Sunday, October 29, 2017

Thor: Ragnarok

Year: 2017
Director: Taika Waititi
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Benedict Cumberbatch


Plot: Hela, the Goddess of Death, Odin's first born and Thor's sister, has returned to take over Asgard. Thor and Loki try to stop her, but they fail and end up on a distant planet called Sakaar, where the former becomes a prisoner of the Grandmaster and forced to fight in his arena against his champion, the incredible Hulk.


Review: After a dozen or so movies that have raked in big bucks, Marvel Studios must feel pretty confident. They probably also got tired of churning out film after film that some critics have deemed too indistinguishable from one another. So what does director Taika Waititi and his trio of writers do? They turn Thor into a comedy.

But wait. Isn't the MCU supposed to be light-hearted enough, compared to the dark tones of the DCEU and the convoluted mess of FOX's mutants? Apparently Waititi and company don't think so, and as a result, Thor: Ragnarok has become a "one joke per minute" film. I don't think there was a time in the movie where a joke wasn't thrown for more than 2 minutes. It begins just as soon as we see Thor hanging from chains in front of his captor Surtur, as he spews the kind of comedic lines we'd expect from someone like Tony Stark. 

But it doesn't end there, as we are treated to more and more comedy. Loki throws an outrageous play about his faked death (featuring cameos that didn't elevate the scene whatsoever). Doctor Strange makes an appearance and shows how much he's learned about jumping from one place to the next. Karl Urban's Skurge jokes about naming his guns (facepalm moment). And it goes on and on. And this is before we even get to Thor and Loki ending up on Sakaar where more jokes await. Some of which, comes from a talking Hulk, while the rest mostly from a very unfunny Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster.

Now, making jokes is not really a bad thing. But it most certainly is when it's either not funny or poorly timed. Do these filmmakers not realize that we can't take the movie seriously (because we have to at some point, the universe is at stake, isn't it?) if they keep making fun of everything? Since when does Thor have a humongous need to be funny? It's not too bad when Loki's with him, then the banter between them balances it out somehow. But all the same, it would have gone down easier if it was worth laughing at.

I also have an issue with Waititi and company treating a handful of supporting characters poorly, by killing them off without a second thought. I won't spoil it, but the way it was handled left a bad taste in my mouth. Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie was also badly written, and Thompson's arrogant performance doesn't endear her character well either. Valkyrie is supposed to be an indifferent character who slowly ends up giving a damn again here, but the whole process wasn't convincing.

Only Idris Elba's Heimdall and Anthony Hopkins' Odin appear to be unaffected by the bad script, thankfully so. Mark Ruffalo's Banner is at least hilarious when he tries to be, but the rest of the cast are let down by a script that does not allow them to be the same heroes we loved before Ragnarok. As for Cate Blanchett, she does what she can with her part, but isn't given more time to shine, thanks to the script's need to pander to a bathrobe wearing Goldblum, who has no real value to the overall story.

So what's left that's good? The Thor vs Hulk scrap was well done, one of the highlights of the film. Most of the action sequences were good, save for the last one where too much is happening on screen and thus too difficult to properly enjoy. Some of the exchanges between Thor and Loki were good, especially when they were being serious. Their final moments with their father was also well executed.

I'll be honest though. The MCU can't really make a horrible film (like the Fantastic Four remake for instance), but they came very close here. Thor: Ragnarok isn't bad, just terribly underwhelming. At this point, they should be firing on all cylinders and deliver a better film than the last before Infinity War gets here. I really expected more.

P.S.: Stay for the first credit scene. You don't need to see the second one, trust me. (6/10) 

Monday, October 09, 2017

Mother!

Year: 2017
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Dohmnall Gleeson, Kristen Wiig


Plot: A couple's tranquil home is disturbed by sudden unexpected guests.


Review: Much has been said about Mother! recently. Some call it brilliant, some call it garbage. After seeing it, I can say this: it's not meant for everyone.

Writer and director Darren Aronofsky's new film is an allegory of sorts, one that I can't say too much about, lest it spoils the true plot of the film. The closest thing to an idea of what it's about that I can mention is that it's a message from Aronofsky about the way the world is. To say anything more would be wrong to those of you who have yet to see it.

But let's cut to the all important question: is it good? Well, yes and no. If one were to view it the way Aronofsky does, then yes it would be. But movies are so much more than just seeing through the director's eyes and feeling it through your bones. It's about being entertained and experiencing emotions like excitement and sadness. If that's what you're looking for, you're going to be somewhat disappointed, for Mother! is not that kind of film.

The impeccable cast all deliver sterling performances, whether their appearances are minor or major. Javier Bardem still commands the screen well, and Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer and Dohmnall Gleeson all contribute in their own way. Pfeiffer in particular comes off suitably sinister for the most part. But Mother! truly belongs to its main star Jennifer Lawrence. As much as I abhor Lawrence's role choices, she delivers a tour de force performance here. Her job is basically to make the audience feel the same way she does, and she accomplishes that perfectly. 

I'm aware I'm not giving you much to go on with this review, but it's better that way. It's a divisive film, and one that is difficult to comprehend fully even when you think you get the idea. You'll either love it or hate it, or like me, you'll find it fascinating but confusing at the same time.

If you're the curious type, then by all means, go check this out. If you want to be entertained, stay away from this. (7/10)

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Blade Runner 2049

Year: 2017
Director: Denis Villeneuve
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Jared Leto, Robin Wright, Lennie James, Carla Juri, Hiam Abbass, Dave Bautista, Mackenzie Davis, Barkhad Abdi


Plot: 30 years after the events of the original Blade Runner, the Tyrell corporation has been bought over by Niander Wallace, who now manufactures replicants who obey. The older models are still being hunted by blade runners. K, a blade runner who is a replicant himself, finds a clue about his past which leads him back to Rick Deckard, who has been in hiding for three decades.


Review: The original Blade Runner wasn't a success story at first, but has since become a cult favorite. Fans would say that the sequel can't possibly top it, but acclaimed director Denis Villeneuve has proven them wrong.

Thirty years removed from the first film, Earth hasn't changed that much. It still rains a lot and looks rather bleak. K, a replicant blade runner who hunts down his predecessors, finds a box of bones next to a tree along with a clue that ties in to one of his memories. He is aware that his memories aren't real, so his curiosity leads him to the origins of the memories and to whom those bones belong to. Meanwhile, Niander Wallace, the new man behind the creation of replicants, is also after the same thing, and the clues lead them both to Rick Deckard, the original blade runner.

But unlike the original Blade Runner, 2049 explores its protagonist's background and develops his character thoroughly. K isn't just a replicant programmed to obey, he actually is as they say, more human than human, judging by his need for companionship in the form of Joi, a holographic consort. He is still required to take tests to show his emotional detachment, which is all part of his struggle in walking the line between human and replicant. Without a doubt, 2049 is K's story, and Deckard only steps into the picture in the third act. Villeneuve and writers Hampton Fancher and Michael Green (Fancher wrote the original as well) have certainly outdone themselves here.

From a technical standpoint, 2049 is gorgeous. The great Roger Deakins, who worked with Villeneuve on Sicario and Prisoners, once again turns in superb work, coupled with great production design and visual effects, making it look like a world we'd easily want to step into ourselves. Credit also goes to Renee April for the costume designs and the pair of Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch for the music score. Some, if not all of these departments are due for Oscar nominations next year.

Almost every cast member is on point. Ryan Gosling nails it as K, exuding magnetic presence without much effort. Harrison Ford plays the other human heavy role as Deckard, and still shines despite having limited screen time. All the other supporting actors, from Robin Wright as K's superior, to Sylvia Hoeks as Wallace's strongwoman, to Lennie James as a child labor boss, to Mackenzie Davis as a hooker who is part of the replicant freedom movement, also turn in great peformances. Even Dave Bautista impressed me in his small role as an older model skinjob, who will easily get your sympathy here. Special mention goes to Ana de Armas as Joi, who like K, longs to go beyond what she was made for. Oddly enough, it is Jared Leto's Wallace that becomes the weak link among the cast. Not that Leto wasn't good, it's just that his eccentric performance was predictable, even though it suited the role.

Despite running at a lengthy 163 minutes, 2049 doesn't really feel that long, thanks to Villeneuve's solid direction. Aside from Leto, the only other flaw would be the subplot about the replicant freedom movement which isn't fully explored.

It must be said; Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made, and is one of the best films of 2017. I do recommend watching the original before checking this out. (9/10)

Sunday, October 01, 2017

The Foreigner

Year: 2017
Director: Martin Campbell
Cast: Jackie Chan, Pierce Brosnan, Ray Fearon, Michael McElhatton, Rory Fleck Byrne, Charlie Murphy, Lia Williams, Orla Brady


Plot: When his daughter is killed by a bomb blast perpetrated by a group of Irish rebels, a middle aged Chinaman seeks revenge. He targets the deputy prime minister of Ireland, whom he suspects knows more than he's letting on.


Review: Now here's a rare opportunity: to see Jackie Chan in a serious action film. No comedic flips, no slapstick punches. In fact, Chan barely smiles throughout the whole film.

Chan plays Quan, whose daughter dies in a bomb attack by a group of Irish rebels who are targeting Great Britain. Quan goes to meet Liam Hennessy, the deputy prime minister of Ireland, and asks for the bombers' names. Hennessy, who was once part of the old faction himself, denies any knowledge, but as the story goes on, it is clear that he is connected to the incident, even as he tries to handle the matter on his own. Quan continues to harass Hennessy to give up the names, and the game turns more dangerous as the film moves on.

Director Martin Campbell, working with a script by David Marconi based on Stephen Leather's novel The Chinaman, has made a film that wouldn't look out of place among the many Bourne knock offs that have emerged over the years, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have explosions, gunfights and fistfights here and there, and Chan plays it straight here. No nonsense whatsoever, which is good for him.

However, Campbell and Marconi spent a significant amount of time developing Hennessy's involvement with the bombers, his handling of the matter and how his closest acquaintances may or may not be on his side. All this takes away too much attention from Quan's story, who is simply a father seeking justice. There isn't enough time spared for Quan to properly grieve or ponder the consequences of his actions, thereby making this story rather uneven.

Chan shines as the vengeful Quan, who seems mild mannered on the outside, but is capable of taking down much younger guys. Pierce Brosnan is solid as Hennessy, playing him as someone who isn't immediately sympathetic or otherwise. I only wish they had spent more time developing scenes between the two men, as the film only allowed for three.

While I approve of the few twists the film throws in, it still adds up to a rather overcomplicated plot that didn't really need to be that way. Brosnan also doesn't get to partake in any action sequences, so if you're a fan of his Bond days, you may be disappointed.

In the end, The Foreigner is a solid action vehicle for Jackie Chan, but is slightly let down by a convoluted plot and unbalanced direction. (7/10)

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...