays, and we will see each other again in 2021 for Season 11.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Gary Oldman (Commissioner James Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate / Talia al Ghul), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Matthew Modine (Foley), Ben Mendelsohn (John Daggett), Burn Gorman (Philip Stryver), Alon Aboutboul (Dr. Leonid Pavel), Juno Temple (Jen), Daniel Sunjata (Captain Jones), Chris Ellis (Father Reilly), Brett Cullen (Byron Gilley), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, and #980 - Dunkirk)

Review:
"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

Auteur filmmakers can do any genre, as long as they manage to cultivate films that are of their own design with distinct style and interesting consistency to make it a worthwhile experience to look for time and time again. Christopher Nolan rose to that occasion, doing so under the inspiration of wanting to be a filmmaker since he was a child with influences like Ridley Scott and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A graduate of University College London, he started making his own short films by the time he was 19 and made his first feature with the independently made Following (1998) that was followed up with breakthroughs with Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002) before being brought in to bring back Batman to the big screen. There must have been quite the high hype for a film like this, one that would prove the end of a trilogy of films that Nolan co-produced and co-wrote (with his brother Jonathan for the screenplay and David S. Goyer for the story) alongside direction (he has done writing for most of his features alongside directing, with this being his eighth feature film). Nolan was hesitant for a third film, only wanting to do one if it served satisfactory in its story (as opposed to being just a follow-up film). If the first film involved fear and the sequel involved chaos, Nolan wanted a film that would involve pain, and the main villain of each film seems to reflect that vision, which also seems to include making the films longer as well (if the first felt long at 140 minutes, try 165 with this one). Nolan was the second director to have directed an entire trilogy involving one superhero after Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, and it is clear to mention the success that has been done in capturing an epic of sweeping realism that drew upon certain Batman stories (such as Year One or The Long Halloween) that proved distinct in what they did for superhero films when compared to the various ones that came around since 2005 (or even more so by 2012). There are various comic books from the Batman series that this takes inspiration from, such as "Knightfall" (which had Bane pushing Batman to his limits), The Dark Knight Returns (an aged Batman returning to Gotham after several years), and "No Man's Land" (where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the country due to violence), although one major influence on the story was actually Charles Dickens' 1859 novel A Tale of Two Cities (detailing revolution that also happens to borrow lines from it in one of the last scenes).

I will admit that Nolan has done a well-placed achievement in his career, a definitive end to a series in its own vision of what Batman is as the last leg of an epic series that achieves most of what it sets out to do with scope and gravitas that ties as many ends as it does invite further discussion over the nature of such an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world that have villains that aren't necessarily just big foils to defeat but instead are ones that get under one's skin with coherence. I don't think of it as the best of the three films (The Dark Knight is inevitably an indelible achievement to surpass), but it definitely serves as one of the most interesting films of its year (or if one is more bold, its decade, which had a considerable amount of films based on comic books, but not many better than this). Bale certainly has come a long way in seven years in this role, one that requires an actor who can show numerous layers beyond just playing a millionaire playboy / dressing up as a bat and fighting crime in a deep voice. While it might have seemed a bit silly-sounding at first, I have warmed up to it because Bale does so well in pulling off this dual person that actually seems like three acts when faced with who he is to his close friends, the public at large, and perhaps his real self as Batman. He captures the struggle that comes with continuing to be defined by pain and loss to its logical conclusion with the time that he balances well on screen, where one doesn't really need too much of Batman to still be captivated by what it means to find one self again and become a knight of a city that needs it as opposed to a false ideal or kowtowing to fear or apathy. Caine lends the dutiful hand with sharp elegance and usefulness as one should expect from an anchor of sensibility like him. Oldman carries a mix of honesty with guilt and weariness that still reflects the sense of right and wrong and the choices that come in trying to fitting those goals for better or worse. Hathaway does fine with her role, reflecting differently from the others that had portrayed the role before her in past films with playful care that she modelled after the initial inspiration for the character in Hedy Lamarr. Hardy based his accent on a Romani gypsy (named Bartley Gorman), and it seems well-suited for one meant to be a sort of liberator of pain, one that ultimately does just well enough with serving the film in generating interest as a test of strength and mind, which I think works itself out really well despite maybe one small misgiving about the way the climax handles him; this plays into the other adversary lurking in plain sight that connects itself right back to the first film - Cotillard is a decent actress here and it is a decent twist, but it all somehow feels a bit too convenient to really close everything out neatly. Gordon-Levitt does fine here with generating idealism with instinct that never sparks a false note or seems too off for what is needed to set the film on course when with paired with Bale or Oldman. Freeman and the rest round out a useful cast that do what is needed in filling the depth of characters needed to fill the depth of the city or plot detailing. The film packs quite a wallop in action, executing itself with balance and consistency for capable action in such a distinct atmosphere that keeps itself on the edge with numerous situations and weaving of plot that keeps itself on track despite a length that could've proven bloated with a lesser director of style and substance. While it doesn't reach all the heights imposed by the first sequel to Batman Begins, it seals its legend of Batman as a symbol with conviction as a testament for practicality within the margins of comic book adaptation that honors its source material while closing the book with its own exclamation points as a useful story for the ages.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dunkirk (2017).

Review #980: Dunkirk.

Cast: 
Fionn Whitehead (Tommy), Tom Glynn-Carney (Peter), Jack Lowden (Collins), Harry Styles (Alex), Aneurin Barnard (Gibson), James D'Arcy (Colonel Winnant), Barry Keoghan (George), Kenneth Branagh (Commander Bolton), Cillian Murphy (Shivering Soldier), Mark Rylance (Mr. Dawson), and Tom Hardy (Farrier) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, and #062 - Batman Begins)

Review: 
I must admit, I did not know how long this film was going to be, in part because I had figured that a war film like this would be roughly two hours (or more), but as it turns out the film manages to run for 106 minutes; in any case, the movie (as stated by Nolan himself) is more of a suspense film than a war movie, but this is still a finely tuned film that achieves most (if not all of its goals). It shines especially on a technical level, from its structure to its editing to its cinematography, with the film having a great look and feel to it. The battles (along with the sequences in the water) are executed well as one would expect. It isn't a film that tries to show the horrors of war, but it does manage to have a lot of tension through the facial expressions of the characters along with sounds (such a ticking noise). The cast do a fine job, with the narratives each having something interesting to watch (aside from the tension that never lets up); Whitehead and the others within his narrative don't give any sort of great performance, but they are watchable enough to where one cares about their survival without having the film being about them (after all, we don't know any of the character's full name), and it works in delivering thrills in that regard; Rylance, Branagh and Murphy are fine standouts, delivering their roles with fine authority in the amount of time they have on screen. There is never a moment where you are taken out of the experience, it is an unrelenting film that approaches its subject matter with class and dignity (with the effects looking good as well). The best thing I can say about the film is that it is well executed in its vision by Nolan that surely will be up for some awards on a technical basis later in the year. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely a fine experience that is worth watching at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Batman Begins.

Review #062: Batman Begins.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul), Katie Holmes (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Watanabe (decoy Ra's Al Ghul), Mark Boone Junior (Flass), Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight and #055 - Inception)

Review
I find that this film is pretty good, for the most part. It successfully reboots the franchise (which died after the 1997 bomb Batman and Robin) with an origin story that reintroduces people to him, and sets the ball in motion for the sequel. I felt the acting was good, but there were some little gripes. For one, I found the coveted "throat voice" of Christian Bale very, very unconvincing (what's next, Superman having the voice to disguise himself? It would be better then his glasses trick...). I also felt the action was jumbled, so you couldn't really tell what was going on. Scarecrow actually doesn't get a lot of screen time, and he's taken down so easily. And my final little gripe is how the Tumbler looks so...ugly. Is this the Batmobile, or a tank? Look I know there's a scene that says its a tank, but how is this a "mobile"? But nonetheless, the film is good, for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Inception.

Review #055: Inception.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Dom Cobb), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Arthur), Ellen Page (Ariadne), Tom Hardy (Eames), Ken Watanabe (Mr. Saito), Dileep Rao (Yusuf), Cillian Murphy (Robert Fischer), Tom Berenger (Peter Browning), Marion Cotillard (Mal Cobb), Pete Postlethwaite (Maurice Fischer), and Michael Caine (Professor Stephen Miles) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight)

Review
The film is...Weird. It's creative yes, but I just couldn't get into it enough. I felt the film wanted to bore me so I literally could dream. At roughly two-and-a-half hours long, it's difficult to watch all of it. I give marks for solid acting and good action though.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Dark Knight.

Review #054: The Dark Knight.

Cast
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Gary Oldman (James Gordon), Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) Directed by Christopher Nolan.

Review
This film is the sequel to Batman Begins (which I will review later on this show), and it is better then the first one. But is it better then the 1989 version? I personally think the 1989 version wins on its plot, it's Batman (the 1989 Batman doesn't have sore throat), and just being slightly being better. This film introduces the Joker again to us, and he's...pretty creepy. Sadistic in mind, Ledger plays the role extremely well. I thought Dent was fine, but he was under shadowed by everything. He's the addition to the plot that doesn't really have much influence (as Two-Face anyway) The action is good, and the plot is fine. This film is great, as in my opinion it rivals the 1989 version for "best Batman film", which is saying quite a lot.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.