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

Gran Torino (2008) ***

Clint Eastwood directed this film, in which he plays a crusty, old man named Walt Kowalski. Walt has just lost his wife, he isn't close with his kids, and he can't stand the Asian Hmong people who have moved into his neighborhood. The Korean war vet thinks so little of his neighbors, that when Thao, the boy next door, tries to steal Walt's classic Ford Gran Torino, the act actually serves as a window to improve Walt's relationship with them. Walt may be a grumpy, old racist, but he has the fearlessness that only old people can, and rarely do, have. He stands up to the local gang members, helping out first Thao, and then Thao's sister, Sue.

Walt becomes a reluctant, neighborhood hero, and he slowly warms to Sue and Thao, eventually taking on a father-figure role for Thao. Unfortunately, the teen gang won't leave Thao alone, and the violence between them, Thao, and Walt escalates.

“Gran Torino” reminded me a lot of “Million Dollar Baby” in that it seems good while you're watching it, but you feel a bit sheepish afterward. It isn't as trite as “Million Dollar Baby,” but it definitely gets overly sentimental at times, and Walt's transformation seems particularly far-fetched. The movie is fun and funny at times, however, and it's fun watching the old badass stand up to the gang members. This is the guy who played Dirty Harry and Josey Wales, after all.

My biggest complaint, as a car enthusiast, is that the movie doesn't spend enough time on the actual Gran Torino. It looks like a sweet muscle car, but Walt never even drives it. I think if you had to choose, you'd take the car over the movie.

3 stars out of 5

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) **

Of all the sub-franchises in the Marvel Comic Movie Universe, I find Ant-Man to be the most true to the comic book spirit. This is not a complement. With its hackneyed plots and characters, overwrought emotional scenes (Ant Man/Scott just wants to be with his daughter!), and ridiculous scientific foundation, you can almost see the movie springing right out of a six-panel, color comic book. That does not make it good.

First of all, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” was released after “Avengers: Infinity War,” but it takes place before the events of “Infinity War.” I can only assume this was done for business/marketing reasons, and it seems to serve no artistic purpose. (Addendum: I watched "Infinity War," and "Ant Man and the Wasp" may actually take place more or less at the same time as "Infinity War.") The film starts out with Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) finishing up 2 years of house arrest for his role in the big airport battle from “Captain America: Civil War.” Lang is trying to play it straight so that he can continue to see his daughter. This means no more ant suit, and no contact with Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who invented the ant suit, or with Pym's daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly).

Because of Lang's exploits with Captain America, Hank and Hope are on the run. Despite being fugitives, they continue their experiments, hoping to retrieve Hank's wife, Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), from the quantum realm. When Scott Lang has a dream about Janet, he breaks his parole by calling Hank to report it. Next thing Lang knows, Hope has kidnapped him, putting his parole in jeopardy, and involving him in their experiments. Complicating things, Hank's quantum research has drawn the attention of a shady arms dealer as well as a mysterious villain who can walk through walls. Soon, Lang is shrinking and growing again in an ant suit, while Hope wears a winged suit as the Wasp.

I wanted to love “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” The cast is stellar. Paul Rudd is charming as always. Judy Greer, as Lang's ex-wife, and Bobby Cannavale, as her new husband, light up the screen, even though they don't have big roles here. Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne, who plays Pym's old scientific partner, lend as much gravitas as they can. Unfortunately, everyone is weighed down by a lazy script that, even by comic-book movie standards, insults our intelligence. The characters' motivations only barely make sense, and that's only in the setting of truly stupid explanations for the science in the story. As Lang says at one point, “Do you guys just say 'quantum' in front of everything?”

The big deal about “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is supposed to be that it's the first Marvel comic movie to feature a female superhero's name in the title. The problem is that the Wasp just isn't that compelling a character. Evangeline Lilly looks good, she fights well, and she hits all of her lines and marks, but I can't imagine going to see a movie simply titled “The Wasp.”

2 stars out of 5

Bound (1996) ***

In this neo-noir, the first film from the Wachowski brothers (of Matrix fame), Jennifer Tilly plays a gangster's moll, while Nina Gershon plays a handywoman doing renovations on the apartment next door. The two women fall for each other, have some hot, lesbian sex, then hatch a plot to steal the gangster's money.

It's a simple story that manages to transcend the miserable acting of its 2 female leads. These ladies look great naked and sweaty, but they can't act their way out of a wet paper bag. Their delivery is so bad that their clothed scenes are unintentionally funny. “Bound” is known for having realistic lesbian sex, not so much for having realistic dialogue between its 2 stars. Fortunately, Joe Pantoliano, in his first lead role, makes his gangster character funny, menacing, and smart. He basically saves the movie, along with the able direction of the Wachowskis. The film is perfectly paced, and you can't help rooting for these low-lifes as they go through various machinations of deceit and betrayal.

I liked the plot of “Bound” enough that I feel like this movie is ripe for a remake. It's a standard, noir setup, with the twist being that Nina Gershon's interloper is female. With a couple of better actresses, this story is timeless enough to make a great film. Until then, “Bound” is free on Amazon Prime, and it's worth a watch. Come for the sex scenes, and stay for the noir!

3 stars out of 5

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) **1/2

I haven't really kept up with the Thor movies in the Marvel Universe. It just seems like such a dumb concept to throw a bunch of Norse gods in with a bunch of modern superheroes, although I guess mythology and comic books aren't all that different. I did eventually see the first Thor movie, from 2011, and I have to admit, it was more entertaining than it should have been. “Thor: Ragnarok” is on Netflix now, so I decided to give it a chance.

“Ragnarok” finds Thor returning home to Asgard to find Odin missing, with Loki impersonating Odin and sitting the throne. Presumably, this is due to something that happened in “Thor: The Dark World,” which I didn't see. In any event, Thor makes Loki go with him to find their father, Odin, and when they do find him, he is dying. He warns the brothers that with his death, their older sister, Hela, will return. Hela (Cate Blanchett) is the goddess of death, and stronger than both her brothers together. She destroys Thor's hammer and returns to Asgard, determined to turn its power upon the universe and kill all who oppose her.

Thor and Loki do what they can to stop Hela, each in his own way. While Loki cozies up to the wealthy baron of a trash planet, Thor tries to recruit the Hulk and a Valkyrie to his cause.

Without his hammer, Mjolnir, Thor feels powerless, and he must figure out how to summon his strength without the tool he has depended on for so long. Thor is a god, but his sense of loss and diminishment here is something most humans can identify with. There's some good material to reflect on here, but then the “Thor” movies aren't really designed to make you think. They are about humor and action, and “Ragnarok” supplies a steady stream of both, in numbing proportions that almost make you forget that this film just recycles the story line from the original “Thor” movie: Thor loses his hammer and must figure out who he is without it.

Everyone in “Ragnarok” says their lines and hits their marks, but there's a palpable feeling that the franchise has overstayed its welcome. Mark Ruffalo (who plays Bruce Banner) seems a little embarrassed to be here, and even Tom Hiddleston (as Loki) seems like he may be having a long talk with his agent soon. The extras who play the humans living in Ragnarok look absolutely miserable, as their only job is to cower and huddle together. Fortunately, Jeff Goldblum is a good sport and puts some hilarity into his portrayal of the Grandmaster. The other bright spot is the Valkyrie, played by Tessa Thompson. She's super-hot and has a good time with her drunken-warrior role.

I'm one of the few people in the free world who hasn't seen “Avengers: Infinity War” yet, so I don't know if anything from this film winds up being important for the final Avengers movie. If Thor is still hammer-less in “Infinity War”, then “Ragnarok” explains why, but otherwise I think this is one you could easily skip. It's not nearly as good as one of the Captain America or Guardians of the Galaxy movies, although I suppose it holds up fairly well compared to everything else streaming on Netflix right now.

2.5 stars out of 5

Incredibles 2 (2018) ****1/2

Way back in 2004, Pixar introduced us to the Parrs, a nice, suburban family who happened to have super powers. Bob, the former Mr. Incredible, was super-strong. Helen used to be Elastigirl, with the ability to stretch her body almost limitlessly. Kids Violet and Dash had powers, too, but they weren't allowed to showcase them. No one was. Superheroes had been outlawed, so the Parrs lived a secret suburban existence of quiet desperation, until a sinister threat arose that required the whole family to use their powers. “The Incredibles” was a fun, funny story,with an Ayn Randian message about excellence.

It took 14 years, but we finally have a sequel. The story picks up right where the first film left off, with the Parrs preparing to take on a tunneling super-villain called The Underminer. Their battle with The Underminer creates a certain amount of property damage, which does nothing to help the public attitude toward Supers. There's still one member of the public who is pro-Super, however. The billionaire CEO of a telecom company, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk), explains to Bob (Craig T. Nelson), Helen (Holly Hunter), and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) that their legal problems are all a matter of perception. He believes that he can change that perception with all his TV stations and with the right Super, who he believes is Elastigirl.

Deavor and his sister, Evelyn (Catherine Keener) wire Elastigirl for sound and video and put her on crime-watch in the big city. Almost immediately, a threat arises in the form of the Screenslaver, a Luddite, terrorist hacker who can hypnotize anyone watching a screen, which means pretty much anyone. Helen repeatedly thwarts the Screenslaver's plans, and her heroics turn the tide of public opinion in favor of supers. You can guess the rest.

That's the one weakness of this sequel: You really can guess the rest. Other than the rather predictable plot, though, I loved it! “Incredibles 2” is hilarious and action-packed, with great voice acting. Writer/director Brad Bird has a particularly good time with baby Jack-Jack's new powers. There's a sequence where Jack-Jack takes on a plundering raccoon that could be its own little, hilarious short film.

The strength of “Incredibles 2”, as with “The Incredibles” and really most Pixar movies, is that it doesn't insult our intelligence. It may be a cartoon, but its characters and plot aren't cartoonish. The movie strives for characters with believable motivations and a plot that is not exactly believable, but is at least sensible. This film has the courage to let its villain, the Screenslaver, make some valid points. People are addicted to their screens. People do consistently sacrifice their privacy for the newest, most convenient internet apps. People do yearn for an easy way out of their problems, which, the Screenslaver points out, is why they are so eager to bring the Supers back.

The great thing about cartoon characters is that they don't age. It's been 14 years since the original “The Incredibles”, but the Parrs don't look a day older. Let's not wait another 14 years, though! Pixar, if you can come up with another compelling story to tell in this universe, let's see it! Maybe they should make a Frozone movie. Now that would be Incredible!

4.5 stars out of 5

Tag (2018) ***1/2

“We don't stop playing because we get old; we get old because we stop playing.” This is the motto of the 5 friends who, since they were kids on the playground, have been playing Tag. Now they are grown men with careers and families, living in different cities, but every year they spend the month of May trying to tag each other. They will sneak up and tag each other on the job, at the gym, at a funeral, wherever. For Chilli (Jake Johnson), Callahan (Jon Hamm), Hoagie (Ed Helms), and Sable (Hannibal Buress), the game is what has kept them close over the years. Jerry (Jeremy Renner) is part of the game, too, but his distinction is that he has never been tagged. He's too fast, too athletic, too smart, and maybe just a little too focused on winning the game. While Tag has kept the other guys close, it has created some distance between Jerry and his friends.

Now, the guys think they have their best chance ever to tag Jerry. He is getting married, which means they have a guaranteed place and time that they know where he will be. He hasn't even invited his friends to the wedding,but they find out about it anyway and converge on their hometown to finally bring down the Tag champion.

“Tag” falls flat when it tries to get serious, but it flies high when it is having fun. The cast is stellar, including supporting actresses Isla Fisher and Leslie Bibb. There's a story in there about friendship over the years, and yada yada yada, but what this movie is really about is hilarious physical comedy. The action is fast and furious, and it made me wonder who did the stunts. The answer in some cases is the actors themselves, which is how Jeremy Renner wound up breaking both arms on the set. All those Avengers movies, and he winds up getting hurt doing a comedy!

So, the thing about “Tag” is that it's based on a true story. The Wall Street Journal ran a story in 2013 about 4 grown men who play tag every February, and the crazy lengths they go to to tag each other. The movie “Tag” includes some footage of these goofballs at the end. They aren't as fit or as handsome as the actors who play them, but they look like they are genuinely having a good time. You will, too, if you watch “Tag.”

3.5 stars out of 5