dinobird

As a history buff, I am easily drawn to historical films, including biopics. I understand the dramatic license filmmakers must take to make what is sometimes flat material into a compelling story. However, the story of Dunkirk and the evacuation of over 300,000 trapped British soldiers is as full of natural drama as stories about D-Day, or the Alamo, etc. My biggest complaint about this undeniably beautiful cinematic special effects party is that if you don't already know the story, the context is murky and the narrative very fragmented. My second objection is to the filmmaker's need to fictionalize characters--there are so many heroic and amazing stories found in this event--no need to make up characters. I would strongly recommend that before you see this film, if you don't know the history, do a little research. Of course, if you do, you'll probably be as disappointed as I was--this could have been a great epic war film. Instead, it is disconnected and hard to follow, both in terms of the interior chronology and the context.

The film itself probably doesn't rate more than 3.5 stars because the plot of "Peacock" strains credibility a bit, but not nearly as much as it might have without Cillian Murphy's fantastic 5-star performance. In this film, he proves himself an actor with great scope and depth.

We learn at the outset (thus no spoiler here) that Murphis playing two characters, alternatively adopting the personality of an obviously dysfunctional young man during workaday hours as a bank file clerk--with a notable performance by Bill Pullman as his supervisor--and then transforming into his mysterious female counterpart, each living separate but connected lives in the same house. I'll say no more about the plot other than that it's a very original story, with appropriate nods to a few classics.

This is no "Tootsie" or "Some Like It Hot" cross-dressing story. This film and Murphy's performance are equally compelling and memorable. See it.