Cate Blanchett – People Talking

Movie Review – ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ – Kiwi Fried Goodness

Directed by Taika Waititi
Written by Eric Pearson and Craig Kyle & Christopher Yost, based on the comics by Stan Lee & Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch, Taika Waititi (voice), Rachel House, Clancy Brown (voice), Tadanobu Asano, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, Luke Hemsworth, Sam Neill, Cohen Holloway, Matt Damon
Soundtrack: Mark Mothersbaugh

To be honest, I’m a bit superhero-ed out right now. I don’t think I’ll be able to get up for Justice League, or Black Panther, but I’ve got just enough in the tank to be excited for this, because it’s a known fact that the Marvel Cinematic Universe benefits from getting a little wild from time to time.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man: Homecoming: all a bit nutty, a bit weird, and all wonderful (and all helmed by non-“name” directors, who Marvel came to terms with before shooting); and as I well know, if you really want to get your freak on, you pass things off to Taika Waititi.

Director of such films as What We Do in the Shadows, and the criminally underrated Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Taika Waititi knows how to provide his audience with a good, fun time, without making a complete farce of things (not unlike Edgar Wright, though they are definitely not the same; growing up on opposite sides of the globe will have that effect), and Thor: Ragnarok is no exception.

This is not to say that we have a perfect film on our hands (for one thing, I’m not sure it stands up entirely on its own, which I’m something of a stickler about), but it’s definitely worth the price of admission.

The strength of Thor: Ragnarok lies largely in its tone and its humor (shocker, I know), to the point that the action bits are probably the least interesting thing about the movie.

Of course, none of this would work without quality performances (including a bit of a scene-stealer from Waititi himself). Chris Hemsworth, if he wasn’t already, seems perfectly comfortable in his Thor suit; same for Tom Hiddleston as Loki; Cate Blanchett is clearly having a blast (and is darkly fetching); Idris Elba does fine with what little he has; Tessa Thompson makes for an interesting addition; Karl Urban brings a surprising amount of gravitas to what could easily be a throwaway role; Mark Ruffalo is Mark Ruffalo (in the same way that RDJ is RDJ); but the man himself, Jeff Goldblum, is truly the straw that stirs the drink (so much so that one of my disappointments is that he’s not in the movie more).

Thor: Ragnarok won’t work for everybody, I recognize that (I already said it wasn’t perfect); not everyone will jibe with its particular sense of humor, but, by-and-large, I think most people will experience this as the fun romp it is

After all, you don’t want to be taking all this comic book stuff too seriously now, do you?

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Of course there are stingers; why are you asking?

Movie Review: ‘The Hobbit’ – An Unnecessary Trilogy

The Hobbit
Directed by Peter Jackson
Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro, based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Mark Hadlow, Graham McTavish, Dean O’Gorman, Peter Hambleton, Aidan Turner, Jed Brophy, John Callen, Adam Brown, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Bret McKenzie, Sylvester McCoy, Lee Pace, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, John Bell, Craig Hall, Benedict Cumberbatch, Billy Connolly, Thomas Robins, Antony Sher, Manu Bennett, Andy Serkis, Barry Humphries, Kiran Shah, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Dan Hennah
Soundtrack: Howard Shore

Oh, my head.

Yesterday, I made the decision, perhaps foolish, to see all three Hobbit films in one sitting (at my old favorite, the Alamo Drafthouse Theater in Yonkers, NY).

I had not seen the previous two Hobbit films at all, frankly, because I wasn’t really interested in seeing another three movies about Hobbits and Dwarves and whatnot in Middle Earth, but, ultimately, the opportunity to see a complete trilogy, with fresh eyes, in a theater with plenty of food and drink at hand, was too enticing to pass up, even if I did have to take time off from work to do so.

Was it worth it? In the end, I suppose so, if for nothing else than it gives me something to talk about. It’s not often that I get to write about a movie (or series of movies) before most people get to see it, so here goes.

Now, when I first heard that J.R.R. Tolkien’s [roughly] 300-page novel, The Hobbit, was going to be adapted into not just one film, but a whole trilogy of films, I said to myself, “It’s going to be the Star Wars Prequels all over again,” in that a later-produced trilogy that takes place before the events of the original trilogy could not possibly live up to the original, and might even leave a black mark on the whole franchise.

Now, is Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit anywhere near as bad as Star Wars: Episodes I-III?

No, of course not.

Unlike the Prequels, which are almost completely irredeemable as films, there are many enjoyable aspects of The Hobbit movies, but there are a few themes, somewhat reminiscent of Episodes I-III, that run throughout these films and make it difficult for me to recommend them as presently constituted.

What am I talking about?

1. The Characters (aka “Who’s the protagonist?)

This is, in fact, a very minor complaint, and I don’t actually mind movies straying away from traditional storytelling and featuring multiple leads, but for what is essentially a nearly eight-hour long motion picture called The Hobbit, there are an awful lot of long stretches where the title character isn’t around, or, if he is, the story is not from his perspective. I get that Peter Jackson essentially raided the Tolkien library for any other unadapted source material related to Middle Earth to pad out the running time (which is the proper way to do so; add more STORY…we’ll come back to padding later), but, at times, it’s just a little tough to reconcile how much of The Hobbit is told without him, and how often it feels like the Dwarf or Wizard show.

2. Tone (aka “You’re making a movie for children, right?”)

One issue with the Star Wars Prequels, and it’s echoed almost perfectly by The Hobbit, is that the movies get darker and darker as the trilogy progresses, as if the filmmakers think they need to compensate for something. Now with the Prequels I think this was entirely intentional, as a response to the negative audience reaction to Jar Jar Binks and other such attempts at “comedy.” With The Hobbit one could argue that it’s part of the natural progression of the story, and at the end of the day I don’t specifically have a problem with Peter Jackson wanting to make an adaption for mature audiences, but at the same time he’s making an adaptation of a children’s novel, complete with lots of kid-friendly moments (like dwarves doing annoying dwarf things). Do we really need to also see decapitations and people burning and dead children? Again, who are these movies really for?

Which leads me to my next point.

3. Excess (aka “I may have gone too far in a few places.”)

Peter Jackson is a huge Tolkien fan.

He’s also arguably the most excessive director working today, and has been going all the way back to his schlock horror days with movies such as Dead Alive (aka Braindead) and Meet the Feebles. Now, excess can be good when properly channeled (think Quentin Tarantino), but a three-hour long King Kong movie that nobody wanted or needed, and fails to justify its own existence (unlike certain other ape-themed movies which are fantastic), is not what I had in mind.

The core problem with these movies isn’t just how long they are, it’s WHY they’re as long as they are; and while there are other Tolkien works folded into the story, the excessive running times are ultimately due to excessive action scenes, some of which look fine, and others of which look like cutscenes from videogames (and I don’t mean no PS4; I’m talking XBOX 360 at best). In fact, a great deal of tension is lost from our heroes actually physically behaving like videogame characters; with such speed, strength, and agility that they basically become unbelievable within their own fantasy universe.

You see, Peter Jackson and George Lucas both failed to realize that even in this amazing age of digital technology, just because you can dream something, and just because you can create it in a computer, does not outright mean you should commit it to film. And it also seems like both of them are in favor of pushing technology in the wrong direction: Lucas, to further his own laziness, and Jackson, well, I guess to make 48fps telenovelas about Middle Earth.

Anyway, I could more easily accept a Hobbit trilogy if it was three 100-120 minute films, or like a 6-8 part TV miniseries; but three two-and-a-half to three-hour long films is just insane, and I’m not just saying that because I saw all three in a row. Remember, this whole thing is essentially based on one 300-page children’s novel. The Rankin/Bass animated version from the late-1970s clocks in at a crisp 77 minutes, and while it does leave some story elements out, does Peter Jackson’s version really need to be over six times as long? I argue no.

Now I’ve spent nearly a thousand words hammering what I don’t like, and why I don’t recommend this trilogy as it stands, but I don’t want to end on a totally down note, because I don’t actually hate these movies. In fact, you could say I really want to like them, but overwhelming factors prevent me from doing so.

If you’ve already seen Journey and Smaug, going #OneLastTime to see Five Armies can’t hurt, but if you haven’t seen any of them before, I say don’t bother with them.

I hope there will come a day, after Five Armies is released on home format, that someone in the fan-edit community will take all the footage available and compile together a reasonable-length version of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, because as I said before, there are plenty of gems to find: good performances; emotional moments; all the wonders of a fantasy world.

Right now, it’s just not worth 8 hours (474 minutes, to be precise) of your time.

But we can always dream.

Overall Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Movie Review: ‘The Monuments Men’ – It Just Doesn’t Work

Directed by George Clooney
Written by George Clooney & Grant Heslov, based on the book by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter
Cast: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Hugh Bonneville, Bob Balaban, Sam Hazeldine
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

You’re probably wondering why I’m choosing to talk about a film that isn’t a box office success, critical hit, or, most importantly, a new release, but this whole talking about whatever thing has to start somewhere, and I have strong opinions about this particular movie, so here we go.

First off, for the record, as a film enthusiast and someone with a history degree, I really wanted to like this movie, so it pained me dearly at the close of the film to have to admit that it just wasn’t very good, and that I wouldn’t recommend it to general audiences.

But, before I get too far in my criticism, I do want to praise this movie for what it does well, and that comes especially in the visual department. First of all, as far as I can tell, Monuments Men was shot on actual film, rather than digitally. I never imagined I’d ever be giving a movie credit for such a choice, but these days it seems as if shooting on film is viewed by most major studios as going above and beyond, which I can understand, as digital technology is just so convenient for so many reasons, not the least of which being cost; but no matter how far digital cameras have come, there are just certain projects that should be shot on actual film, period pieces especially.

(Just don’t tell that to Michael Mann. As much as I respect the guy for movies like Heat and Collateral, I’ll never understand his choice to not only shoot Public Enemies digitally, but to make that choice so obvious. I mean, would he have shot Last of the Mohicans digitally if he’d had the choice? I hope not. But I digress.)

So, from a cinematic standpoint, Monuments Men looks great: the depth, the color, etc. And what enhances this is the attention to detail paid in terms of the costumes, props, vehicles, and visual effects. I don’t know how much CGI was used in the film, but it certainly doesn’t feel like all that much, and it’s used effectively and appropriately. Frankly, I think the filmmakers made every effort to carry on without it as much as they physically could, and I commend them for that as well.

Unfortunately, other than looking great and feeling real in the visual sense, there’s not much else that Monuments Men gets right. The crux of the problem is a general lack of focus in the writing and directing, and that comes down primarily on George Clooney’s shoulders. I understand this was a passion project for him, and it’s hard to give up control of something when it’s your baby, but I think he did the movie a disservice by taking on too much responsibility.

I haven’t read the book the film is based on, so I can’t comment on the quality of the adaptation, but from a creative perspective, the movie is trying to be too many things at once (and I think it assumes the audience has read the book). It wants to be an Old Hollywood light-hearted propaganda film, while also being a by-the-book historical film, while also being a poignant commentary on the nature of war and the importance of art in our lives, and so on and so forth, to the point that the varying concepts simply collapse under their own weight, and you’re left with a flat-as-a-pancake story and characters, with very little to connect to from an audience perspective.

To put it another way, one of the biggest areas where Monuments Men fails is in the emotions. Despite a great cast, we’re not given enough time or reason to connect with the characters; so when each actor gets their individual moment to shine, none of the scenes move us, and so these moments stand in service of nothing.

In comparison, I think of a movie like Memphis Belle. There are ten men in the crew of the titular aircraft, which means there are ten men for us to care about, which can be a stretch for an audience if not handled correctly, but in Memphis Belle we’re given enough time with and information about the characters: where they come from, their personalities, and their dreams for after the war. So, when things get dramatic, we actually feel it as an audience because we know and care about these guys.

This is where choosing someone else to direct Monuments Men would have solved a lot of problems and given us a better film. Frankly, I think Steven Soderbergh would have been the perfect choice. He’s worked with George Clooney many times before, but more importantly I think he would have established one clear and consistent tone for the film, whether more straight-laced and objective, like Contagion, or a more light-hearted ensemble piece, like the Ocean’s 1X series; he certainly wouldn’t have let the movie wander around trying to be everything at once.

Alternatively, perhaps Monuments Men would have worked better as a mini-series than as a two hour movie. As I said, I haven’t read the book, but I know that certain material just doesn’t work when condensed down to such a degree (for example: most of John Le Carre’s novels). More screen time certainly would have helped to solve the issues of shallow characterization and a rushed conclusion. And as the story focuses far more on saving art as opposed to taking lives in combat, a Monuments Men miniseries could have run on an over-the-air network without concern of having to water down the violence for regular television. I can’t imagine many executives foresaw this movie doing much business overseas, so from a financial perspective I think a miniseries would have made as much sense as a feature film, if not more.

In the end, The Monuments Men is yet another movie that leaves us with the question of what might have been had different choices been made along the way. I can’t recommend it to general audiences because it’s not very good, and the average person will probably find themselves bored while watching it. But, if you’re into history like I am, or you’ve read the book and you’re curious about it, I’d recommend it as a rental. At the very least, I can say Monuments Men is not another cynical Hollywood cash grab, and though it fails in many regards, it at least tries before getting there.

★★☆☆☆
(★★½ if you’re into History)