Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Director: Taika Waititi

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffallo, Anthony Hopkins, Bennedict Cumberbatch

Within the Marvel movies, there are the huge hits that everyone loves like Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and The Avengers (2012) and then there are those films that people liked but don’t go bananas over, like the Thor movies. The first film was directed by Kenneth Branagh and I was really pumped for it because he’s known for doing Shakespeare adaptations and so I was like, cool, he’s going to bring that Shakespearian quality to the Thor universe, which he did. That first film was all serious and tragic in true Shakespearian fashion. It was followed by a less then spectacular sequel which really didn’t do much for me. Which is probably why the Thor franchise has never been the one to light the Box Office on fire, well, at least not as spectacularly as the rest of the Marvel Universe. Thor movies made money, but didn’t make as much as the rest. Which meant something had to be reworked, something had to be fixed, because people weren’t reacting as favorably to the Thor franchise as Disney hoped they would. So what’s a studio to do? Well, Disney did what they had to do, they tried something new for this third film to ensure its success. They made it funny. Did it work?

This time around Thor faces the takeover of Asgard by his evil sister Hella. Unfortunately, he accidentally ends up stranded on a distant planet where people are obsessed with Gladiator fights featuring The Incredible Hulk as the star of the show. Oh, and Thor’s also without his magical Hammer Mjolnir. Can he get back home to fix things in Asgard before his sister begins her reign of terror? Will he ever get Mjolnir back? And can he win in a fight against the Hulk?

With the success of films like Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and Deadpool (2016), suddenly offbeat movies that didn’t take themselves so seriously were the big money makers. And so, this new Thor movie is a thrill a minute, fast paced, joke fest. It’s lighthearted and crazy and I love it and so has the rest of the world; Thor Ragnarok has turned into one of the biggest money makers in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. A huge part of the successful formula for this enjoyable film is the guy behind the camera, Taika Waititi. Who the hell is Taika Waititi you might ask. Well, he might not be a household name yet, but Waititi has been making movies for a while now. In all honesty, he’s a rather gifted storyteller. If you want to see what he is capable of, I recommend you check out a movie he made called Boy (2010), a touching and beautiful film about a boy who misses his father. Waititi acts, writes and directs his own films, yes my friends, Waititi is a creative force to be reckoned with and I have a feeling we’ve yet to discover what he can really do. I mean, if this is him working with a studios ideas, imagine when he does a project thats purely his. I predict good things from Waititi. You might remember him best for his performance in a faux Documentary What We Do in The Shadows (2014), a super funny film that follows a group of vampires who are all house mates in a flat in London. Just hilarious, highly recommend checking that film out. After seeing Waititi’s repertoire, you’ll understand perfectly well why Thor: Ragnarok is so hilarious. So remember, if you enjoy the funny in Ragnarok, Waititi is the guy you have to thank.  

What Waititi does with some of his films is he turns things around, he puts a tired idea in a new unexpected situation. I mean, there’s no more tired genre than the vampire genre and Waititi made it work. He made us see vampires in a way we hadn’t seen them before. I mean, did you ever think you’d see vampires squabbling over who should do the dishes? “Fuck that! Vampires don’t do dishes!” Did you ever think you’d see Thor being traumatized after seeing Hulk naked? Well, in this movie he does, and that’s what I’m talking about, he puts the characters we know and love in funny, unthought of situations. Situations you’d never imagine seeing them in. Situations that most movies would avoid. Not only is the film funny, but it shatters the foundations of the Thor universe to their very core. Thor goes through a life changing journey, more so than any previous films. Ragnarok shakes things up good. Nothing is sacred. All while spewing one liners. You wont feel danger or peril, but you’ll have one hell of a good time. You’ll bust a gut with the banter between Thor and The Hulk.

Speaking of the films look, well, it’s very bright and colorful. It’s very much in tune with the look and feel of two very important comic book artists who helped shape the character of Thor in the 60’s. I speak of  Jacky Kirby and Walter Simonson. Kirby and Simonson did some of the more seminal runs on Thor, they helped shape and define what Thor eventually became, the way he would look. Waititi and crew paid homage to these classic artists by giving the film a very classic look with regards to set designs and the wardrobe of some of the characters. Thor himself has a more contemporary feel, getting away from the long hair, the capes and the hammer, making him less of a Viking. So the film is a bit of the old and the new.  Speaking of the old and the retro, If you love the 80’s then you’ll love the soundtrack which is pure 80’s synth stuff. It has a John Carpenter/Stranger Things vibe going for it. Thor: Ragnarok is a film that is showing us just how important it is to put the right person behind the camera, because without Waititi, this would be a very different film. This film shows movie studios can realize when something didnt work and that they shouldn’t be afraid to go in an entirely different direction to try something new and freshen things up. Who knows, it just might work. This is a lesson the DC Universe could learn from.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Benedict Cumberbach

This is the big conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy and they obviously wanted to end the trilogy with a big bang, so of course, The Battle of the Five Armies ended up being like the ‘Return of the Jedi’ of the Hobbit movies, which is to say, the biggest and baddest of them all. It’s as if all the action that was missing from the previous entries was taken out of those and put into this one, one film to rule them all. The good news is you probably won’t doze off during this one! The action is never ending, right from the get go the film starts off with Smaug the Dragon destroying Lake town, and that’s a real spectacle to watch. Now, I’m a huge fan of Dragons in films, and I have to say that this is one of the best depictions of a dragon, ever. I say one of the best because my favorite dragon is still and apparently will always be ‘Vermithrax Pejorative’, the dragon from Mathew Robbins’ Dragonslayer (1981). Still to this day, I haven’t seen a better movie about dragons than that one, but the dragon in The Battle of Five Armies? Pretty freaking impressive.

In this the final chapter of The Hobbit saga we find the people of Lake Town picking up their remains after in a fit of anger, Smaug the dragon destroys their town. Good news is that after Smaug is slayed, the Lonely Mountain is up for grabs, and if you remember correctly, there’s a huge treasure of gold inside of that mountain! Since this legendary treasure is common knowledge to everyone around, and  there isn’t a fire breathing dragon to protect it anymore, now everybody wants it! The elves, the dwarves, the humans and the orcs! Everybody wants a piece of that treasure! But the dwarves are not willing to give it up! This all leads up to an amazing battle that takes up practically half of the film, which is why I say, this film is none stop action so strap yourselves on tight for this one. It’s not a bore fest! 

The only thing I criticize about these Hobbit movies is that I feel they stretched them out for too long. Yes, I have read the book, and I feel that the whole story could have been told in one, maybe two movies tops. But of course, we can blame Hollywood for wanting to stretch franchises for a few movies more, it’s the new trend in Hollywood. They’ll stretch “the final chapter” into various films. They did it with the Twilight films; they divided the last film into two, Breaking Dawn Part I and II…which creates a small confusion because how can it be part I if this is the fourth film? Oh cause its part one of the “finale” which they’ve now stretched into two films, simply to make a few extra millions. You see Hollywood knows the fans can’t miss a single chapter, because they know audiences are hooked on a feeling, like a junkie looking for the next fix. They also did this with The Hunger Games, “Mocking Jay Part I and II”. The thing is that you feel it, you feel that some of it is just filler, padding to fill running time. They did it with this Hobbit trilogy as well, which if you ask me went on for one movie too long, but whatever, this final film is like all kinds of awesome because it’s monsters and wizards and dragons fighting for almost the entire duration of the film! It’s a fantasy film fans wet dream!

Imagine how much action this film has that it feels like it doesn't have much substance to it. Good thing is that it still manages to pack a wallop emotionally; it has one or two moments which “got to me” because you've known these characters for three movies know, so you kind of grow fond of some of them. I like that in spite of being a huge onslaught of action and special effects, The Battle of Five Armies still manages to tweak your emotion chip, which is something that Peter Jackson has always infused these Lord of the Rings movies with: emotion; sometimes a little too much, but on this one? Just the right amount of schmaltz.

Final words: if you are a fan of fantasy films and love to see Wizards and Witches engaging in magic battles, fire breathing dragons destroying entire towns, and monsters going to war, then The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies won’t disappoint. I still wonder what these movies would have been like had Guillermo del Toro directed them, at least he still gets some credit in the writing department. I’m willing to bet that it was the studios who gave Guillermo del Toro de shaft because they wanted that weight of saying that these three films were directed by the same Peter Jackson who made the previous Lord of the Rings films. That’s a huge selling point right there and I’m sure they didn’t want to let that go, so they axed del Toro, even after he’d given various years of his life in pre-production for these three Hobbit films. Del Toro’s take on it was that he left because he couldn’t commit to these films for six years of his life, especially when he has so many projects going on with many different studios, which is of course entirely true. Still, Peter Jackson pulled it off nicely and who better to these then the director who made the previous three Lord of the Rings films right? I can’t help but wonder what he’ll do next now that he’s leaving Middle Earth behind, I hope it’s something every bit as spectacular. And to think Jackson’s career started with the low budget indie flick Bad Taste (1987), a movie about aliens looking for human flesh to sell in their own fast food chain! It’s funny, but even in his earlier films; Jackson  always displayed a tendency to go over the top with his ideas, a tendency to shock as much as he possibly could. If he was going to do a puppet movie then it would be the grossest puppet movie you’ll ever see (Meet the Feebles (1989)) If he was going to make a zombie, the it was going to be the bloodiest zombie movie ever (Dead Alive (1989)) and if he does a fantasy film, then he’ll make you jizz your pants with an overdose of monsters and wizardry. Can’t wait to see what he’ll go over the top with next.

Rating: 5 out of 5      

The Hobbit (2012)

Title: The Hobbit (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis

Review:

It’s been almost a decade since I last visited J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth with The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003), but boy, going back to Middle Earth with The Hobbitt: An Unexpected Journey, felt like I’d never left. That familiar feeling you’ll get when you watch The Hobbitt: An Unexpected Journey comes as a direct result of having the same filmmaking team behind the cameras. Same producers, same writers and yes, same director; Peter Jackson returns to Middle Earth after having directed the first Lord of the Rings trilogy, the trilogy of films that won him numerous Academy Awards and made him a house hold name. This film does have an added bonus to it though: Guillermo del Toro also helped write it and conceptualize it, so it’s got a bit of another great fantasist in it. Unfortunately, del Toro had to bow out of directorial duties, sad in a way because I would have loved to see a Lord of the Rings film directed by del Toro, but as fate would have it, Jackson retook the reins of the new trilogy, which is perfectly fine by me, the guy made the previous three, he is the most qualified for the job. So did Jackson lose any steam? Or are his directorial abilities still in tip top shape?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). It tells the story of a younger Bilbo Baggins and his first encounter with “the one ring”. But it all starts rather small, with a visit from Gandalf the sorcerer who asks Bilbo to join him on an adventure to find a gold treasure that’s hidden within the abandoned Kingdom of Erebor. But this might prove to be harder than it sounds; the treasure and the abandoned city are both zealously protected by a giant fire breathing dragon named ‘Smaug’. If Bilbo accepts to join the adventure, he will be accompanied by 13 dwarfs and Gandalf himself. Will Bilbo accept to break with his pleasurable, peaceful life in order to help the dwarves regain their long lost kingdom and destroy the fire breathing dragon that took it from them?

I love what Jackson does with these movies, he brings Tolkien’s worlds to life in a way that makes me want to live in them. Yes sir, I wouldn’t mind living in ‘the Shire’ amongst happy Hobbits planning their next party. I’d love to live in those little Hobbit cabins filled with “all the comforts of home”. I mean, I love those warm looking little huts that the Hobbits live in. It seems like the Hobbits live extremely peaceful lives, jolly most of the time, planning parties with friends, sharing warmth and good food. What’s not to like about that life? Of course, The Shire might be a beautiful, peaceful place to live in, but around it, evil lurks, searching to disrupt peace and happiness. This is part of the theme of the film, how Bilbo has to break from his comfort zone and venture out into the world. He is an unlikely, reluctant hero, but will he think of others? Will he learn empathy? It’s the age old idea that when we break out of our comfort zone, that’s when things start happening, that’s when we start living our lives, that’s when the real adventure begins.

What makes this unexpected journey so pleasurable to watch is its characters and the world they inhabit.  I loved the 13 dwarves and their humor and their appetite and their singing, these dwarves are a very entertaining bunch of characters that bring the film to life. By the way this film reminded me a lot of Ron Howard’s Willow (1988) a film that borrowed heavily from Tolkien’s books;  you know, the kind of film where a bunch of characters are traveling down a strange and dangerous land, filled with unexpected perils, creatures and monsters galore. Orcs, giant rock creatures, giant wolves and spiders, and monsters that defy definition await Bilbo and the dwarves as they travel through Middle Earth. This is one of the things that I always love about fantasy films, the creatures we meet on the journey across the strange land. In that sense, this film is not so different from Ridley Scott’s Legend (1985) either, or any other fantasy film for that matter. This is a monster filled journey. 

As far as faithfulness to the book goes, I’d say that yeah, it’s faithful to the source material, but the filmmakers also throw in a lot of things that are not in the book because they want to tie in plot points from the previous films and bring in new plot points that will appear in future films, by the way, don’t know if you guys know it but two more films have already been filmed The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smug which will be released summer 2013 and The Hobbit: There and Back Again which will be released shortly thereafter. So this is the reason why on An Unexpected Journey, you will see characters talk about future perils and dangers on the horizon, alluding to, yet not really telling us what we can expect in future films. Some characters are introduced briefly, obviously meant to have bigger roles in future films.  I read The Hobbit and felt like they took some moments, placed them in this film, switched them around and put them in the second or third, it was quite obvious that this isn’t a chronologically accurate translation of the book. The filmmaker have switched events around to suit their storytelling, and added new characters so as to have a cohesiveness with the older films. But in the world of Hollywood, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Very rarely do filmmakers translate a book onto film word for word; poetic license is common practice in film land. So if you’re expecting a word for word adaptation of the book, wake up from that dream. But fret not, the most important key moments are all there. You will see Bilbo solve riddles with Gollum, Bilbo getting the ring for the first time, the 13 dwarves arriving at Bilbo’s home and so forth…the key moments are there. If you ask me, you won’t feel disappointed if you’re a Lord of the Rings fan.

Ultimately I enjoyed this film very much. It feels like it belongs right there with the previous films. It was realized in such a similar fashion that you do feel like you’re visiting that same Middle Earth we visited years ago with the first three films and the film is entertaining because of its cast of lively characters. The visual effects are as perfect as they could be; I am personally amazed at what these filmmakers can achieve with computer effects, when done well. The expressions they can achieve on some of these characters are astonishing; Gollum is a wonder of animation in my book, he seems so alive in the film, yet he only exists within the confines of a computer! I guess the only down side to the film is how long it is, you might feel like they are padding things out, stretching that story so as to make three movies out of one book and make three times as much money, but then again epic length is almost a pre-requisite with these Lord of the Rings films, it’s almost become something we can expect from them. So, with very few bad things to say about it I say An Unexpected Journey was a satisfying and entertaining film with visual effects and storytelling of the highest caliber, without a doubt one of the best of 2012.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Hanna (2011)

Title: Hanna (2011)

Director: Joe Wright

Cast: Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Saoirse Ronan

Review:

Sometimes, a certain director will make only one kind of film. Let’s say for example Martin Scorcese is known for making primarily gangster films and thrillers, John Carpenter is known for making horror films and Ivan Reitman is known for making comedies, well, Joe Wright the director behind Hanna is a director primarily known for making period films like Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Atonement (2007). The hyper stylish Hanna isn’t exactly the kind of movie you’d associate Joe Wright with, yet here he is, taking a stab at something different and yes, even commercial. But that’s all cool in my book because to stay in the Hollywood game, you gotta make a real moneymaker every now and again to keep the studios happy and let them know you can bring in the moolah in between your artsy period films. And Hanna was a winner, so we’re sure to see more Joe Wright films in the near future. In fact he’s working on his next period film right now, Anna Karenina based on Tolstoy’s famous novel. But how was Hanna, Wright’s attempt at making something stylish, modern, hip and ‘cool’?

 I have to say it went exquisitely well! This film tells the story of Hanna (Ronan) a 16 year old girl who’s been raised entirely in the wild by her father (Bana), an ex-CIA agent. Hanna’s father wanted to raise her away from modern society. She’s read encyclopedias and famous works of literature, but she’s never faced the real world outside of the woods, she doesn’t even know what music is. So one day, when Hanna is particularly anxious to experience the real world on her own, she tells her father; his answer? He presents Hanna with a switch. If she flips the switch, they will come looking for her. And she will have to run out into the world on her own. But the question quickly arises: Just who are ‘they’? And why do they want her so badly?

 So yeah, I loved this movie for various reasons. Number one, the symbolisms. The idea of an overprotective father who wants to keep his child away from the big bad world is representative of how a parent will most of the time try and protect their child from the horrors that this world has to offer, which last time I checked are many. The parent will try and keep their child in their nest for as long as possible, teaching the child values and a way to see the world, all in preparation for when said child has grown and wants to experience the world for themselves. When that happens, and the child decides to be independent of family unit, there is definitely a ‘switch’ that gets flipped, for you are no longer under mommy and daddy’s protection, now you are facing the big bad world all on your own with only your wits and what you’ve been taught to guide you. Fortunately, Hanna was taught well. She’s an expert in all sorts of deadly fighting skills; she’s a weapon’s master and an agile killer. In fact, Hanna and her father are both so deadly that the government will stop at nothing to find them both.

 The film criticizes the modern world with all its technology and machines. Hanna is raised in a world that is void of any sort of technology, no television, no music, no phones, no Playstation, no MTV. She leads a very Amish sort of life with her dad in the woods When Hanna first goes out into the world and confronts a girl of her same age, the girl does nothing but talk about pop stars and tv shows, a language totally alien to Hanna. When Hanna enters a ‘modern’ house hold, she is bombarded with all sorts of distractions and stress inducing machines. The radio blares! The television set tries to sell you something! The alarm clock sounds! Everything hisses and beeps and squeaks at her. All these mechanical contraptions are shown to cause a great amount of stress to Hanna who is only used to the chirping of birds, or the sound the wind makes when it hits the leaves in the forest. I loved how the film criticizes this aspect of modern living, how we are so accustomed to machines as part of our lives that we don’t realize how stressful they can actually be. Immediately, the beeping of a text message came to mind.

 But my favorite thing about the film was its subversive aura. This my friends is a film that absolutely hates the governments evil doings. The villain in the film is a government operative called Marissa, played with evil glee by the always awesome Cate Blanchett. Marissa lies, kills and cheats every step of the way to achieve her governments’ goals. And like many governments, she even relies on the help of gangsters, hired killers and low lives to get things done; which reminded me of my own government in my own country. When they wanted to take over the University of Puerto Rico to make life impossible for students what did they do? The actually paid ex-wrestlers to muscle the students around and intimidate them! Ex-wrestlers got paid millions of dollars to intimidate students! Just goes to show how governments will go to any extent they have to go to get what they want; which is exactly what happens in Hanna, a film that mirrors how many governments are behaving in the world. I love it when films do this, because it shows that these are not isolated incidents in the world, and that artist’s take notice of these events and express what they see in their world through their films, through their art. Hanna is just one of an increasing number of contemporary films that portray the government and its militant force as the enemy, as evil. If you want to watch another extremely subversive film that is one hundred percent revolutionary, watch Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), that one surprised me with its subversive aura.

 Saoirse Ronan whom I loved in Wright’s Atonement steals the show once again. Hanna is her film, and she dominates it quite well. The character of Hanna is portrayed with a naïveté that I loved. The world is new and awesome to her, and I loved the fact that she is so ready for it. A symbolism yet again. It is so essential for a parent to truly prepare a child for what really awaits them out there in the world, for when they are out there on their own; it’s what the parents have taught them that will help them make the proper choices when the time comes. If a child has been taught well, he or she will have a better chance at making it in this big bad world. If not, he or she will have to learn the hard way. Hanna was prepared in more ways than one, and so she faces the world admirably. But aside from the parents preparing you for the big bad world, it also speaks about how rebels need to prepare themselves, arm themselves, train themselves in order to achieve a proper revolution. Also, something can be said about the fact that Hanna, the revolutionary of this film is so young. The film speaks about how the new generation needs to rise up and take matters into their own hands! Governments are afraid of young people rebelling against them, because it’s always been the newer generations that complaint, it’s always been the young that tells the old “your doing things all wrong!” This is the reason why so many governments attack college campuses and education in general. We cant have lot’s of little Hanna’s running around the world now can we? Educated and ready to take matters into their own hands if need be.   

 Finally, Hanna has two other good things going for it: its stylish look and its music. And I have to mention both of these at the same time because Joe Wright directed and edited this film in a way that visuals match perfectly with the soundtrack. The beats supplied by The Chemical Brothers for the films soundtrack match perfectly with the beats of the editing of the film, with the flashes of light, with the action. Hanna offers us a brilliant marriage of visuals and sound. There’s not a bad thing I can think of saying about this film which means only one thing, Hanna gets a perfect score from The Film Connoisseur. Now go see it!

Rating: 5 out of 5