Whether it’s the dark brooding mystery of Momento, the persistent mind-throb of Inception or the unrelenting, heart-squeezing tension of Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan remains a master of atmosphere.

Usually in films of this nature we witness the visceral, hellish nightmare of war but here, Nolan horrifies with cacophonous chaos which intermittently assaults the senses. The conflict itself is interspersed amidst an unrelenting fear which is exacerbated by the purposefully overbearing sound design and score.

Technically, Dunkirk may be Nolan’s most impressive film to date. Experienced at the BFI IMAX, the aural ferocity is equally matched to the exquisite 70mm projection.

It is awesome in the truest sense of the word. The photography, the audio and the editing are often daunting, wildly impressive and truly inspire awe. This is by far the best looking and best sounding motion picture I’ve seen this year and that is a testament to Christopher Nolan’s ceaseless advocating of shooting on film and his championing of the IMAX format.

However, strip away the technical razzle-dazzle and what you’re left with is a truly remarkable real-life event decorated with underdeveloped characters that left me wanting. For all its grandiosity and sensory beguilement there lacked a single character who resonated with any dimensionality. Oddly enough, the closest film this reminded me of was Titanic (fictional characters and plot taking place within a non-fiction event), but there at least, James Cameron gives us two lead characters to anchor us. The sparse dialogue in Dunkirk is often difficult to discern and there are at least two instances of groan-worthy lines. Don’t get me wrong. Nobody is phoning in their performances, it’s just that we don’t scratch beneath the surface of most of the characters and this is where the film loses some lustre.

This surface level characterisation is a complaint I’ve heard met against Nolan in previous films but I’ve either never given it much mind, or just flat-out disagreed with the notion. I know my concerns will fall on deaf ears among the overwhelmingly positive support of the movie. I very much enjoyed my time with Dunkirk. It’s a remarkable work of cinema that captivated and shocked me on a technical level. But whereas many are claiming it to be “film of the year” material (still Personal Shopper for me), I just happened to “like” it, not “love” it. It’s most certainly worth your time and attention but don’t feel disheartened if it doesn’t completely flaw you emotionally, you’re in good company.

Dunkirk is out now.

Go see it on the biggest screen possible!

Spider-Man Homecoming is the sixth, yes sixth Spider-Man film – seventh if you include that little role he had in Captain America Civil War. Spider-Man, by Sam Raimi, is a good bit of fun. It’s silly, even stupid at times, and the dialogue and special effects are pretty terrible.

But with a good story, good performances, good directing and Willem Dafoe going completely over-the-top as the villain; it’s a very enjoyable superhero film. Spider-Man 2 is the best one; it’s still pretty silly at times and a little slow in places. But it’s one of the best superhero films ever made. Spider-Man 3, despite a strong opening act and some great moments, was a major let down that crashes and burns come the ending. The Amazing Spider-Man, by Marc Webb, is a film I don’t remember at all. Well, that shows how good that was then. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 I do remember…because it’s so eye-bleedingly terrible! So, with that history…what do you expect from another Spider-Man film.

Peter Parker has mercifully skipped the Uncle Ben side of things and is now just a kid in high-school. He has geeky friends. He has bullies. He’s got a major crush on a girl from school. He has clubs to go to. Oh, and he also has the ability to climb walls, kill people with one punch and shoot webs out of his wrists. Having briefly joined the Avengers he thinks it’s just a matter of time before he can become a full-time superhero. Sadly, not many of the Avengers think that’s what’s best for him. In fact, most just see him as a kid. But when an arms dealer, known as the Vulture, armed with high-tech weaponry threatens Peter’s life and city it’s up to him to bring him down.

And all that happens in this film is just typical of a Marvel film. In that, Spider-Man Homecoming is fun and entertaining, but doesn’t leave a lasting impression at all.

It’s colourful; but visually dull. The action is on a grand scale; but it lacks the visceral nature of the Raimi films. For example, the scene when he holds a splitting boat together. It’s cool to look at, and creative in execution. But it just feels like a set-piece for an action scene. It isn’t like the train scene in Spider-Man 2, where you actually feel that he could literally tear himself apart trying to save these people. The music, again like every other Marvel film since Avengers Assemble (maybe Guardians of the Galaxy if we include the songs) is just so bland, forgettable and plain bad that I couldn’t hum a single note to you. It, of course, feels like we’re just building up to a later film yet again as well. The humour, the characters, the visuals and effects, the whole thing is just typical of Marvel.

What it does do differently is the strange choice of making this a high-school film. It weirdly feels like a mixture of the original Spider-Man trilogy and something like Mean Girls or 10 Things I Hate About You. This could very well lead itself to good comedy and commentary. But there is one problem. These are not two films types that gel well together. Peter has a pretty annoying friend who’s meant to be the clingy loser kid in those teen films. That’s fine and he does get a few decent moments in. But when they mix it with the superhero side of things, the stuff this kid does goes beyond impulsive and stupid. He constantly nearly blows Peter’s cover. How am I supposed to find that charming or funny? Especially when there’s a high-stake villain out there? Don’t get me wrong, at times it does really work. It works when it demonstrates how Peter struggles living two lives, for example. But the tone is so jarred that until Tony Stark arrives, and gives that trailer speech of “If you’re nothing without the suit then you shouldn’t have it” (replacing the “with great power” speech), I was uninvested and getting bored.

But where this film does work is in the acting and the writing. There are some good “what if” scenarios in this film. What if Spider-Man is in a suburban area? I guess he has to run then. Little moments like that work for me. Tom Holland is back as Spider-Man and it is refreshing to see Spider-Man be played by someone of the right age. Holland does manage to be the best Spider-Man we’ve received yet. He makes a perfect Peter and Spider-Man, mixing the characters comedic side and hero side. He manages to carry the film very well. The other kids are good in their roles too. Their roles are just either minimal or undefined. The friend is just too annoying for me to give a pass though. Marisa Tomei is great as a younger Aunt May. Less the advice giver and more of the parent, which does work very well. Robert Downey Jr is in this too, but not for long. It’s too long to be a cameo but it’s not a major role either.

Now here is the rare thing with Marvel. The highlight of this film is the villain! I know, it only took them since Loki! The villain is Vulture, played by the one and only Michael Keaton.

And what a good villain he is. Not only does Keaton bring his usual charisma and intensity to the role, as well as his comedy. The character is so well written. From minute one you get his situation, you understand his reasons and you oddly relate to the guy. There are action moments where he’s just the monster of the moment, but for the most part he’s easily the second best villain the MCU ever had. Most actors in this film don’t feel exclusive to their roles. They are played well, but there are others who you could see playing those roles too. Not with Holland and certainly not with Keaton. Nobody could have done better than these two in this film.

It may seem like I’m being hard on Spider-Man Homecoming, and yes, I am. I don’t think this deserves the 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, just like Wonder Woman. On that note, I’ll just say I did like this a little more than Wonder Woman. Mostly because things actually happened to shape the characters. As I said, it’s just your typical Marvel film. It falls in the middle of the listings. I didn’t dislike Spider-Man Homecoming. There are parts I’m glad I’ve seen. But it’s just another superhero film in a depressingly long line of superhero films. It’s no Logan, but if you’re still entertained by these films then you’ll get what you want out of it.

There’s something about the number three. Something just feels right about it. And, in any story telling medium we see it a lot. The three act structure, the main character and their two friends, the three chances to succeed or fail and, of course, the trilogy. It all sounds nice and structured. But there is a huge problem with trilogies. The third entry is rarely considered to be the best. Yes, we have The Return of the King, The Last Crusade and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; but even these are debatable. Plus for each good third film there are more on the levels of The Godfather Part 3, Jurassic Park 3 and Spider-Man 3.

Despite this sad fact of film, War for the Planet of the Apes look special. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a great, thinking-man’s blockbuster. The sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was a huge improvement on it; a monumentally spectacular sci-fi masterpiece. The same cast and crew returned for one more outing. How could things go wrong with all of them behind it?

After Caesar killed evil ape Koba in the last film, the war for the planet began. Caesar and his kind are tired of the horrors of war and wish to see an end to it. Unfortunately, peace is impossible, thanks to a human coronal who wishes to kill all apes to save what is left of the human race. It soon becomes apparent to Caesar that there is only one way to end this war. But the means may not be worth it. And, as more and more happens to the apes, Caesar finds himself asking the impossible question. Is this the only way? Or has Caesar become the very thing he had been fighting this whole time?

From the get go I was pleased by this film. I was pleased to see that everything that I had loved about its two predecessors was still delivered here. Matt Reeves, who directed Dawn, gives us an amazing and raw emotional experience. All with computer chimps and other apes. The best parts of all these films are the scenes with the apes, while the human scenes tend to be a little weaker. That is not a problem in this film, because I think there was only three scenes in this whole film dedicated solely on the humans. This is a very ape-centric film and it is all the better for it. The effects on these apes are every bit as great as they were in Dawn. Maybe even better! I have no problems believing that they are real. And Reeves treats these characters with restraint and respect. There are plenty of scenes that are just visual storytelling; we learn from the characters emotions what is being said. This is hard to do at the best of times, but coupling that with the fact that these are animals. Animals made in a computer no less. Not once did I feel unmoved by them. That’s how great this film is.

I cannot applaud writer/director Matt Reeves enough, but it isn’t just him that deserves the credit. Andy Serkis gives yet another performance worthy of an Oscar he’s probably not going to get nominated for. He is Caesar! He plays this character so perfectly that I internally cheer every time I see him. This film is Caesar’s darkest moment, and Serkis effortlessly captures every ounce of this darkness while never breaking the character. We also have every ape actor returning to play the apes they have brought to life before. Not a single actor lets us down, new and old. We have our villain played by Woody Harrelson. His character is hardly in the film really. He’s very much a presence villain; he nearly dominates his on-screen moments, and you can feel his power every other moment. The character himself has some good development, and while clearly the villain he does make some good points. What would you do if humanity was dying out?

Someone who I feel I should mention is Bad Ape, played by Steve Zahn. This is a small chimp who is not from Caesar’s clan. He wears human cloths, does not talk in sign-language and what English he does speak is very broken. He is the comic relief of the film. Considering that this is a dark film, it is refreshing to have the odd moment of comedy. But this has backfired more times than can be counted in film, often with said character becoming really irritating (such as Jar-Jar Binks). Making Bad Apes was a risk, is what I’m trying to say. A risk that most certainly payed off! Bad Ape was never unwelcome; he was well handled, perfectly performed and very funny. He worked well with the little girl in the film. And that actress did exceedingly well in a film where she was talking to computer generated apes; who in real life were just people in tights and green-dots. I don’t know where we are finding these child-actors these days, but many child actors this year have proven themselves in challenging roles. This little girl is no different in this film.

I tried and could not find anything wrong with War for the Planet of the Apes. It’s a dark tale that concludes an exceptional trilogy.

Any criticisms I have is barely even a nit-pick. But something that I do feel like mentioning is that, despite being called War for the Planet of the Apes, there isn’t much waring going on. As in, there isn’t much in the way of battles. There’s one in the opening and one at the climax. But the rest, while not action-less, is a very talkie or visually story-telling. It’s more political and dramatical than action packed and fantastical. In that, it is probably paced more like Rise than it is Dawn (Dawn blending action and drama perfectly). That doesn’t make it any less than the other two, but it is something to mention in case you go in expecting an action movie with apes.

In the end War for the Planet of the Apes is an almost perfect film and a great conclusion to an exceptional trilogy.

I don’t know which is my favourite of this series, as Dawn was a little more fun; but this one is possibly the best one. The best story, acting and direction. If they make no more, then it will be fine with me. If thing’s have ended this well then we shouldn’t make more. Go and see it. Even if you don’t like sci-fi. A prequel trilogy better than the originals? I guess that means Apes together, strong!

By Orla Smith.

In many ways, The Beguiled is the most ‘Sofia Coppola’ that a Sofia Coppola movie has ever been. Almost everything she’s done has revealed her fascination with women who are grappling with their hopes and desires within a world they feel isolated from ― but none of them have ever stated it so bluntly.

In The Beguiled, the women are a group of teachers and students left behind in a dilapidated girl’s boarding school, trapped in the heat of Civil War era Virginia. Their isolation is literal: the house they live in works at a different rhythm than the turbulent world outside. They learn French pronouns while men die on the battlefield. The war is just far enough away for the girls to go about their daily lives, but not too distant that it isn’t a constant presence in the back of their minds.

The youngest, Amy (Oona Laurence), ventures out to pick mushrooms in the film’s opening sequence. The serenity of nature and her innocent humming are backgrounded by the muffled jolts of gunfire. In other films, exposition comes in the form of heavy-handed monologues. In a Sofia Coppola movie, exposition is a little girl’s indifference to the sounds of death. She doesn’t jump at each bullet. She goes on as if she is deaf to the sounds. There is a title card at the start of the film that announces that the Civil War has been going on for three years, but it’s almost unnecessary. The women’s no nonsense attitudes to its consequences is evidence enough of how fully it has permeated their lives ― and for how long.

Amy’s walk is interrupted by the presence of a man. Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is the only man in the film with a name and a face, but both of those things are given enough attention to make up for his vast outnumbering.

His name is said in every way: tersely sped over by Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman), the school’s headmistress, or whispered in sultry, feathery tones by Alicia (Elle Fanning), the oldest of the students and the most promiscuous. His face (and body) is photographed with lingering lust, or surveyed in brief, fretful glances by Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), a shy teacher who longs not only to leave for greater things, but ‘to be taken far away from here’ ― with an emphasis on ‘taken’.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JA0evif-mU

All seven of the women are treated as individuals, with each one revealing new sides of the femininity that Coppola is exploring.

This is true even for the smallest of parts: Jane (Angourie Rice) and Emily (Emma Howard) are a duo in many ways ― they often travel through the house together. One plays piano while the other accompanies with singing. However, they are not shown as two halves of the same whole. They may be friends, but class differences are made evident. Jane talks often of her high up family, and her view of Emily is evident when Coppola shows them getting dressed ― Emily ties a bow in Jane’s hair, a job that would have been carried out by the slaves, who we are told have run away from the house.

Corporal McBurney sees the girls as individuals too. In contrast to the original adaptation of Thomas Cullinan’s novel ― the 1971 Don Siegel directed film of the same name ― Clint Eastwood’s interpretation of the character plays into his villainy far more evidently. In Coppola’s version, each character is recognisable. Farrell plays McBurney as your typical ‘charismatic guy’. He assesses each of the women and becomes whoever they need him to be. For Miss Martha, he is respectful and friendly. For Edwina, he works to see inside her soul. He is Amy’s buddy, making sure to share in secrets with her so that she feels special. He bends to Alicia’s desire of him as a sexual object and nothing more. He is an expert manipulator. His job is made all the easier by the fact that these women ― who have spent so long with only the companionship of each other ― are very willing to be manipulated.

While Coppola’s film is more explicitly interested in the dynamic between McBurney and these women, it subtly conveys the women’s relationship with each other.

Coppola deeply understands their sisterhood, and while there are no loud declarations of their dependence on each other, the actresses are able to convey shared history and understanding simply through knowing looks.

Coppola’s interest in white women at the expense of women of colour has been criticised throughout her career, but her literal removal of a slave character and a mixed race character from the source material of The Beguiled has been the cause of a particularly large amount of controversy. Coppola reasoned that she ‘didn’t want to brush over such an important topic in a light way’. Others have criticised this choice as lazy storytelling. It’s true that there would likely have been controversy either way ― the idea of Sofia Coppola attempting to explore race is one that would make many wince. But these complaints are necessary, and in many ways correct. Coppola’s film is commendable for exploring many different types of womanhood, but her comments appear to exclude the experiences of black women from womanhood. It’s hard not to watch The Beguiled and miss the complexities it loses by removing its women of colour.

However, as pointed out by a recent piece by Angelica Jade Bastién at Vulture, the topic of slavery is inextricable from stories about the Civil War, and those that explore the lives of Southern belles. Merely the image of the girls working on the school’s overgrown grounds reminds us that they are hanging on to rapidly disappearing privileged lifestyles. Within the walls of their school, they hang in a sort of purgatory, trapped there for now, waiting to depart into an uncertain future.

Despite the film’s marketing leaning heavily into its genre trappings, you may be surprised by how subdued The Beguiled remains throughout.

There is no big crescendo, and while some blood is shed, the most gore that is ever visible on screen arrives early on, when Miss Martha sews up an injured McBurney’s wounds. Coppola is not interested in exciting us, and there will be some who are left behind by her calm.

This is just as much an interpersonal drama as any of Coppola’s previous features, and just like those films, it is spare and rich in detail. That sparsity is felt more than in films such as The Bling Ring or Lost in Translation, because it is also more compressed than those films, but The Beguiled is never lacking in things to see or people to explore. It is, obviously, a beautiful thing to behold, aesthetically and in all other areas of craft. But its exploration of many forms of desire, and the reality of its mishandling ― all held within a defiantly female gaze ― reveals many layers beyond the surface. The blind eye turned to race is a disappointing and noticeable absence in the film, but its intelligent handling of the material that it does decide to tackle makes it impossible to dismiss. This may not be new ground for Coppola, but it’s just another notch in the belt of one of the world’s greatest filmmakers.