The Humerous Mighty Thor

In the last blog movie review I wrote that featured “Wonder Woman” and “Spiderman: Homecoming”, I went on a rant about the preview I saw of the new “Thor: Ragnarok” movie that featured another “good vs. good” battle, this one between Thor and the Hulk. This, coming off the heels of Batman vs. Superman and Captain America vs. Ironman battle manias in 2016, seemed like an odd trend that was starting to form among the writers of the super hero genre. Well, after watching Thor, I’ll be the first to admit that I jumped the gun on this one. Sure, they did fight, temporarily, but it was mostly tongue-in-cheek and actually pretty entertaining.

And the same thing could be said about the entire movie.

By far the most humorous of the Marvel super hero movies to date, all of the main characters in the movie apparently decided to take a chill pill in this third movie of the Thor trilogy. At least compared to the intensity they portrayed in prior Marvel films. Particularly Loki, the brother of Thor, who makes his first return to the big screen since getting his butt kicked in the first Avengers movie back in 2012 and his ho-hum guest appearance in the second film of the Thor trilogy (Thor: The Dark World) in 2013. In those, he was about as ruthless as you can get. No hesitation to kill or destroy anything. Seemingly having no conscience. Completely untrustworthy and unpredictable. In the Avengers, ruling earth was his only objective, and nothing was going to stop him. In Thor: Ragnarok, however, Loki has lightened up significantly. In fact, when we first see him, he is on Nasgard pretending to be his father Odin (Loki can change his appearance, if you remember) watching a theatrical rendition of Thor, Loki and Odin butting heads in a very funny parody (be sure to check out the guest actors playing the roles of the three Norsemen in the play). Hilarious. As in the past, Tom Huddleston does a great job portraying motivationally-questionable Loki. He’s actually my favorite character in the Thor films.

Chris Hemsworth, as Thor, had the unique dual role of super hero and comic relief specialist. He was not only involved in the many actions scenes and bad guy confrontations, but he would crack a joke when things got too intense. Very considerate! And speaking of bad guys, that’s where we come to what I consider the weakest part of the movie. Cate Blanchett, one of the best actresses around, portrays Hela, the never mentioned before more powerful and older sister of Thor and Loki who has quite a bone to pick with her younger brothers.  Hela awakens an army of zombie-like creatures who have been lying dormant in the depths of Nasgard and prepares them for the “Ragnarok” invasion, which is meant to destroy Nasgard and everyone in it. Helping her is Skurge, played by Karl Urban (aka, Dr. McCoy in the new Star Trek movies), who is only doing so to stay alive. Thor and Loki obviously cannot allow their world to be destroyed, or at least Thor, as we’re never quite sure with Loki.  Joining them in the battle is the Hulk, who Thor unintentionally reunites with while imprisoned on some planet on the other side of the galaxy (run by an entertaining Jeff Goldblum). How did Hulk get there? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out. To escape imprisonment, Thor must defeat the champion of this prison planet. You guessed it…that would be the Hulk. Hence the confrontation between the two of them. Needless to say, Thor escapes, taking the Hulk with him, and they both head to Nasgard (along with Valkeriye, another Nasgardian) to stop the dreaded Hela.

So the battle field is set:  Thor, Loki, the Hulk, and Valkeriye vs. Hela and her half dead thugs (shows you how powerful she is). What happens and how does it happen? You'll have to watch for yourself, as that would be giving too much away. But you can probably take a pretty good guess.

Getting back to Cate Blanchett as Hela and why I thought she was the weakest part of the movie. Simply put, I just didn’t think she was that effective, as she over dramatized the part. Probably because she’s just too good of an actor to play such a shallow role. I don’t know. But she kind of did the same thing in some of her other villainous roles, like in 2015’s Cinderella and especially in the 2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. 

That aside, this was a very entertaining movie, and certainly one of the better Marvel super hero movies. It kept you on your toes, kept you guessing, and most unexpectedly, kept you laughing. Who would have thought!  Look for all to reappear, probably for the last time, in 2018-19's two part

"Avenger's: Infinity War" flick.

Netflix SN #7 - "The Paradise"

Haven't had a Netflix Streaming Nugget, or Netflix SN for short, in almost two years, so I've been long over due to post one. I'm going to make a serious attempt to get this going regularly again. In case you don't remember, Netflix IVN highlights a more obscure offering on Netflix that my wife and I particularly enjoyed that you might not have heard of before.

For this blog, it's an English series that ran for two seasons (2012-2013) called "The Paradise".  Set in the 1880's London, the fictional "Paradise" is London's largest department store at the time, and the 14 one hour episodes focus on the day-to-day dealings of the store and it's staff. If that sounds similar to another more popular British show called "Mr. Selfridge", which focused on the beginnings of the non-fictional Selfridges department store in the early 20th century, then you'd be right. There are definite similarities between the two. In fact, "Mr. Selfridge", which began it's four year run in 2013, was one of the reasons "The Paradise" wasn't renewed for a third season.

Regardless, if you like English TV drama (which we actually prefer over American TV drama), "The Paradise" is worth a watch. The makers did a great job recreating 1880's England, and the cast of unknowns were excellent. The writing was good, but the acting is what really made the show.  We slightly preferred season 1 over season 2, but the story line, which featured several plot twists that caught us off-guard, kept us on our toes throughout it's run.  One thing that was particularly interesting was the series finale which neatly tied up all of the plot lines and was actually a very fulfilling ending to the show.  They've must have either know in advance the show was ending, or decided to end season two the way they did just in case it wouldn't be renewed. Either way, you'll be satisfied with it.

Movie Reviews: "Wonder Woman vs. Spider-Man"

Super heroes are starting to appear in our theaters again, so it must be summer!  Two in particular have made their debuts in the past month:  Wonder Woman and Spider-Man.  Got to see them both, so I thought I'd write a short review on each one.

Before I start, a little history about me and super heroes.  Like many guys my age who grew up in the late sixties and early seventies, we watched and emulated pretty much all of the Super Heroes associated with DC Comics (Batman, Superman, Flash, etc.) and Marvel (Captain America, Thor, Iron man, etc.).  Cartoons from most awaited us every Saturday morning. Comic books would replace the cartoons during the week. I explain this because since these folks were part of our childhood, guys my age (definitely me) can be a little defensive when it comes to the portrayal of the heroes of our youth.

Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman was actually not one of the super heroes I followed as a kid. I knew she was part of the Justice League, but that was about it. Never had a Wonder Woman comic book, and rarely watched either the Cathy Lee Crosby or Linda Carter prime time series of the early and mid-70's.  Actually wasn't even going to see this years movie, but some friends wanted to go plus it was getting pretty good reviews. Some were even commenting that it was the best super hero move ever made. So I went.

Well, I wouldn't consider it the best one ever made, but it was actually pretty good. Gal Gadot was well cast as Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman, and did a fantastic job.  Chris Pine was also very good as Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman's co-hort throughout most of the movie.  The chemistry between the two actors was fun to watch and dead on.

The story basically has Trevor, an American spy living in Europe towards the end of World War II some how stumbling (actually flying) into the modern time via some kind of time warp mechanism, which was never really explained, and splash landing near the island of Themyscira, or Paradise Island, where the all-female Amazons lived, including Diana Prince, clothed in Greek garb, togas and sandals. And, of course, the appropriate warrior clothing—shields, breastplates, helmets.  Chasing Trevor through the time warp was a German battleship whose gun-toting occupants ultimately take on the bow and arrow flinging, horse riding Amazon women. A battle I never expected to see in my lifetime!  I won't tell you who won, but afterwards, Steve and Diana return to 1944 Europe to try and end the war by bringing down the leaders of the Nazi party, one of whom Diana suspects of being the Greek God of War, Ares (no, it wasn't Hitler).

You can pretty much guess what happens after that. The story line did have one surprising twist toward the end of the movie, which I have to say I kind of suspected. So I wasn't that surprised when it happened. Unlike a twist in the Spider Man movie, which caught me off guard. You can read about that below.

The ending isn't going to make everyone happy, but it was good.  The action and CGI was typically very realistic, which seems to be the norm these days.  The movie makers have special effects down to a science now. The only gripes I have are pretty minor and both involve casting.  One of the villains in the movie, a character named Sir Patrick was played so-so by David Thewlis.  Towards the end of the movie his character went through a bit of a change, at which point his role really started to become unbelievable. Even comical, although that wasn't the intention.  But the real casting flub came with the character "Dr. Poison", a mad chemistry scientist with a deformed Phantom of the Opera face hired by the Nazis to create biological weapons.  I don't know if the actress was to blame or the writers who created the character, but she was BAD!  Totally unbelievable as a bio warfare technician, and not scary in the least. She reminded me of the Frau Farbissina character from Austin Powers. Totally out of place and almost laughable.  Really missed the ball on that casting.

After the big fight out, the movie concludes the way it started, with Diana Prince in the offices of the Justice League (obviously to promote the new Justice League movie coming out this fall).  But the movie failed to explain what her path was from the 1940's to today's Justice League. I know she appeared in last years "Batman vs. Superman" movie fiasco (good vs. good, hmm), which I saw and really disliked.  And that movie may have explained her transition from Paradise Island to the Justice League. But I dread going back and watching it again just to find out!

On a final note, prior to Wonder Woman was a preview of the new Justice League movie, and I have to say it didn't do much for me.  I still don't understand the reasoning of killing off Superman and having a Justice League without him. Oddly enough though, Henry Cavil, who played Superman, is in the Justice League credits. So either he's resurrected or there are flashbacks. Either way, why complicate things?  Stay with the basics and just fight bad guys. Forget about all of these annoying plot changes! The screenwriters are trying to be too cute, in my humble opinion. There's no Green Lantern either!  And throughout the preview, Aquaman is no where near water.  Completely on land.  But I'm sure he gets his flippers wet in the movie at some point. I would hope.

Spider-Man: The Homecoming

Speaking of resurrection, Spider-Man: The Homecoming (not quite sure what "homecoming" refers to) marks the third resurrection and sixth movie featuring the Spider-Man character in the last 15 years. Toby Maguire took the helm in 2002,  2004 and 2007.  Andrew Garfield took over in 2012 and 2014. Now 21 year old Tom Holland gets the nod.  Fortunately in this version of Spider-Man, we are spared with the how-Peter-Parker-became-Spider-man story which both previous Spider-Man ventures dragged us through twice in 2002 and 2012.

Like his Spider-Man predecessors, Holland does a good job playing a juvenile Peter Parker. In the original comics, Parker is kind of a kooky nerd-type in high school, and Holland portrays that to a tee.  He probably takes the kooky part a little too far at times, which can be annoying, but overall he pretty much nails the part.

The best part of the movie though, is Michael Keaton as the good intention Adrian Toomes, who, because of some unfair bureaucracy that robs him of his lively hood, goes berserk and ultimately becomes "The Vulture", Spider-Man's nemesis in the film. "The Vulture" is a real villain taken from the Spider-Man comics, albeit quite a different looking one. It's actually an ironic role for Keaton, and I'm not sure unintentional, as in 2014 he played the title role in "Birdman", an Oscar winning movie in which he was nominated for Best Actor playing an over-the-hill actor who's claim to fame was playing the TV super hero and winged "Birdman" decades earlier.  Keaton was great as "The Vulture". 

It's always fun seeing Robert Downey Jr. on screen, and we were given the opportunity several times to enjoy him as Tony Stark and Iron Man again. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan, Tony Stark's right hand man, actually had the larger role in this movie playing Peter Parker's "guardian".

This version of Spider-Man basically continues from end of the last Captain America movie, "Captain America:  Civil War", in which Spider-Man made an appearance after being recruited by Iron Man to battle Captain America and his cohorts (good vs. good...hmm).  Anyhow, the battle left Peter Parker longing for more crime fighting opportunities with the Avengers. Iron Man, however, doesn't think he's ready and decides it would be better for Spider-Man, for the time being, to focus on "street level" crime, ie. small level street crime in Parker's neck of the woods.  Stark assigns Happy Hogan to keep an eye on him.  Predictably, an impatient Spider-Man goes looking for bigger and better fish to fry, and stumbles across "The Vulture's" illegal operation.  Again, that's where I'll stop so not to give away too much.

The rest of the movie deals with this conflict, however, and includes one surprise that, as I said earlier, I didn't expect.  It was a nice touch.  I had one small issue with it, but I can't go into it without completely spoiling the moment.  So we'll move on!

Overall, it was an entertaining movie.  Probably the most politically correct Marvel movie so far, I would guess. Very diverse cast, inter-racial relationships, and so on. Which is very cool. It was just more noticeable in this movie. Watching Peter Parker fine tune his spider skills after Tony Stark supplies him with a hyped up Spider-Man outfit was fun. We get a behind the mask view of Spider-Man, just like in the Iron Man movies where we listen and watch Tony Stark communicate with his computer AI.

Gripes?  Not many.  Peter Parker's best friend was pretty annoying most of the time. The seemingly unavoidable and unneeded love interest story line was included. Spider-Man caused more collateral damage in this movie than in any of the other five, and didn't seem to care. Even though most of it was avoidable.  It's funny, because in the "Captain America: Civil War" movie, political authorities were trying to put control on the Avengers to reduce the collateral damage they were leaving everywhere they fought. Iron Man was for that, but Spider-Man I guess didn't quite catch on yet. Seems like he should have been on Captain America's side, who was against it!

So why not a raving review, you ask?  Well, this movie was obviously written for a 20 year old audience, so it was pretty juvenile at times.  I understand that, but can't quite relate to some of it, so it effects my movie experience. As a result, it was enjoyable, but basically a kids super hero movie. Which is a little disappointing seeing that folks my age are the real ones who grew up with these characters!  But that's ok.

In conclusion, prior to "Spider-Man: Homecoming", there was a preview of the new Thor movie coming out this fall. And guess what?  Thor battles the Hulk! As you can tell from my sarcastic comments above, I'm not a fan of the "good vs. good" story line.  Maybe it's a reflection of society today, I don't know. But I just don't get it.  Batman vs. Superman, Captain America vs. Iron Man, and now Thor vs. the Hulk.  I know that ultimately they all end up on the same side. But why go that route? Are the screenwriters coming up with blanks?  Are they out of ideas?  And what happened to the good guys fighting the bad guys?  There are plenty of villains in the Marvel and DC archives to pull out that the Justice League and Avenger folks can battle.  More importantly, they are writing these movies now for kids, and I'm not sure having them watch good fight good is the best thing to do. Maybe DC learned something after "Batman vs. Superman" flopped at the box office.  At least I hope so!

Movie Review: "Gaga over La La Land"

I’ve noticed that the older I’m getting, the more critical I’m becoming of the theatrical movies released each year. And as a result, I’m liking fewer and fewer as time goes on.  Sure, part of the reason is because many movies today aren’t being made for the 50+ crowd that I fit into. But there’s also no denying that, in general, movies being made today just aren’t as good as in the past.  Things have gotten so bad, in fact, that movie studios are relying on sequels more than ever. There are 31 sequels planned to be released in 2017 alone!

That said, on occasion a movie will pop up that blows my socks off. And for the first time in at least a couple of years, that has happened with the movie “La La Land”. “La La Land”, in case you don’t know, is an unconventional love story told with the assistance of song and dance, and includes more curve balls then Clayton Kershaw throws in one inning. In short, it’s about a jazz pianist and an aspiring actress who fall in love but face difficulties as they become successful. The movie stars Emma Stone as Mia and Ryan Gosling as Sebastian.

Warning:  The following contains some plot spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the movie, read at your own risk!

I have to say that when the opening musical sequence began in “La La Land”, I was questioning what it was I got myself in to. Thought I was watching an episode of “Fame” for a minute. But then I soon began to appreciate the actual filming of the scene, which featured one long (close to four minutes), single camera, continuous, uncut shot from the on ramp of a busy Los Angeles freeway, which the studio somehow arranged to close down for several hours. One mess up from any of the dozens of singers and dancers during those four minutes and the whole scene would have to be shot again. Much to the chagrin of the everyday drivers who couldn’t use the off ramp due to the filming. The musical number then climaxed with a scene that set the tone for the rest of the movie. So it was all for good.

Gosling tickling the ivory

This concluding scene mentioned above features a brief confrontation between Mia and Sebastian, and brings the two lead characters together for the first time, albeit briefly.  This scene also introduces one of the several reoccurring non-human characters in the movie, Sebastian’s car horn. I won’t say any more, but it’s not the last time it is heard. After the confrontation, which is initially shown through Mia’s perspective, the movie follows the Mia character throughout the rest of her day, culminating in her visiting a piano bar after being transfixed by a haunting piano tune she hears being played while walking past it later that evening. The movie then brilliantly rewinds back to the confrontation, shows it through Sebastian’s perspective, and follows him through the rest of his day, culminating, you guessed it, in him playing the song in the piano bar Mia is lured into. Hence, meeting number two.

This is just one example of the many impressive creative touches and techniques used by writer and director Damien Chazelle. In addition to Sebastian’s horn, another reoccurring character is the previously mentioned piano tune itself. The song, titled “City of Lights”, and apparently played by Gosling himself, is a real heart-tugger and is replayed during several key moments throughout the rest of the movie. Very effective.  

As mentioned earlier, Gosling’s Sebastian plays an aspiring jazz pianist who is bound and determined to save traditional jazz by opening up his own jazz club. Stone’s Mia is a hard luck aspiring actress who, like many aspiring actresses, suffers rejection after rejection at casting call auditions. Mia also works in a coffee shop on the Warner Brothers lot. Back to that later.

Ryan Gosling & Emma Stone

Once they both share their dreams with each other, they become each other’s primary source of support, encouragement, and motivation. Which predictably leads to romance, and ultimately leads to conflicts.  As an example, after her latest rejection, Sebastian encourages Mia to write her own material, which she does and then soon opens her own one person play. After it seemingly bombs, Mia returns to her parents’ home in Nevada to mentally regroup. In the meantime, Sebastian ignores his traditional jazz nightclub dream by joining up with a contemporary jazz group, and sparks fly when Mia reminds him of that. In another nice twist, it turns out that a talent scout was in one of Mia’s audiences and wants her to audition for a five month movie shoot in Paris.  Encouraged and escorted by an insistent Sebastian, Mia goes and evidently gets the part. I say evidently because we don’t actually see her get the part, but it’s heavily implied. But as she waits to find out, the two discuss how this, her going to Paris and Sebastian touring with his jazz group, will affect their relationship. They decide to “see what happens”. 

Although some curve balls have been thrown up to this point, the biggest curve ball is about to come.

The movie abruptly shifts five years forward. Mia is a big movie star, heavily applying that she indeed did land the Paris movie role she auditioned for five years earlier. This fact is revealed by another nice touch by director Chazelle. Early in the movie, Mia is shown serving a famous actress coffee in the Warner Brother lot coffee shop she works at. As the actress leaves, the eyes of leering fans follow her to a waiting golf cart ready to whisk her away to a movie set. Here, Mia is the one getting coffee in the same shop, with fans leering at her as she hops into a golf cart waiting to whisk her away. Nice touch.

La La Land director Damian Chazelle

Sebastian, in the meantime, has opened his traditional jazz club.  And it’s there where I’ll stop, as continuing will give away too much for those who haven’t seen it. I’ll only say that what transpires won’t leave everyone happy.  But I applaud the guts of Chazelle on what he did. The final five minutes, and particularly the final scene, were perfect in my view.

And I haven’t even mentioned the singing and dancing!  I’m not a huge movie musical person, but I enjoy a well made one. The singing/dancing here didn’t overwhelm the story. In fact, the routines were added at perfect times and did nothing but enhance the story and viewing experience.  And Gosling and Stone were very impressive, particularly in their dancing. Not Astaire and Rogers, who is, but they certainly held their own.

So, overall, this was one of the best movie experiences I’ve had in a long, long time. And it’s nice to see that everyone I know who’s seen it feels the same way. Plus it’s racking up the rewards, and is a heavy favorite to win the Best Picture Academy Award later this month. I’m hoping that it does! It would be well deserved.