Dunkirk (****)

DUNKIRK is the latest from Christopher Nolan, whose films had been progressively getting bigger and more ambitious over the years. From The Dark Knight to Inception and finally Interstellar, here is a change of pace for the famed filmmaker: a somewhat contained historical thriller about the evacuation of Dunkirk amidst the chaos of World War II. I admire him for the subject matter, said to be a passion project of his for years now. I recognize the structure used and the way Nolan decided to tell this story. It's a vivid piece of filmmaking, but it's nowhere near his best work.

The story is told in three distinct sections, titled "The Mole," "The Sea," and "The Air." Each tells a unique story revolving around fictional characters and their wartime efforts. "The Mole" spans one week, "Sea" one day, and "air" one hour. The intercutting between these sections and the paths they take and intersect is a risky move for such an established genre. "Saving Private Ryan" isn't known for it's complex structure - it lets the action speak for itself. We get to know our characters. We feel the chaos of war. The other thing Nolan does is introduce us to these characters without names or backstory. They are just one of the thousands of faces we see on screen. The story being told isn't a hero returning to his wife, it's the safe evacuation of 400,000 soldiers.

The majority of screen time seems focused on the new, wonderful actor named Fionn Whitehead, a young boy who dodges bullets in the opening scene and then concocts an impromptu scheme to pose as a medic in order to be evacuated on the nearest ferry via a long and damaged causeway - "the mole." Despite their efforts, torpedoes and airstrikes keep the men on stranded on the beach. In an array of explosions, sand, and bodies, these men have no where to go.

We also meet a character played by Mark Rylance who is a civilian recruited to bring his boat out to rescue the stranded men across the sea. Rylance all but steals the movie here. He brings his two sons who offer their help when they come across a stranded Cillian Murphy at sea. Rylance recognized the signs of shell shock and tells his boys "he may never be the same again." Out of all the characters in the movie, his is the only one who seems confident in his abilities to lead. He's wonderful. The third act "the air," follows Tom Hardy as a pilot tasked with defending the beach. Not only does his plane get shot and damaged by enemy fire, but his fuel tank is slowly dwindling away...

"Dunkirk" is beautifully-shot and scored (Hans Zimmer, of course) who uses the repeated sounds of a ticking clock to help amp up the suspense throughout the film. In fact the whole film feels like rising action without a break. At barely 100 minutes, this is surely one of Nolan's shortest films, but we appreciate it's time given the intensity of the situations we find these men in. Even at this length, I found myself becoming tired by the suspense, almost wanting a moment of quietness in which characters discuss what the plan is or where they are from. I suppose that's too cliche in a film that takes so many risks. In fact, there is almost an entire lack of dialogue. All story is told through action, words are inconsequential. Compared to Nolan's wordy "Inception" that was chock full of riddles and exposition, the silence of "Dunkirk" was both jaw-dropping and absolutely inspired.

Overall, I would say that Nolan has more accomplished pieces of filmmaking out there. This movie, as good as it is, still falls victim to a variety of cliches that took me out of the picture. There's an accident on Rylance's boat midway through the movie that tries to become some sort of moral quandry but neither the characters or the script devotes enough time to the real implications. It's over the top and almost unbelievable. Also, the final scenes of Tom Hardy's Spitfire (after his fuel is depleted) has moments of beauty but still feels like an unnecessary addition to a film that is overall so grounded in reality. I know the opening titles tell us that the soldiers were hoping for a miracle. I just don't think Christopher Nolan needs to spell it out so plainly for us.

Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets (***)

VALERIAN has apparently been a passion project for Luc Besson ever since he directed "The Fifth Element." A lot of the same elements are there, and we have a clear visual style that is evidence of the director's love of sci-fi. In fact, we can see this movie drawing inspiration from many sources. It's quite a beautiful movie I will admit. The CGI is beautiful and the sets are impressive. Why did this movie fall flat for me? Every character is a dud.

The story is inspired by a famous French comic book in which Agent Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and Laureline (Cara Delevingne) work to fight crime a couple hundred years in the future. In fact, we know this is the future though a fun opening sequence in which we watch the International Space Station merge with China. Over the years it continues to grow until alien races eventually show up and join on, too. Eventually we are left with a space station that is like a futuristic New York City: a blend of culture and races and technology, floating in space as a meeting point for all the universe's planets. Valerian and Laureline are just small pegs in a massive puzzle. They work for a human-based organization and act as rogue agents that seek justice in a morally gray area.

The basic story is that of an ancient alien race that was all but wiped out during a large space battle years ago. They lived on beautiful beaches and harvested pearls from the ocean. A few of them escaped the planet's destruction and found their way to the Big City. I suppose it's kind of a mystery movie in the way Valerian stumbles onto the major conspiracy here. At first he has a dream of the planet's destruction, but eventually he begins to think it actually happened.

VALERIAN is an unapologetically colorful movie full of a dynamic blend of aliens, sets, and costumes. We can feel the filmmaker's love for this project and at times can feel the weight of it's over-saturation. Even if it goes against the story at hand, the movie is so crammed full of aliens and sets just as a means to show off, it eventually becomes like a sugar rush that began to hurt my head. The plot is surprisingly similar to Jame's Cameron's "Avatar" in that a government agency seeks to annihilate a primitive alien race for their own benefit. That movie was beautiful as well, filled with impressive CGI and characters. There, we could understand the world of Pandora and it's story. Here, it's a constant barrage of new sets and people. It's hard to keep up.

And the characters, oh boy. DeHaan as Valerian plays the role just as Keanu Reeves might in any 1990's action movie. He even gets the voice down. He flirts with Laureline and asks her to marry him, to which she refuses. The romance between them is a constant reference throughout the film as a means of building their characters, but never once do we believe that these two even like each other past some sort of mutual respect. Valerian later runs into a shapeshifter named Bubble (Rihanna) who fills the role of sacrificial friend that saves the day. It's a fun character idea but hampered by a stilted Rihanna performance that will not go down in history as a "memorable" movie death. Then there's the General (Clive Owen) who is the cliched leader without emotion and a thirst for destruction.

I saw the movie in 3D and was amazed by the details of this world. There are great sequences of action and technology (a heist scene in which Valerian goes to a Virtual Marketplace to stop a criminal exchange is both wonderful and intriguing) and yet I left the movie feeling like I had watched something so artificial. There isn't a character here we care for nor a set piece that brings genuine suspense or tension. As realistic as the movie looks at times, we always know that most of what we are seeing is 'fake.' There aren't any real repercussions at play. Even if there were, would we even care? This is a movie that would work just as well on mute. It's gorgeous, but there's not much more to get out of it.

The Little Hours (****)

Putting aside the occasional crass humor and determined levels of shock value, there is so much to laugh at in THE LITTLE HOURS. From the cast to the situational humor drawing inspiration from the stories of Giovanni Boccaccio, this is a type of comedy we don't see often. I might compare it to something like Monty Python's "Holy Grail" although the two films have rudimental differences. Each is for a different time, a different audience. Where Monty Python found humor in breaking the 4th wall, here we are treated to swear words and sex jokes. Is anyone to say which is more universally funny?

The plot is surprisingly clear and well-crafted. We meet a group of nuns at a secluded cloister, headed by Sister Marea (Molly Shannon). The head priest here, Father Tommasso (John C. Reilly), brings the nuns' handiwork to town to sell as a means of income. Meanwhile we meet Alessandra (Alison Brie), Giverva (Kate Micucci) and Fernanda (Aubrey Plaza), three novices who will soon pledge their vows to God but still find time to belittle the convent's gardener (he talks too much, and he's probably a Jew).

In a nearby castle, a nobleman named Bruno (Nick Offerman) discovers his wife has been sleeping with one of their servants, Massetto (Dave Franco) and seeks to put him to death. There's a very funny sequence in which Lord Bruno cuts off a piece of Massetto's hair while he sleeps in hopes of catching him in the morning, and another as Bruno and his wife have an awkward breakfast conversation the day after. Massetto escapes and fatefully runs into Father Tommasso and seeks refuge. Tommasso offers Massetto a place at the convent as a gardener, but he agrees to act as a deaf mute in order to satisfy the sister's request for a "less chatty" helper. The cast is surely the best comedic lineup I've seen in a while, and each person brings their a-game. When Fred Armisen arrives to tour the convent as the Bishop, we laugh at how silly he looks in official robes. Then he talks, and we laugh at that, too. These are great comedians doing their thing.

The first scenes of the movie begin with our three novices wandering in the field, roaming the lands, having a normal discussion as one might in 2017. They swear and use expletives and threaten violence when anyone crosses their path. At first I believed that the movie was going to only rely on this novelty for laughs: the image of nuns using the "f" word. Luckily there was so much more than that. The three women quickly begin falling for Massetto and his good looks. They begin to question their devotions to God and instead enlist the help of a local witch to help seduce the man for themselves. They sneak into each other's room at night and get drunk off of stolen altar wine. At the same time we see the Father and Massetto doing the same thing over dinner.

The trailer heaped praise upon a Catholic film critic's review of the film as being "pure trash." The audience laughed when it was shown. I can't blame them. The movie carries a hard R rating that would appear to deface Catholicism if it wasn't so silly. This isn't a movie about holy people, nor is it meant to be a movie that points fingers at organized religions. None of our characters are good people, they are simply human beings living in a world that demands much more of them. What I found so funny was the setting, a novel idea for a comedy released in this day and age. It's a refreshing movie that is straight-forward and chock full of humor and wit.

The Big Sick (**)

THE BIG SICK currently has a 97% approval rating among mainstream critics and an IMDB score flirting with the top 250 movies of all time. What movie did those guys see? I entered "Sick" with the highest of expectations and left with the groaniest of groans. What had I just wasted 2 hours of my life on? Sure, it has funny bits and the plot is relatively original. Piece by piece, it's not hard to dismantle, and such my poor review flies in the face of so many 'positive' ones, let me spell out my reasons why.

1. The romance. 
This is a romantic comedy. No denying. We have a modern-day meet cute in which Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani) meets a girl named Emily (Zoe Kazan) at his comedy show. She heckles him during a bit, and then afterwards they have a couple drinks and hook up. (It's modern-day because he's an Uber driver and eventually courts her home after the sex... Via uber app, of course). They begin a running gag in which they pledge never to see each other again, but time and again they meet up to watch B-horror movies and sleep together, and from there are planted the seeds of romance.

Nanjiani (who also wrote the screenplay based on his real-life romance with his wife) faces backlash from his Pakistani family over his requirements to marry a Muslim woman. Scene after scene his mother introduces him to women to whom he might betroth... And time and again he returns to Emily. It would be romantic if not for the actors total lack of chemistry. Kazan as Emily is a wild-type blonde who flaunts the screen and commits nothing to character. Nanjiani is the unexpected romantic lead with some solid acting chops but a lack of simple charm that the performance needs. If Kumail and Emily met in real life (as the screenplay suggests), it was not based on this type of romance. It's a completely flat and unemotional romance that blossoms too soon and then ends abruptly when Emily finds out that Kumail hasn't told his parents about her. As we have learned, she's a psychology major. "I'm surprised you aren't taking this better." Kazan overacts in a scene of bizarre emotion and ends the relationship with as much surprise as it began.

2. The setup. 
The move is called "The Big Sick" for a reason. Emily contracts a mysterious bacterial infection that leads her to a coma, and since Kumail is her most recent boyfriend, he is called on by friends to sign papers and inform the parents. Here begins the film's most interesting section. Mom (Holly Hunter) and dad (Ray Romano) are called in from North Carolina and they begin the process of not only aiding their dying daughter but also getting to know the ex-boyfriend... Who's Muslim... Who has no promising job. This is comedy gold.

I'll be the first to admit that Hunter and Romano are strange and yet inspired choices for their parts. Hunter is a southern woman more devoted to her daughter's health than her own mental sanity, and Romano is a man just trying to edge by without causing problems. The movie is much more entertaining here, and we wonder what kind of awkward situations they might find themselves in. However, we are met with forced scenes in which Holly gets too drunk and (against character) starts a bar fight with a frat boy at a comedy show, and Ray tells Kumail about a time he had an affair. Wow.

3. The payoff. 

Emily eventually recovers and Kumail is shocked to discover she still doesn't want him. He and his comedian buddies pledge a move to New York City in which they hope to jumpstart their careers. Despite the close relationships Kumail formed with her parents, it's clear that all good things must come to and end.

The movie ends happy (it's a true story afterall) but I wasn't left with anything more than an off taste in my mouth. Produced by Judd Apatow, here is yet another of his comedies that runs 30 minutes too long and about 50 jokes past "WE GET IT!" There are genuinely funny parts here, and then there are genuinely ingenuine moments, too. Nanjiani is a talented scriptwriter (along with his wife, Emily), but the movie fails at a prime level for lack of on-screen chemistry and convincing leads. Kazan especially is a woman acting out of her league, giving us a female lead that is both annoying and not missed when she is in a coma.

The Pakistani humor is hilarious, as is Kumail's relationship with his brother, but the film's conclusion sees him banished from the family for dating a white woman and then the resolution is scraped too thin if that. Are we meant to believe that he simply severed ties with his mother and father without so much as a tear shed? Yes, it might be a true story, but where's the cinematic drama? I'm not one to vouch for movie cliches, but when a movie is based on a true story, perhaps now and again a simple cinematic flourish wouldn't hurt. The movie has it's moments, but it sums up as being a "Big Stink."

The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) (****)

THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY is a massive story that essentially whittles down to two men and their stubbornness in believing that the other is wrong. In the grandness of the Sistine Chapel and the creation of perhaps the most famous ceiling in history, we find ourselves charmed by a story that is very small and intimate in its final message. Creation versus destruction. Knowledge versus ignorance. Man versus God.

The movie was Hollywood's reaction to Irving Stone's successful biography which was written in 1961. The book, as I recall, dives deeper into the life of Michelangelo, the sculptor from Florence who was steadfast in his ways and always eager for work. As a man of the time, it seems like Michelangelo was about as famous as one could be. The film wisely closes in on his most ambitious work: the Sistine Chapel, and the period of time from Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison) commissioning the work to it's debut 4 years later.

We know that Michelangelo was renowned for his marble sculptures. The film opens with a 10-minute summary of his work: a quaint narrated piece that shows us the master's style, his vision. Nude bodies that are twisted with muscle, emotional faces that seem perfectly lifelike. The feature film devotes barely a scene to the man chiseling away at stone. This prologue of sorts helps us see who the artist was. As if to further drive home the point - we learn nothing about Michelangelo's history with fresco paintings and oil panels. He painted several throughout his life, but the film might have us believe that the ceiling was the first time he laid down paint with brush.

Our director is Carol Reed, the man probably most known for films like "The Third Man," "Oliver!," and "The Fallen Idol." Here is a more impressive undertaking for any filmmaker. For a Hollywood project, the film immerses itself in the history of Italy, and it's clear that locations were indeed in the real deal (apparently they filmed on the same marble quarries where Michelangelo really worked). Vatican City is depicted mostly through matte paintings and stages, and we see the slow development of the Church as visually indicated by St Peters in the background, slowly being built up brick by brick throughout the film.

Charlton Heston was allegedly cast in the film due to his crooked nose that was shared with the real man. Perhaps it's just a small coincidence that Heston was also cast as Moses in "The Ten Commandments" based on his uncanny resemblance to Michelangelo's carving of the biblical figure. He plays the role with a lack of humor and steadfast dedication to his work. We believe him as the artist, though his presence in the film is nothing more than a requirement. Much of his personal life is glossed over, save for a few scenes of required romantic frustrations with Contessina (Diane Cilento), the daughter of one of his Medici patrons. The controversy of Michelangelo's homosexuality (as explored more in the novel) is reduced to a few longing glances by one of Michelangelo's apprentices. At the film's conclusion when the crowd is looking at the ceiling, we see Michelangelo's assistant only looking at him.

The highlight of this film is the performance of Rex Harrison, fresh off his Oscar-winning role in"My Fair Lady." Playing the man known as the Warrior Pope, he is introduced first as a general that slashes at the enemy with sword in hand. After a grueling battle, he dons the papal robes and offers a blessing. Julius is a man who is both vein and yet understanding of the importance of art. Like Michelangelo, he too seemed to believe a divine intervention in the creation of the ceiling. No one but Michelangelo was meant to paint it. It would be the Pope's claim to fame that he was the one who initially commissioned it. When these two men bicker, we laugh at the strength in the writing. No one is wrong, but we see where each is coming from. Of course we remember the film's most famous exchange when Julius pesters Michelangelo about his slow progress. "When will you make an end?" "When I am finished!"

Another remarkable feat is the production team, laboriously recreating the Sistine Chapel to size on a studio set. It has got to be one of the most impressive feats of movie-making, all the more impressive in that I had assumed they filmed in a real chapel somewhere. When the ceiling is done, set decorators took life-sized photographs of the ceiling and attached them to the roof. The illusion is somewhat ruined when the climax shows his finished work as dark, cracked, and faded from hundreds of years of wear. Of course the ceiling was later restored to it's original glory in the 1990's. Nonetheless, an impressive camera tilt slowly rises as Pope Julius blesses the painting, slowly tilting up and up until we see the entire painting in one continuous shot.

The movie has aged slightly, some performances are now a bit over the top. What remains is the power of two actors in their prime going toe to toe, recreating a period in history that most wouldn't think about. When you walk through the Sistine Chapel today, it's an awe-inspiring thing to behold, but even then we are detached from history and the 500-year old saga that occurred to bring it to being. There's something special about watching a movie about creation and the process that goes into a man's work. For that, this is still a very special film.

Amy (2015) (*****)

Sometimes it's a great experience to rewatch a movie, one you haven't seen for years. That's what I did recently with AMY, the brilliant documentary from 2015 that justly won that year's Academy Award. The story of Amy Winehouse and her tragic life is so well realized that I watched it again the following day. It's that powerful. There have been many music documentaries made, but rare is it to find one so thoroughly engrossing.

It's the style that sets this film apart. Asif Kapadia is the director, steady-handed and clear in his vision. We see Amy in her early years, her break into music, and her spiral down into a world of drugs and alcohol. What makes this film so memorable, so dreamlike, is the footage of Winehouse herself, shot after shot of home videos, still photos, digital camera selfies... We hear talking heads (as you would) of Amy's family and collaborators as they talk about the person they knew, and yet we never see their faces. It's only ever Amy. So it goes throughout the entirety of our story. It's clear that the filmmakers loved this musician, and in a way it should be overkill to show nothing but one woman for over 2 hours on screen. Never once are we bored.

As a subject matter, Winehouse has a Shakespearean quality to her. She achieved startling highs and lows before her death at the age of 27. With a beehive that made her instantly recognizable and a voice that harkened back to bubblegum ballads of the 1950's, it's no wonder that her talent shone so bright in the few years she was alive and famous. Despite her persona as a "bad girl" and an aura of recklessness, here was nonetheless a woman of immense gravitas in her work. When discussing her after her death, we hear Tony Bennett declare that she was one of the greatest of all time.

The music that fills the movie is also something that we instantly recall. The lyrics flash on the screen as we hear song after song from Back to Black, Winehouse's only second (and last) studio album. It's the album that won her 5 Grammys in a single night. Though her voice is so assured as an audio track, the footage of her filming and recording is just as startling. Here is a shy girl who only wants to get it right. When finishing a verse, she laughs to herself at how dark the lyrics sound. Music was her passion. Everything else was second.

We meet Amy's father and husband, two men who had an incredible amount of control over her life, two men who the filmmakers seem to want to accuse of bringing about her untimely death. The director stops short of pointing fingers, but we understand what is happening. These are two characters in themselves. Her father, a heavyset man who acts as a manager of sorts, 'leases' Amy out to paparazzi and the press in order to bring in extra cash. Her husband, a tattooed Londoner with a pension for drugs, was clearly adored by Amy and brought out aspects of addiction and drugs that are so often associated with the 'bad' parts of fame.

And the ending, perhaps the most heartbreaking finale to a movie that I can recall. With Amy's face impressed in our mind, we learn of the morning of her death when she was found with a blood alcohol content of 0.4. Days before she had called her childhood friends in order to try and mend a broken friendship. Amy could see her addiction to alcohol was pushing her loved ones away, but it only took a final night of mistakes to end it all. The police casually wheel out a stretcher with a bodybag on full display. Her fans outside are caught off guard. We see images of her funeral 3 days later, and the great sense of loss that was felt by not only her family, but the world.

The film loves its subject in a way that not many documentaries can lay claim. By the end we begin to love her too, even if the music or lifestyle of Amy Winehouse isn't our favorite. The greatness of AMY as a film is that it cuts deep to the heart of a human being. Yes, she was flawed, suffered problems and achieved fame too fast, but she was nonetheless a person who has hopes and dreams. To see a film that can convey such a truth with nothing more than home videos and candid interviews is startling. There is no new ground covered by these filmmakers. What they do instead is simply rewrite how a story can be told.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (***1/2)

In no less than 15 years the cinemas have seen 6 "Spider-Man" movies and 3 reboots. Three reboots. I can see the reasoning from studio logistics. Spider-man=money.

We know that Marvel needs to incorporate the character into its cinematic universe. Peter Parker is too notable to leave out. I'm happy to admit that for once they got the character right (according to the logistics of him being a sophomore in high school). The movie itself is just as predictable as we might expect from Marvel.

My main groan for this film was having to sit through a third 'origin story,' that narrative in which the awkward and dorky Peter Parker gets bit by a spider, learns to use his powers, makes a suit, and fight a bad guy in the end. Surprisingly, the movie follows the Marvel narrative (after Spidey's debut in the Civil War movie from last year). Parker's already in the suit, he's fighting neighborhood crimes. He knows what to do... Kind of. The movie pairs Peter with Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr, of course) as Stark mentors the young boy and grooms him to become one of the Avengers. Peter goes about classes just admitting he has an internship with the famed billionaire. His classmates gossip about who their favorite Avenger is. It's funny that in this cinematic universe, the superheroes aren't godly beings that swoop down from heaven. They're discussed the same way we might talk about the President or a famous sports star.

Peter's main high school friend is a lumpy boy named Ned (Jacob Batalon), a nerdy kid who geeks out when he happens to discover his buddy is the famed superhero. He's even more thrilled when they plan on having Spider-Man attend a house party and give Ned a fist bump. They're in high school. There's a sense of shyness and awkward social skills that these two boys have. It feels real. Behind the costume, Peter is still a young boy trying to prove himself to the world. Sometimes even the crooks can see through the rouse.

We have a somewhat clunky villain in Michael Keaton as the Vulture. He's a construction, blue-collar guy who was hired as clean up after the citywide destruction we saw in the first Avengers movie. On the side, he steals alien parts and sets up an underground weapons hub where he sells crystal technology to thugs in and around New York. One thing leads to another and Spider-Man discovers his scheme. Another thing happens and Vulture finds out it's Peter Parker under the costume. Dun-dun-DUN!

I liked a lot of this movie despite my overall tepid attitude towards the superhero fad. I liked Tom Holland as Spidey and his boyish charm that works well in the role. I enjoyed his aunt, May (Marisa Tomei) for being a spunky middle-aged woman who just wants her nephew to be cool. I liked the classmates Peter knows through his knowledge bowl league - geeky, funny, authentic. The parts that missed the mark for me were several: Peter's relationship with Happy (Jon Favreau), Tony Stark's assistant and overall bore. Also tedious was the final battle scene: a duel between Spidey and Vulture on the side of a holographic plane that is nothing but fast cuts and flashing lights (it was virtually unwatchable). Also despised was the "deus-ex-machina" suit that Stark designs for Spider-Man. Despite it being mostly nylon, it comes equipped with a voice-operated computer program (Jennifer Connelly) and hundreds of gadgets for any given situation. When the plot finds Spider-Man lost in the suburbs of Washington DC, the suit tells him the fastest route to get home. When he's face to face with the girl of his dreams, the suit tells him now is the appropriate time to kiss her. Okay.

The movie is fine. I can't grade it as better or worse than Tobey Maguire's version or the two messes that featured Andrew Garfield (terrible films but Garfield was great). The movie functions as a cog in the great wheel that is Marvel cinematic universe. All their films now have the same dry humor. The same plots. The same washed out color palate that lacks all the vibrancy of an actual comic. These films rely on a wit that is written into each character on a script level. It doesn't matter who directs it or who is in the starring role. Marvel churns out these movies with a machine-like efficiency and with predictable results. Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool were so loved because they tried to do something different. Spider-Man isn't a bad movie, but when comparing it to the Marvel universe, it's one step above "Dr Strange" and somewhere shy of great.

Beatriz at Dinner (***)

The trailer declared this movie "the first great movie of the Trump presidency." I don't think I can agree with that statement, but I see why that reviewer might make such a claim. BEATRIZ AT DINNER is not a great film, but it is oftentimes very good. It's a talking picture you appreciate for the same reasons a movie like "Before Sunrise" or "My Dinner With Andre" have such wide appeal.

Beatriz (Salma Hayek) is a self-described healer. She works in southern California performing massage therapy, hands-on healing, and all manners of alternative medicine. She lives at home with a couple dogs and a pet goat, fenced into her bedroom after an angry neighbor killed her other goat just last week. While Beatriz offers her services to make others feel better, we find her in a particularly saddened state.

One of her clients is a wealthy family in a gated in community. Kathy and Grant (Connie Britton & David Warshofsky) have known Beatriz for years after she helped nurse their daughter during a bout of cancer. She now comes periodically to offer massages and to chat. After her car breaks down on the way back home, Beatriz is stuck in a predicament: Kathy and Grant are throwing a dinner party for a group of elite friends who are working to close a real estate deal. Beatriz, at first confused as house staff, is offered white wine and casually joins in with the conversation. The contrast in lifestyles is shocking.

The movie might be considered a standard drama, but there is a lot of awkward humor that comes from the humble Beatriz sitting opposite a corrupt CEO (John Lithgow) with brandy and cigar in hand. Salma Hayek is brilliant in the role, stripped down and appearing aged through a life of hard work. She explains how her family emigrated at a young age, how she has worked many odd jobs to scrape by. We believe her. Likewise with Lithgow, the presumed antagonist here. He jokes about hunting wild game and committing white-collar crimes with a twinkle in his eye. While the conversations almost always steer directly into awkward town, the performances are never anything but stellar.

Some might describe this movie as a biting satire; a commentary on our country's sticky relationship with Mexicans and legal immigrants. Lithgow's character is even a real estate mogul with successful sons and a new marriage to his third wife. The comparisons and heavy-handed dialogue build to a point that the movie eventually resorts to a metaphorical hammer, hitting the audience over the head repeatedly in order to drive home the point. All I wanted to shout out was "we get it!" Even the end, a colossal misfire of a dream sequence, seeks to inspire sympathy of a woman like Beatriz. All I felt was an impending eye roll and disappointment that such a wonderful film could go sour so fast.

I would still tell you to see this movie. Watch it for the wonderful performances (even though the characters eventually become black and white caricatures of politicians we see in the news every day). Stay for the sometimes good dialogue and natural scenes in which 6 wealthy white people (and Beatriz) carry on casual conversations and find that there is simply no topics that they can all agree on. After a night of heavy drinking and fighting, Kathy admits to Beatriz that "I don't think I know you," to which Beatriz naturally responds with "you never have." There's a surface level of politeness in our country today, but when you dig just a little deeper under the surface, we realize how absolutely polarized its citizens are. Why did this movie have to betray such a wonderfully innocent observation?

Rough Night (**)

We've seen this plot carried out several times before and with better results. Not the oddly-specific aspects regarding drunk women accidentally murdering their hired stripper and attempting to dump the body, no. The plot revolving around friends reuniting after several years and realizing that they aren't the same people as when they first met. Throughout the film, they laugh, joke, reminisce, and then begin to fight and work towards a breaking point. In the end, they accept each others differences and all is right with the world. That, and there's still a dead body to manage.

Scarlett Johannson's debut as a leading comedienne goes just about as we would expect. So does the story: 4 or 5 college friends meet up in Miami for Jess's (Johannson) Bachelorette Party. Jess is in the midst of running for State Senator (there's an unexplored side plot regarding her horrible screen presence on the campaign ads), her best friend Alice (Jillian Bell) is stuck in the past, Frankie and Blaire (Zoe Kravitz and Ilana Glazer) are also happy to be there. The group is rounded out by Pippa (Kate McKinnon), an Australian buddy Jess met during grad school.

We have the typical assortment of crude jokes you might expect in an R-rated female comedy. We also meet the weird, off-putting characters that are typically present, including nudist neighbors (Demi Moore and Ty Burrell) who are into group sex, Jess's fiance (Paul Downs) who inexplicably drives cross country to intercept the party when his soon-to-be-wife doesn't return his calls. Logic would say that perhaps her phone died, or that she was drunk. Movie logic informs us that he must buy Red Bull, adult diapers, and speed down the highway overnight to save his marriage (this actually happens). Along the way, he stops at a random truck stop and is elicited for oral sex by more than a couple semi drivers. That's comedy, folks.

I will say that overall the group of women work well together. Johannson aside (who's comedy chops are a subpar addition to a well-polished cast), the jokes mostly land and there are several parts that had me laughing if only for the absurdity of it. McKinnon and Bell are particularly funny here. This is not a movie I would recommend to watch anywhere except a small screen at home that can be easily turned off. For every scene that is funny, there is another 2 scenes that are not. Did I mention that bizarre subplot with the fiance strapping on Depends and speeding through poop, sex, and drug jokes? Why wasn't that whole story written out after draft #1? There's a good comedy buried in this movie somewhere. What we have here feels like a very rough cut. Did you catch that joke?