Darkest Hour [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times () review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Darkest Hour [2017] (directed by Joe Wright, screenplay by Anthony McCarten) continues a recent fascination in the Anglo-American world with the life of Winston Churchill [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the current film by Gary Oldman), for this is the third film in less than a year about him, the other two being Churchill [2017], Dunkirk [2017] and now the current film, the first about the lead-up to the 1944 Invasion of Normandy which served to decisively win World War II for the Allies, and the second film along with current one about the much darker time (hence the current film's name...) near the beginning of the War when, honestly, ALL could have been lost, IF NOT perhaps for _this man_.

For years, Winston Churchill had been sounding the alarm in Britain and the West about the existential danger to a free humanity that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis posed.  Since Britain and France were desperate to avert another war as murderous as the First World War, Britain's previous Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain [wikip] (played in the current film by Ronald Pickup) hoped they could buy Hitler off through a policy of Appeasement. After washing his hands from a potential conflict between Germany and my parents' country of Czechoslovakia (by giving Hitler everything that he wanted ... at the time...) Chamberlain tried to declare that he had acheived "Peace with Honor" and "Peace in our Time," to which Churchill retorted that as a result of selling the Czechs into essentially slavery Britain will find neither Peace nor Honor, and eighteen months later, when the story of this film began Chamberlain if perhaps both cowardly and not particularly bright admitted that "Churchill was right."

But what now?  In a line that certainly stuck-out for me in this film, Churchill tells his wife Clementine (played wonderfully in the film by Kristen Scott Thomas) that, with the Germans having invaded Holland and Belgium and racing toward France, he was being made Prime Minister _now_ only because "the ship was already sinking."  His hope, as remarkably, always was, to try to still keep it (Britain) afloat.

AND THE TASK WAS DAUNTING.  As was amply presented in this summer's film Dunkirk [2017], THE WHOLE of BRITAIN'S army was soon surrounded near the French port of Dunkirk, And the legendary British Navy notwithstanding, WITHOUT a CREDIBLE ARMY ... there was simply no way the British political class would support continuing the War.

So he had to find a way to get the army out: Having been his whole life associated with the British Navy, Churchill did know a thing or two about its capabilities and its contingency plans, and so he did call on the Navy to requisition all those private boats and pleasure craft to sail out to Dunkirk and bring the vast majority of the British soldiers trapped there home.

But there still was the need to convince the political class to keep fighting.  Many, notably Viscount Halifax (played in the film by Stephen Dillane) wanted to still make a deal with Hitler if it would prevent an invasion.

Perhaps more than even the other two films, this one was about one man trying to convince an entire nation (and especially its leadership) that FIGHTING rather than SURRENDER was still worth it. 

The Viscount Halifax was right.  Almost certainly SOME KIND OF A DEAL could have been made, but MY GOD, WOULD THIS WORLD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (and MUCH, MUCH WORSE FOR IT) if Britain would have folded.

There are times when one really does have to _stand_ and fight even if success is by no means guaranteed.  Excellent film!  But ... why are we seeing SO MANY films about Churchill now?  What are we being warned about?


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >

Coco [2017]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Coco [2017] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina, story by Jason Katz, Matthew Aldrich, Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina) while not without some initial problems (refer to the CNS/USCCB review by J. Mulderig above) largely gets the Mexican "Day of the Dead" tradition right.

On November 2nd, the Catholic Church as a whole remembers the Day our Faithful Departed (All Souls Day), assumed because we knew them (we knew their gifts as well as their failings) to be in Purgatory (where they have to still purify themselves, that is correct / make amends for said failings) rather than end up in either Heaven or Hell.  We pray for them that their time in Purgatory would not be terribly long (that they would do what they need to do to make things right).  And we have hope that those who will come after us will pray for us as well and that we will, if we've already made it to Purgatory rather than fallen to Hell, eventually make it to Heaven as well.

The Catholic Church's three tier structure of the Afterlife has generally been welcomed by indigenous / pre-Christian cultures the world-over because it mercifully does not automatically send all non-absolutely-perfect Christians after their deaths to Hell.  There is this LARGE middle category where our loved ones can go to (again, because we know them, yes, their failings but also their good qualities), from where Heaven remains possible and Hell not inevitable.

For instance,  in my parents' native Czech culture, Nov 2nd popularly called Dušičky*, or the "Day of the Little Souls", is extremely important EVEN TO THIS DAY (as the day when EVERYONE, both religious and non, goes to the cemetery to remember their departed loved-ones). And the Russians (Orthodox) ALSO celebrate elaborate prayer services called Panykhidas for their departed loved ones each year.   More fundamentalist religions generally don't offer this "middle option" and so the vast majority of people in those traditions are simply doomed.

In Mexico, as elsewhere Nov 2nd is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and the Church's prayers "For the Faithful Departed" has been conflated there with various pre-Christian traditions, all basically seeking to remember / honor our deceased loved ones.

It is this Mexican pre-Colombian set of Traditions of simply remembering the deceased loved ones that is largely portrayed in this film.  However, I would argue that the Catholic concept of Purgatory, the working-out of past tragedies / crimes / misunderstandings is _not_ lost in the story either.

Most Mexican Viewers of the current film (and Mexican descended Readers of this review) will probably have little difficulty harmonizing the two sets of Traditions (Catholic / indigenous) with each other.  And again, the concept of reparation, making things right, is _not_ lost in this either.

Alright, to the story of the film at hand, told marvelously by Disney / Pixar, using animated techniques that wonderfully pay homage to traditional Mexican culture: For instance, the whole prologue to the story (it's setup) plays-out, in animated fashion on pieces of papel picado (the elaborately cut-out pieces of tissue paper which are, in fact, used as decorations for the traditional Mexican commemoration of the Day of the Dead).  AND THE PROLOGUE TO THE STORY IS _REALLY_ IMPORTANT:

The film's chief protagonist 10-12 year old Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) is from a family of shoemakers BUT ... he'd much rather be a musician and play the guitar / sing.

He's being prevented from doing so by his ENTIRE FAMILY, especially by his abuelita (grandmother, voiced by Renee Victor) because FIVE GENERATIONS BACK abuelita's own grandmother, by now deceased, Mamá Imelda (voiced by Alanna Ubach) and her then baby daughter, now abuelita's own mother and Miguel's great grandmother, Mamá Coco (voiced by Ana Ofelia Murguía) ... were left ABANDONED by Mamá Imelda's husband ... A DIRTY NO GOOD MUSICIAN ;-).

So it could be said that Miguel _has_ "music in his genes" BUT ... there's a _still unresolved_ family tragedy / crime GOING BACK FIVE GENERATIONS that is preventing him from fulfilling his destiny.

Well ... Miguel spends his time hiding his interest in music from his family.  But things come to a head when he's challenged by one of the local mariachi players to enter into the town's annual DAY OF THE DEAD MUSIC CONTEST.  He'd love to do so, but he'd need to borrow someone's guitar -- good old abuelita had discovered his and SMASHED IT.

Well, Dear Readers, you know how musicians are -- NO ONE WANTS TO LEND OUT ONE'S GUITAR ;-).  SOO ... Miguel, on the Day of the Dead, enters into the town's cemetery, breaks into the tomb of the town's most famous son, A Mariachi player by the name of Ernesto de la Cruz (voiced by Benjamin Bratt) to steal (err borrow) his guitar.  And by then, he actually suspects that Ernesto de la Cruz may have been his great-great-grandfather (so it wouldn't really be stealing anyway ;-).

Well, Miguel gets to the guitar, strikes one chord, and ... since it's ALSO the Day of the Dead, starts seeing Dead People ;-) ...

He then sets out to find good old Ernesto de la Cruz, to meet him and get his blessing.  While looking for Ernesto, he also meets Mamá Imelda, his great great grand mother, as well as all the other deceased members of his family, who he recognizes from their photographs that that the family would put on the family's Day of the Dead altar.  Needless to say, even the deceased are not excited that Miguel was trying to find _a musician_. 

Much ensues as Miguel tries to get to Ernesto's rather luxurious home in the "abode of the dead" (while his own family members, both living and deceased, are trying to prevent him from doing so).

I do want to tell Readers here that the story has some interesting twists: Yes, to begin to get answers, Miguel has to make it to Ernesto, BUT ... the story of what actually happened back to Miguel's family 4-5 generations ago is actually more complicated than it would initially seem.

I won't get into this further, because that would enter into Spoiler territory.  However, I will say that the story of what happened to Miguel's family that made them hate music so much (and for so long) is one that would interest a company like Pixar whose stories are often far more complex / poignant than would initially meet the eye ... Think here of WALL-E [2008], Up [2009], Toy Story 3 [2010], Finding Nemo [2003] and Finding Dory [2016].  All of those films were far more emotional than one would have initially expected them to be.  The same is the case here.

I will say, of course, that there is a happy ending.  However, it's also an ending worthy of the entire setup of the story.

After all, I began this review noting that in the Catholic conception of things, most souls would go to Purgatory initially before proceeding to Heaven.  Why?  Because there would still be "loose ends" in their lives that would need to be fixed before they could proceed further.

Here is a story, about a tragedy that happened 4-5 generations back that still needed to be fixed.

Wonderful job Pixar / Disney, wonderful job! ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Star [2017]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


The Star [2017] (directed by Timothy Rekart, screenplay by Carlos Kotkin, story by Simon Moore and Carlos Kotkin) is a cute star-studded film about Jesus' birth taken from the point of view of the animals in the story, notably from the POV of the donkey (voiced by Steven Yeun) on which the very pregnant Mary (voiced by Gina Rodriguez) rode to Bethlehem where she gave birth to Jesus.  Also in the story are the camels (voiced by Tyler Perry, Tracy Morgan and Oprah Winfrey) who amusingly seem to more about what's going on than "the three kings" (voiced by Joel Osteen, Phil Morris and Fred Tatasciore) did ;-).  There's also a lovable sheep (voiced by Aidy Bryant) who interestingly seems to "herd" everybody in the story "together."

I have to say that I LIKED THE STORY.  Sure, it's kinda cutesy, but it's also aimed for FIVE YEAR OLD KIDS.  In that regard, it's a lovely story.  And I did appreciate that SO MANY STARS and from a truly _wide_ cross-section of American society took part in it.

All in all, though it's not going to win many awards, it never intended to.  Instead, it tells the story of the birth of Jesus from a novel and interesting point of view and -- to kids ;-).

Good job!  Very good job!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Man who Invented Christmas [2017]

MPAA (PG)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing

The Man who Invented Christmas [2017] (directed by Bharat Nalluri, screenplay by Susan Coyne based on the book by Les Stradiford [GR] [IMDb]) is an incredibly stupidly / offensively titled film.  Indeed, if ANYONE on the Left would wonder why Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, one could simply take a moment or two to contemplate the title of this film.

Did Charles Dickens "invent Christmas?"  OF COURSE NOT.   Why then _stupidly_ title this film --a film that COULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING (about how Dickens came up with the plot of his famous novel A Christmas Carol) -- in a manner that _guarantees_ that it will OFFEND TENS OF MILLIONS OF  OTHERWISE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED AMERICAN VIEWERS.

My answer: Unless there's A LOT OF RUSSIAN MONEY invested in this stupid film (in which case its release under this name COULD HAVE BEEN INTENDED by emerging real-life SUPERVILLAIN Vladimir Putin TO PRODUCE shock and division in the United States), it would be that the Lunatic Left continues to have some kind of evil / misguided Death Wish.

Indeed, the Lunatic Left made both Franco and even Hitler possible: In 1930s Spain, Franco became a "voice of reason" (!) after unbelievably stupid Spanish Communists began storming Convents AND SHOOTING UP NUNS (in my Religious Order, the Servites, we now honor one such nun Bl Maria Guadalupe Ricart Olmos, OSM as a martyr because was SHE ONE OF THOSE NUNS taken out one random night during the Spanish Civil War and shot-up by some _crazed_ squad of "forward looking" Spanish Communists)

Then the Russian Bolsheviks' campaign of seeking to destroy Christianity in Russia (shutting down the churches, turning them into storage sheds or worse, deporting and/or shooting their priests) guaranteed that _tens of millions_ of German voters in the 1930s would see the "law and order" Nazis as a _far more sensible_ option to the chaos, arrogance / evil of the Soviet Communism.


But did Charles Dickens "invent Christmas"?  Again, OF COURSE NOT.  Readers remember here that I'M A CATHOLIC PRIEST:

Some weeks ago, we spent part of our Parish Liturgy Committee Meeting talking about which of the Readings from the FOUR Possible Christmas Masses (ALL OF WHICH ALL GO BACK TO AT LEAST THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY THE GREAT -- 5th-6th Century A.D.) we were going to use at our various Christmas Liturgies (from 4 PM and 9 PM on Christmas Eve to Midnight on Christmas Eve to morning on Christmas Day to early afternoon on Christmas Day).

The Christmas trees in our Church go back to the time of the mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury, St. Gregory the Great's BFF (hence again 6th Century AD) who St. Gregory had sent to evangelize the then fearsome, barbaric and at the time rumored TO BE CANNIBALISTIC Anglo Saxons.  The Anglo Saxons had over-run the southern part of previously already Christian Roman Britain (St. Patrick, who lived in the 4th century A.D., whose name derives from the latin word Patrician or basically 'rich boy' was Romano-British ;-).  Returning to St. Augustine of Canterbury, he had the wisdom of not making a "problem" of the Anglo-Saxon custom of bringing into their homes the branches of evergreen trees in the height of winter.  Instead, recalling the many times trees played a significant role in the Bible -- (1) the Trees of Good and Evil / Life in the Garden of Eden, (2) the Wood out of which Noah built the Ark, (3) Jesus being laid down in a Manger (the Midnight Christmas Liturgy referred to above took place originally in the NATIVITY CHAPEL at the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome (built in the early 5th century), where THE RELIC OF JESUS' CRIB brought back to Rome by St. Helen, the mother of Constantine back IN THE 4th CENTURY was KEPT), and finally (4) Jesus being nailed to and saving us all through "the wood of the cross" -- the future St Augustine of Canturbury decided to "let it go" / bless said evergreen trees and ... from this we have our Christmas trees ;-)

Then we have our Christmas plays and our Nativity Sets depicting Mary, Joseph, the Shepherds, the animals, the stars and angels THANKS TO ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI who loved the story so much that he promoted it where-ever he could.

To this day, one could go to the Via San Gregorio Armeno in Naples, Italy, and see an ENTIRE STREET with HUNDREDS OF SHOPS SELLING NOTHING BUT "PRESEPI" (Nativity Sets) of every conceivable level of complexity from the simplest -- Mary, Jesus, Joseph, Star above, to entire medieval town / village to contemporary city-scapes.

And if you were there, you'd probably hear, over and over again, playing in the background, probably the most famous Italian Christmas Carol ("Tu Scendi dalle Stelle" [wikip] [YouTube]) attributed to Napoli's own St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787).   It should be noted that pretty much ALL of the traditional ENGLISH Christmas Carols -- Adeste Fideles / "O Come O Ye Faithful" [it-wikip]* comes self-evidently to mind -- are actually translated FROM LATIN hence predate their English usage.  And I come originally from a Czech household.  The Czech Christmas Carols "Narodil se Kristus Pán" (Born is Christ the Lord) [cs-wikip]* and Nesem Vám Noviny" go back to "ages past" the first to the 15th century, the second, as a folk hymn, honestly unknown.


So to purport that Charles Dickens (!), as great an author as he was, somehow _invented Christmas_ is NONSENSE arguably even EVIL NONSENSE that gives nihilists and other enemies of truth comfort.  Shame. -- ZERO Stars.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Justice League [2017]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Justice League [2017] (directed by Zach Snyder, screenplay by Chris Terrio and Jack Whedon, story by Chris Terrio and Zach Snyder, based on the characters of DC Comics [DC] [wikip]) unites various superheroes of the DC Comic Universe [wikip] -- including Batman [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this series by Ben Affleck), Superman [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this series by Henry Cavill), Wonder Woman [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the series by Gal Gadot), The Flash [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played here by Ezra Miller), Cyborg [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played here by Ray Fisher) and Aquaman [DC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played here by Jason Momoa) -- to fight the emerging threat of an ancient supervillainous deity named Steppenwolf [wikip] [IMDb] (voiced in the film by Ciarán Hinds).

It is noteworthy here that most of humanity (including the fully human / more contemporary superheroes in the story) was/were totally oblivious of even the existence of this re-emerging supervillain threat.  Only Wonder Woman and Aquaman (whose origin stories link them to the GrecoRoman mythological Amazons [wikip] and Atlantians [wikip] respectively) understand who Steppenwolf was, what he was up to, and what kind of an Apocalyptic / "world destroying" threat he was.   This is a characteristic of DC Comics, whose supervillains tend to be either extraterrestrial or otherwise generally hidden "under the muck" of this world until they quite suddenly appear in order to threaten humanity's very existence.

Much of course ensues as Wonder Woman and Batman assemble the superheroes to fight this emerging threat -- Steppenwolf being German for "wolf of the steppes" or cayote -- who was making his lair somewhere in subterranean central Russia (!).  Among that which ensues is that the two realize that they're going to have to find a way to _resurrect_ Superman (killed in the previous installment Batman vs Superman: The Dawn of Justice [2016]).  Minor spoiler alert: they succeed.  How?  I'm not going to tell you ;-).

All in all, the story plays out as a typical superhero movie with much action, much "glass breaking" level of mass destruction.  Then characteristic of the DC Comics universe the story is generally darker / more "hard-boiled" than the stories that play-out in the Marvel Comics universe and there are fairly easily identifiable if still low-level motiffs previously associated with 1920s-era (pre-Hitler's definitive rise) German Fascism.  (I'll leave it to Readers here to reflect on my charge here and identify the more obvious examples -- I make mention of several in the immediate paragraph above).

As such, while not a bad superhero movie, I am "wary" and I much prefer the Marvel Comics stories.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Wonder [2017]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review

Wonder [2017] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Stephen Chbosky along with Steven Conrad  and Jack Thorne based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by R.J. Palacio [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is truly a remarkable film that come Oscar time deserves _at minimum_ nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay and then Best Picture.  I rarely cry at the movies, yet, I found myself tearing up _repeatedly_ as the story of Auggie (played wonderfully by Jacob Trembplay) a quite significantly physically challenged (mostly by this point _aesthetically challenged_) fifth-grade boy was told.  After 20+ surgeries, his face was still quite significantly scarred / deformed.

The true genius of the story IMHO was that it was told MOSTLY from the perspective of Auggie _and then of the kids / teens_, including his older sister Via (played to a stunning break-out performance level by Izabela Vidovic) in his life.  As such, the story wasn't solely about him, but about the both on-one-hand remarkable, yet on-the-other utterly _ordinary_ kids / teens around him.  AND EVERY TIME a "conflict" presented itself in the story, the story dutifully portrayed the other person's "side" / perspective as well.  I FOUND THIS TO BE _WONDER-FUL_.

I found it absolutely beautiful to enter into the world of Via, who if not for her clearly (and by nobody's fault) _special needs_ younger brother, would have had an otherwise normal (or "normal") life:  She both "understands" and yet is inevitably jealous that "mom" (played again wonderfully by Julia Roberts) ends up _necessarily spending_ so much more time focused on Auggie than on her.

Then there was classmate Jack (played by Noah Jupe) who was both "kinda a friend" but also "part of the class" (again of 5th graders) who found Auggie, well, at least on some level necessarily _different_ / _strange_.  There's even Via's BFF Miranda (played again wonderfully by Danielle Rose Russell) who suddenly, as the two enter high school, starts acting "strange."  Why?  Well ... there's a story there ;-).

Then though set in the context of a rather prestigious NYC prep-school, the kids in the school are not lily white.  Via's love interest in the story is a wonderful, whose family taught him well, well-groomed/behaved African American teen named Justin (played by Nadji Jeter).  When Jack and Auggie appear to drift apart, an African American girl named Summer (played wonderfully by Millie Davis) steps up to be Auggie's BFF for a while (and even helps explain to Jack why Auggie was so mad at him).  And Auggie's principle teacher Mr Browne, again African American (played by Daveed Diggs) carried the well-deserved respect of all.  And the Principal of the school Mr. Tushman (played by Mandy Patinkin) presumably Jewish would make Sholem Aleichem (author of the stories that became Fiddler on the Roof) proud.

This was honestly A REMARKABLE STORY, ADAPTED TO FILM, that so wonderfully reminds us, that though perhaps many of us may have become jaded in our time and look-out for our interests, many others, and especially the young are still _fundamentally good people_.  Yes, misunderstandings still can occur, but if one took time to learn their perspective on the story, one would _understand_.

Simply a wonderful film / story, richly _deserving praise_ and certainly one of the best North American films of the year.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Murder on the Orient Express [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Murder on the Orient Express [2017] [IMDb-Hist] (directed by Kenneth Branagh, screenplay by Michael Green based on the celebrated novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Agatha Christie [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) continues the current cycle of remakes / updates of celebrated novels / stories of the past.  Yet while perhaps borrowing from other recent updates there remains a _slightly_ hyper-real "story book" quality to the film's set designs -- one thinks here of the reboots / remakes of the Sherlock Holmes [2011+] stories, The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] and even the original Star Trek [2013] [2016] series -- even then the sets here are more subdued than in the case of the examples just mentioned, and certainly _the pacing_ of the current film tracks much more closely to the pace of the original novel than in the case of the other recent remakes.

That said, Viewers are confronted with the question of whether this decision to adhere so closely to the pacing of the original novel was a good idea.  To be honest, and though I feel somewhat embarrassed as I write this, I found the current film _far more boring_ than say the recent remakes of the The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012] and even the Sherlock Holmes [2011+] stories.  Further, since the 1974, also star-studded screen version of Murder was _so good_, one's left with the questions: Why bother with the making of the current remake? How did this film "move the ball?"  Say what one will, ALL of the above mentioned recent remakes did, at least aesthetically, _move the ball_.  The set designs of Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] and even the recent Sherlock Holmes [2011+] remakes, The Three Musketeers [2011] and  the Star Trek [2013] [2016] reboot were often simply stunning.  And even the often frenetic pacing of those recent films often carries with it its own charm (if nothing else, one marvels at these films' choreography).  In contrast, the pacing of the current film is kinda ... ho hum and leaves one wondering why, except that it was (perhaps) "time", the current film was made at all.

So what's the film about?  Well it retells the classic Agatha Christie story of her celebrated detective Hercule Poirot [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the current film by Kenneth Branagh) finding himself traveling in lavish (dare one say Grand Budapest Hotel [2014]) style on the 1920s-30s era Orient Express [wikip] from Istanbul to London, when ... (1) an avalanche somewhere in the Balkans halts the train, and (2) a MURDER, I dare say MURDER takes place on the train. 

As the good detective interviews the various fellow travelers (played by such current Hollywood stars as Judi Dench, William De Foe, Michelle Pfeiffer Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley) on the high class train car in which they were traveling, he finds that pretty _all of them_ had _some_ connection to the murder victim, and ... I'm not going to tell you.  Either you already know how this story ends, or if you don't ... and if you don't, I'm not going to ruin it for you ;-).

All in all, this _not_ a bad, current generation remake of the classic story.  It's just I think it rather fails the why was the remake made? / "move the ball" tests. 


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>