Film Review - "Babylon"

Babylon

Directed by Damien Chazelle

Starring Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, and Diego Calva

"What's that you say? The director of La La Land has released a film about Hollywood's transition from silent to sound films in the 1920's?? Sign me up!"

*Three-and-a-half hours later*

"Oh."

I guess I'm doing a pattern with my reviews: divisive, universally acclaimed, and now back to divisive. The general public really does seem to be split down the middle with Damien Chazelle's latest, and I would say that's where I fall too. I liked most of Babylon, but definitely not all of it.

As I mentioned earlier, Babylon chronicles the period in Hollywood where studios were transitioning away from silent to sound films. The film focuses on how six(ish) characters navigate this changing landscape, including Manny Torres (Calva), a Mexican immigrant who loves movies and wants to be a part of something bigger, Nellie LaRoy (Robbie), a rising star with rough edges and a knack for getting into trouble, and Jack Conrad (Pitt) a legend of the screen who may be past his prime.

I think it's important for every fan of Damien Chazelle's La La Land to know...this is not La La Land. This is not a love letter to Hollywood*, but rather a criticism of it, specifically this era. Chazelle is intent to take the viewers' rose-tinted glasses off and show us the cruel and grotesque truth of this golden era. Thing is, Damien, you don't need to show me a POV of an elephant getting diarrhea to get that point across.

There's some really cringe and gross imagery in this film that might unsettle some. Many of it particularly comes from the opening sequence that has been seen in all the promotions, and a rather bizarre side-quest it takes in its third act, featuring an odd cameo from Tobey Maguire. 

That kind of leads me into my next problem with Babylon, and that is its 189 minute runtime. I can do long films. I love Avengers - Endgame, and I've watched The Irishman multiple times. But the script of Babylon lacks focus, so the pacing suffers, and that close to three and-a-half hour length is undeniably felt. Babylon wants to show us how this period in Hollywood effected all these characters, but it fails to juggle their stories. Lady Fay Shu (Li Jun Li), a Chinese-American lesbian cabaret singer, and Sydney Palmer (Jovan Adepo), an African-American jazz trumpeter, have very interesting arcs that aren't given all that much attention. So much so that you almost forget they're a part of this.

The main focus of the film is on Calva's Manny, Robbie's Nellie, and Pitt's Jack. Calva gives a fine performance as Manny, who is very much a proxy for the audience. An outside perspective invited to the big party, if you will. That aside, Manny is just not very interesting is a character. There's not much depth to the character, and is arc throughout Babylon is just rather convenient. Margot Robbie is giving her usual best as Nellie LaRoy, and commanding every scene, but I worry she's starting to get typecast. Nellie gives off the same vibes as say Harley Quinn in the Suicide Squad films, or her performance of Tonya Harding in I, Tonya (A film that I love by the way). Brad Pitt's Jack Conrad is by far the most compelling character in the film, as he's the one most effected by the changes around him, and Pitt plays him wonderfully. You can tell he's having fun with the role, and as if there's almost an emotional connection to it for him.

When Babylon actually focuses on how the men and women working in Hollywood at the time were effected by these major changes, it excels. There's a great sequence where Nellie is working on a sound set, and the entire crew is struggling to adjust to the new production techniques. Last thing of note is Justin Hurwitz once again delivers a great musical score to a Damien Chazelle film. It's a shame he lost the Oscar, to All Quiet on The Western Front of all films. (Like...War is hell. We get it. Move on.)

Babylon is an otherwise fine film, but its sum is not as great as its parts. I think some more time in the editing room, and a few rewrites of the screenplay for it to focus more on Pitt and Robbie's characters would have made this a much better film. I hate to say it, but some more studio supervision might have been necessary in this case. Again, I don't dislike the film, but it's not something I can see myself rewatching multiples times (like La La Land). That said the discussion on this film is very divisive, some calling it trash, and others a misunderstood classic. The discussion means Babylon probably won't be going away for awhile. So in some way, does that make it a timeless classic? I don't know, but again, Damien, POV shots of elephants with diarrhea...take a chill pill. This isn't an Adam Sandler film.

*The ending sequence of this film does not fit in with the rest of it, and almost makes you aware that you're watching a movie...which is probably good that it comes...at the end.*

Film Review - "Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio"

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio

Directed by...yeah him and Mark Gustafson

Starring Gregory Mann, David Bradley, and Ewan McGregor

I'm still in disbelief that in the year of our lord 2022 we got THREE Pinocchio films. There was no doubt in mind that the Disney live-action remake, and that meme-fuel from Luminescence starring...Pauly Shore, would be terrible though. Conversely, I had no doubt that this would be the best Pinocchio film of the year by a long shot.

It's nice to say we've got another great film adaptation of Pinocchio after eighty-years, and my god is it beautiful.

Del Toro puts his own unique spin on the classic tale by Carlo Collodi. During the first World War, the son of woodcarver Gepetto (Bradley) is killed during an air strike on their small village in Italy. Twenty years later, in a drunken, emotional rage, Gepetto cuts down a pine tree in the hopes of "making" his son again. The magical Wood Sprite (Tilda Swinton) sees this and grants life to the wooden boy, named Pinocchio (Mann).

Naturally, and frankly more realistically, Gepetto is very hesitant to accept this sentient puppet as his new son...in fact he's kind of freaked out by him, as is most of their village. Nevertheless Pinocchio goes off on the usual adventures. He's tricked into skipping school and joining a carnival, is drafted into war, struggles with his own mortality-wait...

Again, Del Toro puts his own unique spin on Pinocchio, and it works so well. The idea of a grieving Gepetto creating Pinocchio in a drunken stupor like some kind of Italian Doctor Frankenstein is just so beautifully GDT. But there's so much depth here that we don't see in other adaptations of the Pinocchio story. The original story is dark and the film leans into that (The opening sequence is like Up turned up to eleven). This isn't an animated film manufactured to babysit children. It has lessons for them but for adults, too.

There's heavy themes about faith, war, morality, and loss. There is life after death. Death is what gives life meaning. It's hard to believe Pinocchio is teaching us about this. Brilliantly I might add. I'm a big cryer when it comes to films. This was the first time where the film ended, I sat with it, and after really digesting what the film was saying to me, that is when the tears began to flow. 

The idea of telling the story of Pinocchio in stop-motion is genius, particularly because stop-motion is called animation, but it's photographed just like regular filmmaking. It's not drawn on paper or rendered in a computer. It's animation, but it's real, like Pinocchio himself. The animation is gorgeous. The characters have so much beautiful, intricate details. The depth of field in the shots are breathtaking. The sets and sweeping backgrounds of the Italian countryside look as real as can be. The lighting is amazing. Guillermo del Toro is a firm believer that animation is cinema. It is not a genre or just for children, it is a medium that deserves the industry's respect. He says it with his full heart and soul in this film.

The voice-acting is stellar. Young Gregory Mann is wonderful as Pinocchio. He's a brat but there's enough innocence and heart in the character that you still root for him. Which is nice because at his core, the character of Pinocchio is a little $h*t! Caretaker of Hogwarts Argus Filch, aka David Bradley, plays Gepetto with the perfect balance of gruff and empathy. At the expense of another Up parallel, it's like an Italian Carl Fredericksen. This story is just as much his as it is Pinocchio's, and Bradley sells it.

Ewan McGregor is charming as always as Sebastian Cricket. Christoph Waltz is wonderfully despicable as Count Volpe. Ron Perlman is his usual best self as the Podesta. Finally, Cate Blanchett gives the performance of her career as Spazzatura (In your face Lydia Tár!).

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio just took home the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and it was more than well deserved. This film is a beautiful labor of love from a man who loves animation and filmmaking, with a wonderful story that can resonate with all ages. It may just be my favorite film of last year, and that's no lie.

...I still need to put my Top Films of 2022 in writing...as well as my Top Films of 2021. I can never get those rankings out on time...

Film Review - "Ant-Man & The Wasp: Quantumania"

Ant-Man & The Wasp: Quantumania

Directed by Peyton Reed

Starring Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lily, and Jonathan Majors

I feel like I'm in the minority when I say I enjoyed Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The narrative that the franchise peaked with Avengers: Endgame and that "The MCU is in shambles" has been running rampant for the better part of the year now, despite the fact there have been some great entries in theaters and on Disney Plus.

Judging by the critical and commercial response to Ant-Man & The Wasp: Quantumania, the film to kick off Phase Five of the MCU, it looks as though that narrative won't be fading away anytime soon. Is this film as bad as the general public is making it out to be? No. Is it the next great film of the MCU? No. 

It's fine. It's just fine.

Scott Lang (Rudd) is enjoying his life as a famous Avenger. Life is perfect, except for the fact his daughter Cassie (Now played by Kathryn Newton) is following in his footsteps the wrong way i.e. being an activist and ending up on the wrong side of the law. She's also recently been working on a device to communicate with The Quantum Realm. The device works, and unfortunately sucks Cassie, Scott, and the entire "Ant-Family" into the Quantum Realm.

Separated from the others, Scott and Cassie work to find a way home, while Hope Van Dyne (Lily) and her parents Hank Pam (Micheal Douglas) and Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer) search for them. The group is unaware though that a sinister tyrant of the realm named Kang (Majors) has his own plans to escape, and he needs Ant-Man to do it.

The film definitely had a lot of promise but falls short of delivering on the game-changing story the marketing suggested. That's not a bad thing. Not every MCU film needs to shake up the status quo. But when you're kicking off a new phase, while also being the final film of a trilogy, and introducing the franchise's next big bad...you kind of expect more. Quantumania is a very safe, light-hearted film.

I would go as far as to say the focus is on family like in the previous Ant-Man films, but that's really not the case here. The main cast is separated very quickly in the film and the great character dynamics we loved in previous films are lost. The natural progression of Scott and Cassie's relationship as father and daughter was a nice direction to go in, though.

As I said the film introduces the MCU's next big bad (Or rather, introduces him if you didn't watch Loki, and even that's not totally true because multiverse, variants, etc.) and that is the film's greatest strength. Jonathan Majors brings such charm, menace, and gravitas to Kang. You really do get the sense that he is the next Avengers-level threat. Quantumania builds off what was established in Loki while also clueing in the uninitiated and making him a full-fledged character. Since we've got a few years before Kang Dynasty, I'm excited to see what the MCU does with Majors and this character. Hopefully we get more time with him. Or his variants.

Paul Rudd is still great as Scott Lang, but this time he gets some more dramatic material to work with. He has great chemistry with Majors and their scenes together really feel like classic "hero and villain" confrontations, if that makes any sense. Kathryn Newton slides nicely into the role of Cassie Lang. I miss Emma Furhman but Newton is talented enough that there's real promise for the future. Michelle Pfeiffer gets more to do as Janet Van Dyne, and really deserved more screen time considering the story they wanted to tell. Sadly, Evangeline Lily and Micheal Douglas are not given as much to do as they have in previous films, which is a shame.

Bill Murray and William Jackson Harper join the MCU as new characters. They're great but each isn't much more than a glorified cameo. Just a few minutes shorter than The Illuminati in Multiverse of Madness. Corey Stoll returns as Darren Cross, but instead of Yellowjacket is now M.O.D.O.K and look, the character is a giant floating head. Of course they're going to play it as a joke. But his character in this film just feels like a weird afterthought. 

Last thing I want to mention is the visuals. Outside of one particular sequence, the Quantum Realm is very standard sci-fi. There's nothing incredibly distinct about it, but that's not detrimental to the film. However, the previous Ant-Man films definitely were more creative with their visuals, specifically how the Ant-Man and The Wasp's special skills made for unique fight scenes. You're not going to find a fight on a Thomas the Tank Engine train-set, or a giant Hello Kitty Pez dispenser being thrown at a biker gang.

Outside the context of the larger MCU, Quantumania is a harmless family adventure. Alas it's no grand conclusion to a trilogy like Civil War or Ragnarok. The best thing it does is clue us in to a greater threat that's coming, played masterfully by Jonathan Majors. The MCU is not in shambles as some would suggest, but the divisive response to this film is not going to quell the discourse. 

Arguably, the MCU is going through a bit of growing pains as it finds its footing in a post-Endgame world (Interestingly both within its story and production. More on that later). Personally I've grown up with this franchise, I'm still on board, and interested to see where we go from here. Not every MCU film can or will be perfect, but no film is. As Scott Lang himself says in this film, "If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that there's always room to grow." 

Film Review - "Where The Crawdad Sings"

I'm as surprised as you are.

Where The Crawdad Sings

Directed by Olivia Newman

Starring Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith, and David Strathairn

I saw the trailer for this film months ago and didn't give it much of a second-thought. You see "Based on The Best-Selling Novel" flash across the screen these days there's a 50-50 chance it's not gonna go well.

Then I happened to catch it back on National Cinema Day, and surprisingly I found Where The Crawdad Sings to be a captivating and suspenseful thriller.  

So again, based on the best-selling novel Delia Owens (Which I have not and probably will not read because I'm a slow reader and it takes me three years to finish one book), the film tells the story of Catherine "Kya" Clark (Jones) and her life growing up in the marshes of North Carolina. The townspeople of Barkley Cove look at her as an eccentric recluse, nicknaming her "Marsh Girl". In the present timeline of 1969, she stands trial for murder of her former boyfriend Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson), and kindly attorney Tom Milton (Strathairn) defends her when no one else will.

As the trial unfolds, we learn of her life growing up in the marsh with her abusive father, and how her mother and siblings each ran from home, and abandoning her, one-by-one (Rather bizarrely I might add, like why is no one taking her with them??). Her father eventually passes away, thus leaving her to fend for herself at only seven years old. She survives selling muscles in town, and is assisted frequently by local shopkeeps James and Mabel Madison (Sterling Mace Jr. and Micheal Hyatt).

Soon a local boy named Tate Walker (Smith) takes a liking to Kya and helps her learn to read and write, while the two grow closer, and we also start to learn how Kya and Chase's relationship developed as well...

The mystery of the film is very compelling, as you truly get invested in the past, and wonder how it leads to the trial in the present. The relationship between the three leads is incredibly fleshed out. It is a love triangle, yes, but there's more at play beneath the surface. The conflict is in incredibly well-developed, tackling all four "flavors" of conflict in literature (That's man vs man, nature, society, and self). Man Vs Nature is probably the strongest in the film, as Kya's relationship with the marshes makes her an outcast and oddity to her peers.

While on the subject of nature, the film has a lot of beautiful visuals, perfectly capturing the beauty and sometimes sinister nature of the North Carolina marshlands (I don't want to know if it was partially CGI, or touched up in post. I just don't.) 

I would say the film's biggest flaw is its pacing. It wants to go back and forth between the past and present, but we spend so much in the past, we can almost forget in the present there's a trial and Kya's life hands in the balance. That and the present day scenes just aren't as interesting.

Daisy Edgar-Jones is perfectly cast as Kya, encapsulating the sweet innocence of the character but also the strength and independence. Taylor John Smith is a likable leading man as Tate Walker with a lot of heart, but there's also some naivety to the character. Not enough to make you annoyed with him, but enough to give him more depth (Side-note, this guy could play a live-action Kristoff when Disney starts getting remake eyes for Frozen). You absolutely love to hate Harris Dickinson as Chase Andrews. It's not over-the-top villainy but he makes a perfect antagonist. David Starthairn is just likable in everything he does.

I was surprised to find Where The Crawdad Sings to be an enjoyable time at the theater. It has some beautiful visuals, a compelling mystery, and a suspenseful drama with some truly harrowing scenes throughout. I never expected to find myself seeing a film like this (On National Cinema Day no less!) but I'm glad I did, and will probably rewatch this down the line.

...What's that? ...This film received poor reviews from critics?...The author of the book is problematic and may or may not be a murderer?...Where The Crawdad Sings might be rooted in realism and clue us in to what Delia Owens was doing as conservationist in Zimbabwe?...Well I still liked it.

 

Film Review - "Hocus Pocus 2"

I'm taking a big risk with this one...

Hocus Pocus 2

Directed by Anne Fletcher

Starring Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy

Let me start by sharing my thoughts on the original Hocus Pocus...It's enjoyable! It's campy but in a fun 90's way. The three leads are clearly having a ball. Like a lot of classic Disney, it treats its younger audience members with respect, as it can scare them as much as it entertains them. It's a good Halloween story that can be enjoyed year after year.

I saw it for the first time in 2015. I didn't grow up with it or hold it in the same regard as many people my age do. That said I never saw a need for a sequel. We got one though, and it was released on Disney Plus last month. I watched it and found Hocus Pocus 2 to be a surprisingly worthy sequel, but while in some areas it surpasses it, in others it can't compete. Let me explain.

The film opens with a flashback to 1653 in Salem (which might not add up if you remember the prologue to Hocus Pocus took place in 1963, when they were already old hags), where the young Sanderson Sisters are banished by the Reverend Traske (Tony Hale) after Winifred refuses to marry a John Pritchette. It is in their exile in the forbidden forest, where they meet Mother Witch (Hannah Waddingham), who gifts Winifred a spell book for her sixteenth birthday. This sets the three sisters on their path to become the infamous witches Salem will forever...fear? Idolize? It's a grey area.

Fast-forward to the present 2022, where best friends Becca (Whitney Peak) and Izzie (Belissa Escobedo) are preparing to celebrate Halloween and Becca's sixteenth birthday. How you ask? Why by going into the same forbidden forest The Sanderson Sisters found themselves in when Winifred was turning sixteen, of course. They light a candle for a special birthday ritual, which turns out to be another Black Flame Candle. Since it was lit under a full moon by a virgin (I along with many who've pointed this out before, am not comfortable with the whole virgin aspect of the spell in both films, considering teenagers are lighting these candles, and it's Disney, but at least Hocus Pocus 2 points out the absurdity of it) The Sanderson Sisters are resurrected once again: Winifred (Midler), Sarah (Parker), and Mary (Najimy).

This time, Winifred makes it their mission to cast a spell that will make her all powerful, and give them the ability to take revenge on Traske (His descendant is now the Mayor of Salem, also played by Tony Hale) and the whole town. Also thrown into the mix is The Mayor's daughter Cassie (Lillia Buckingham), who is also Becca and Izzie's estranged best friend, Gilbert (Sam Richardson) who runs the Old Salem Magic Shoppe currently located in the Sanderson's old home, and Billy Butcherson (Doug Jones), Winifred's former lover and back from the grave once again.

Hocus Pocus 2 is a film that falls into a category many have dubbed as legacy sequels, meaning it's a sequel that comes out decades after the original, very much like Mary Poppins Returns, Top Gun: Maverick, or Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Hocus is much more in line with Mary Poppins or Ghostbusters, where it's following the roadmap of the original (with *some* tweaks), but it's doing so with a lot of love and effort from the filmmaking team. Yes a virgin lights the candle that resurrects the witches, there's a "fish out of water" element where these women from the 1600s don't know how to handle modern times (Yet somehow they know what to do when a teenager holds up a smartphone to take a selfie...), and the heroes have one night to stop them before it's too late. But in this film...there's TWO musical numbers!! Quite catchy ones, I must say. As I said, there's a lot of love and effort on screen here. This was made for Hocus Pocus fans.

Unfortunately, I feel as though "fish out of water" humor was left behind by cinema in the 90's and early 2000's, so a fair bit of it falls flat. Actually, if you watch both films back-to-back you can get a real education on how filmmaking has changed over time. The evolution of special effects is clearly on screen. But as far as the comedy, there are some funny bits and a lot of clever callbacks to the first film. 

The supporting characters for this film sadly can't hold a candle (Heh) to those of the original. I can remember Sam, Max and Dani from Hocus Pocus easily, but I had to look up Becca, Izzy, and Cassie's names while writing this. That's not to say they're bad characters, or the performances are bad. I actually thought the actresses did a very good job, and I look forward to seeing more work from them in the future. They're just sadly not the focus of this film, and you know who is. You came for the witches. I can see and appreciate the parallel they were setting up between The Sanderson Sisters, and Becca, Izzie, and Cassie, but it's just not given enough attention in the script. That, and the conflict between the young three throughout the film is quite weak (Well, maybe from the perspective of a thirty-one year-old, but maybe not too younger viewers...).

Kudos to this film for giving more depth to The Sanderson Sisters. Not something I ever expected or thought we needed. They're not just scary, comical boogeyman for the heroes to defeat this time around. We actually get a better sense of the sisters' relationship with one another, specifically Winifred's. Also the three young girls playing the Sandersons in the opening flashback were perfect and, wever casting director found them deserves a raise.

Bette Midler is the star of the show here, displaying all her theatrics on screen. Kathy Najimy is so clearly happy to be here and loving every second of it. She is definitely the funniest of the three leads. Oddly, Sarah Jessica Parker does not stand out as much as her two co-leads. This time around her performance as Sarah is much more reserved. That said, these three cast a large shadow over the supporting cast. Tony Hale is quirky but fun as Reverend/Mayor Traske. Sam Richardson has some fun moments as Gilbert, especially when he's sharing scenes with Doug Jones as Billy, who gets more to do than lumber around as a zombie this time. Finally, Hannah Waddingham is criminally underused as Mother Witch and someone needs to pay for their crimes.

How much you love the first Hocus Pocus will factor into how much you enjoy the sequel. It's a fitting tribute to its successor, but not without its flaws. I truly feel that if the script had done a bit more heavy lifting in the character development department, this film could have surpassed the original. As it stands though it's a fun watch with a lot of heart, that may just become part of your annual Halloween watchlist.

Seriously though how did they know how to take a selfie?

Film Review - "Don't Worry Darling"

This is going to be quick, and harsh, but frankly deserved.

Don't Worry Darling

Directed by Olivia Wilde,

Starring Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine

Don't Worry Darling is the second directorial feature from Olivia Wilde (I have not seen Booksmart). The film focuses on happily married couple Alice (Pugh) and Jack (Styles) Chambers, living in a company town of Victory, overseen by its founder Frank (Pine. I don't remember if the character had a last name. It doesn't matter anyway). Victory is a perfect suburban utopia, where the husbands go to work, and the wives stay home and do domestic duties. But one day, Alice notices things aren't as perfect as they seem in Victory, and begins to search for answers, despite warnings from her husband and peers.

So yes, this sounds like a lot of other films that have come before, such as The Stepford Wives, Pleasantville, The Truman Show, and Get Out to name a few. Nothing new here, right? Well as I've learned in all my years of studying and watching films, it's not the tool it's how use it and-no, no Don't Worry Darling brings nothing new to the table...

It's very easy for viewers to get a grasp on the "big twist" of where the film is going. Instead of trying to craft a compelling narrative, Wilde and Screenwriter Katie Silberman seem determined to push the big reveal off for as long as possible in its 123 minute runtime (The film feels more like four hours long than two and change). There are lot of surreal and bizarre moments throughout, that in the end mean nothing to the plot, and are just all sizzle and no steak. At one point Florence Pugh's character is making breakfast. She cracks an egg open and finds nothing inside. Just a hollow shell. A perfect metaphor for this film.

Speaking of Florence Pugh, she deserves an Honorary Academy Award and chiropractor for carrying this film on her back. The passion and effort she puts into her performance is meant for a much better film. Chris Pine also deserves credit for his portrayal as Frank. Pine perfectly capture the charming yet sinister nature needed for this role. There's a confrontation scene between Pugh and Pine in the film, and it's frankly (Heh. Frank) the best part of the film because you've got your two strongest players showing the rest how it's done.

Alright, I'll talk about Harry Styles...I have nothing against this guy trying to have a side-gig as an actor. But...he needs more practice. For the majority of the film I truly think his performance is fine. It's when he has to raise his voice, or get angry, is when the cracks start to show. You've all seen the face from that one scene. It's a meme at this point. I will admit I had to stifle laughter when I saw it.

Let's see. What else...Olivia Wilde's performance is fine. Gemma Chan and Nick Kroll have some fleeting shining moments in their supporting roles. The cinematography and set-design is very pretty. Um...yeah that's it.

It's sad when the behind-the-scenes drama of a film is more entertaining than the film itself, but Don't Worry Darling is an incredibly frustrating narrative that raises more questions than answers, as it tries to avoid the cliche' story foundation its built upon. I describe it as jingling shiny keys in front of a baby to entertain or distract them, and we are not babies, and it's insulting (Wait, you're an actual infant watching Don't Worry Darling? My God where are your parents?!?). I think "sophomore slump" is the best way to describe this second film from Olivia Wilde. I cannot even say it's like The Room, where you need to see for yourself how bad it is, or "its so bad its good". No, don't worry darling (Ha...) there's nothing to see here...

Film Review - "Thor: Love & Thunder"

Thor: Love & Thunder

Directed by Taika Waititi

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, and Natalie Portman

Of course I saw this film back when it first was released to theaters back in July. I left my screening feeling conflicted, and needed to think on it for awhile. Ultimately I think the version of this film I envisioned in my head for years (A MCU equivalent to Toy Story 4 with Thor as our Woody-I knew that wasn't gonna come out right.) was keeping me from enjoying the film I got. After rewatching the film last night on Disney Plus, I can say that Thor: Love & Thunder is an enjoyable adventure with a lot of heart.

After Korg (Waititi), the film's narrator, gives the audiences a recap of all the loss Thor (Hemsworth) has suffered throughout the years, we see The God of Thunder is still traveling the cosmos with The Guardians of The Galaxy. He has shut himself off from love, afraid of losing it again, but Peter Quill/Star Lord (Chris Pratt) tells him it's better to feel sh!**y about losing love than to feel nothing at all. 

Soon Thor is called back to New Asgard, when a villain known as Gorr The God Butcher (Bale) emerges, kidnapping all the Asgardian children as part of a plan to wipe out all Gods. Joining Thor on his quest to rescue the children and stop Gorr is Korg, the newly appointed ruler of Asgard, Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), and his ex-girlfriend Dr. Jane Foster (Portman), who has been deemed worthy of the reforged hammer Miljonir and now possesses the power of Thor.

As if saving the world while reuniting with your ex, who is now your super-powered equal wasn't enough, Jane is also battling stage-four cancer, and her new powers may or may not be helping her fight the disease...

The core of the film is Thor and Jane's relationship, which arguably hasn't been the strongest aspect of the Thor films in the past, but Waitit does a great job retroactively building the foundation of their bond, and giving the audience reason to root for them. Thor is given a second chance with a lost love, but also risks losing it again. Thor, while he can be a very comedic character, is also a very tragic one in this franchise (Remember that opening recap). Love & Thunder definitely favors the comedic, but the tragic side is still on display, and Hemsworth does a great job navigating both sides. It's why he's played the character for over ten years.

Love & Thunder is a spectacular homage to the fantasy-adventures of the eighties, from the vibrant color palette, to the stellar use of music from Guns N'Roses, and how it plays with various tones. A lot of people have criticized this film for having tone problems. However many 80's films played with tone in a similar way, One moment things are bright, colorful, and making us smile, and the very next they're dark, cheery and trying to scare the sh!t out of us. And those dark moments sure are creepy.

Waititi loves his comedy, and the film has plenty of laughs, but he knows when to cut the jokes and focus on the moment. I will say though some jokes are run-in to ground, specifically the screaming goats that pull Thor's ship, and an odd love-triangle that develops between Thor, Miljonir, and his new weapon Stormbreaker. I'm just not sure when these weapons became sentient...or love interests (Unless you remember Stormbreaker was made from Groot's arm).

The film has a wonderful cast. I've already praised Hemsworth. Natalie Portman's return is more than welcome. As Jane she is "adorkable" as she learns to become a superhero, while also nailing every emotional moment. This is easily her best outing as Jane Foster in the MCU. Christian Bale leaps into the conversation of "Best MCU Villain" as Gorr. He's scary, charismatic, and endearing all at once. One particular scene gave me the creeps. Bale brings his A-Game. Korg remains a favorite of mine, but Waitit risks over-using his character this time around. Less is more with Korg. Tessa Thompson continues to be suave and charming as ever as Valkyrie, although I do wish her character got more development this film.

I think that is probably my biggest criticism of the film. Its untapped potential of its supporting players. We could have seen more of Valkyrie's time ruling Asgard (and her search for a Queen, but I guess that was cut). Jaimie Alexander returns as Lady Sit, but she doesn't do very much of anything. Even the Guardians of the Galaxy don't get much to do. They didn't have to be in the whole film, this is a Thor film, but Pratt's Peter Quill could've offered a lot more to Thor and Jane's stories. Again, at the end of the day this is a Thor film, and Thor has to be the priority.

I will say though credit has to be given to Russell Crowe for his portrayal of Zeus. He could've so easily phoned it in but he's giving it his all, and you can tell he's having a lot of fun with it.

There's been a lot of contentious debate about not just this film, but pretty much every entry in Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I remain on the positive side of things. Thor: Love & Thunder may not be the next Avengers: Endgame, or Captain America: Civil War, or even the next Thor: Ragnarok (Well, I guess it technically is that..) but it doesn't need to be. The beauty of the MCU is its diverse body of stories. Love & Thunder stands strong as a heart-warming, entertaining adventure that is worthy of your time.