Karl Urban – 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 – ‘Pete’s Dragon’ – Summer Magic

Directed by David Lowery
Written by David Lowery & Toby Halbrooks (screenplay), based on a screenplay by Malcolm Marmorstein, based on a story by Seton I. Miller and S.S. Field
Cast: Oakes Fegley, Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Oona Laurence, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, Isiah Whitlock Jr., John Kassir (Elliot vocals)
Soundtrack: Daniel Hart

Apparently, I missed the memo notifying us that 2016 would be such a great year for family films shot in New Zealand.

First came ‘Hunt for the Wilderpeople‘, and now we have ‘Pete’s Dragon’, although no one would accuse them of being the same movie (though there are a few similarities). Whereas ‘Wilderpeople’ is something of an oddball Kiwi comedy, ‘Pete’s Dragon’ is a classic “Disney movie” Disney movie (and, though shot in New Zealand, takes place in the Pacific Northwest).

Now, you may recall another Disney movie called ‘Pete’s Dragon‘ from 1977, a live-action/animated musical film, which, while fascinating in its own regard, is not-so-secretly creepy. While comparisons are fair because they share the same name and are based on the same story, the old doesn’t really provide much context for the new. The most striking difference is that this new version is not a musical, but also the setting is updated (though still a period piece, somewhere in the late 1980s, I assume), and pretty much everyone outside of the boy and his dragon is a brand new character, not to mention the new dragon is basically a giant dog with wings (which I’m totally fine with).

In short, it’s not a “remake” so much as a re-imagining, but enough talk about the past.

‘Pete’s Dragon’ is a labor of love from writer/director David Lowery (in his big budget/major studio debut), and is the heartwarming tale of an orphaned boy named Pete and his dragon friend named Elliot. For six years, they have lived freely in the woods, until one fateful day, Pete makes contact with the outside world, and their lives, and the lives of everyone they meet, change forever.

Flat out, I really enjoyed this movie. The set-up is perfectly done (it could have easily been distasteful), the dragon is great, the story tugs at your heartstrings, everyone in the cast is giving their all, and, perhaps most importantly, the kid actors are on point, especially Oakes Fegley as Pete. I don’t know where he came from, but I’d say he’s going places, because he did an incredible job, especially given that he plays so much against a CGI character.

Now, that’s not to say the movie doesn’t have flaws, because I do have some criticisms. For one thing, there are some relationships between characters that could be more firmly established for the audience, namely brothers Jack and Gavin (Wes Bentley and Karl Urban), and there also comes a point where Gavin decides to take certain action and his motivation doesn’t feel all that fleshed-out. Perhaps there were scenes explaining all of this that were shot that just didn’t make it into the final cut, or maybe they were never in the script to begin with, but, either way, the movie could have used them.

Also, the story, at least for grown-ups, is a bit predictable. About half-way through you can see all the strands and where they’re likely headed toward, but, the movie is charming enough that you can forgive this.

All-in-all, ‘Pete’s Dragon’ is a feel-good movie for the whole family, but I think there’s some general audience appeal as well. It’s adventurous, it’s heartwarming, and, if you let it, it might just take you back to your childhood, when your imagination was less hindered.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Star Trek Beyond’ – “Aye, well played.”

Directed by Justin Lin
Written by Simon Pegg & Doug Jung, based on the television series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella, Deep Roy, Greg Grunberg
Soundtrack: Michael Giacchino

If we’re all being honest here, the initial marketing for ‘Star Trek Beyond’ was, shall we say, worrisome.

Thankfully, someone was listening. and the marketing got better, unlike some other recent release in which every single last trailer was awful (hint: starts with a G). Even so, I didn’t exactly have high expectations for this movie going into it. All I really wanted was for the latest Star Trek installment to be better then the last one (NSFW), which was such a hot mess that even Skyline Chili would call it a hot mess.

Fortunately, I’m happy to report that ‘Star Trek Beyond’ is a fine picture, certainly better than its predecessor, and largely up to the standard of the original 2009 reboot. That’s not to say it’s perfect; frankly, it’s missing something I can’t quite put my finger on, but I’ll definitely watch it again in the future.

Firstly though, let’s talk about the negative. The biggest problem I have with this movie, shockingly, is the visuals. That’s not to say the effects aren’t what they should be; they’re more than adequate. No, I’m talking about the actual movement of the camera, particularly during action sequences. Oftentimes, it’s so close to the action that you can’t even make out what’s really happening (aka “Who’s punching who?”); while other times it is a reasonable distance away, but it’s still shaking so much that you just want to die. Honestly, I got more dizzy watching ‘Star Trek Beyond’ than I did watching ‘Hardcore Henry‘, a movie that takes place entirely in the first person. I mean, seriously, it’s been 40 years since the Steadicam entered the movie-making fray; why is Hollywood trying to kill us with this shaky-cam madness?

But, I digress.

By far the strongest aspect of ‘Beyond’ is the script (especially when compared to ‘Into Darkness’). I’d venture to say it’s the tightest script for a Star Trek movie in 25 years (although that motorcycle is still never properly explained). More importantly, however, is that of the three “new timeline” movies, ‘Star Trek Beyond’ unquestionably comes the closest to matching the tone of the original series, which, even as a casual fan of the franchise, is much appreciated. And yet, the movie has some of its own unique touches, which not everybody may like, but at least the movie’s not merely trying to hit you with as many recognizable Star Trek references as possible.

Other than that, the cast does what they’re there to do, and I actually liked Sofia Boutella as “Jaylah” in particular, although Idris Elba gets the Trooper Award for being buried under all that makeup and prostheses. Most importantly, I appreciated how the filmmakers handled the tributes to the late Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin; it’s literally a moment of silence within the end credits that says it all.

Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it enough to cleanse your palate from the awfulness of ‘Into Darkness’? Yes, and that’s all it needs to be.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse and Mondo for the usual opening night accouterments and specials. The “Finagle’s Folly” cocktail was quite…green.

Who says you can’t like both?