Violent Night

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Tommy Wirkola

Starring David Harbour, John Leguizamo, Leah Brady

Running time: 112 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Violent Night brings out the Yippee-Ki-Yay in Santa Claus in a holiday film you never expected.  Combining bloody action and non-stop humor with - somehow - Christmas cheer, the director, writers, actors, and all involved somehow make it work brilliantly.  This Santa's favorite beverage is definitely not milk, but it goes down just as smooth.  Possibly a new Christmas classic - highly recommended (if you can stomach it).

Santa (Harbour) is getting tired of his job.  Despite the milk, cookies, and booze he consumes at each household, he is depressed by some childrens' increasing demands, usually for cash or the newest video game.  However, one Christmas Eve, he flies down a chimney to find himself in the middle of a hostage situation.  A wealthy matriarch has brought her adult children and grandchildren home, and their domestic tensions are exacerbated by a carefully planned, violent heist.  Even with his advanced age and apathy, Santa still has a little magic left, though - and he's ready to give both the nice kids and the naughty kids on his list what they deserve.

Somehow, Violent Night is both exciting, hilarious - and, yes, full of holiday spirit - and just maybe a new Christmas classic.  As a friend described to me, it's essentially a mash up of Die Hard, Home Alone, and John Wick (the first two are Christmas movies, at least!).  There are so many ways that this concept could have gone wrong, ranging from plain dumb to grossly offensive.  However, the direction, writing, and performances are all very good and in sync, leading to an experience that's more than the sum of its parts.  With that said, I still have to warn that this is not for everyone due to several scenes of gore and brutal violence (although, if you're on the fence, I recommend trying it on streaming - and fast forward when needed).  Yes, this movie somehow seamlessly combines the very different tones of Home Alone, a silly heart-warmer, and John Wick, a hardcore actioner with some sadistic humor.  It avoids the pitfalls of either of those two tracks: it's neither nihilistic or celebratory in the bloodshed nor overly sappy or sentimental in the family scenes.  And coming in at a little under two hours, the pacing is very good with an effective intermixing of its nice and naughty elements.

David Harbour, of Stranger Things, was a great choice as the grizzled Santa, and he seems to thoroughly enjoy himself.  To start with, he simply is physically convincing in the role, but he also achieves a nice, delicate balance between the cynical side and his love for children and the job built over (???) years.  The supporting cast is also great, with good guys, bad guys, and some in between.  A black-white couple and their daughter are the core trio, with dad still trying to overcome his toxic upbringing and the young girl providing an adorable and crucial dose of innocence.  The in-laws have fun hamming it up, nastily greedy and selfish; their fates vary, with some surprises.  And the bad guys are good, too, led by veteran evil-doer John Leguizamo.  The action is very well conceived and choreographed, particularly Santa's first two fights in which he is essentially a regular fat guy in a ridiculous costume.  The main battle royale is over-the-top, yet clever and doesn't drag on too long.  And a Home Alone tribute scene is just brilliant, with significantly more blood than its predecessor but just as many laughs.  Humor is consistent throughout the film, the laugh rate and variety very impressive.  The script is much better than most of Hollywood's recent comedic efforts, rock-solid even in the slower parts and sprinkling in some great recurring signature lines.  Finally, there are also some great needle drops, although I feel they missed an opportunity when, with Santa chasing the bad guys on snowmobiles, they failed to play Here Comes Santa Claus!

***

Violent Night definitely came as a surprise for me; in fact, I saw it with friends on the spur of the moment. I hadn't seen a new Christmas movie in theaters for years, as most of them are usually rom-coms or otherwise dull-looking or pandering.  I'm glad I gave this one a try, though, as it most certainly breaks out of the usual holiday film mold.  Yet it is far from content to simply subvert expectations; it does a damn good job in the details, execution, and perhaps most importantly, tone.  I will be following this up with yet another Christmas movie, in fact, since, to my pleasant surprise, Apple's newest streamer Spirited is coming to my local theater.  Once again, Violent Night is not for everyone - but if you can handle it, you'll find that it's one of Hollywood's most fun gifts this year.

* By Universal Pictures - https://m.imdb.com/title/tt12003946/mediaviewer/rm1186005505/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71761396

Devotion

 

Score:  C

Directed by J.D. Dillard

Starring Jonathan Majors and Glenn Powell

Running time: 138 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Based on a true story, Devotion focuses on a rare set of wingmen in Jesse (Majors) and Tom (Powell), sent to battle during the Korean War.  The set up, combining fascinating historical events in desegregation of the military and the ("forgotten") Korean War, are sidelined in this extremely generic, predictable, and artless war movie.  The script writers and many of the actors here are clearly Hollywood's "B" team, at best.  Skip this.

In 1950, shortly after the desegregation of the United States armed forces, Navy aviator Lieutenant Tom Hudner (Powell) joins a new squadron that includes a single Black man, Jesse Brown (Majors).  The two struggle for the same objectives - the respect of their team and a chance to serve their country - in different ways, and soon get the chance to do so when the squadron is deployed at the dawn of the Cold War.  Despite coming from much different backgrounds, the men develop a bond, one that is both tested and cemented in the cauldron of war.

Devotion is a flop of a war movie, due to poor filmmaking and a lack of artistic creativity and vision.  It's particularly unfortunate, too, because the movie's premise is quite intriguing:  a focus on a Black and white friendship just as the armed forces desegregated (but still several years before the Brown decision) and dealing with an extremely neglected event in the Korean War.  Now, there are some worthy elements in the movie.  The fighter plane action and aerial stunts are engaging (though put to shame by the Top Gun sequel) and much of the production (costumes, sets) feel authentic and believable.  The best scene in the movie is one of the few that's both artistic and moving:  Jesse, preparing himself for a crucial test flight, looks directly in a mirror, and you see only his face, morphing from rage, to despair, to determination in a clever illustration of his background and experiences.

Unfortunately, even with this great premise and a talented actor in Jonathan Majors, the movie feels slapdash, extremely straightforward and lacking in artistry, resulting in an unusually dull experience.  I see war movies, oddly, similar to sports movies: both have an inherent "action" element to them that can be very tense and riveting but can also easily go either overboard (see - rather, don't see: Hacksaw Ridge) or numb the audience to it.  They are also quite vulnerable to predictability: there have been so many of each, with well-worn structures, that you really need strong, specific elements or to overturn convention in some way.  Devotion, its war scenes taking place mostly in the (bloodless) sky, falls more towards numbness, made much worse by an extremely predictable story - not just in what happens, but in the way the movie presents it.  It's maddeningly by-the-book, hitting all the familiar beats.  Digging deeper, the script and acting don't do it any favors, either.  Majors is pretty good, though he's limited by the writing, and there are some downright painful performances, particularly the squadron's commander (distractingly played by Life in Pieces' Matt) and a ridiculous Liz Taylor "cameo".  There are a few interesting side elements introduced here and there - such as Jesse's concerns about a new plane design - but they are either resolved or disappear before you know it.  That brings us full circle, in that Devotion also pays shockingly little attention to the two major historical events previously mentioned (desegregation and Korean War).  Those who don't much about them before seeing the movie will know very little more, and in fact might be even more confused.

***

I went to Devotion hoping to see a movie that combined elements of both an exciting blockbuster with the high quality of an Oscar contender - and got neither.  Bewilderingly, it has an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes; I think the critics saw a different movie than I did.  Sometimes I realize my disagreement is a matter of taste, but this is an objectively poor movie.  It's also somewhat interesting to compare it to Top Gun: Maverick from earlier this year.  I don't know Devotion's background, but based on the way it turned out, I can imagine that the studios just wanted to cash in on Top Gun's success with another fighter plane-based movie.  Well, even if you've already seen Top Gun a few times, I'd recommend watching it again instead of seeing this one.  Hopefully there will be much better things coming to theaters soon.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/posters/devotion_xxlg.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71442144

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Ryan Coogler

Starring Letitia Wright, Danai Gurira, Angela Bassett, Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Tenoch Huerta

Running time: 161 minutes

Rate PG-13

Long Story Short:  The long-anticipated - but painfully so, due to star Chadwick Boseman's death - sequel to Black Panther has arrived.  It pays homage to the fallen young man very well and also moves on, showcasing the intriguing Shuri, played again by Letitia Wright.  The rest of the cast also ranges from solid to excellent but the plot unfortunately prevents it from being a truly worthy successor.  The world of Wakanda is ripe for amazing new stories but I hope that they don't get so distracted next time.  Still, this is an entertaining time to spend at the theater.

One year after the death of T'Challa, king of Wakanda and the Black Panther, the advanced yet hidden nation finds itself under increasing pressure from the outside world to reveal its secrets - and weapons.  An American naval research expedition detects vibranium on the ocean floor, the alien substance that has enabled much of Wakanda's spectacular technology.  The discovery, however, awakens an ancient force that is fiercely protective of the vibranium.  Under Queen Ramonda's (Bassett) leadership, Wakanda feels pressure both to prevent outsiders from accessing vibranium - but also to protect those same people from a dangerous new threat.  Meanwhile, Shuri (Wright), T'Challa's sister, can't get past her brother's death - yet also questions the direction he had set for his people.

Black Panther: Wakanda is a solid Marvel entry, particularly with its appropriate handling of star Chadwick Boseman's untimely death and turn toward his character's sister, Shuri; however, the plot and new elements are a significant drag on the film.  Mirroring real life, T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, dies at the beginning from an illness.  The Wakandan mourning process is powerful and poignant, as is a quieter tribute near the end of the film.  The sequel then turns to Shuri as the new lead.  I feel this was a good choice, both because Shuri was among the most interesting of the great characters introduced in the 2018 original as well as her more conflicted nature and influences.  She is as strong as her brother, yet feels the temptations that brought down her cousin, N'Jadaka (Michael B. Jordan's villain in 2018).  Being the lead does dull her character's sharper edges, unfortunately, and Boseman's absence is felt often, but Wright does great work.  Angela Bassett's Queen Ramonda and Danai Gurira's general/bodyguard Okoye are also extremely welcome returnees; if anything, I wish Okoye in particular had a bit more screen time.  M'Baku continues to be a nice comic presence and newcomer Riri, a young American, is also fun with her handful of moments.  Rounding out the cast are CIA agent Ross (Martin Freeman) and boss Valentina (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who are a fun side track and reveal a new connection.

Unfortunately, the plot of Wakanda Forever holds it back, going too big and too out-there, similar to 2019's Captain Marvel.  Rather than little green men from space, this film features a powerful, turqoise-colored race of mutants called Talokan, led by Namor.  Partly because I'm jaded by the underwater people thing by Avatar and Aquaman (both highly overrated, IMO), this did not impress me; and for all the time spent on their backstory, a lot of important things are left frustratingly vague.  The worst part to me, though, was the suspension of disbelief.  I'm usually pretty good at this - I do love superhero movies, after all! - but when characters' actions and decisions don't align with the powers involved, I quickly lose my connection.  Here, the Talokan and especially Namor are just ridiculously powerful.  They seem to greatly fear being discovered by the "surface world", which they hate - yet to all appearances, they could wreak utter devastation on humanity with little trouble.  It also sinks the potentially interesting plotline of an alliance with Wakanda - both of them are hidden outcasts in the world.  Yet for all the similarities the film wishes to show, the two are never anything but mortal foes.  Some modest tweaks could have made this plot much more intriguing, realistic, and suspenseful.  But I'd go even further and drastically shrink/ eliminate the Talokan's role altogether, focusing on the more interesting Wakandans, their evolving relationship to the outside world (which gets passing, simplistic mention at the beginning then forgotten), and simply cut down on the way overlong running time.

Still, even with my plot complaints, there is much to enjoy in the Black Panther sequel beyond the Boseman tribute and the cast.  The production quality remains spectacular, seamlessly recreating and expanding the fictional Wakandan nation; even the Talokan, despite my distaste, get some pretty awesome visuals.  There's also some good action, especially a scene in the first half involving the rescue of Riri, escape from conventional authorities, and an intense Okoye vs. Talokan fight.  The rest of the action is encumbered by the power imbalances I wrote about, but are still entertaining.

***

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is a bit disappointing, suffering in comparison with a modern classic. It also marks the end of the so-called "Phase 4" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - in other words, the movies that have come out since the epic Avengers Endgame.  Some interesting new characters have been introduced, and the movies themselves have maintained a high level of quality, Spider-Man: No Way Home being the highlight to me.  There was also, though, little attempt at the familiar narrative-building we'd gotten used to, and no mention of reassembling a new Avengers team.  But perhaps the biggest development was the start of the Disney+ TV series - eight of them already.  They've been quite strong so far, with great variety.  I want to review them in some form, eventually...  For now, hopefully the fall movie season will continue along well.  I may even try some things that I usually skip - stay tuned!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/black_panther_wakanda_forever_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71373844

The Banshees of Inisherin

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Martin McDonagh

Starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan

Running time: 114 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Director McDonagh reteams with In Bruges stars Farrell and Gleeson in a quiet drama with big ambitions.  Farrell and Gleeson are great, as are co-stars Condon, and Keoghan, and it's very well done from the script to the scenery.  What starts as a simple and amusing tale, however, gradually evolves into a bleaker picture of a country friendship gone horribly awry; I much preferred the opening tone, but the ending isn't bad enough to spoil the experience.  Highly recommended.

On a tiny Irish isle during the 1920s and right next to the Irish civil war, life is slow and repetitive but generally content.  That's the case for local nice guy Padraic (Farrell), until one day he is spurned by his pub mate Colm (Gleeson).  Padraic is shocked by the sudden, inexplicable turns of events, and neither his sister Siobhan (Condon) nor another pal Dominic (Keoghan) can console him.  This simple act soon begins to have larger effects through the sleepy isle, and Padraic and Colm's once simple lives turn in directions they'd never expected.

The Banshees of Inisherin is a very well-made film from top to bottom, a realistic drama in many ways that is nevertheless unique and even surrealistic at times.  The film focuses on the simple character of Padraic, his day-to-day life and his relationships.  Plotwise, the most important of these is with (former) friend Colm, but plenty of time and attention is given to others as well, particularly Padraic's sister, Siobhan, and local scamp, Dominic.  The setting is beautiful and open, thanks to great photography and gorgeous scenery, yet also literally and symbolically confined within the little island, bouncing from Padraic's home, to Colm's, to the local pub, and back again (with a few exceptions).  To me, the particulars of the plot are also mostly a vessel to explore not only the interesting characters but, through them, a tension between outlooks on life:  is it better to live a simple, modest, yet contented life focused on loved ones, or to focus on achievements that will outlast your own life, happiness and loved ones be damned?

Like the its conflicting themes, the film itself can be split in two - a quietly remarkable first half, and a disquieting second half.  Banshees starts in a clever way - by jumping right into the main plot, with no character introductions or scene-setting, leaving the audience to piece it together (which doesn't take long, and is kind of fun).  The audience, then, is just as bamboozled as Padraic, at least at first, and it leads to some great humor.  Along with the laughs, the film provides some intriguing insights into the nature of friendship and the way we try to puzzle out what others are thinking and why they act as they do.  Padraic and Siobhan are both great characters, and played superbly by Colin Farrell and Kerry Condon (whom I recognized but couldn't remember where - she's Mike's daughter-in-law in Better Call Saul).  Padraic is so sympathetic and likable, simple yet nuanced and relatable; Siobhan is strong and brilliant, caring yet refreshingly willing to look out for herself; she's the MVP (and an aspiring librarian, no less!).  Things turn suddenly darker when Colm begins to take drastic measure in the friendship conflict; it's gruesome, but thoughtfully done and an interesting turn.  What I do not like is the way Padraic is transformed, especially in the last third or so.  The film seems to side with his life outlook, yet the conflict brings him down, anyway.  I feel sure that it could have gotten the same points across without "killing" Padraic, in a sense.  It was a disappointing development, to me.  Still, the film's quality is undeniable, and others may feel differently about the ending than me.

***

The Banshees of Inisherin, which I found out about just last week, is a welcome theatrical surprise as we head further into the fall and closer to Oscar season.  It is certainly much different than the last film I saw, Amsterdam, and interestingly opposite in some ways: Amsterdam is somewhat flawed from a technical standpoint but it nails the right feeling and ending (for me), whereas Banshees is outstanding filmmaking but has an ending that holds it back from greatness (for me).  I'll certainly be happy to see more dramas with quality like this in the months to come, though first, I'll be returning to superhero fun with the much-anticipated Black Panther sequel next week.  If you haven't already, I encourage you to get back out to the theater now!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/posters/banshees_of_inisherin_xxlg.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71458552

Amsterdam

 

Score:  A-

Directed by David O. Russell

Starring Christian Bale, Margot Robbie, John David Washington, Robert de Niro, et al

Running time: 134 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Amsterdam is the latest film from lauded director David O. Russell, a wartime dramedy murder mystery (yes, all those things).  The three main stars, Bale, Robbie, and Washington, carry it with spectacular performances, and there all lots of fun side parts.  The script isn't perfect, but Russell gets the drama-comedy balance just right to create both an entertaining and touching experience.  Highly recommended.

During World War I, Army medic Burt Berendsen (Bale) makes a pact of protection with Black soldier Harold Woodsman (Washington) and, with the help of nurse Valerie Voze (Robbie), the pair survive the horrific conflict.  The newly-formed trio goes on to enjoy a well-earned European holiday, but their past lives soon pull them apart.  Fifteen years later, Burt is called on to perform an autopsy on an old comrade, thanks to suspected foul play.  Harold accompanies his old friend on the adventure and the two are forced to confront history - both personal and global - as they discover a whole new world.

Amsterdam is a very good work of historical fiction; while it can be a little rough around the edges, its strengths and overall tone more than compensate.  I was expecting a considerably different film from its director, David O. Russell, whose movies like The Fighter and American Hustle I enjoyed a lot but had much different tone and style.  Amsterdam is a dramedy, like Silver Linings Playbook in that sense, which might seem unusual for a wartime murder mystery plot.  However, it makes for a good balance: serious enough for some of the themes involved, but not depressing; plenty of chuckles, but not a parody.  The plot itself, and I don't want to give away many more details, is fairly involved, but the dialogue - and there is near-constant talking - explains it all and prevents confusion, if you're paying attention.  I will admit that the script is uneven in quality, sometimes a bit too direct or just awkward.  A little more editing could have helped, as this feels more like a two-hour movie.

The main strength of the movie are the characters and their bonds, though, and the warmth and even uplift they provide makes up for any other weaknesses.  The three main characters, who meet during WWI, provide a strong foundation, and the movie is at its best when they're all together, from bonding in Europe right after the war to the more strained - at first - reunion in the 1930s.  Christian Bale, the main main lead, is the standout.  Bale is probably my favorite contemporary actor and he proves his skill here yet again, creating a memorable personality that is gruff yet quirky, independent yet altruistic, and overall just very likable and sympathetic.  Robbie is great, too, in a surprisingly complex role, and Washington, although his part is not as juicy as the others.  The star-studded supporting cast also deserves recognition, especially Malek and Taylor-Joy's eccentric rich couple, Mike Myers' hilarious MI6 agent, and Robert de Niro, perfectly cast as an incorruptible Marine hero.  Speaking of which, Amsterdam does a great job, in my view, of honoring veterans, particularly those who are disabled, using that dramatic-comedic balance effectively.  Finally, the "extras" finish the job of creating the historical atmosphere via set design and costuming; and even more importantly, a great soundtrack (and poignant theme) is a perfect accompaniment for the characters and story.

***

I'd been looking forward to Amsterdam since seeing the trailer over the summer, and it was worth the wait.  What shocks me is the critical reception:  a terrible 33% score on Rotten Tomatoes.  I haven't read any specific reviews yet, mostly to not influence my own, but I'm very disappointed that they've disregarded it.  Don't listen to them!  Unfortunately, if you haven't seen it yet, you might not get the chance to see it in theaters now - but I highly recommend it for streaming when available.  As we move further into the fall, hopefully more high-quality dramas like this will make their way to theaters.  It's been a boring few months, one of my longest (non-pandemic-related) theater droughts.  I know I'll definitely be watching the Black Panther sequel in a few weeks, though.  For now, put this one on your list!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/posters/amsterdam_xxlg.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71241791

Nope

 

Score: B

Directed by Jordan Peele

Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Keke Palmer, Steven Yeun

Running time: 131 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Nope is the third movie written and directed by Jordan Peele (Get Out) featuring his unique combination of horror and humor.  While mysteries are key (sorry) to his movies, they are particularly central to this one.  Daniel Kaluuya and Steven Yeun anchor an eclectic cast, but it's the setting and atmosphere that truly star.  Unfortunately, the film can't hold its suspense, and it suffers not from bizarre settings but rather character choices.  Still, it's worth a try if you enjoyed Get Out.

Siblings OJ (Kaluuya) and Em (Palmer) pursue Hollywood dreams from the family ranch in California after their father dies mysteriously.  OJ does his best to train horses to be used in movies and TV but it's a struggle, and he is forced to start selling his horses to Jupe (Yeun), the owner of a nearby Wild West theme park and a former child acting star.  During a visit to the ranch, Em and her brother encounter strange howling noises and flickering electricity that spooks their remaining horses.  Desperate for a break to help them through the hard times, the siblings decide to investigate and soon find themselves in the midst of something far stranger than anything Hollywood could dream up.

Nope is a unique film from a very talented filmmaker in Jordan Peele, with some effective moments of both horror and humor, but it is a significant step back from his instant classic Get Out due to a poor final act and bizarre character work.  Horror is one of the few genres I almost always avoid; only because of my love of Key & Peele did I - thankfully - try Get Out, and now Nope.  So while I'm unfamiliar with genre standards here, I believe Peele does strong, groundbreaking work with tone, creating creepiness while allowing for plenty of humor that somehow doesn't dissipate the scariness.  At least, in the first half of this movie.  The dialogue is minimal; instead, Peele provides a vast, open ranch which, during the day, is bright if desolate but at night creates a feeling of isolation and vulnerability.  To that he adds otherworldly elements - howling wind that sounds eerily close to screaming; flickering lights and deadened music; braying, stamping, galloping horses.  You find yourself scanning the skies for a mysterious presence just as nervously as the characters on screen.  Another horror scene, involving a flashback traumatic on-set incident for June, while narratively random, is also effective.  Amidst this all, though, there are plenty of chuckles, too, primarily through the siblings' contrasting personalities: OJ's stoic, measured words and reactions and Em's flamboyance and energy.  A weirdo tech store helper they befriend is also fun.  Kaluuya and Yeun do particularly good work.  I was not as big a fan of Palmer - it was a bit over the top to me - but she still adds some needed juice to a film otherwise light on character interaction.

Unfortunately, the second half or so starts going downhill due to the loss of the creepy, mysterious vibe as well as increasingly inexplicable character choices and sci-fi elements, and goes on for too long.  I enjoy plenty of unrealistic fantasy, sci-fi and superhero movies; therefore, I am quite capable of suspending my disbelief, of course.  But related phenomena that do bother me are when characters behave or make choices that don't make sense and when fantasy elements contradict their own "rules".  In Nope, the characters are caught off guard when the first odd and threatening things occur, and logically investigate them only very carefully and are clearly on guard.  However, they eventually are convinced that the mystery is a predatory UFO above the ranch.  Do they contact any authorities, or even just get the hell out of there?  No - they decide to try to film it!  I don't care how desperate you are for money or love making films, the imminent mortal danger to themselves - not to mention possibly many others - makes this absurd.  The behavior of the UFO "monster" itself is inconsistent, ranging from ominous yet keeping a distant to immediate and actively hunting, as well as other mismatching details that confuse what it is and can do.  This all comes together in the movie's final act - where the characters execute a rather intricate and, again, insanely dangerous/ suicidal plan to film the UFO.  The siblings somehow make it out alive, but it had little effect for me: essentially, it is simply a miracle that they survived their own stupidity.

***

I had pretty high hopes for Nope, a rare summer movie with critical as well as popular expectations.  Unfortunately, Peele could not sustain the perfect blend of horror and humor in Nope that he achieved in Get Out - perhaps due in part to the significant inclusion of sci-fi to the mix.  I really did enjoy the first half of this movie, but it feels like Peele had a particular ending he wanted for the film, and to get there, he was forced to make too many compromises in the second half.  Oh, well - I still look forward to whatever he makes next.  Speaking of what's next, I'm not sure.  The movie calendar looks pretty barren for the next month or two, unfortunately.  Hopefully there will be some pleasant surprises, though.  Until next time!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2022/nope_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68297324

Thor: Love and Thunder

 

Score:  A-

Directed by Taika Waititi

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale, Tessa Thompson

Running time: 119 minutes

Rate PG-13

Long Story Short:  Thor: Love and Thunder shows the continued adventures of the last of the three original Marvel superheroes, Thor.  Despite an OK plot and reliance on CGI, this Thor has one of the strongest character showcases in the franchise, which was already a highly underrated feature of these movies.  Mix in plenty of humor, needle drops, and some genuinely neat action, and we have another triumph for the MCU.

**as usual, SPOILERS below!**

Thor (Hemsworth) continues his journey across the galaxy with Star-Lord (Pratt) and the other Guardians, but for all his victories he is restless.  Time and battles, both violent and domestic, have taken much from him, from his parents and adopted brother, to his weapon, Mjolnir, to his relationship with Dr. Jane Foster (Portman).  A threat to not just himself but to all Gods brings Thor new purpose, however.  He soon finds himself back on Earth where the remnants of his people live in New Asgard.  Strong as he is, Thor will need all the help he can get, from loyal friend Korg (Waititi) to the fierce and brave Valkyrie (Thompson) and more to prevail.

Thor: Love and Thunder keeps this sub-franchise within the Marvel Cinematic Universe surprisingly fresh with compelling character work and stakes, even if the style is not as well-honed as Ragnarok's.  The beginning of the movie sees Thor still chumming around with the Guardians of the Galaxy characters, which is where we last saw him at the end of Avengers: Endgame.  A good place to start, but that other series seems to infect this whole movie a little too much: GoG's signature silliness and ubiquitous pop soundtrack are in abundance.  I do love the GoG, but I would have preferred that Waititi stick more to his own eccentrically irreverent style that he introduced in Ragnarok.  The main plot in which a scary new villain wants to destroy all the Gods, and seeks a mystical source to do so, is also a little ho-hum, but I get that it's difficult to bring it, well, down to Earth when your main character is a God himself.

Where Love and Thunder truly shines, however, is in its characters.  Dr. Jane Foster takes center stage here, a bit like Wanda Maximoff stealing the thunder (sorry) from Doctor Strange in this summer's Multiverse of Madness.  It's just as effective, if not more so, here.  Foster's cancer diagnosis presents something rare in the MCU: a threat that can't be defeated through sheer strength of arms or courage.  It immediately gives the film much more humanity and vulnerability.  Jane's ultimate fate also provides more lasting consequence and impact than usual.  But the film doesn't dwell on the illness; Foster's reappearance (absent in Ragnarok) allows a reconnection with Thor and deeper exploration of the relationship; there's a brief but excellent realistic montage of memories.  And, last but not least, it's really cool to see her as a superhero (with a nifty explanation for it, to boot)!  Thor and Gorr, the villain, are also great.  Thor begins adrift, looking inward after all his personal losses; it's powerful to see him reinvigorated by a focus on others, from Jane to the kidnapped children to Love.  Gorr is one of the strongest villains in the MCU.  Having Christian Bale in the role is obviously a huge advantage, but his origins are also both creative and tragic, and make his final redemption both meaningful and earned.  Valkyrie and Korg don't get a lot to do - there's just not enough room - but their presences are very welcome, too.

Finally, the action and humor - essential aspects of any Marvel movie - are both well done, with some highlights as well as weaker points.  I tend to prefer the more grounded, practical stunts and action scenes, but Thor at least brings effective, imaginative CGI for an entertaining theater experience.  Some sets devolve into somewhat "generic fantasy", as in the Omnipotence City battle and any shadow monsters, but anything with Gorr against Thor and/or Jane and Valkyrie is great (related: I liked that they didn't make Mjolnir "brand new", instead using its shattering as a new ability).  Love and Thunder isn't quite as funny as Ragnarok - which is a high bar to clear - but it still has plenty of laughs, whether it's Thor's awkward (but relatable) goodbye to the Guardians, the great cameos, or the tourist-trap New Asgard.

***

Thor: Love and Thunder is a great return to thrilling summer blockbuster entertainment at the movie theater, following the disappointment of the final Jurassic World.  It would certainly be healthy for the industry if Hollywood didn't have to rely so much on the clockwork excellence and success of Marvel, but it seems to be moving that way more and more.  Critics seem to be tiring of Marvel, with the newest Thor getting a 67% Rotten Tomatoes score; not bad, but significantly down from most Marvel movies despite (in my opinion) little to no actual dip in quality.  Oh, well - their loss.  Looking ahead, the remaining summer schedule looks a bit sparse, but hopefully there will be at least one or two nice surprises ahead.  In the mean time, check this out if you haven't already!

* By https://twitter.com/thorofficial/status/1528915481758797825, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7056633