Oscar Travesties pt.1

The Oscars are a global phenomenon, where millions of people tune in to see their favourite celebrities and artists (yes there’s a distinction) celebrate the most voted on films of the past year. Few things can be as suspenseful as, “…And the Oscar goes to”. Here are some examples where the Academy, in all of their wisdom, got it wrong:

2005- Crash over Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture.

Director Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain, a heartbreaking and poetic film about 2 same sex lovers during the mid 20^th century went into Oscar season as a consensus favourite. Among other accolades, it had already won Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, Best Film at the BAFTA’s, and the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. It had 8 Oscar nominations, and a Best Picture win felt like a formality. Instead, when the night ended, the Oscar went to director Paul Haggis’ Crash, a heavy handed report featuring an ensemble cast lecturing its audience about the dangers of racism. It’s regrettable that Brokeback didn’t win, but its competition also included Munich, Capote, and Good Night and Good Luck, strong films with their unique and respective strengths. Unfortunately, the actual winner, Crash is regarded by some as the worst Best Picture winner of all time. Predictable, heavily saturated with preaching, and seeking recognition for being clumsily fair minded, the Academy gave it top billing for the year. What makes it even more aggravating is it appears that the Academy voters would like a mulligan.

It all proved too little, too late- and in a telling sign the Academy split the vote by giving Ang Lee Best Director (as well as best score and best adapted screenplay) as consolation prizes. The worst ever.

1991- Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas for Best Picture.

While it’s tough to imagine fellow nominee, The Godfather III, winning, Dances with Wolves is another textbook example (see above) of the academy bragging about its self assessed racial equanimity. Kevin Costner’s passion project, about a white saviour living with a Lakota band on the plains of America has its lovely moments- just none matching the timeless brilliance of its competitor, Goodfellas. Director Martin Scorcese had already been screwed by the Academy a decade earlier for, Raging Bull, and in this year ol’ Marty got a double dose. Goodfellas is one of the rare films where it's actually better than the book (Nicholas Pileggi’s Wiseguys), and its kinetic action, scintillating performances (Joe Pesci would win Best Supporting Actor), and riveting narrative make it hopelessly re-watchable- regardless of what part the movie is at, and regardless of what you’re doing at the time. Not only is the excitement tangible, but Scorcese turns in his masterpiece of direction, creating at least a half dozen scenes that could double as film school for cinephiles. From the Copacabanna take, to Henry Hill’s teenage years, to the coffee shop encounter, to the prison dinner, to the longest day ever sequence, Goodfellas is recognized by more than a few as the #1 movie of the 90’s (here, here, here, and here). Scorcese's influence would be copied by subsequent auteurs countless times, but never duplicated.

Costner (and his ego) would go on to create industry jokes such as Waterworld (who’s director, Kevin Reynolds, walked out in post production due to differences with Costner) and Costner’s own, The Postman. Scorcese would go on to (finally) win Best Picture and Director for 2006’s The Departed, in what some referred to as a lifetime achievement award. It was at this point that two time Oscar host Jon Stewart could no longer joke about the rap group, 36 Mafia, having more Oscars than Scorcese.

1999- Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture.

Saving Private Ryan is one of the strongest war movies ever made, while Shakespeare in Love is most certainly without a doubt at least the 65th best romantic comedy drama ever conceived. Like most “winners” in this post, it’s not about how bad (except for Crash) the Best Picture goes to, but how great of a gap there is between the winner and the unfortunates.
Director Steven Spielberg was already a titan of industry when he was making Ryan, and with 2 time Oscar winner Tom Hanks in the lead, and 11 Oscar nominations, it was a can’t miss favourite at awards night. But in Shakespeare, voters felt that the breezy John Madden directed tale of a young, broke, and muse-less Shakespeare (played by Joseph Fiennes, courting Gwyneth Paltrow), was the movie of the year. As each year goes by, Ryan swells in importance, an important tribute to both WWII and the cinema of war itself, while Shakespeare in Love grows in becoming unremembered. As in 2005, voters gave Spielberg the Best Director award as a consolation prize, highlighting the folly of their collective choice.

2011- The King’s Speech over The Social Network for Best Picture.

Throughout history, the Academy has been accused of being stodgy and traditional, and in few places is this as evident as the year King’s Speech won over Social Network. What made it more confounding is the Academy had already (in 2009) expanded the Best Picture nominee field, from a traditional 5 movies to a maximum of 10, with the idea that diversity could be further celebrated, and deserving but less "critical" films (such as The Dark Knight and Wall-E) could make it into the Best Picture race. So imagine my surprise, when the (solid but not spectacular) King’s Speech, a conservative feel good film with a great performance by Colin Firth, beat out Social Network. With writer Aaron Sorkin’s breathlessly energetic script, and director David Fincher’s alienation tinged atmosphere of creeping dread, it truly felt like a product of its time for future generations. It’s tough to not slag on the Academy for going conservative on this one. Instead of a film that acknowledges the current societal impacts of social media, they voted for one that celebrates a member of the monarchy in the mid 20^th century learning how not to stutter.

2016- Ex Machina over the field for Best Visual Effects.

It’s tough to get worked up about the Best Visual Effects Oscar- what is a surefire way to signify a travesty? But the choice of this particular year is the one that I remember guffawing at, its set of characteristics for what separated it from the rest of the field explicably un-latent. Winning over heavy favourite Mad Max: Fury Road, not to mention Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Revenant, and The Martian, Ex Machina is a choice that remains baffling. Director George Miller’s bombastic and way over the top Mad Max wasn’t my favourite movie of the year, but you had to appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of the film’s playing football with cars and actors, with minimal CGI used. Even if that wasn’t going to win, Star Wars was a strong choice (as usual, although the Academy hasn’t recognized the iconic franchise since 1980), and Revenant and The Martian also made a fair amount of sense. Instead, the Academy voters were blown away by Machina’s characters having half human/half machine characteristics, and gave it top prize. Now if they could make the Academy that transparent.

Lost in Translation

2003’s “Lost in Translation“, written and directed by Sofia Coppola.

Starring Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris, and Catherine Lambert.

Winner of an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (Sofia Coppola).

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Actor (Bill Murray), and Best Director (Sofia Coppola).

What is it about?

American movie star Bill Murray finds himself in present day Tokyo, doing some unfulfilling side gigs. Lost in a foreign land of exotic alienation, he runs into Scarlett Johansson. Johansson is a young, lost soul, stuck in Japan while her flaky photographer husband (Giovanni Ribisi) lives the life of a artist. Murray himself is going through a mid life crisis, with his relationship with his 2 children and wife back in America becoming more estranged by the day. Will Murray and Johansson’s chance encounter galvanize them out of their respective ruts? And will their relationship turn into more in the land of the rising sun?

Why is it worth seeing?

My #1 movie of 2003, Writer/Director Sofia Coppola brings her light touch and warm characters and plunks them down in a bustling Tokyo, home to 8 million. The setting makes for a perfect environment of alienation and humour, angst and forgiveness, and chaotic peace- and leads Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson excel in this setting. It’s tough to not be moved by the pairing of kindred spirits.

In a movie featuring few characters, but many foreign extras, we become like Murray and Johansson- lost amongst an alien landscape. In an unfamiliar place, we gravitate towards the organic star power of our 2 leads. In particular, Murray has never been better (he was favoured to win, but lost the Best Actor Oscar to Sean Penn in Mystic River)- although he was equally as good in 1982’s Tootsie…

What Coppola translates to the screen so well, is the chemistry between our 2 leads. We go through so many encounters a day that don’t lead to anything, which is what makes the 2 connecting feel so special. There are those who will say that it is wrong for the significantly older Murray’s character to even consider being with Johansson’s, with her being half his age- and both of them are married to boot. A fair point, and I would have to ask if those that criticize this gap actually saw the film. For those that did, they would agree their relationship is platonic, and Johansson’s beyond her years wisdom and Murray’s newfound boyish charm combine for something more special and timeless than simply an international fling.

At times, Coppola’s depictions of some of the Japanese bit characters in the film can feel a little racist and simplistic- the movie definitely seems to never settle into the complicated question of what a culture is (and isn’t). And Murray’s wife, never actually seen, while definitely estranged, is also tough to believe in her nag inspired ways. With that said, the Kyoto sequence, the relationship between the leads, and the movie’s closing scene, are transcendent moments in a lovely movie. Here is a film about how we can all get lost in our lives’ journeys, that begs to be found.

Rating:

4.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Mom and Dad

2018’s “Mom and Dad“, written and directed by Brian Taylor.

Starring Anne Winters, Zackary Arthur, Nicholas Cage, Selma Blair, Robert T. Cunningham,  Olivia Crocicchia, Samantha Lemole. Lance Henriksen, and Marilyn Dodds Frank.

What is it about?

Taking place in present day, in a ubiquitous suburban American town, we meet a nuclear family. Parents Nicholas Cage and Selma Blair are both firmly ensconced in the throes of middle age, with their teenage daughter, Anne Winters, discovering her own secret world, and young son, Zackary Arthur, who’s house tidying skills aren’t as developed as his parents would like. One day, an innocuous television beamed signal makes the parents of the town begin to try to murder their own spawn. With every child a target of their parent’s unconscious wrath, will they be able to survive the horrid perversions of maternity and paternity?

Why is it worth seeing?

Everyone who’s had children (and some of those who haven’t, too) know that child rearing can be a frustrating, infuriating, and thankless task. Lord knows, we’ve all been to the point where we would imagine doing things to our children that would certainly net us jail time. Mom and Dad take this premise, and extend it to something akin to a zombie outbreak.

Director/Writer Bryan Taylor comes up with the right amount of camp to turn this grisly subject matter into a gloriously demented funhouse genre flick. We meet Selma Blair’s character, who is struggling through the realities of her children growing into their own interests- and having to start to clumsily explore hers again. Inserted at the centre of the lunacy, the king of the crazy town parade, is Nicholas Cage. The unhappy father of a nuclear family, his character pines for the good ol’ days when he worked at menial jobs and had multiple sexual partners. Seen at work sleeping at his desk and avoiding his family, his subsequent additional psychic break almost feels like a welcome release.

Taylor’s original take on very disturbed parents, which doubles as a metaphor into mid life crisis ennui, sometimes has some unnecessary flashbacks, and you wish the kids would just figure out the floor plan of their own home, but it’s a lot of fun when it’s focused on its wacko genre premise, and its running time of 83 minutes is a blessing.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Top 10 Movies of the Year- 2017

2017 produced its share of amazing and memorable films. While it didn’t produce a masterpiece of Manchester by the Sea calibre, it gave us artful and momentous moments of distraction from a very turbulent and restless year. Without further adieu, here are my top 10 movies of the year, with honourable mentions below.

10. The Beguiled

Director Sofia Coppola is back, winning Best Director at Cannes Film Festival for her updating of the 1971 Clint Eastwood vehicle. Centred during the civil war, an injured Colin Farrell tries to evade further fighting by hiding at an all girls’ school. Lead by headmaster Nicole Kidman, with teacher Kristen Dunst, the girls’ sheltered lives may make them susceptible to Farrell’s charms. Coppola’s art design and natural lighting make for an deceptively gentle schooling environment that gives a lesson in the art of comeuppance. Gently sledgehammer-like.

9. Personal Shopper

Director Oliver Assayas brings us a European centred story about a medium woman who is trying to communicate with her dead brother. Assayas strikes gold in his second feature working with Kristen Stewart (2014’s Clouds of Sils Marie), and the very personal film displayed here is languid and spooky at times. Featuring a favourite scene of the year, Assayas keeps things unpredictable, and Stewart is fantastic here, showing off a talent that’s not even close to its Twilight.

8. Wind River

Writer Taylor Sheridan’s directorial debut is a promising start for the mind that already typed us Sicario (my #2 of 2015) and Hell or High Water (my #9 of 2016). Based on a Wyoming indigenous reservation, wildlife agent Jeremy Renner and FBI agent Elizabeth Olson work together to solve the murder of a young woman, while helping the community through the grieving process. Olson serves as a surrogate for the audience’s introduction to (some of) the effects of colonialism and present day realities for marginalized societies, and Sheridan depicts a way of life that competes for justice in equal parts between nature and man. At times poetic, while trauma informed and possessing tense action scenes.

7. 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Director Martin McDonagh, known for his stage themed works (as well as 2008’s In Bruges and 2012’s Seven Psychopaths), creates an intimate look at small town drama based around a community trying to heal after horrific events happen to innocent victims. As much a study about the propulsive seduction of revenge as it is about the milieu of healing, the trio of Frances McDormand, Sam Rockwell, and Woody Harrellson are as powerful as they are memorable. Equal parts funny, outrageous, sad, and compelling.

6. Blade Runner 2049

When Director Dennis Villeneuve signed on to create a sequel to 1982’s iconic science fiction neo noir, there was criticism if there even needed to be a sequel. Watch 2049 for an example of how even Hollywood can get it right from time to time. With the best (Roger Deakins) cinematographer alive showcasing continued deft production design, sound, and visual effects, Villeneuve creates something both honouring and diverging from the original, expanding the story as society continues to grapple with the implications of technology and humans coexisting. The most visually stimulating movie of the year, you can give Deakins his first Oscar (on his 13th nomination) thank you very much.

5. Columbus

Writer/Director Kokonada, known for his video essays on classic films, composes the most meditative and modernist film of the year. Arranging a plethora of images and movement that perfectly merge the architectural to the natural, Kokonada never loses sight of the humans that inhabit the architecturally modernist mecca of Columbus, Indiana. John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson have never been better, as we spend time with them healing and growing. A whispery treat featuring 1 of my favourite scenes of the year.

4. Get Out

Director Jordan Peele’s stunning debut may be the most complicated and timely film of the year. Expertly straddling the line between horror, comedy, drama, and science fiction, it is both historical in its themes of entrenched hatred and oppression, and topical in its veneer of how things may not have changed that much in present day. Even if you don’t agree, few will quibble with “the sunken place” as the most helplessly sublime moments of the year.

3. Mudbound

Director Dee Rees’ sprawling tale of 2 families eking out a living in rural Mississippi during WWII covers a lot of muddy ground, and delves into a number of character’s lives. Never afraid to get the micro of character’s lives, while staying objectively macro is no easy task, and Rees’ screenplay stays on target. Cinematographer Rachel Morrison is the first female cinematographer ever voted for an Academy Award, and she earns the nomination in this nuanced film based around slavery, featuring both sides of the struggle, by way of Terrence Malick.

2. The Florida Project

Much like his 2015’s Tangerine, director Sean Baker’s tale of life on the fringes of America is a naturalistic study on human behaviour- and a litmus test for each viewer’s empathy. With one of his best performances, Willem Dafoe does his best to manage the residents of his employer’s tattered housing complex, while supporting it’s more vulnerable members (the fantastic Brooklynn Prince and Bria Vinaite). What emerges is a realistic portrait of the importance of both community and fantasy in the midst of struggle.

1. Lost City of Z

Perpetually underappreciated director James Gray takes real life adventurer Percy Fawcett and surrounds him in equal measure with the twisting vines of South America, and twisting politics of early 20^th century Britain. With great performances from Charlie Hunnam as Fawcett, Robert Pattinson as his running mate, and Sienna Miller as his capable home provider, it comes together perfectly, including in one of my favourite scenes of the year. Gray’s formalism merges flawlessly with the spirit of discovery, in this welcome addition to the adventure genre.

Honourable Mentions:

Brawlin Cell Block 99, Okja, Logan, Phantom Thread, It Comes at Night, Lady Bird, Logan Lucky, Good Time, War for the Planet of the Apes, Life, Colossal, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Lego Batman Movie, Don't Think Twice, Wonder Woman, Nocturama, Dunkirk, Mother!, The Disaster Artist, Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi, I, Tanya, Raw, Call Me By Your Name

Phantom Thread

2017’s Phantom Thread, written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Lesley Manville, Vicky Krieps, Brian Gleeson, and Gina McKee.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson), Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis), Best Supporting Actress (Lesley Manville), Best Original Score (Jonny Greenwood), and Best Costume Design (Mark Bridges).  

What is it about?

In 1950’s London, renowned fashion designer Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) runs his household/business like a swiss watch, with the help of his sister, Cyril (Lesley Manville). They regard Day-Lewis’ partners as temporary muses, to help him hit those crucial needlepoints until the next fashion auction comes and goes. One day while out for dinner, Day-Lewis meets Alma (Vicky Krieps), and the 2 start a relationship. While their attraction lines up well, will both parties have too much tension that will threaten to unspool their lives?

Why is it worth seeing?

Writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the most gifted auteurs working in Hollywood today. While Anderson made a name for himself with such works as 1996’s Hard Eight, 1997’s Boogie Nights, and 1999’s Magnolia, it’s his later works that have hyper focused on the relationships between people, and what makes individuals tick. Masterpieces such as 2007’s There Will be Blood and 2010’s The Master, eliminate all frills and gimmicks, and leave performers and the script nowhere to hide in front of Anderson’s brilliantly arranged camera.

Based loosely off of the influential couturiers, Cristóbal Balenciaga and Charles James, in the character of Reynolds Woodcock, Anderson creates not just a man- but a household. With Woodcock’s sister, Cyril, protecting both his interests and the family’s, their world is an obscure and hazy one, where all outside interests find things cloudier than the most opaque fabric. Muses are encouraged to rent, not buy, in the household’s byzantine silences and aggressions.

However, the strength of the film lies in Day-Lewis’ Woodcock and Manville’s Cyril meeting their match in Vicky Krieps’ Alma. Krieps has her work cut out for her, in a household where routine and vague power struggles are favoured over empowerment and clarity. But Krieps has her own weapons, and like a poisonous mushroom, cultivates them amongst the shade of the oppressive shadows her famous housemates cast (Kripes is robbed of a Oscar nomination here, as she goes toe to toe with Day-Lewis and emerges unscathed).

Phantom Thread isn’t a conventional love story (and is all the better for it). It’s more of a character study about the dynamics of a handful of people, and the weird truths that lay behind the garments that we wear. Hidden behind the complicated contours of silk emblazoned fabrics, lie the face behind the mirror. There you’ll find what people want. That’s the strange magic of Paul Thomas Anderson.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Good Time

2017’s “Good Time“, directed by the Safdie Brothers.

Starring Robert Pattinson, Benny Safdie, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Barkhad Abdi, Buddy Duress, Taliah Webster, and Necro.

What is it about?

In “Good Time”, Robert Pattinson and Benny Safdie play brothers. Safdie is disabled and soft spoken, while Pattinson is the schemer of the bunch. Despite a criminal history, Pattinson plans a bank robbery, with his brother helping him out. The robbery goes wrong, and Safdie is arrested. Pattinson needs bail money to get Safdie out of prison, and he spends the rest of the film leaving no stone unturned as he travels through the rougher parts of New York to rescue his vulnerable brother. Will he be able to change his luck through a life of crime?

Why is it worth seeing?

“Good Time” is a grimy crime-drama that has some great tension boiling amongst the organic performances. The Safdie brothers’ liberal use of handheld cameras zooms us into these people’s lives, and we spend a lot of time watching schemes break down to percolate into more schemes. In a Russian Doll of byzantine complications, people are arrested, dye packs exploded, drugs taken, strangers are manipulated- all just a day’s work for our anti-hero.

As I’ve said before, Pattinson can put to rest his young adult filmography- dude can represent even if the Academy hasn’t noticed (yet). He and the rest of the cast show up to highlight Queens, New York City’s least glamorous parts- you’ll feel like taking vitamin D with the abundance of artificial lights competing to barely light these characters’ faces.

While not their first film, “Good Time” does feel like the Safdie brothers’ coming out party. There’s an energy to it that’s tough to shake off. It almost makes you forget how some of the characters just don’t add up, and make decisions that even in a setting this raw and compromised don’t feel realistic. “GT” also suffers from too much of a good thing, much like 2001’s “Training Day”, where an impossible amount of things is done in under 24 hours.

With the announcement that the Safdie brothers will be remaking “48 Hours”, this is an exciting glimpse into what that could look like. A breathless race against time, with great performances and a nice closing shot, can work for anyone.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

1998’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas“, directed by Terry Gilliam.

Starring Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, Craig Bierko, Tobey Maguire, Ellen Barkin,  Cameron Diaz, Christopher Meloni, Christina Ricci, and Flea.

What is it about?

“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” is based off of the 1971 Hunter S. Thompson novel, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream”. Eccentric author Thompson was credited for creating the “Gonzo Journalism” genre, where journalists wouldn’t just report the news, but would be at the centre of it. “…Savage Journey…”’s 2 wild protagonists, Raoul Duke (a pseudonym for Hunter Thompson himself) and Dr. Gonzo, are played here by Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, respectively. We see Depp and Del Toro, travel to Las Vegas to cover a motorcycle race, and then a narcotics convention for law enforcement officials, but they get wrapped up in their fully committed recreational drug use. In the neon soaked Sin City, will they able to keep the hippie dream alive and figure out why they went there in the first place?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director Terry Gilliam has never been one for making easily digestible work, so his pairing with the unique Thompson seems like a match made in heaven. Gilliam brings his trademark funhouse sensibilities, to a story about 2 men doing essentially every drug on the planet, in one of the most morally bankrupt places in America. The result is a psychedelic grudge match where there’s as much hallucination as there is ugly truth.

Back when Johnny Depp tried, he spent a lot of time getting Thompson’s bizarre mannerisms and quirky speech patterns down pat. And Del Toro gained 45 lbs for the role of the Samoan attorney who gets Depp out of some tough scrapes. Their methods coalesce to create an authentic ugly flashback, accelerated by Gilliam’s fisheye lenses and crooked sight lines framing various depraved locales of Las Vegas.

Viewed through a gonzo lens, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” was always meant to highlight the death of the 1960’s counter culture movement. Here, we are shown a chicken and egg argument, as the main characters descend into substance accelerated depravity, in a society where the pursuit and occasional achievement of the American Dream is pursued at all costs. On the one hand, our heroes wander through various funhouse and trashed hotel room scenarios, zonked out of their minds (Thompson is bizarre but sometimes thoughtful, but Del Toro’s character is a detestable pig). On the other hand, the society depicted here, with hopelessly out of touch authorities and greedy yuppies, is consumed by Fear and Loathing of the hippies who threatened the corporate hegemony. Which came first: individual depravity or societal rot?

Filled with parts that are either hilarious, or packed with menacing vibrations from reprehensible characters, “Fear and Loathing” is a deeply personal film. It’s often depraved, but also deeply mournful about the death of one era, and the reveal that there just may not be someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Brawl in Cell Block 99

2017’s “Brawl in Cell Block 99”, written and directed by S. Craig Zahler.

Starring Vince Vaughn, Jennifer Carpenter, Don Johnson, Udo Kier, Marc Blucas, Dion Mucciacito, Victor Almanzar, Mustafa Shakir, and Willie C. Carpenter.

What is it about?

“Brawl in Cell Block 99” is about a tow truck driver (Vince Vaughn) whom is laid off from his job. He comes home to find his wife (Jennifer Carpenter) cheating on him- and that’s before lunch. The couple make a plan to stick it out, and try for a baby, while he works as a drug runner. Eventually a drug deal goes bad, and Vaughn is tried in court. Sentenced to time in prison, he is told that his pregnant wife has been kidnapped, and that he will have to kill another prisoner in order for her and his baby not to be harmed. Will the preferably pacifist Vaughn be able to save his unborn child and wife’s lives?

Why is it worth seeing?

Director S. Craig Zahler creates an homage to grindhouse exploitation films that simultaneously takes it’s time, while marching forwards at a breakneck pace. Once things get intense, it doesn’t let up, and every time you think it’s hit it’s apex, it goes higher.

Zahler’s at times brutal pulp fest culminates in some of the strongest work Vaughn has ever put forwards. Left for dead after a string of uninspired romantic comedies, Vaughn brings more of the menace that he flirted  with so well in “True Detective: Season 2”. His Bradley (never Brad) character has a moral code that never gets subverted, even when he’s performing cranium rearrangements. He’s a family man who doesn’t seem to have nerve endings.

Zahler does a masterful job of taking a generous amount of screen time and filling it with enough character to make do until the screen is full of casual cartilage. Vaughn’s high wire quiet tension holds until arms start breaking, and there is not a false note until things go all the way right, and all the way wrong. One of the most fun yet grimmest movies of 2017, Zahler has announced himself as an enduring talent to be reckoned with.

Rating:

4/5

Trailer: Click Here.

Thor: Ragnarok

2017’s Thor: Ragnarok, directed by Taika Waititi.

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Idris Elba, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, and Benedict Cumberbatch.

What is it about?

In the third edition of Thor, after Thor (Chris Hemsworth) vanquishes yet another foe, he returns home to find things in his native Asgard are under attack by his newly discovered sister, Hena (Cate Blanchett). More powerful than Thor and his adopted brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) combined, Thor is bested and ends up on the junk planet of Sakaar. Run by a Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) who entertains his citizens through gladiator matches, Thor is captured by a bounty hunter (Tessa Thompson), and forced to fight against other competitors. Will Thor be able to survive this brutal planet and return to Asgard to best Blanchett, and save his people?

Why is it worth seeing?

Thor: Ragnarok is the 5th film in the Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Disney's corporate take over of comic book multiverses as we know it. Director Taika Waititi injects more of the wacky comical sensibilities that he brought in spades for 2014’s What we do in the Shadows and 2016’s Hunt for the Wilderpeople into the latest Thor, and it has a lightness and irreverence to it that is instantly welcome. The first 2 Thor's were mostly downbeat and sombre affairs- and they paled in comparison to his fellow Avengers' solo efforts. Here, Waititi borrows from the Guardians of the Galaxy template, with the wacky dialogue and classic rock infused scenes, to create something fun and playful.

Being a Marvel movie, there are responsibilities towards keeping things on a tried and true track. While the sensibilities Waititi brings are unique, the plot is not. Blanchett is a superior villain in comparison to other CGI eyesores in the MCU and DC worlds, but not even as fun as her adopted brother, highlighting a common problem in the respective comic book universes. Her attack on the Asgard defenders, as well as multiple battle scenes, are a blur, devoid of real consequence or drama. And Asgard has never been much of a place.

Waititi keeps the action going and the jokes flowing, and there’s even a flashback sequence that is quite poetic and lovely- it made me wish the epic battle scenes felt that way. But as always in the MCU, the strength of the movie is when the punches stop getting thrown, and the characters work through their issues. While there’s definitely some growth, to say that family counselling would come in handy here is a bit of an understatement.

As the MCU universe comes to a gloriously marketed head with the upcoming Avengers: Infinity Wars, it’s best to remember that it’s all fun and games- until someone loses an eye.

Rating:

3.5/5

Trailer: Click Here.