Reviews

I went to see this movie after a particularly stressful week, looking for a distraction and entertainment. Wrong move. I left feeling more depressed than when I went in. Even other audience members were somber and silent as they walked out. It was a shocking twist at the end that brought out the waterworks and tissue boxes for the more prepared viewers.

The movie was beautifully crafted, from the sets, to the locales and costumes. There are a couple of jarring goofs – the OTT swearing using 'F' word; the introduction of Max's sister whose openly lesbian relationship served no purpose in the film; the snorting of coke by a officer – is this the 40's or 70's? Also, I wasn't sure about the sandals Marianne wore in some of the scenes, which looked like she picked them up at her local mall, but overall everything looked true to the 1940's period.

This is a wartime love story. Marianne, the beautiful female spy played by Marion Cotillard, is well portrayed – with wry smiles and more than a hint of mystery. She lies, manipulates and dispatches anyone standing in her way with cold efficiency; is she a double agent or not? Brad Pitt as Max, is her doomed French Canadian husband –doomed because of the relationship and the conflict between his love for his wife and the Allied cause. The romantic chemistry between the characters was lacking - despite Marianne's many sultry stares - but the tension that builds between them as the plot thickens, is palpable. The pace of the movie also quickens, drawing faster to a surprising, but sad conclusion.

There are some light moments – the card trick shuffling, the playful banter on the roof- which serve to lighten and ground the film at the same time. The director does a good job of building the characters and balancing scenes which run the gamut of steamy, tense, suspenseful, action-filled and chaotic (eg. Marianne gives birth during an air raid).

There are powerful emotions elicited at the end, a bit of overwrought melodrama that deliberately plays on the audience's reaction – but in the end, fitting, given the circumstances. You are left feeling the raw emotions of the main characters.

8/10

This movie is great for 5 yo girls. They'll love the abundant color, sparkles and soundtrack. Boys - not so much. My 9yo and his friend were squirming in their seats after the first 10 minutes, but the 7yo sister was entertained. Adults - well if you can drink a beer/wine or pass out until the end, this would be advisable - otherwise just shoot me.

The story line is the usual predictable, overdone Cinderella story. The premise of cannibalistic Bergens who can only attain happiness at another's expense, is a little disturbing. However, this is squarely for the young kiddos - I suppose most will enjoy it.

4/10.

There is something to be said for reading reviews before going to see a movie. However, after having my expectations built up by my spouse, then dimmed by spoilers and some disparaging reviews, I didn't know what to expect.

**Contains spoilers** Sorry! Since these spoilers are out there anyway, I don't mind repeating them.

The movie is beautifully shot, not much CGI, instead focusing more on human emotions and the main character, Louise - not the aliens or their spaceship. Anyone expecting to see Star Wars- like action or Star Trek alien technology, will be disappointed or 'bored to death', as some reviewers found it. Amy Adams performance is powerful and nuanced, drawing you into the story and making it totally believable. The supporting cast performance from Forest Whitaker is also perfectly executed, walking a fine line between balancing military goals and human nature.

The story line is not really unique and doesn't provide the ground breaking 'Aha!' moments of films like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or 'Matrix'…however it does explore important aspects of what could actually happen when trying to communicate with an alien race. Just to clarify a few misconceptions from the bad reviews… those aren't a "million random cut scenes of babies, people passing away and other mundane rubbish", rather they are the crux of what the story is about – the past, present and future. Clearly this person was not watching the movie!

The physicist played by Ian is not 'useless' or just a love interest; he helps to design the algorithm used to decode the symbols communicated by the aliens; he collaborates with other scientists around the world and together they uncover the key to the alien language. It is entirely plausible, based on the mathematical models used. It's not just a sudden and magical deciphering of "random scribbling", as one skeptic put it. In fact, the movie took great pains to explain the logic and progression – Louise using basic English grade school level words and learning their symbols through daily repetition, for several months. (This was augmented by similar steps taken by other scientists at other sites, who shared what was learned – so there is a multiplier effect to the learning curve).

The aliens seem to readily understand English language but humans were unable to understand their response. This presents a dilemma as the communication between both parties grows – are they speaking the same language with the same meaning? Note that all the countries break through the communication barrier, albeit in different ways. They all interpret the message – but is the message received correctly? Louise does a lot to educate the audience on the finer points of communication.

The critique of the 'rogue soldier' and roles of generals running things on the ground in the US or other foreign countries, are plausible plot points. Several events highlight the fear response that most people would have to this unique situation. The fact that generals are on the front line dealing with the aliens and not the President (or heads of State) is a realistic security protocol. Don't expect the President to be hands-on, like in 'Independence Day'. Rather, it's clearly shown that the soldiers are not ultimately 'in charge' as they have to report every development to the CIA and Pentagon, where the tactical decisions are made.

Some of the finer points missed by some – the use of infinity symbols - a circle, the number '8' also, '12' (found in several cultures, meaning completeness and perfection).

The music complements the scenes well, underscoring the gravitas of the performances and seriousness as the situation grows more urgent and dire, ironically, in a race against time.

I give Amy props for a solid performance. She is such a reliable and versatile actress, (from Enchanted to American Hustle, Man of Steel) she refuses to be typecast – this latest role highlights her depth, in an Oscar-worthy performance. Also nice to see two Toronto newscasters make cameos in the closing scenes!

The film overall deserves a 7/10 as there aren't any new or ground- breaking concepts presented. There isn't much scale or grandeur requiring a big screen or sound; there are mostly tight shots of the actor's faces – thank goodness Amy is pleasing to look at. Otherwise, this could easily be reserved for the small screen.

The dilemma of the communication and misinterpretation is the issue. Does mankind come together to solve the problem or does each seek to singularly benefit from the 'gift'/'weapon' or 'tool'? It also makes the larger point that despite the frailty of the human condition, in spite of our failings or because of it – life is still worth living.

I'll admit, I'm not a Deadpool fan, with only passing knowledge of the character. So my rating is just based on the movie experience overall.

**WARNING - MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

The opening sequence sets the tone for the film. It's well executed action and CGI with lots of graphic violence, sex and crude slapstick humour. It doesn't take itself seriously from the get go and neither should you. The comedy is often forced and lines fall flat as there is no comedic timing. The story line is predictable and ho-hum. The acting leaves much on the table.

I love Ryan Reynolds in RomComs (and he speaks to audience directly about this in a self depreciating way), but I just don't find his portrayal of a mentally unbalanced, anti- hero believable. I expected the character to be darker, edgier,just a little bit dangerous and unpredictable, but with a quirky likability. A tall order for someone who is out of his usual genre. More like Jim Carrey's green alter- ego from 'The Mask' with a bit of Cranston from 'Breaking Bad'. These short comings are markedly evident when minor characters are able to steal scenes, such as the Cabbie 'Dopinder', the Recruiter and the Blind Al.

The film gets a solid 5 for bringing it to fruition despite many odds and obstacles in production; it gets a '+1' for CGI, for a total rating of 6.

It's not a flick for chicks or children (I saw many kids in the theater - wildly inappropriate!!). Otherwise it's good entertainment for fans, who are already looking forward to Round 2.

**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

THE SHORT STORY

I'm not a super fan, but a fan nonetheless, having seen the first films as a child, which at the time were ground breaking and exciting. You will get none of that here. The film was good nostalgic entertainment, not great. There will be no awards for acting or special effects. 7/10

THE LONG STORY CONS: I can see why so many viewers were disappointed. With the bar for CGI and production quality set so high which excellent shows produced for TV, one would expect a whole new universe of mind blowing effects/ scenes to be presented, especially with the deep pockets of Disney and the film production behind it. Sadly, the production was just ordinary and average from the costuming, sets and locations to CGI. Even individuals have produced better YouTube videos with equivalent settings and CGI effects. You would expect so much more from Hollywood.

The bad guys seem weak in fight scenes and the characters poorly developed. So unlike the ultimate villain Darth Vader, the audience won't really care about their agenda or outcome.

The plot involves rehashing the same old story lines again, using familiar elements and settings. No risk or ingenuity there. Comedic lines are few and far between and awkwardly placed in the dialogue. I've honestly seen better writing (e.g. witty bad guys) from Lego Star Wars- Droid tales.

PROS: The execution of the film was tight with story lines neatly woven together to connect the present to the past. All the major characters from previous films were introduced, and the new characters were obviously set up to present the opportunity for further films. However, there was no depth to the characters to make us really care about them or any explanation of why/how the Resistance is still fighting and why they haven't prevailed yet.

The new characters are likable- BB8, Finn, Rey. There is modern dialogue and a hint of romance, just enough to titillate. The relationship between Han Solo and Princess Leia seems strangely forced and dry… not what you'd expect. The new baddie Kylo Ren would have benefited from being better looking and more wicked. Somehow, nothing about his character works. The other baddie, First Order General Hux, despite limited screen time, makes an impact. The CGI character 'Supreme Leader' does not.

CONCLUSION I think this film is deliberately 'middle of the road' and not a die-hard fan reboot in order to introduce Star wars to a new generation who may not have seen or been invested in the earlier films. Case in point, a friend's teenage daughter saw this movie and it was her first ever Star Wars film. She had no idea who Darth Vader was… sacrilege! But she enjoyed it. Now she'll go back and watch the earlier films to get some perspective. I guess that's what the producers have achieved with this film ...to bridge the gap between old and new for a new young fan base.