Dunkirk (2017) ****

The Battle of Dunkirk is probably way more famous in the U.K. than here in the U.S. It predates the American entry into WWII, and it was a defeat for the Allies. Here in the U.S,, we only like to think about winning! For the Brits, Dunkirk marked a low point in the war, but it also stands as an example of British resolve. Driven to the sea by the Germans, hundreds of thousands of British and French troops were trapped on the French coast, waiting to be evacuated to England. The British navy mustered every ship they could, including civilian vessels, across the English channel to save their men.

“Dunkirk” tells the story of that evacuation from 3 different perspectives, with 3 different timelines. That may sound confusing, but it really isn't when you watch it. Fionn Whitehead plays an infantry soldier among many others on the beach, trying to survive German bombing runs and get a spot on a ship home. His story plays out over several days. Mark Rylance plays an English civilian who volunteers himself and his boat to cross the channel and help ferry soldiers across. His tale plays out over a single day. Then there's Tom Hardy, who plays a fighter pilot sent to harass the German planes who are slaughtering his countrymen. He does this for as long as he has fuel, which is only a couple of hours.

I don't know how realistic the battle scenes in “Dunkirk” are, but they certainly look realistic. Director Christopher Nolan really puts you into the action. You can really feel the helplessness of the soldiers on the beach as they duck down during each German bombing run. You can feel the panic of the men trapped in a sinking ship. The air battle sequences put you right in the cockpit, looking through the cross-hairs at enemy planes.

Likewise, the characters in the film are allowed to express the full range of human response to the battle. If this film had been made in the 1950's, it would have portrayed all the Allied fighters as heroes. Had it been made in the late 60's or the 70's, it may have been more of an anti-war film, portraying them as either victims or villains. “Dunkirk” allows its characters to react to the situation like real human beings. Hardy's fighter pilot and Rylance's boat captain are true heroes. The foot soldiers on the beach, who are in the most helpless and terrifying situation, are simply doing the best they can. Sometimes they demonstrate bravery, sometimes cowardice. They can be magnanimous, but they also sometimes cheat to try to get themselves a ride home. They do some things that they will never be proud of, and that's a reality of war.

Making a film about a historical event is always fraught, as there is reality to compare it to. I'm usually leery of historical films, as a movie has a way of replacing historical facts with drama. In this case, there is also a generally well-regarded 1958 film with the same name. Nonetheless, Christopher Nolan's “Dunkirk” seems to hold its own. It's a gripping and ultimately poignant war story that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

4 stars out of 5

Constantine (2005) *

I hesitated to watch this one, mostly because it fails the Keanu Reeves test. The test is simple: If Keanu Reeves is in it, don't watch it! It showed up on Netflix, however, and I was looking for an action movie to watch while working out. The movie is also based on a famous graphic novel from the 90's, “Hellblazer,” so I gave it a chance.

Reeves plays John Constantine, a psychic detective who investigates demonic possessions and other supernatural phenomena. He gets drawn into the age-old battle between Heaven and Hell. Demons aren't supposed to cross into our dimensional plane, and when they do, Constantine casts them back to Hell. He is apparently destined for Hell, himself, and hoping to earn himself a spot in Heaven.

I tend to be pretty hard on Keanu Reeves, and his acting in “Constantine” is as wooden as ever, but truth be told, no actor could have saved this movie. The plot and backstory are a ridiculous mess, mixing and twisting theologies into a bizarre mix of action-hero one-liners and Christian faith. The whole thing is best summed up by Constantine's crucifix-shaped slug-gun. “Constantine” occasionally attempts a bit of sly humor, but Reeves is not able to pull it off. If this were intended to be simply a mindless bit of guilty-pleasure, I could respect that, but “Constantine” doesn't even pull that off. Rachel Weisz stars as a police detective working with Constantine, but in this R-rated feature, not only does she not have a sex scene with Reeves, she doesn't even strip down to her underwear at any point. I would say the one bright spot in the film is Tilda Swinton, who is quite convincing as the androgynous angel Gabriel.

So that's the best thing I can say about “Constantine”: It's hard to tell if Tilda Swinton is a man or a woman. The only reason I made it through is that I was exercising. The action and music were adequate for that purpose, only. I can't imagine watching this on the couch. If there is a Hell, I'll bet they have tv screens everywhere, showing this movie on a continual loop.

1 star out of 5

It (2017) ****

In my mind, Stephen King's 1986 novel, It, stands as one of his best works of horror. It tells the story of a group of misfit friends from the fictional Derry, Maine. Derry is a remarkably thriving, small town, with a history of a surprising number of accidents, murders, and disappearances. These friends discover that the success and the horror at the town's core can be traced to an ancient, shape-shifting creature that feeds on fear. It often appears to children as a murderous clown named Pennywise. The friends band together to defeat It, and then years later they return to Derry as adults to fight It again.

We've already had one film version of “It.” 1990's TV miniseries featured actor Tim Curry as Pennywise the Clown, to decidedly mixed reviews. I haven't seen that version, but this was before the modern Golden Age of tv, so I'm thinking I would probably be disappointed. Fortunately, the 2017 film version is excellent. The teenage actors are outstanding, including Finn Wolfhard, from “Stranger Things,” as the smart-alecky Richie, and the striking Sophia Lillis, as Beverly. Bill Skarsgard brings the menace and dark humor as Pennywise, a truly scary monster.

No movie is a true re-creation of a book, but this version of “It” does a pretty nice job capturing the spirit of the novel. The biggest change director Andy Muschietti makes is that he doesn't jump back and forth between the characters' teenage and adult years the way the novel did. These flash-backs and flash-forwards were effective in the book, illustrating one of Stephen King's recurring themes of your past coming back to haunt you. As a movie, this probably would have been unworkable, requiring them to cut out massive chunks of the story. Instead, this film sticks with the kids' narrative, which fits pretty nicely into the length of a feature film. (This is Chapter 1, and Chapter 2, scheduled to come out September 2019, will tell the story of the kids' return, 27 years later. It will feature heavy-hitters like Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader. )

The movie also cuts down on the graphic sexual content. This was fine with me, as I found the teen-bonding orgy in the book to be gratuitously creepy. What it doesn't skimp on is the horror. This is a scary movie, full of blood and jump-scares. Muschietti doesn't just rely on gore, though. The film does its best to capture the pervasive sense of dread from the book, and it partially succeeds.

The film “It” stays true to the novel in that the greatest source of horror is that there are human monsters in Derry just as bad as It, including adults who knowingly avert their gazes from the horrors happening to these kids. “It” taps into one of the elemental human fears, which is, “No one is coming to save us.” It's a well-founded fear.

4 stars out of 5

Tully (2018) ****

From the director Jason Reitman, who brought us “Young Adult,” and writer Diablo Cody (“Juno”) comes another Charlize Theron vehicle. In “Tully,” Theron plays Marlo, a former free spirit, now with a husband, 2 kids in private school, and a late-life baby on the way. The downside to having a life full of blessings like these is that they can be exhausting, but if you don't feel bursting with gratitude on a daily basis, you feel guilty. Marlo is exhausted and guilty, and once she delivers her baby, she sinks fully into postpartum depression.

Sounds like a fun movie, right? Well, at this point in the film, the only thing making it watchable is Marlo's wicked sense of humor and the hilariously clueless reactions it gets from her family and acquaintances.

Enter Tully the night-nanny (Mackenzie Davis). What's a night-nanny, you ask? It's a nanny who comes to your house around 10 p.m. and spends the night taking care of your newborn. When the kid wakes up hungry, the night-nanny will either feed him a bottle or bring him to your room so you can breast-feed him while you are half-asleep. Then you get to roll back over and return to full sleep, while the night-nanny burps the kid, puts him back to bed, and straightens up the house. A night-nanny is the kind of help Marlo's rich brother and his pretentious wife hire, but she turns out to be just the thing for Marlo. The 25-year-old Tully has all the energy and enthusiasm that Marlo lacks, and she takes care of Marlo as much as she does the baby. Soon, Marlo is looking and acting like her old self again, but (You guessed it!) there turns out to be more to Tully than meets the eye.

Fortunately, this isn't one of those “Hand That Rocks the Cradle” stories, where Tully winds up trying to steal Marlo's baby or husband or whatever. “Tully” is a story about coping when you have the life you thought you wanted. It's about being there for your family without forgetting who you are, and who you used to be. It starts out looking like a downer, but it's really funny and really poignant, and definitely worth watching.

4 stars out of 5