"I don't think she has a Flaw" Thoughts on Star Wars' Rey and her Character

SPOILERS for Star Wars The Force Awakens

           One element from J.J. Abrams' The Force Awakens has been on my mind, since the first time I watched it and throughout my subsequent viewings. This is the film's weakest story element, the character of Rey. This is not to say that Rey is a weak individual. On the contrary, Rey is a strong willed scavenger, pilot and fighter. Throughout the film Rey appears indestructible. Though she lands herself in two bad situations, accidentally releasing the rathtars and getting herself kidnapped by Kylo Ren, her single minded determination gets her out of these problems with little difficulty. Rey even teaches herself about the force and is able to harness this unseen power that she had little to no knowledge of. This is what makes Rey a weak character. She appears to have no flaws.
           This is often a primary point I highlight, when I converse with friends about The Force Awakens' best and worst story elements. As the most memorable Star Wars protagonists' all have flaws that lead them into irreversible turmoil (Luke's trust in his own power led to him losing his right arm, Obi-Wan's vainglorious pursuit to become a Jedi master made him neglectful of his Padawan's training, Finn's fear of standing up and fighting for what is right leads to him almost abandon his friends), it seems fitting that Rey should also have a character flaw. If Rey has a character flaw it will give her more humanity as a person, believability as a fictitious character and credibility as a worthwhile role model.
           I have been watching and rewatching and talking with people about The Force Awakens with the hope that I will find Rey's possible character flaw. I have had no success. Now my search concludes, Daisy Ridley, the actress playing the character of Rey, has given her answer. In an interview with comicbook.com Ridley was asked what her character's biggest flaw is. Ridley quickly responded, "I don't think she has a flaw." Ridley says Rey's lack of flaws is a good thing. In her interview Ridely stated, "I was actually having this discussion with my dad, because I was like, you know, people go to the hair dresser to get their hair done, people go to the gym to get their bodies done. You can always work on your stuff, just if you can't see it. You can work on jealousy or anger or whatever it is...So I don't think that's a flaw, I think it's room for growth." Ridley also went on to say that one of Rey's possible flaws, her stubbornness, is not a hindrance for Rey or any other character in Star Wars. Ridely stated, "I think anything that might be the thing that people go *scoffs* with kids, if they're stubborn, if they're willful, serves her very well in this film. So I don't think that's a flaw."
           Of course, Rey's character has to have a flaw, as no human is or ever will be perfect. Since Rey's character is destined to fail in certain areas of her life, where are her failures? If she can accomplish anything she sets her mind to, where does she fall short?
           Perhaps Rey's greatest flaw comes from the fact that she has yet to fall short. Perhaps because Rey has yet to fail herself or others in a horribly irreversible way, she believes she cannot fail. She is able to continue to believing in this flawed view of herself, because it is more than supported by her circumstances. Any disaster she has gotten herself into, she has made it out with relative ease. If Rey's character is without flaws, then she cannot represent humanity, be a believable fictitious character or be a credible role model like many of the other Star Wars characters surrounding her.
           Though it is unfortunate that Rey's character is a weak story element in The Force Awakens, her character has time for development. My hope is that in Star Wars' next installment, The Last Jedi, Rey will be illustrated as an imperfect human being in need of help, growth and rescue, like all human beings.

"I have Discovered the Truth, and it is Profoundly Disturbing." Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Review

Murder on the Orient Express
3/5

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh

Rated: PG-13

           High on top of the cold and unforgiving mountains of Eurasia, the Orient Express, a symbol of luxury and excellence, lies on its side derailed. Inside the train's dining car 12 passengers sit in silence in the harsh light of electric lamps; exchanging accusatory glances and then hiding their fearful faces. In the first class coach are three people, M. Bouc, the esteemed director of the Orient Express, a dead body, murdered in a bloody frenzy, and the great Belgian detective, M. Hercule Poirot. This scene makes for a riveting mystery and an enjoyable time at the theatre, but in this film it is unable to impact or effect its viewers.

           In Murder on the Orient Express Sir Kenneth Branagh stars as Agatha Christie's famous Hercule Poirot. Purveying his magnificent moustaches and an equally massive theatrical presence, Branagh's performance is engaging and compelling. Along with one memorable and charismatic performance, comes a diverse ensemble; each actor and actress suiting their role to the best of their abilities. A few stand out performers are Johnny Depp as the cold and commanding gangster M. Rachett, Daisy Ridley as the lovely and upfront governess Mlle. Debenham, Leslie Odom Jr. as the charming and brazen Dr. Abuthnot, Michelle Pfeiffer as the sultry and seductive Mme. Hubbard, Josh Gad as the amusing and aloof M. Macqueen, and Judi Dench as the indomitable and frightful Princess Dragomiroff. Though each of these accompanying performers does a good job portraying their character, their characters do not play well off of each other. It is as if each actor and actress, aside from Branagh, thought they were performing a one person show.

           Murder on the Orient Express also boast of impressive technical aspects. This film's visuals are engrossing. The train's production design is immaculate, and the film's deep blue color scheme is aesthetically pleasing. The camera's movements through this set are free spirited like a bird. This often creates curious camera angles inviting audiences to examine familiar scenes from new perspectives. Though these shots are beautiful, they do not flow well from one to the next. It is jarring jumping from one gorgeous long take to the next, and the camera's flamboyance can only distract viewers from the film's story for so long.
           Viewers need to be distracted from the story, because the film's screenplay suffers from the performers' and visuals' similar shortcomings. Though the screenplay's dialogue is at times humorous and yet also lends itself to dreadful tragedy, it feels dishonest to the presented characters and their inner secrets. It is almost as if there are far more poignant phrases characters want to say, yet they hold back and say only what sounds good on face value. There is little depth in the film's dialogue, so the characters feel like personas in a murder mystery and less like a tangle of strangers finding themselves caught in a web of deceit.
           Even though this film suffers, It is clear Branagh and his team have exerted great effort to make this film an interesting adaptation. It is also clear Branagh's team did not have much communication with each other. The biggest downside with Murder on the Orient Express is that each scene is remarkable but when they are combined in this manner they are lackluster. The film has good aspects, but its poor synergy diminishes the story's weight and impact. Audiences will enjoy this film while they are watching it, but after they leave the theatre most will ask themselves what was the film's greater purpose. This places Murder on the Orient Express in a unique predicament, where the film is worth seeing in a large theatre but it is not worth watching or owning on home release.

Verdict: Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express features good performances and remarkable individual scenes, making it a worthwhile time at the theatre but only for enthusiastic moviegoers.

"Point me in the direction of whoever's ass I have to Kick!" Thor Ragnarok Review

Thor Ragnarok

1.5/5

Directed by: Taika Waititi

Rated: PG-13

           The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is extensive, and it is slowly building towards its climax, Avengers Infinity War (2018). Within this franchise's nine years of existence, audiences have seen great heroes team up with unlikely allies, take on hordes of evil and laugh and cry all the way through it. In the MCU's new action comedy Thor Ragnarok audiences will receive more of the same...but worse. This sequence of events that appeared on a screen in front of a viewer's eyes, otherwise known as a movie, provides lack luster entertainment, unstimulating visuals and little to no impact.
           Thor Ragnarok's most entertaining element is its characters, or rather its collection of walking and talking warriors that have their own quirks. Thor, Chris Hemsworth, is a brazen and brutish battler who wants to save his kingdom from the evil Hela, Cate Blanchett. Loki, Tom Hiddleston, is a conniving and charismatic combater who defeats his enemies through tricks and fakery. Valkyrie, Tessa Thompson, is a fierce and frigid fighter who drinks to her heart's content and won't take back any insult or injury. The Hulk, Mark Ruffalo, is a hearty heavy lifting hothead who speaks in broken English and breaks his challengers' backs. Based on these descriptions, it is expected that audience's should spend the majority of their time watching these people fight each other and various bad guys. While this is somewhat true, as there is enough fighting in this movie to keep a person in their seat with their eyes open, every battle is against a CGI opponent. Since the bad guys our heroes are unleashing their might upon are mostly computer generated faceless mobs, the impact of every punch, slam, kick, slice and smash is nullified.
           Other than a few interesting moments in this movie, Thor Ragnarok is not fun. The movie's dialogue is at moments comedic, but its primarily unenthusiastic and bland. The visuals in this movie are colorful, but the production design's color palettes are not emotionally rich. The villain is overpowered and worthy of being defeated, but it comes to a point where it does not matter how she will be defeated. All that matters is when, because that will signal the end of the movie. In addition to this Thor Ragnarok's orchestral score is forgettable and the movie's pacing is choppy and might make the story difficult following. The most effort this movie put forth was in its action scenes, but they are all fake and poorly choreographed. It is difficult separating each battle from another or recalling how someone took down their opponent. For all this movie's physical traits, it lacks an emotional center and the mental competence to make the movie impactful and worthwhile.
           There can be some enjoyment had with this MCU entry, but it mainly comes through knowing the backstory and previous character development that occurred in earlier entries. To best understand Thor Ragnarok's basic plot audience members should watch Thor (2011), The Avengers (2012), Thor the Dark World (2013), Avengers Age of Ultron (2015), and Doctor Strange (2016). It appears impossible for any new MCU entry to be watchable in its own right. The MCU shall eventually crumble under its own weight, and when that time comes only this franchise's best titles will be remembered and revered. It doesn't seem likely Thor Ragnarok will be amongst the chosen. As Thor would say, this movie is "not worthy."

Verdict: Thor Ragnarok is a poorly executed semi coherent sequence of events about a group of hotheads who take on a CGI army, and the movie lacks emotional impact and worthwhile entertaining value.

"I Hope you're Satisfied with our Product." Blade Runner 2049 Review

Blade Runner 2049

2.5/5

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Written by: Hampton Fancher and Michael Green

Rated: R

           Writer's express their worldviews through genres, and science fiction is the most apt and malleable gateway for a writer's thoughts on the world around them. Through the technologically advanced worlds in science fiction, screenwriters have illustrated their thoughts on policies, social issues and generalized norms. In 1982 Hampton Fancher employed this genre, combined with film noir, and wrote the screenplay for Ridley Scott's critically acclaimed Blade Runner. 35 years later, Fancher and director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival 2016) have revamped Scott's vision to reflect their new worldviews. Based upon Blade Runner's science fiction themes and environment, Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 inhabits a new atmosphere with an original narrative tackling a wide variety of social issues and ambiguous situations.
           Blade Runner 2049's story is an unexpected narrative approach for a science fiction block buster. It is an investigative look at what defines humanity and what lies the world foolishly believes. Because the film's narrative does not have the gravitas of other science fiction block busters, Blade Runner 2049's story can feel sluggish and monotonous. Though the story covers a wide variety of topics and social issues, the film's narrative does not successfully interweave these concepts into a coherent ideology. This does not mean the film does not feature compelling scenes. The action sequences are unflinching, the romantic moments are sensuous, the dialogue is fascinating, and the story is intriguing, but the film's decision to treat all of the story's themes as ambiguous entities makes the film an overall unrewarding experience.

           What keeps this story somewhat engaging and worth watching is its main protagonist. Officer K. is a Blade Runner charged with the task of hunting down and retiring replicants, artificially made people. Ryan Gosling portrays this standout character with a brazen charm and razor sharp subtlety. This seasoned actor is able to show his character's thoughts and beliefs through the intensity and gentleness in his eyes. It is clear every twitch of his face; every curl of his mouth; every flare of his nostrils; every step he walks speaks K's inner emotional conflicts and mental competence as the lead hero of Blade Runner 2049.
           Accompanying Gosling's performance are actors and actresses Ana De Armas as Joi, Robin Wright as Lieutenant Joshi, Sylvia Hoeks as Luv, and Jared Leto as Niander Wallace. Though all of these performers suit their on screen personas, their line delivery and idiosyncrasies can become predictable and eventually unstimulating. These performers play their parts well, but their character's inert natures give them little room for exploration and discovery.

           Along with this considerably immobile cast of characters, Blade Runner 2049 is comprised of a vapid and tiresome atmosphere. While cinematographer Roger Deakins provides shots with adequate composition, they have little variety. His shots seldom include camera movement and only depict one shade of color. There are no hue gradients in Deakins' color pallet, and as such his shots feel lifeless and inactive. The best element in this film's visuals is its lighting design. It is wondrous watching character's slowly cross a massive corridor, as a golden light illuminates their path with each step they take. It is an impactful part of this film's aesthetic, and it does not attract attention to itself. However, an element that demands attention is this film's score. Hans Zimmer ,musical composer, tries to add energy to Deakins' devoid scenes, but he does so with overbearingly loud drones, inconsequential ethereal synthesizers and harsh bass drops. All of Blade Runner 2049's atmospheric pieces gives this film a unique look and feel, but make the film an unengaging experience that would be better watched on a home viewing screen.

Verdict: Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 features a top notch performance from Ryan Gosling and excellent lighting design, but its slow paced story told through devoid images and stagnant color palettes and characters makes this film an ultimately unrewarding cinematic experience.

"I'm gonna put the Show back in Chauvinism." Battle of the Sexes Review

Battle of the Sexes

1/5

Directed by: Johnathan Dayton and Valerie Faris

Written by: Simon Beaufoy

Rated: PG-13

            On Thursday September 20, 1973, over 90 million people across the world tuned into to one sporting event. Men and women alike watched the game of the decade in the Houston Astrodome, where over 30,742 spectators gathered to watch former 1939 Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs, 55, take on World no. 1 Billie Jean King, 29. The momentous match between the lobber and the libber was hailed as the "Battle of the Sexes." This incredible true story of friendly competition, the press's power, and people's desire to prove once and for all which is the better sex...is not in this movie. Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical look at modern day USA through the perspective of a warped and considerably forgettable biopic.
           The only decent aspect of this film, and primary source of its humorous, dramatic, and relationally impactful scenes is Bobby Riggs, played by comedy genius Steve Carell. In real life Bobby Riggs was a gambling addict and a hustler who portrayed himself as a chauvinist pig on television. Steve Carell nails this role and Bobby Riggs' unique sense of humor. In his efforts to blatantly show how men are better than women at tennis, he plays with ridiculous handicaps, and dresses up in silly costumes. It is amusing watching this 55 year old play tennis with a frying pan, walking three large dogs, and wearing a little-bo-peep costume with his own herd of sheep.
           Billie Jean King is played by a soft spoken Emma Stone, and the camera intently shows off her spotless complexion. Billie Jean's theatrical portrayal is not characterized beyond her ability to play tennis, which is rarely shown on screen, and her relationship with her husband and the woman she is cheating on with him. The story does not take necessary time illustrating Billie Jean as a strong hearted and worthwhile protagonist. By the time the battle between her and Riggs begins, audiences may find themselves rooting for the misogynistic showman, which should be this movie's opposite intent.
           What greatly diminishes Billie Jean's chances for character development is her forced romantic infatuation with her hair dresser Marylin, played by a plastic Barbie doll faced Andrea Riseborough. These awful scenes seem to take up more than 75% of this movie's runtime, significantly diminish the plot's pacing, and appear to be constructed in a way that conveys unnecessary intimacy with as little effort possible.
           The directors chose to display Billie Jean and Marylin's sexual attraction, through psychological direction. The cinematography in their scenes consists of extreme close ups on make-up  covered faces, and provocative shots with free floating movement, but little substance. According to an interview with  "Ney York Times'" the directors' goal was to mimic what is known as "the autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR). It's when people talk in a certain tone [and] elicit a sensual response." While these scenes have the ability to provoke uncomfortable arousal from audience members, they fail to create tenderness and deep rooted passion between the characters. Billie Jean and Marilyn's romance focuses on superficial biological desires, rather than greater unconditional love, the kind that makes a character heroic and noteworthy.
           In addition to these lack luster sexual scenes, this movie is hypocritical of its message. In Battle of the Sexes the obviously villainous Jack Kramer, founder of the Association of Tennis Professionals, claims women cannot play tennis as well as men, because they crumble under emotional pressure more than men do. This movie could have easily disproven the claim, by showing a heroic Billie Jean King overcome all obstacles and challenge Bobby Riggs with a level head and an optimistic spirit. Unfortunately the movie does not do this, and instead plays into Kramer's words. In the movie Billie Jean's unnecessary romance clearly messes with her head, and is shown as the main cause of her losses on the court and her emotional strife. Meanwhile Bobby Riggs' wife divorces him, he suffers from a gambling problem, and his oldest son does not appreciate him, yet Bobby Riggs plays tennis like a champ with a can do attitude. The film also deliberately points out that if Billie Jean left her husband and followed her misguided heart, then she would be able to win more tennis matches and be happy. If this movie was showing Billie Jean as a strong willed protagonist who did not let her romantic life get the best of her, then her domestic life would not have had a pronounced negative effect on her athletic skill or competitive attitude. It is sad that this movie puts supplemetary effort into heroically parading the male pig, and then tries to persuade audiences into believing that the writer and ditectors cared more about the hairy legged feminist just because she had the most screen time.
           Battle of the Sexes is one of the most appalling bait and switches in biographical cinema. This movie's advertising claimed the film would be a well directed and uplifting story about gender rivalry and its affects on the athletic environment. It is disgraceful how a story with such magnitude, popularity, and open power for change was mutilated into an unbalanced self righteous pat on the back for men and an awkward side hug for women.

Verdict: With its one good character being the showy antagonistic chauvinist pig, Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical waste of an iconic historical event and box-office money.

"No Shark Attacks, while someone's on the Toilet." Netflix's Death Note Review

Netflix's Death Note

1/5

Directed by: Adam Wingard

Rated: TV-MA

           "Death Note" is a manga (Japanese graphic novel) written by Tsugumi Ohba and illustrated by Takeshi Obata. Releasing its chapters on a weekly basis in Shonen Jump magazine, the series began in 2003 and concluded in 2006. Upon its completion, studio Madhouse adapted the manga into an anime. By then, "Death Note" had a received critical praise, sold millions of copies, and became a national phenomenon. Years later, the producers at Netflix believed they could tap into this series' appeal, and so on August 25th, 2017, Adam Wingard's TV movie Death Note was released unto the world. It is, however, an appalling disaster.
           Netflix's Death Note is neither a meaningful adaptation, nor a memorable new story based on the limitless source material. While the first three chapters of the manga (or first three episodes of the anime) inspired a few of the movie's inciting scenes, the rest of Netflix's Death Note seeks to create its own original, although misguided, storyline. Light Turner, played by an uptight Nat Wolff, is an uninteresting loner in a high school in Seattle, Washington. One overcast day he finds a Death Note, a notebook with the ability to kill anyone whose name is written in it, as long as the users request follows all 100 plus of the Death Note's rules. With this new found power, Light decides to do nothing with it, until the death god, Ryuk, portrayed by an unnecessarily nasally Willem Dafoe, convinces Light to use the Death Note and kill his personal enemies. Afterwards, Light uses the Death Note to impress his cheerleader crush, Mia Sutton, played palely by an always moody Margaret Qualley. Together, after the two of them delight in some obligatory sordid high school fantasies, they decide to use the notebook to kill off criminals, terrorists, and convince the world that they are a god.

           While this may appear to be a somewhat enticing premise, the movie's execution is neither coherent nor entertaining. The screenplay is comprised of forgettable lines, and more than three lackluster plot twists. The movie cycles through a barrage of conflicting genres. It starts as an excessively bloody horror flick (similar to 2000's Final Destination), becomes an overbearing gothic romance, turns into an uninspired mystery, and ends as an over the top melodramatic comedy (this last one may have been unintentional). As the plot progresses, it feels inclined to invite a slew of characters. When characters are introduced, it is done without sufficient exposition. This makes what could have been an intriguing lineup of personas, into a string of flimsy one dimensional archetypes.

CGI Ryuk (Willem Dafoe)

           Along with the story's meager execution, the movie is atrocious from a technical standpoint. The editing is a grab bag of wipes, fades, and poor cuts. Gaffs, such as disappearing props, costume mistakes, and basic continuity errors, are visible throughout the movie's runtime. Most of these errors are obvious, and could have been easily cut from the finished product. Perhaps the editors thought these mistakes would go unnoticed, due to the movie's pitch black aesthetic. Scenes are poorly lit with a mixture of heavy handed neon glows and unflattering darkness. The costume designer also saw it fitting for characters to wear all black outfits. Often times, performers seem to be nothing more than floating heads. The only character silhouette standing out in this gloomy atmosphere is Ryuk. However, Ryuk's CGI physique is animated so poorly, the lighting is used to hide his cheap character design. He only appears feasible when he is obscured by shelves, or blurred out by the camera. The few moments featuring Ryuk's carelessly animated face, remind audiences of this movie's fakery and devoid world.

Light Yagami and Ryuk (Takeshi Obata)

           Beyond all of these glaring flaws, Netflix's Death Note fails to capture the heart and blackened soul that made Ohba and Obata's manga an engaging page turner, protagonist Light Yagami. In the manga, Light is an acknowledged genius, placing first in national exams. He is a gifted individual, with two loving parents and an adorable sister. He is also bored. When the Death Note falls into Light's possession, he uses its power to kill thousands of the world's criminals, through unnatural heart attacks, and in time people begin hailing him as a god, Kira. "Death Note" hinges on Light's cunning plans, talent at dodging suspicion, and moral aptitude to use and dispose of his close allies. He is a corrupt antihero, and one that millions of people unnaturally root for and read about countless times. His abandoned morality begs readers to question their own sense of justice, and ask themselves what they would do if they found a Death Note.

Light Turner (Nat Wolff)

           Director Adam Wingard answered this hypothetical question with Light Turner. This unimpressive high schooler uses his Death Note to impress a girl, and force people to believe he is a god. He also delights in writing unique and grotesque murders in his Death Note. While this makes Light out to be an edgy and disturbed teenager, he also exhibits traits contradicting this viscous side. In frightful moments, Light immaturely panics, childishly screams, and makes impractical demands of those around him. The movie wants to amend this by showing off Light's potential brain power. It does this through flashbacks showing how Light improbably predicted a fatal scenario, and showing what he wrote in the Death Note in order to run away from his fate. This makes Light's few moments of supposed planning into to tropic dues ex machinas (an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel: Oxford Dictionaries) It is hard to root for this obnoxious protagonist. The majority of viewers will hope Light meets a fate similar to the gory deaths he has inflicted on others. Considering the movie follows his exploits and character development (or in this case lack of), the story's impact rests on him. Regrettably, Light Turner lets the movie fall, crashing down like an over bloated CGI Ferris wheel.

Verdict: With flat characters,  a hollow screenplay, unflattering camera work, and poor execution of an ingenious premise, Netflix's Death Note is an ungodly adaptation of a brilliant manga.

"You can practically see it from here, Home" Dunkirk Review

Dunkirk

4/5

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Rated: PG-13

           British director Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedentedly realistic depiction of the British forces' treacherous evacuation from Dunkirk beach. It is about the soldiers' struggle for survival on the beaches, the civilian yacht sailors' attempts to rescue them, and the spit fire pilots' dog fights against incoming German bombers. Audiences are thrust into this situation with minimal exposition. There is one shot of opening text, and then the film continues, and it does not stop. This impending ticking clock is exemplified within the film's soundtrack, as the musical motif of a pocket watch's ceaseless second hand. Time is not on the soldiers' side. They cannot waste a single moment, or it may be their death.
           What makes Dunkirk a realistic depiction of these events is the director's choice to not use computer generated air planes, ships, or locations. Nolan shot the majority of the film on Dunkirk beach and the English Channel. All of the air planes in the film were working replicas and restored WWII fighter planes. Most of the ships used in the film were the real life ships that made the perilous journey to those beaches in 1940. According to an article on the Evening Standard Nolan casts over 6,000 extras and supplemented the rest of the people using cardboard cutouts. Because Dunkirk utilizes realistic special effects, vehicles and locations, it features some incredibly haunting audial art. The pervasive overbearing sounds of gunfire, motor engines, whizzing bullets, crushing tides, and soaring fighter planes immerse audiences in Dunkirk's claustrophobic war zone.
           Though there are a few well known actors in the film, Tom Hardy, Fionn Whitehead, Harry Styles, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, and Kenneth Branagh, Dunkirk's humanity shines through its hundreds of thousands of unnamed terrified faces. There is no overarching romance or character drama to pacify audiences from this experience. Nolan places audiences in the mindset of the 400,000 soldiers desperately attempting to escape their faceless enemy in the skies. The only protagonist is life, and its antagonist is impending death. Survival is victory.
           Much like Nolan's previous films Dunkirk has a unique chronemic structure. Dunkirk relays time's passage through three separate narratives. Each story in the film begins with the start of the film, but they each take place over a different amount of time. The narrative concerning the soldiers on the beach covers the span of one week. The narrative of an old father on the sea covers the length of a day. The scenes depicting spit fire air planes in mid air combat spans an hour. Though the jarring transitions between these three interwoven time lines may be enough to momentarily jolt audiences out of the film, it is not enough to overcome the wave of sights and sounds that make Dunkirk an unforgettable cinematic experience.

Verdict: Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedented haunting retelling of the British evacuation from Dunkirk beach, and it submerges audiences in a world of sound, fear, shock, and survival.