Tenet [IMAX]

 

Expectations were high for this film given the immense success that was Dunkirk and how it was the first major blockbuster to hit the cinema since COVID struck. But Christopher Nolan's time-travelling, heist-flick, action-thriller failed to lived up to those expectations. 

Granted, the timey-wimey concept was interesting. However, the execution was tedious and predictable, and for fans familiar with the sci-fi genre or time-travel trope, it felt unexciting and rote. Nolan never delivered upon the promise of the first act and the film never got more exciting than the prologue. The clunky dialogue and heavy-handed monologuing did not help. 

And to add salt to the wound, this was perhaps Nolan's most emotionally hollow and contrived film. There was absolutely no emotional weight or purpose in this whole 150 minutes. Perhaps he should have leaned more into the bromance and banter between John David Washington and Robert Pattinson who had good chemistry together, and ditch the saviour-complex, with a hint of romance, between Washington and Elizabeth Debicki. 

Washington was a standout in his breakout film BlacKkKlansman, but here, although he managed to hold his own, he seemed overwhelmed by the story and never really shone through as an individual. He was charismatic at times but dull more often. He really did not appear like he was having fun.

Pattinson, on the other hand, seemed to be enjoying his role. Pattinson is a much better actor than most people give him credit for and his performance here proved that his Batman could be something worth anticipating. 

As for Debicki she deserved so much more. She tried her best but the script and the directing failed her. Her character was so shallowly written and her motivations so contrived that she was essentially nothing more than a pretty face face masquerading as a plot device. At least she and Kenneth Branagh played well opposite each other. More than what we can say for her chemistry withWashington. Ever since she broke out in The Night Manager and The Kettering Incident, she seemed to have been typecast, i.e. the tall, fragile-looking blonde that had inner strength that was yet to be discovered. Hopefully, as the next Princess Diana she can once again shin. 

Nolan really has no idea how to write for women. Which could explain why his films always have so little women in them. And if they are there, they are either tropes or used to subvert expectations, e.g. Dimple Kapadia in this film. There really was no reason why Washington's or Pattinson's characters could not have been female.

Tenet absolutely failed the Bechdel Test. Also, other than Washington, there was also no other BIPOC character of note throughout the film.

Nolan might have to learn a few things from his brother and sister-in-law, Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy, the duo behind the HBO series Westworld, or even James Cameron, and consider allowing his ideas to be turned into a mini-series or a multi-part film franchise. With more time and breathing space, and better writing, Tenet could have been so much better. The concept could have been more richly explored and the characters deepened and their complexities fleshed out. Look at the Netflix series Dark. Similar concept, so much more better executed over three seasons.

And Nolan should also consider having a co-writer to help write better dialogue rather than the clunky and clanky pesudo-science, pop-philosophy and oblique references that peppered throughout the film.

Having said all that, there were things to like about the film. The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema was excellent. The IMAX-shot sequences were great and the final climax - for all its messiness - was amazingly shot. The editing by Jennifer Lame who did Hereditary was top notch. And of course the score by Ludwig Goransson really helped to drive the film forward and through the dull patches. There is a chance that they could get some awards recognition in these three categories and also for Special Effects and Sound Design. 

Watching this film in IMAX was great, especially for the prologue and some of the action sequences like the final climax. And the sound system in an IMAX theatre really helped with the bass-heavy score. However, given the 2.5 hours film length and mediocrity of the film, that extra cost may not have been so worth it. But at least it was fun to be back in a cinema, only wished it had been better.

1917 [IMAX]

The camera work for this film was astounding. Just give Roger Deakins his Best Cinematography award now. Together with the superbly edited pseudo-one shot (or actually more like two long tracking shots), Director Sam Mendes and his co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns have crafted an immersive and thoroughly exciting 2-hour war film. It was relentless in its action, with non-stop excitement and fantastically tense scenes. However, that being said the moments of quiet and tenderness that peppered the film ended up being well-earned and well-deserving; these quieter scenes allowed the film and the audience to breathe which was essential given the rapid pacing propelled by the long shot film.

The story itself was simple and Mendes told it in a relatively straightforward three-act structure with one large action set-piece/sequence each. However, one of the biggest fault in the storytelling was the obstacles that was laid before our protagonists which at times seemed rather contrived. Then again, we are watching a film and cinematic cliches sometimes have to occur, but that does then diminishes the film's originality.

Mendes was smart to cast George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman in the lead roles, because they were good actors that could carry the dramatic and emotional weight of the film, but also being lesser known, their visage do not distract too much from the storytelling and the technical accomplishments. This was unlike the big British stars who were cast in otherwise glorified cameo roles that kind of distracted and brings you out - albeit just temporarily - of the story.

And MacKay was excellent throughout. He gave one of the best performances of 2019 and especially given the difficulty to emote "spontaneously" given the long-shot execution. With this and Captain Fantastic, MacKay's star is definitely rising.

Chapman was also a solid buddy for McKay but he was definitely the more supporting role than lead as MacKay was.

Thomas Newman's score was also a beautiful match for the film. It drove and propelled the action, and helped to underscore the emotional beats. It was nearly present throughout the whole film and any moments of absence was used to highlight a situation.

But nothing beats Deakins incredible cinematography! Sure, initially it was quite distracting to figure out where the cuts/edits would be, but once we got past the opening sequence, everything seemed quite natural. This one-shot technique really helped to lend immediacy and urgency to the story. At some points, it was literally breath-taking as the action unfolded. And cued with Newman's score, the film was a visual and aural pleasure.

The film should definitely be watched in a big screen and it was entirely formatted to fill the screen for IMAX which was superb!

This film is going to sweep up tons of nominations. It is definitely will be in the running for the Oscar for Best Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Editing, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. Unfortunately, it will be a long shot for McKay for Best Actor (that #5 spot will be a tough battle).

Ford v Ferrari [IMAX]

This was a real crowd-pleaser of a dad/bro-movie. It was a great racing film that straddled both box-office appeal and critical adulation. James Mangold's direction was excellent and the editing was tremendous, as was the sound design and editing (a contender for Oscar nominations for all three fields). All that together, resulted in adrenaline-pumping, nail-bitingly exciting racing scenes that was superb in an IMAX theatre. However, none of that would have mattered if not for the film's fantastic leading men. Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale exuded undeniable charisma and anchored the film with their naturalistic, lived-in performance. Their easy, bromantic chemistry was palpable and authentic, and that was key to maintaining the audience's attention throughout the entire 152 minutes. Although, at times, the film did feel long but that feeling usually dissipated once the car-scenes kicked in. However, the real breakout star of the film was the natural - and naturally sizzling - chemistry between the Walsh Bale and his on-screen wife, the lovely, Irish Caitriona Balfe. They both should do a film together. And, mark my words, Noah Jupe will be the next Tom Holland.

Mangold scored a critically acclaimed film with his last film, Logan, and he continued his streak with Ford v Ferrari. He smartly cemented the story on the two men, rather than the titular two companies, and, with his writers, found the emotional resonance of their characters. Bale had the more emotionally-complex arc whereas Damon's character, having not much of a backstory or actors other than Bale to act off, had the less emotionally-charged role even though he seemed more like the lead actor to Bale's lead/supporting (both actors will be entering the Lead Actors race, though I'd bet Bale might get the nod more than Damon).

The driving scenes and the races were the secondary stars of the film, and absolute kudos to Mangold and his creative team. The editing, sound design and sound editing were fabulous. The IMAX really helped in this regard too. They were exciting to say the least.

Bale, in a rare, non-American and non-physically transformative role - other than a constant hunch - was great to watch as we see his character grow and evolve and even mature a little bit. His scenes with Balfe were an unexpected highlight. These two actors should star in a WWII romantic epic.

Damon, with less to do, actually succeeded in his convincing, all-American hero depiction of Carroll Shelby as he played off mostly Bale and Tracey Letts (hilarious!) and Josh Lucas (a convincing and conniving villain).

Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders scored the film beautifully, alternating between jazzy/bluesy notes for the quieter more emotional-heavy scenes, and exhilarating bass/strings-heavy sets for the action sequences.

Phedon Papamichael was the cinematographer, and he got some great shots especially of the racing and the night scenes.

This was a highly enjoyable and entertaining film, with great acting, good laughs, exciting races/drive sequences and a good story. One of the best racing film since Ron Howard's 2013 Rush with Chris Hemswoth and Daniel Bruhl. Definitely worth it to catch on the big screen and the IMAX, and a sure contender for below-the-line oscars; Bale and Damon are also in the contention for Best Actor, whereas Best Film and Director nods may be a bit harder to get.

Terminator: Dark Fate [IMAX]

This was a genuinely fun action-adventure movie. Great set pieces with excellent action sequences and choreography by director Tim Miller, and bolstered by a good action soundtrack by Junkie XL, it really did set the heart and adrenaline rushing (that was a good car chase!). However, for maximum entertainment, do check your brain and logic at the door.

The much simpler and straightforward story, compared to the most recent few installments, still defied logic and basic common sense, but who really need that if all you are waiting for was the next action scene. The writing could be sharper and smarter, and they could have actual female writers in that large writing team of theirs to write proper dialogue for the three female leads. Nonetheless, kudos to James Cameron and Miller for actually having three strong female leads in the first place.

Miller's action direction was fantastic and he has a great eye for it. The action scenes were smooth and unchaotic, but when it came to the dramatic beats the film just grind to a halt. And you find yourself waiting impatiently for Miller to set up for the next big set piece. Compared to Deadpool, Miller lacked a good script and charismatic lead actor/character to carry the downbeats.

Admittedly, all five leads are definitely not going to get any acting awards, but at least they were entertaining and did what the role and story required of them. And it will be unlikely any of them, or the film, will get nominated for a Razzie.

A kick-ass Linda Hamilton was an absolute great fun to watch.

Mackenzie Davis has the built to be intimidating and the excellent fight direction by Miller showed that she did appear to do most of the scenes herself, but she lacked screen presence and charisma.

Similarly, Natalie Reyes was not as convincing in her role, especially in the latter half of the film when the predictable "twist" was revealed.

As for the boys, Arnold Schwarzenegger's participation was always welcomed in this franchise, But at least in this installment he was actually more relevant to the narrative and not just shoehorned in for fan-service. Furthermore, his self-referential mockery was less grating and seemed more thoughtful than usual.

Lastly, was our villain, Gabriel Luna as the Rev-9. Man, it was great to have a really bad-ass villain that seemed unstoppable but Luna lacked Robert Patrick's apathetic nonchalance that made the T-1000 fearsome and scary.

Junkie XL's action score was great to propel and energise the sequences, but in the down-moments, it seemed rather generic and flat.

This film should definitely be watched on a big screen for full enjoyment but IMAX was not really necessary. And 128 minutes later, I would not mind a sequel to find out where the story goes next.

Ad Astra [IMAX]

A film about one man’s search for the meaning of his existence and his place in Life, and also about the relationship with his father and how parental influences affect us. A meditative, philosophical contemplation disguised as a space-opera action-adventure by James Gray in his most accessible film to date, think First Man by way of The Tree of Life with touches of Gravity and Solaris, and glimpses of Interstellar. Brad Pitt, in possibly his best film role to date, gave an engaging, immersive and sincere performance that was highly nuanced and incredibly affecting. A superb supporting cast, especially Ruth Negga, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland and Liv Tyler, with stunningly gorgeous cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema and excellent music by Max Richter, make Ad Astra a clear, all-categories Oscar contender.

Gray directed and co-wrote this film which in essence was a simple story of boy looking for father. But through the 2-hours, we got an exploration into the boy and the man he became. The voice-overs may often be an easy - and cheap - trick to help propel narrative and expose a character’s emotional drive, but here, Gray effectively integrates organically most of the VOs into the story. However, it really was Pitt who sold the authenticity and sincerity of those moments. As Gray directed the tight close-ups of Pitt’s chiseled jaws, Pitt’s eyes were emoting and expressing the hell out of his monologues (think Elizabeth Moss’ June/Offred in those The Handmaid’s Tale close ups).

The film itself was incredibly well-paced. From an exciting prologue that deftly introduced our hero, it swiftly moved into the main narrative. Big set pieces followed one another swiftly that were brilliantly shot and edited to give the needed adrenaline surges and serotonin relieves. Backstory and character motivations were also smartly interlaced throughout without breaking the pace nor the momentum. Editors John Axelrad and Lee Haugen did a tremendous job!

Pitt was outstanding. Together with his work on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019 is proving to be his comeback year. And he is easily in contention for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor nominations. Although the win might more easily come from the latter depending on how the rest of the year unfolds. Pitt’s handsomeness was neither distracting nor a factor in his character. Yes, Gray focused a lot on Pitt’s face - he is almost always in a space suit with/without a helmet - but it is to Pitt’s credit that he sold it. We were immersed only in his character’s journey and experience, Pitt the actor sinks into the background. We sometimes forget that Pitt gave us 12 Monkeys, Benjamin Button, The Tree of Life, Burn After Reading and Moneyball - a career that has spanned almost 30 years and a multitude of different characters.

Negga, now finally done with Preacher, can start leveraging her Oscar nomination and venture into films. Her minimal screen time was both powerful and magnetic.

Jones and Sutherland, the old stewards, did some scenery chewing but never more than required. Their scenes with Pitt tended to support and not steal the spotlight from him.

Tyler, coming onto the film scene once every few years, was effective and still as beautiful. A great, ?intentional, throwback to Armageddon.

The cinematography by van Hoytema was gorgeous, echoing his works on Interstellar\ and Dunkirk. Those wide angle moments were sublime and the interior shots were claustrophobic when necessary but oddly open when required. That opening scene and the scenes on Mars and the climatic set piece were outstanding.

Richter scored the music and it was mood and atmospheric-appropriate. Not excessively rousing or orchestrated, nor new and imaginative, but more subtle and internalised; very closely tied to the emotional landscape of Pitt’s character.

Simply put, this was a great film. IMAX was definitely worth it and a repeat viewing is not out of the question.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters [IMAX/3D]

This film was the definition of bad writing, illogical plotting, over-acting - on top of bad acting! - and  terrible directing, but if you go in expecting all that, accept it and then embrace it, the monsters will make it worth it. The kaiju fights were spectacular, loud, exciting, dynamic - if only a touch messy (which could also have been aggravated by the 3D-induced dimming) - and actually satisfying. Take away the distracting humans and their nonsensical, boring storyline, cut the running time by 20% and it might actually give Pacific Rim: Uprising (not the original!) a run for its money.

Michael Dougherty directed and co-wrote Godzilla: KOTM and maybe they should have let Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2014 Godzilla, continued on the franchise. Dougherty, and his cinematographer Lawrence Sher, had some great shots, especially when they go wide, but otherwise, his penchant for extreme close-ups were bordering on comical and ridiculous. He ain't no Barry Jenkins.

And as the director/writer, there should absolutely be no excuse for the total disregard for logic and sensibility on translation from script to screen. Furthermore, it was inexcusable to execute, and edit a film, to the point where the suspense of belief becomes so stark that it takes the audience out of the experience.

There really was no reason why we should be interrupted from a massively entertaining kaiju fight to indulge in some hollow, over-wrought, predictable, badly written and over-acted excuse for human drama.

Which then brings us to the actors.

Kyle Chandler is a treasure, but it seems that his talent may be more suited to the small screen than the big. This was possibly one of his worse acting showcase ever. He deserves a Razzie for this. Absolutely over-acting in every scene and moment, with nary an ounce of believable emotion. Come on, this is the guy that gave us Coach Taylor! He deserves way better than this.

Then we have Vera Farmiga. She got lost after Up in the Air, was briefly shining again in Bates Motel, but after that series ended, she seemed to have gotten lost and misplaced again. What a waste of another talent here. Although Farmiga did not overact, and did her best with the material, her character was too thinly written for her to really sink her teeth into.

Lastly, of the main cast, was Millie Bobby "Eleven" Brown who simply reprised aspects of her Stranger Things character. Also, her character just make narrative - rather than logical - choices. Why?!

Asian superstars Ken Watanabe and Zhang Ziyi were relegated to supporting roles that served purely as expository vehicles. But the former at least had a more defined purpose, whereas poor Zhang was relegated to the now-ubiquitous, token China actor. Worse still, a scene with her and Chandler at the end of the third act was so painfully misogynistic that it actually felt rude - bordering on vulgar - and should put Dougherty on every feminist's blacklist.

And, are we seeing a trend here about the female characters in this film? Female actors take note.

Oh, and Sally Hawkins too (not going to say much here...cos spoilers). Just because Aisha Hinds is a colonel and leading the military charge does not make everything else right.

Bradley Whitford and Thomas Middleditch brought the laughs - more like sniggers - and Charles Dance brought some English villainous flare. The pay checks definitely helped.

But the stars of the film were really Godzilla and King Ghidorah. Godzilla definitely had more screen time here than in Edwards' original, and ironically that film's problem was it spending too much time with the humans. And King Ghidorah truly did look and feel scary.

The CGI effects were great and made it worth watching on the big screen. If it was filmed for IMAX it would have been even more spectacular. Coupled with Bear McCreary's propulsive score, the fight sequences really stood out. They were exciting and involved. But then, once we cut to the human drama sides, the large difference in film quality was even more painfully obvious. We really did not care for the humans.

So, in short, this film was not really worth the IMAX or 3D extra, but if you are looking for something silly and brainless but loud and entertaining, Godzilla: KOTM will be worth a watch. Do stay till the end for a post-credits scene!

Captain Marvel [IMAX]

Comparisons will be inevitable, so let’s just say that “Captain Marvel” ain’t no “Wonder Woman”, and Brie Larson did not have the screen charisma of Gal Gadot. But it definitely landed the ending unlike WW which petered and crashed out in the end. The film ran on first gear throughout and only untill the last act did it rock out. But that was awesome! And you know you are in trouble when the best character on screen is named “Goose”. Larson’s hero moment was worth it (and justified the IMAX) but getting there, the first two acts suffered a major dearth of emotionality or audience empathy. “Captain Marvel” can be best classified as a Buddy Cop Comedy meets Intergalactic Drama, but Larson was never really dramatic nor funny. She appeared wooden most of the time and constantly seemed blanked rather than confused/unsure (as good as “Room” was, Cate, Saoirse or Charlotte should have won that Oscar); and her chemistry with Samuel L. Jackson seemed forced. There were plenty of quips strewn around but most did not land. There were chuckles but no laugh out loud moments. The writers (all 5 of them! - and it clearly showed) definitely were no Josh Whedon or even James Gunn. It is always neater when the writer(s) and the director(s) are the same. Also the action sequences were uninspiring and the bit with No Doubt’s “I’m Just a Girl” was no GOTG. As for the rest of the cast, every MCU film really ought to have Ben Mendelsohn and Annette Bening in it, and also Agent Coulson, they almost instantaneously make every scene better. Well, stay for the mid-credits scene, that tied into “Infinity War”, and also the post-credits scene which...(let it be a surprise).

Aquaman [IMAX/3D]

This film was so painful to sit through. It was bloated and over-stuffed with unoriginal directing, unimaginative sequences, bad CGIs, poor acting and casting, and an atrocious soundtrack. Not even Jason Momoa's charm could save this film. Sitting through all 143 minutes, one could not help but think how much more superior Black Panther was in terms of world-building and rules-setting for Wakanda, and now I really cannot wait for James Cameron's underwater Avatar to show them all how an underwater adventure should be done  (I could be wrong, but in Cameron we trust).

One of the biggest problem in this film, other than the fact that Amber Heard needs more acting lessons and has zero chemistry with Momoa, and that Nicole Kidman, Willem Dafoe and Patrick Wilson were all horribly miscast (guess even stars need to cash a paycheck), was the absolute lack of originality and imagination in James Wan's directing. Other than a very few moments that showcased his excellent grasp of horror, almost every single significant moment was a poor copycat imitation of another - usually superior - film. We had rip offs from: Tron, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Descent, Pitch Black, Mission Impossible: Fallout, The Mummy, Indiana Jones, Skyfall, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tintin, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Pacific Rim, King Kong....and the list could go on. Even the closing credits felt like a rip off from Game of Thrones.

Then we have the action sequences. The hand-to-hand combats with Momoa were actually good, in particular the final face-off. But once the scope got larger, or it devolved into a standard Hollywood gun fight, it was just a mess. A messy, cacophony of images, bad CGI and furious editing. That epic battle at the end, so reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings, was boring, unimaginative and lacked the adrenaline-pumping excitement of something so grand.

Wan was like a spoilt, rich frat-boy with tons of money but no intelligence to spend it properly other than to realise his teenage comic/sci-fi fever dreams. Come to think of it, it was as if he was given the Book of Destiny by the Monitor and could only dream small.

It was so dreary and tiresome sitting through it all when visually there was nothing new or exciting. It was not like the screenplay itself was any more riveting. Three credited screenwriters, and it was, or perhaps because of, predictable and contrived with bits of juvenile humour thrown in to lighten things up. The dialogue was cringe-worthy and any exploration of character depth or nuance was as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara.

Poor Momoa. He has charm and does action well with a good comedic timing. But the film let him down and even he could not carry all 140+ minutes of this film. But boy, does he have nice hair. Definitely nicer than Heard's, who possibly has the worst red hair-wig/CGI since Marvel's Medusa from the Inhumans. 

Heard and Momoa had no chemistry, so on that front, their romance was a bust. Typical, expected, predictable and boring. You could see the creators trying to make her into something more than just a love interest, but ultimately they failed as Heard was simply there to support Momoa's Aquaman and drive the narrative and provide exposition.

Wilson was also badly miscast. There is no way Wilson can pass off as the younger brother of Momoa. Wan obviously let his sentiments for his frequent lead actor Wilson get the better of him. Other than it being s a distraction, Wilson's role was as cardboard as it got for a supervillain, And although there were obvious attempts to humanise him, neither the script nor the direction had the kahunas to delve further than a cursory brush off. Which makes one wonder why then a 143 minutes run time?

Then we had the prestige casting of Kidman and Dafoe who sadly were in it physically but not anywhere near even a tenth of what they can do. The bad CGI anti-aging did them no service, making both looked more like a Playstation game character than pseudo-real human beings. This ain't anywhere near Michael Douglas or Michelle Pfeiffer or Kurt Russell level of VFX magic from the MCU.

Kidman tried her best, but she was trapped by one of many bad, bad, ugly, kitschy, costume-designs of the film (oh...Wakanda!), horrid CGI, and plain bad writing. Granted the opening scene with her and Temuera Morrison was actually one of the best of the film, and she actually had chemisty with Morrison. Also, it was nice to see her kick ass, although obviously it wasn't her per se.

Dafoe really just snoozed his way through this. He was even more exciting back in the days when he was the Green Goblin.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as the second villain could have been so much more, but obviously we are building him up for the sequel..cue eyes-rolling.

The music was by Rupert Gregson-Williams, and it was so bad. Distracting, jarring, incoherent and inconsistent. Perhaps the only moment where it worked was at the end.

Truly, this film only had two parts that worked. The prologue and the finale. It was dis-spiriting that  even with the prolonged period of post-production, they still could not get the film right.

IMAX and 3D were not worth it for this film.

Stay for the mid-credits scene, but do we really want a sequel to this, though it might be inevitable.

The DCEU cinematic universe is in trouble and one can only hope Wonder Woman 1984 can save them...again. Go watch the Arrowverse Elseworlds if you want good DCEU entertainment. That had humour, action, pathos, excitement and character growths despite its much lower budget and TV-quality CGI.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald [IMAX/3D]

At over 130 minutes, this film was unnecessarily long. Someone should keep JK Rowling away from writing screenplays. Sure she has great ideas and stories to tell, but like her later books, she tend to sprawl and needlessly confound and confuse just to add padding. Other than some really good set pieces, a few exciting action sequences (and also a few messy ones), imaginative use of CGI/3D-technology (breaking out of the screen format was cool) and a great score by James Newton Howard, the film lacked the originality, spark and cast chemistry that led the first instalment to be such a delight. The cast expanded and we spent more time on Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller's characters - which were interesting unto themselves but they lacked depth and worthy companions to interact with - than the original foursome whose excellent chemistry fueled the narrative of the first. This film felt like a placeholder film, setting the pieces in motion, to the franchise and finale (maybe 5 films is too much...).

Eddie Redmayne remained the star of the show. Well, he and the Fantastic Beasts...the Nifflers are back too!...but a pity that Rowling and director David Yates, have pivoted the intention of the story from Newt Scamander to the deep mythos of Grindelwald and Dumbledore, and so Scamander's adventures took a backseat. Although, Redmayne remained the lead, but his scenes seemed perfunctory to the greater narrative, and only driven by his romance with the criminally underused Katherine Waterston.

The focus on Depp's Grindelwald and Miller's Credence could have been better if Rowling and company had spent their time developing them as characters. Voldemort had the benefit of five books (and films) before we spent an entire installment on him, The Half-Blood Prince. And so, it resulted in two main characters who were driven and defined by exposition rather than complexity.

Similarly, because the story line was spread out amongst so many characters, almost all the newer characters also seemed to be just as similar thinly scratched.

Zoe Kravitz's Leta Lestrange is a Lestrange (!! of Bellatrix and Delphine!!) but she nary got a purpose other than to drive a strand of narrative. Her supposed relationship with the Scamander brothers were just as vague as her supposed standing in the wizarding community.

Speaking of Newt's brother, Callum Turner turned in a fine performance as Theseus, and he was one of the few new characters who seemed more thought out, but still rather pedestrian.

Depp was good in his role as Grindelwald. Better than he has in years with a reined-in performance that sold the menace but mercifully left out the camp. A pity they played down his character's history with Dumbledore, although it was not like Depp and Jude Law had scenes together.

Law's Dumbledore - like in the Harry Potter books - is again a central figure in the story and a master manipulator of young, impressionable men. Maybe we should start spending more time with him as a real character rather than as a deux ex machina device.

Fan favourites Jacob and Queenie (Dan Folger and Alison Sudol) got decidedly less to do this time round, although Sudol seemed to be getting a rather juicy arc which will be interesting to watch. Although it was the strength and chemistry between Folger and her that gave teh first instalment so much heart (and levity...which was so lacking here).

And lastly, about Miller. Fashion's It-Boy of the moment can act (see: We Need to Talk About Kevin), but here he just appears lost, stoned and adrift. Those characteristics described his character but it did not make him an appealing, or even an interesting, character to focus on. Hopefully things improve with the big cliffhanger, reveal.

Back to the plot, like aforementioned, Rowling can plot a good yarn and she obviously cares about her characters and have a deep knowledge about them. But sometimes, the plots just get away from her and she relies too much on twists to hook the audience in, hoping that she could blindside them into forgetting about the other trivialities of logic and narrative holes.

Yates' direction was efficient and he has a good handle on the use of 3D, although his directing of complicated action sequences still need work. The opening sequence especially, albeit exciting was still a tad messy and complicated. I guess, in that respect, it did kind of set the tone for the rest of the film.

This film, for all its flaw, was a delight to watch in 3D and in IMAX. It really used the technology to its advantage. Only thing was if it was really worth the price. And if only solely for the 3D and Howard's excellent score blasting out from an IMAX theatre, it would definitely have got an A, but as a whole, it was an expensive and tiresome way to spend 134 minutes.

Ant-Man and The Wasp

This film is unlike any other previous MCU films and that is a double-edged sword for the audiences, it was more of a straight-up action-comedy rather than an action-comedic superhero film. For one there was no clear villain and the characters that served as the main antagonists were so badly written and fleshed out that they were really just time-fillers for the A-plot.

Regardless, AM&TW was an enjoyable film albeit its predictability, lack of emotional complexity (or even plot-complexity) and absence of any conflict of worth. But where it succeed was in its actors - the effortless charisma and easy chemistry of both Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily - and the comedic chops of its supporting cast, especially Michael Peña, and Judy Greer, Bobby Canavale and Randall Park. It was fun watching the cast interact and that helped the 118 minutes move along.

Some of the action sequences by repeat director Peyton Reed were visually exciting and he definitely used 3D and VFX to good effect here. However, this film still paled to the first instalment which had heart, great laughs, and an effortless energy in the story-telling which was so lacking here. Edgar Wright's and Joe Cornish's influences are greatly missed.

Rudd is the star of this franchise. His effortless charisma helped connect the audience to his story. The only thing is that this film was marketed as Ant-Man and The Wasp, and although Lily is ostensibly the co-lead, her emotional arc is lacking despite doing lots more butt-kicking. And this had nothing to do with Lily who was equally charismatic on-screen and had good chemistry with Rudd. Maybe they ought to have a female writer amongst all five of the credited screenwriters. And this has nothing to

Peña again stole the film like in the first and he is definitely a side-kick worth recurring.

Michael Douglas added gravitas to the franchise and it is hard to tell if he is enjoying this role or not; and Michele Pfeiffer really needs a better comeback film ASAP after this film and Murder on the Orient Express. Laurence Fishburne deserved better.

And again, the music and cinematography here were both serviceable and forgettable.

One of the best scenes of the film was actually the mid-credits scene (and that is saying a lot). The post-credit scene was good for a chuckle.

IMAX was not really necessary for this, but 3D was fun.

In the end, AM&TW felt like a place-holder in the larger context of the MCU, but for what it is, it was an alright film - fun and entertaining enough for a summer, popcorn flick. If it did not have the Marvel weight hanging off it, this could have been a really good, almost Edgar Wright-esque action-comedy film.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom [IMAX/3D]

The latest in this never-ending franchise, helmed by Spanish director J.A. Bayona, proved that a good director can always be let down by a hamfisted and over-ambitious script, and also by leads that lacked chemistry together. Christ Pratt is an enigmatic lead actor: he has the charisma but not the acting chops; Bryce Dallas Howard - this time with sensible footwear - has still not found another breakout role since her The Village days.

The first and third acts were good, with great action sequences and moments of gorgeous cinematography and imagery (by cinematographer Oscar Faura), but it was really the second act which was the film's Achilles' heel. Writers Collin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly were over-ambitious in their attempt to intellectualise the film/franchise, but the execution and outcome was ultimately one of caricature over-simplicity. The pseudo-philosophical approach into ethics and morality was briefly broached but never bravely explored which then left the question of why even bring it up in the first place.

There was a strong dissonance between the producers and the creative forces on what they wanted this film, and the franchise, to be. And in the end, it was the final product that suffered which ended up being unsure if it wanted to be an all-out summer, popcorn, blockbuster flick or an intellectual summer, sci-fi thriller.

However, to Bayona's credit, and taking the preposterous and contrived elements out, there were some great scary and tensed moments reminiscent of his superb directorial breakout in The Orphanage. Similarly, all the rain-soaked settings showed us that Bayona still excelled out in the elements after his terrific work in The Impossible.

And like in The Impossible, Bayona showed that he has an ability to cast and direct his child-actors. Then we had a young Tom Holland, and now in JW:FK, Isabella Sermon will be a young actress to watch out for (Squirrel Girl anybody?).

Pratt should be thankful he was cast as Star Lord as the franchise is really not working out for him (but after Avengers: Infinity War he seemed to be losing the popularity vote there too).

Howard remained, as in the first film, a damsel to prop up the masculinity of Pratt's character.

The score was again by Michael Giacchino, and also like the first film, was a disappointment as it was again highly incongruous with the action on screen.

There is a great concept hidden within the story of this entry and perhaps the best way to explore it is to get away from the franchise and its baggage. Either that or totally embrace its horror/thriller/sci-fi roots.

IMAX was great this film, but not so much the 3D. Stay to the end for short end-credits sequence.

Pacific Rim: Uprising [IMAX/3D]

This was an entertaining, albeit highly silly, ridiculous and narratively incoherent, piece of fluff film that felt a lot more like a high-budget, Sunday morning entertainment  à la The Power Rangers or a live-action Voltron wannabe. It lacked the visceral action, visual panache, characters/actors chemistry and high-stakes value that made the original Guillermo del Toro film so memorable and, retrospectively, exciting (despite its also clunky plot). The over-pandering to the Chinese audience was also intrusively blatant and really affected the overall enjoyment. That is what you get when Wanda bought over Legendary.

The plot made sense in a very loose sort of way. This was one of those films where you just got to check your brains and logic and sensibility at the door, and just go with the flow. Take things as they come, accept the plot contrivances for what they are, and then it will be much more enjoyable. Don't question the logic. That is the simplest way to enjoy this film.

The presence of four credited writers was also clearly felt through. It was a mish-mash of tone and ideas that director Steven S. DeKnight tried to rein in, but ultimately failed.

DeKnight lacked the vision that del Toro has, but he still made this sequel unique in his own way. For one, everything is much brighter here. But with the brightness comes the glaring inauthenticity of the Kaijus and the CGI landscapes. The action sequences lacked clarity even in the daylight - which was something that del Toro mastered with the autueristic fight sequences in the dark. And with those lackluster sequences, it is hard to root for the heroes.

The one good thing DeKnight did was keep the pacing up. It was fast, things happen, and story ends. All in a sweet 111 minutes. No fuss, no muss, but also not much of an adrenaline kick.

There was humour in this film, mostly courtesy of John Boyega who, after stints in the Star Wars universe, offered audiences another glimmer to his wry sense of British humour which was so apparent in his breakout hit Attack the Block. However, in this instance, the humour, though present, mostly fell flat-ish. This was mainly because of his scene-partners. He had no chemistry either with Scott Eastwood or Cailee Spaeny.

Eastwood, he is an irony. He is perfectly cast as the pretty, all-American hero but yet his "acting" leaves much to be desired - and DeKnight sure loves to zoom up on his face! - although in this case, the leaden acting actually suited his poorly-written character. Oh well, just enjoy his face.

Spaeny was clearly set up to be a Kick-Ass-esque Chloe Grace Moretz. Let us just say that being a poor version of Moretz is a compliment.

Rinko Kikuchi was absolutely wasted. She should not have came back. Her presence made Charlie Hunnam's and Idris Elba's absence profoundly felt.

And then we have a slew of Chinese actors, who - to be honest - are in this film because the Wanda Group now owns Legendary.

Cinematography was capably handled by Dan Mindel, but like aforementioned, the film lacked the visual panache of the original which was lensed by Guillermo Navarro. Music was suitably rousing and provided by Lorne Balfe.

Pacific Rim: Uprising was an entertaining film, but it tried too hard to have continuity with the now-superior original, and was definitely not worth the price of IMAX or 3D.

Black Panther [IMAX/3D]

Black Panther was one of the most unique superhero film by Marvel. Was it the best? Not necessarily (that honour still belongs to The Avengers), but it definitely was unlike any other of the franchises in the MCU. Surprisingly, its closest cousin would be the first Thor film. Both films had a Shakespearan core amidst the political intrigue and a son learning how to lead. However, Ryan Coogler's Black Panther stood out - heads and shoulders above - from Kenneth Bragnah's Thor in that it was superhero feature that had decidedly minimum focus on the superhero power/features. Instead the strength of this film was its focus on truly well-defined characters anchored by strong performances of its actors, and its elegant dive into heavy themes of political and social responsibility, cultural identity and self vs country.

It definitely also helped that Black Panther did not look/feel/sound like a typical, cookie-cutter, MCU film. Coogler's directing filled the screen with a vibrant. kinetic energy that excited the story and propelled the narrative and his own team of trusted creatives helped tremendously to create a distinctive vision: from the beautiful sets (by production designer Hannah Beachler), the absolutely stunning cinematography (by Mudbound's Oscar-nominated Rachel Morrison - a new favourite), an authentic and befitting score (by Ludwig Goransson), and sumptuous costume design (Ruth Carter).

Yes, the story by Coogler and Joe Robert Cole, could have been tighter. There were a few unnecessary moments that dragged on for a minute or two longer than they should, however, those scenes do allow the film to breathe despite the changing of pace. But at least for once, in the MCU, we have a story line that made sense, a villain with an understandable motivation and no damn mystic cloud of obscure origin and power. Phew!

It was also a wise choice to not have many scenes/moments of superhero feats, but instead with the introduction - and audience's acceptance - of Vibranium, we ended up with more of a James Bond/Kingsman-esque spy thriller filled with gadgets. Oddly enough, that made it more grounded in reality, and together with the topical themes of race, culture and politics, helped to make the film a relatable experience.

Coogler's Creed experience showed here and his one-on-one fight scenes were tremendously exciting to watch. It felt visceral and fluid with a constant movement that never distracted. Coupled with Morrison's lensing, that first fight was truly memorable and the second one contrasted distinctively. There were only two big action sets and that felt sufficient. They were both cool and showed off enough of the world and Black Panther to be relevant, and neither overwhelmed the story. Although Coogler's directing of a large cast action scene was not as visually exciting as his smaller ones.

Nonetheless, again and again, it comes back to the point that this film had a true sense of voice and identity unlike previous MCU films. It brought something new to the franchise, much like how James Gunn's first Guardians of the Galaxy jolted the MCU with its comedy.

Chadwick Boseman reprises his role as our eponymous hero and he had the gravitas of a king, but also the uncertainty of a young prince thrust into a position by circumstances. He does have the screen charisma to command an audience's attention, but unfortunately his frequent scene partner was the luminous Lupita Nyong'o who acted circles around him with seemingly minimal effort. Although, at least, they had chemistry together.

That then brings us to the other truly great thing about this film. Its strong female cast and point of view. The triple threat of Nyong'o, Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright, were a total delight to watch. They were smart, strong and independent women unbeholden to the men. They were badassess kicking ass and stealing their scenes effortlessly. Gurira was brilliant but hopefully she does not get typecast in the future, but boy, does she rock! Wright, of Cucumber and Humans fame, has grown up and she thankfully she brought along her delightful British wit and comedy. Give me a show that pairs her Shuri up with Ben Wishaw's Q.

Michael B. Jordan was a great choice to cast opposite Boseman. Jordan was physically imposing and that physicality helped to induce fear and establish that our titular hero is not safe. On top of that, however, Jordan's scene with Sterling K. Brown showed a humanity beneath the veneer and helped shaped him beyond a one-dimensional being.

Martin Freeman was one of two main Caucasian actor, and he was funny. Although inevitably, he was given a hero-moment. They just could not avoid that, could they? The other white guy was Andy Serkis, and it is always odd seeing him out of mo-cap. He continued his story line from Avengers: Age of Ultron and was necessary as an audience surrogate into Wakanda.

Angela Bassett, Forest Whitaker and Daniel Kaluuya rounded up the named main cast. Kaluuya was the only one miscast. This poorly written role - and honestly, not well acted too - ain't gonna do much for his Best Actor campaign.

Morrison's cinematography was simply gorgeous. And it does help that Coogler gets to create a brand new world and he has Africa as his playground. Stunning vistas, beautiful wide-angled shots mixed with a Tron-like epic fight, Blade Runner-esque setting and intimate, closed-up action sequences that showcased the action. Morrison is a cinematographer to watch out for.

Goransson's score had moments where it sounded almost like any other MCU films, but listening closely, you can hear the African beats and rhythms beneath the big soaring strings and bass. And the focus on the constant drumming and percussion over the one-on-one fights highlighted the tension of those scenes as well as pay homage to the authenticity of the story.

And as per usual, stay back for a mid-credits scene and a post-credit teaser.

Black Panther was a MCU gamble by Kevin Feige et al that paid off. So well. And perhaps with this in their pocket, Marvel will be more willing to allow its directors to have their own vision. Who still does not wonder how Edgar Wright's Ant Man would have been like (think Baby Driver meets Hot Fuzz...dream!).

Thor: Ragnarok [IMAX/3D]

Not a simple feat, but kudos to director Taika Waititi for bringing us not only the best film of the Thor franchise but also one of the best entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Thor: Ragnorak was a superhero space/fantasy that effectively weaved the current wave of 80s nostalgia, from the homage to the old school Star Wars trilogy to the retro electronica and cyberpunk synthesiser beats, into the current fabric of technology-enabled, explosion of colours, sounds and CGI effects. It was not only a rollickingly exciting and fun ride, but it was also downright funny with many laugh out loud moments and excellent comedic beats by everybody in the cast. Perhaps, the weakest part of the film was the plot, and not surprisingly, the villain. The basic storyline was thin, basic and stretched out to fill the spectacle, but at least in this case, the fillers more than made it up to distract from the A-plot.

Finally, since Joss Whedon and the first two Avengers, Marvel has got writers – Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost – who understand banter; not only good, naturalistic banter but also funny ones. And although there were a number of clunky lines, most of which were to underscore dramatic moments, they did not induce too much eye-rolling only because the delivery (mostly) by Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddlestone, Jeff Goldblum and the treasure that is Cate Blanchett, was deliciously campy and they sold it for all its hammy over-the-topness.

From the get go, Waititi established the tone of the film and we know this was not going to be like the dreary, bleak and gloomy Thor: The Dark World, but will be more like James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy. And the result was even better. Waititi brilliantly balanced the comic with the drama, the funny with the action and he managed to get such good reaction shots from all the cast members. A supercut needs to be done! The blooper reel for this will be one hell of a laugh riot!

On the other hand, Waititi’s pacing of the film could have been be a bit tighter especially in the slightly bloated second act. Beyond the spectacle of the gladiator fight between Thor and <spoiler alert> Hulk </end spoiler>, the time spent in Sakaar did not justify how much we ended up knowing about it. In other words, if the audience were to spend almost half to two-thirds of the running time in a new world, more could have been to establish the world. Not even Goldblum could ham it up sufficiently enough to obfuscate the fact that Thor would eventually, somehow, get the upper hand. And there was only that much petulant Hulk one can tolerate before he gets annoying like every other petulant child on screen ever.

Similarly, we all know that Blanchett's Hela will eventually get defeated, but it is the how that we are interested in. And although getting to the final showdown was exciting, the actual climatic fight was just way too brief. 

In the same vein, although Hela had a proper backstory with a clearer sense of purpose and villainy, her scenes were also one of the weakest mainly because Blanchett did not have much of a worthy opponent to work against. Instead, she was saddled with exposition, but hey, at least she looked great - that hair! that makeup! and she has got lipstick! - and gamely camped it up although her accent was distractingly inconsistent.

Hemsworth has really grown into his role as Thor. And by "Hemsworth" I mean Chris, not Luke, who has a cameo as an Asgardian actor playing "Thor" (with Matt Damon as "Loki" - priceless!). Anyways, Hemsworth definitely has the comic chops - also evident in his scene-stealing role in Ghostbusters - and Waititi used it here to great effect. The writers and Waititi have found Thor's voice from Whedon in The Avengers and brought it out to the fore. Not only that, Hemsworth also has a gift for physical comedy and that coupled with his comedic timing, really brought the funs, laughs and levity to the film - and the MCU franchise.

Hiddlestone, on the other hand, needs a new schtick. His version of Loki is finally getting stale. However, he gives damn good reaction shots. As an actor, Hiddlestone has not been getting much of a showcase. 

Blanchett, as mentioned above, is a treasure and she elevates the simply-sketched Hela just by being her. A pity she was not given more scenaries to chew. Instead, we have Goldblum who gleefully chewed his way through every moment. Even in the end-credits scene.

Tessa Thompson was a valuable addition to the MCU and she exuded verve and sass as she banter and battle.

Mark Ruffalo was also similarly lots of fun, although his Banner/Hulk was shortchanged narrative-wise. Not unexpected since this was a Thor film and not The Incredible Hulk. But it would be very interesting to find out more what happened to them since the end of Ultron.

Benedict Cumberbatch has an extended cameo and served to mainly tie up the various Marvel universes together. A pity his cloak did not get a role. Fellow brit, Idris Elba also had less of a role here other than to act as deus ex machina-like plot device. 

The score was by Mark Mothersbaugh and Marvel may have finally got a score that was memorable (not a soundtrack a la GOTG) and also a possible ear worm for the franchise.

The 3D effects were quite well done, but not entirely needed. Similarly, watching on IMAX was just for the pure fun of a BIG screen and BIG sound. As per usual, we have a mid-credits scene which undoubtedly is setting up for Avengers: Infinity War and a end-credits scene (as hinted above).

Thor: Ragnarok has set a new benchmark for the MCU (and superhero films) and will be a tough act to follow. It managed to reintroduce - and rehabilitate - an established character and even improve on it, but yet still retaining the essence of what made the character a hit. Hopefully. Black Panther will establish itself as a totally, and tonally, different genre and breakthrough as another hit for Marvel.

Blade Runner 2049 [IMAX/3D]

If nothing else, this was a singularly stunning, breathtakingly gorgeous, absolutely beautiful piece of film. Just give Roger Deakins his Oscar now! As for Dennis Villeneuve, the man is now five for five since his 2010 breakout film Prisoners, and he will surely be in the running for Best Director again this year. His film in itself - prior viewing of the 1982 original not necessary, but does inform the experience - was a surprisingly simple, yet layered noir/science fiction story that was effectively told despite its length (163 minutes) and also, ironically, satisfyingly unresolved. Ryan Gosling stood out and may get a nod but he is in danger of not breaking out of his comfort zone.

The IMAX experience was really worth it here. Not only as a canvas for Deakin's sumptuous cinematography, but also for the excellent sound design and mixing. So far, only this film, Dunkirk, Mad Max: Fury Road pioneer Avatar has really, properly utilised the capabilities of IMAX.

Villeneuve's directing was sure-handed and he managed to maintain the high standard of sci-fi storytelling he is known for - see Arrival and Enemy - with the sensibility of a blockbuster. The science fiction never corrupts the narrative and there was constantly a strong sense of character in his lead (Gosling). And like in Arrival, the story had the plausibility of being grounded in reality.

Hampton Francher and Michael Green co-wrote the screenplay and they might also get a nod for Best Original Screenplay. At 163 minutes they had a lot of time to craft out their characters and it did not disappoint. Even their villains had depth, Jared Leto in his hubris and Sylvia Hoeks in her loyalty.

The story took its time. With the first act introducing the audience to the new world and laying the seeds of the A-plot and the central conflicts/themes of the film, i.e. what makes us humans? And what makes us more than human? What defines humanity? Then came the second act where we inched towards the truth and more truths - or truths - are revealed. Then came a short third act where revelations are made as we hurdled towards the fourth and final act of resolution. But a resolution for whom? Definitely not us as the audience, as the world of Blade Runner persists.

Gosling, as handsome as he is, and as talented as he is, seemed to be channeling the same persona that he inhabited in his last films. A touch of Drive with some La La Land and a dose of The Place Beyond the Pines. The last film that he was truly, truly, heartbreakingly great in was Blue Valentine. Nonetheless, he stood out here and ably carried the show throughout. He embodied a character that we cared for, root for and ached for. So kudos to him.

Harrison Ford brought some gravitas to the screen but there is a reason why Ford does not have many awards - or nominations - under his belt. Although as a fan of the first Blade Runner, it was great to have Agent Deckard back and at least Villeneuve and co did not only bring him back just for fan service.

Unfortunately this film did fail the Bechdel Test. The one moment where two women interacted - Robin Wright, looking and acting very Claire Underwood, and Hoeks, channeling Alexandra Reid - they were discussing about Gosling. Ana de Armas played the only other female character that was somewhat outside of the A-plot, and she brought a tenderness to the film, helping to carry some of the emotional weight off Gosling's shoulder.

However, Deakins is the real star here. The long run time was partially because so many of the scenes were just too beautiful to leave on the cutting room floor. His colours, use of light, lines and proportions. Absolutely stunning. A whole masterclass in composition, lights and shadows can be done with this film.

The score was not as defining as Vangelis but Hans Zimmer and his protege Benjamin Wallfisch had created a soundscape that paid homage to Vangelis electronica-tinged score but yet also supported the grandiosity of Villeneuve's vision and Deakin's cinematography.

This film might even challenge Kingsman as the most stylish film of the year!

Blade Runner 2049 may be a modern day sci-fi classic. And a damn gorgeous one at that.

Dunkirk [IMAX]

Christopher Nolan is back...at last. Dunkirk is an unequivocally, amazingly, visceral piece of film. Superbly stunning directing, cinematography, score, sound design and mixing, action sequences, production design and well-acted by a stellar ensemble cast. This was a great war film: riveting, exciting, tightly paced and emotional without being overly expositive or manipulative; Nolan's best film to date. Must be watched in IMAX.

At a trim 106 minutes, Dunkirk is the rare summer blockbuster to clock in under 2 hours and Nolan had smartly maximised the time with nary any excess baggage nor extraneous scenes. Almost every scene and moment served a purpose, showing the heroic deliverance and rescue at Dunkirk. 

Together with Hans Zimmer's brilliant score and Nolan's terrific directing, the dialogue-scarce film was able to effectively identify our heroes, illustrate the perils and frantic desperation and ultimately earned an absolutely deserving climax and emotional catharsis. And all without the Spielberg / John Williams-esque manipulation. 

All the disparate and non-chronological storylines came together neatly in the final act, all to achieve a common goal, and it will be difficult to not be at the edge of your seat throughout. And even then, Nolan ensured that the audience never really relaxed till the epilogue. Bravo film-making!

However, for all of Spielberg's unabashed emotional manipulation, his stories are often centred on character and the human heart, for which is lacking in Nolan's Dunkirk despite all its technical and narrative excellence.

Perhaps the biggest misstep in this cinematic showcase was the decision to have Harry Styles' character talk so much. This is nothing against Styles and he proved to be a rather competent actor, but in a film that had throughout chose to show - so much - rather than tell, Nolan had decided that Styles' character, in the final act, needed to voice out all his thoughts and feelings. Maybe Nolan was worried the audience would not get it, or he felt that Styles could not pull that emotional complexity off, or perhaps it was the invisible hands of Hollywood pulling the strings. Regardless, all that exposition was really unnecessary and felt jarring. 

Otherwise, the gifted ensemble was stellar. All the big-named stars definitely earned their keeps! We had the steely leadersship of Kenneth Branagh, the loyal compassion of James D'Arcy, the complex guilt of Cillian Murphy, the resolute patriotism of Mark Rylance and another stoic heroism of Tom Hardy. Murphy and Rylance could possibly be in the running for Best Supporting Actor. 

Then we also had an exciting showcase for the lesser-known actors. War & Peace alums Jack Lowden and Aneurin Barnard stood out. As did the young actors Tom Glynn-Carney and Barry Keoghan (the last of which was the closest that Nolan came to emotional manipulation, but yet his arc felt earned).

Newcomer Fionn Whitehead was a great choice as our main protagonist. Having an unfamiliar face helped to not distract from the story. He is reminiscent of Jeremy Irvine in Spielberg's War Horse. And he definitely played the audience surrogate and was a worthy character for us to get behind. Cue Les Miserable: Bring him home!

Cinematography was by frequent Hoyte van Hoytema, and in a word: stunning. Roger Deakins, for Blade Runner 2049, is gonna have competition (again) this year.

Dunkirk is easily the best movie of 2017 thus far. And, like Mad Max: Fury Road, it will be a Summer film that will undoubtedly be in the running for multiple categories in the Oscars. Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Score, Sound Design, Sound Mixing, Production Design, Effects, Supporting Actor and maybe even Original Screenplay, Hair and Makeup and Costume.

Dunkirk must be watched in IMAX.

Spider-Man: Homecoming [IMAX 3D]

As a second reboot, Spider-Man: Homecoming had a lot stacked against it, but what Marvel/Sony had wisely chosen to do was to steer away from the over-trodden origin story and instead focused on the growing pains of a being (super)hero. And also casting Tom Holland in the lead. With Holland, the MCU had hit another gold mine in casting like what they had with Robert Downey Jr. That being said, the film itself, unfortunately, was a mid-tier entry in the MCU. It was fun, enjoyable and entertaining - everything one would expect from a Marvel-film and a summer popcorn release. However. for all its quips and maniacal energy, it lacked the kinetic and effortless humour of Ant-Man, The Avengers (both parts) and Guardians of the Galaxy (part one only), and also the thrilling excitement and adrenaline-pumping actions of the first two Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and Andrew Garfield/Marc Webb's first The Amazing Spider-Man.

Jon Watts' direction was apt and competent, but his storytelling felt simplistic and lacked urgency. Partially it could be the invisible strings of the Marvel Studio at work as the film worked best when the story was simply focused on Peter Parker instead of trying to tie it neatly into the vast, money-making franchise that is the MCU. Perhaps because this is a co-production with Sony, but that integration had never been more apparent and jarring. Watts will likely be invited back for the sequel since he did complete the film without being fired (see Rouge One and the young Hans Solo film).

The army of credited writers could have also been a factor in the haphazard nature of the film. With so many voices, it was not surprising that the screenplay did not come across as entirely coherent.

Watts' ability was also lacking in the action sequences. There were not any big, exciting fight scenes nor were there any little, fun sequences (who could forget Maguire deftly saving his lunch in his first film? Or the epic, train sequence with Doctor Octopus?). So that was a real shame.

Luckily, we had Holland. For one, he looks and acts appropriately like a teenager. More so than Maguire or Garfield. Outwardly, he was a perfect balance between Garfield's dorky likability and Maguire's bumbling earnestness. He could also pull off the snarky, snippy, motor-mouth quips that the comic-book Spider-Man is known for. The show is built around him and revolves around him and it shows. However, his chemistry with the rest of the cast was weak at best and this was also perhaps due to the shadows cast by his predecessors. Holland and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May felt more like an Aunt-Nephew relationship than a close knitted one that it is supposed to be, unlike Maguire and Rosemary Harris or Garfield and Sally Field; Holland and Laura Harrier (as love interest Liz) did not had much chemistry, unlike Garfield and Emma Stone; Holland and Jacob Batalon (as best friend Ned) kind of lacked the depth and over-familiarity that was so strong between Maguire and James Franco. Maybe the next film, they can focused on rounding out Peter's character.

Michael Keaton's Vulture/Adrian Toomes was the rare superhero villain that was actually genuine sympathetic. Sure. Keaton can be scary as hell, but at least Watts et al tried to make his character less flat with proper "motivations" and purpose that was not all about death and destruction. That one scene in the car between Keaton and Holland was the best piece of acting from both parties and in the whole film.

Of the young cast. only the other big-named star - Zendaya - stood out. Mainly because of her character's enigma and nonchalant attitude.  And her character does not really revolve around that of Parker.

RDJ in small amounts is good.

Jon Favreau's Happy is the new Agent Coulson, the (cheap) glue to the franchise.

The other best casting was that of Jennifer Connelly aka Karen aka "Suit Lady" aka Mrs Paul Bettany aka wife of Vision aka wife of J.A.R.V.I.S. How meta!

Music was by Michael Giacchino and his output has been getting disappointing. Previously an exciting and innovative composer, now most of his recent scores had been for franchises and they have been generic and uninspiring.

The mid-credits scene was a great nod to the character involved. And the post-credits scene was a great gag/laugh.

3D was fun, as expected what with the web-swingings; IMAX was great but not really necessary.

Here's hoping Holland doesn't lose his way (remember The Impossible, The Lost City of Z and Billy Elliot).