Thor: Ragnarok

            As 2017 begins to come to a close, so do the last of the comic book movies arriving in theaters this year. I do have to admit: despite Spiderman Homecoming and Kingsman The Golden Circle, this year was actually one of the better years for comic book movies, and that’s saying something, considering both 2015 and 2016 had only one comic book movie each that I loved. I've already discussed my thoughts about Justice League in my rant last time, but let's talk about a good comic book movie, Thor: Ragnarok.

            My opinions with the Thor trilogy have been mixed when compared to everyone else’s. I thought the first film was alright for what it was, but nothing really special, and I’m actually in a minority that not only loves the sequel, Thor: The Dark World, but I actually like it more than most of the other MCU movies. I thought that the character development was better than the slower pace of the first movie, the action scenes were something that I didn’t get from the first Avengers movie, and it had some of the better laughs that I’ve had with any film that year.

            However, after the decline that Marvel was having, at least with me, with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War, as well as Marvel Studios not being the best when it comes to third installments of trilogies, I didn’t really have high expectations with the finale of the Thor trilogy. It was only after seeing the teaser in theaters, something that I actually watched more of than any other trailer they released, I was pumped for another adventure with Thor.

            When the goddess of death, Hela, escapes from her prison and destroys his hammer, Thor must now fight to survive a gladiator prison planet, run by the Grandmaster. In order to return to Asgard, he must team up with a fallen Valkyrie, his trickster brother Loki, and the Hulk, who has become the Grandmaster’s champion fighter, so they can stop Hela and prevent the coming of Ragnarok.

            Once again, Marvel Studios keeps on improving the Thor series, because this film kicks ass! Thor: Ragnarok is the best of the trilogy, which is not too often that you see from a third installment of a film series, especially with comic book movies. Everything that was done right with the previous two movies is doubled, and with the problems that I had with them being near completely absent. The action scenes and visual effects are such a feast to the eyes, from Thor and Hulk’s rematch to the finale on the Rainbow Bridge, all of it just breathes new life into uncharted grounds. We get to see more of the worlds across the Thor mythos, as well as bridge together the Guardians of the Galaxy civilizations into context, leading up to the character assembly in Avengers: Infinity War, but in a tasteful manner, unlike some other MCU entries.  But what is especially memorable about the movie is the comedy; it’s not as outlandish and raunchy as what Deadpool would bring, but it still manages to get you laughing at almost every instant…aside from the few jokes they used from previous MCU movies, like Banner falling but not transforming as he hits the ground.

            Chris Hemmsworth succeeds with his reprisal of the titular god of thunder himself, but you can tell that his character has a more humorous approach. You see Thor act cockier than usual, like if Tony Stark rubbed off on him, as well as be playful with allies, but still in that egotistical manner that Thor can be known for. That’s not to say, the film’s without its softer moments, because he does know when to tone it down and take matters seriously. Tom Hiddleston’s return as Loki was pleasantly welcoming, as he has just as much charm and hilarious dialogue as he did in The Avengers and Thor: The Dark World. Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/the Hulk was a very refreshing addition to the film, and quite a clever way to incorporate the Planet Hulk storyline from the comics from under Universal’s nose. I also love the buddy/rivalry that Thor has with the Hulk, similar to the one he has with Loki, but more physical; not only that, but seeing the two go head to head again since the first Avengers was deeply satisfying.

            Cate Blanchett as Hela easily steals it, helping add to Marvel’s good streak of movie villains; while her character does appear the second she’s mentioned, as well as a little underdeveloped, Blanchett deliverers this sinister presence that just commands you to submit. No mercy, no surrender, and bitter on every level, Blanchett just commands it all. Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster is also very hilarious, in all of his Goldblum glory. Tessa Thompson and Karl Urban also have some good parts as well, both with their own history of dealing with Hela before and after her imprisonment. Sir Anthony Hopkins is always great as Odin, Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange was a delightful appearance, and even Liam Hemmsworth and Matt Damon get cameos too.

            As far as I’m concerned, Thor: Ragnarok is another lucky Marvel masterpiece that I’m glad to have seen. Plus, it’s easily the best superhero movie playing in theatres right now, so might as well take the better option. The comedy really works, the action scenes are kick ass (especially when Led Zepplin kicks in), the characters are work well with each other, and it has some pretty good build up to Avengers: Infinity War. But don’t forget, we still have Black Panther to be more excited about first.

Rating: A-

JL Failure, and What the DCEU Should Do?

It's been a week since it released, and "Justice League" has just barely grossed $30 million past its budget. It's still not enough for Warner Bros. to break even, because it would need to make $700 million to break even, and that's not even counting the marketing. Considering their previous entries (except Wonder Woman and Man of Steel) and seeing the film for myself, it's not surprising that their third superhero team-up movie turned out to be as big a disappointment. And with how they ended up pulling some of their future films off the schedule, all while pushing for Wonder Woman 2 for a November 2019 release, it was only a matter of time before they realized they messed up badly. Whether it's because of directors dropping out for reshoots, putting too much into one, cutting out characters or important moments, Warner Bros. has dug themselves into a deeper hole than they did last year. Even DC fans are having a "Phantom Menace" realization that what the studio is doing is messing everything up.

Now the question remains, where will they go from here? Well, here's what I would suggest: don't do a reboot. Marvel Studios has been in this position before, when they started rushing "Iron Man 2" after "The Incredible Hulk" was a box office disappointment, mixed in with issues happening with Edward Norton behind the scenes. "Iron Man 2" is a very mixed bag, but you have to at least thank that movie for helping keep Marvel Studios going, so they could get to "Thor," "Captain America: The First Avenger," and the box office juggernaut that was "The Avengers." Since then, Marvel has been making hundred million dollar successes, even with their weaker installments.

A while back, I remembered reading something that my brother's friend was discussing about how the "X-Men" franchise was able to pull itself out of the grave after the back-to-back failures that were "X3" and "Origins: Wolverine." Later, we got "X-Men: The Beginnings Trilogy," which has been relatively successful, and fixed the problems that those films made, without going complete reboot. Not only that, but they gave us "Deadpool," which went on to be the highest grossing R rated film of all time, with a sequel coming out next summer. They also have their horror installment, "The New Mutants," scheduled for April, and it so far looks pretty good. Or hell, look at "Logan," which wasn't much of a superhero film than it was a family western drama; it was both a financial and critical success, with some people saying it might even get potential Oscar recognition. Not only were the "X-Men" films getting back on their feet, they began trying new things.

We've seen what happens when too many reboots are constantly thrown at audiences, thanks to meddling from companies like Universal and Sony. Earlier this year, Universal's THIRD attempt at a universe franchise with "The Mummy" sank faster than it could even start, and it's key writer, Alex Kurtzman, left afterwards. "The Amazing Spiderman" films, whether you like them or not, they were box office successes, despite some fans constantly bitching and barely even giving them a chance. Every Spiderman film has at least grossed $700 million each, those two included, so Sony could have easily continued on. However, after the North Korean hacking and executive meddling from then CEO, Amy Pascal, they got cold feet and had to strike a deal with Marvel to keep afloat, but that's a whole other can of worms entirely.

What I'm suggesting is that DC needs to accept what they have, move on, and try to improve upon it. I want more of Henry Cavill's Superman, Ben Affleck's Batman, and especially Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman; and after "Justice League," I want more of Jason Mamoa's Aquaman, and I'm hoping his film next year will be like what happened with "Wonder Woman." If they do want to do a reboot, then they should just do what "X-Men" did, and just go for time travel and parallel universes, something DC has been known to do. They had planned on doing a "Flash" movie, possibly adapting the "Flashpoint" storyline, so they always have that option opened, if they can find a director that will stay with them. This would allow their stand-alone Joker film to actually work, because we would be introduced to a whole new world altogether.

Also, most importantly, they should STOP DOING SUPERHERO TEAM MOVIES! Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of these people forcing big superhero team movies to happen; for the most part, they have too many big stars to focus on, barely anyone gets a chance to shine in the spotlight, aside from two or three popular ones, and that's it. "BVS," "Suicide Squad," "Justice League," or that "Gotham Sirens" movie they announced, it has never turned out for the better. A lot of people like to point out "The Avengers" as the best example, and while I do like both movies, especially with how they know to PROPERLY build up a big team such as this, they're not films I would consider to be the best of the MCU, let alone the best superhero movies of all time. One of the reasons I didn't like "Captain America: Civil War" as much as the other two, was because it felt more like an "Avengers" movie, only focusing too much on the superhero battle part, and giving us not only an unnecessary villain, but one of the worst comic book movie villains, if not THE worst. Even with the "X-Men," a franchise BUILT around a team, only one or two of them that focused on the entire team was done right. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is probably the best example I can think of, where a superhero team movie can be done right, and both films are my favorites in the MCU. However, I doubt that's what DC is going to be doing...it's kind of sad, really.

Suburbicon

            As the new millennium began, we began to see the rise of a new kind of George Clooney, from the perspective of the director’s chair. It came to a start with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind in 2002, showing how he handles big historical events on screen, and that he can blend genres into a darky comedic fashion. Not only that, but with films like O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Hail, Caesar!, he’s also established a good relationship with the Coen Brothers, so much so that Clooney was given the task to direct one of their scripts: Suburbicon. Before we do get to talking about this, let me just be upfront and say this; if I was to ever do a completely separate list of the most DISAPPOINTING films I’ve seen this year, I guarantee you this would be in the Top 3.

            From what the trailers had given, you’d figure it’d be about Matt Damon playing a 1950’s father, who has connections with the mob and takes them all down…that’s not what the plot is, sadly. Now, films having false advertising isn’t anything new, but maybe what the film really is could still be good, right? Again, no, sadly. In fact, I’m not quite sure how to describe the plot, because it feels like it was trying to be so many different things, that it’s quite baffling. Apparently, Matt Damon hired the mob to ax his wife, so he and his wife’s twin sister can collect insurance money, send his son to boarding school, and run away to have an affair in Aruba…oh, and a black family is struggling with a racist neighborhood.

Yeah, do you see what I mean about this film being a mess? At times it wants to be a crime comedy, other times it’s a comedic thriller, then it’s a historical politics movie, and…it just gets so confusing, like it was several different scripts put together. And apparently, that’s not far from the truth. A friend told me that the film’s script was apparently a compilation between two completely different films: one was a film about black people who lived in a white 50s suburb, and the other was the Coen Brothers script about a boring dad gone bad with the mob. Sure, sometimes it can work, but here it just feels messy. I mean, I kind of get how one could see it working, having the anger building up from the white mob being a metaphor for Matt Damon losing his patience with those interfering with his plans, but it just doesn’t work. It felt like it needed a third point of view to do a re-write or take over as director, but something needed a different view to make this work. A script is the first thing that needs to come into play before a film can be made, and I don’t understand how ANYONE thought the draft they used was good enough here.

It’s a real damn shame, because almost everything else in this film very well made. Clooney is a damn good director, and even with lesser films like this, it still looks like a great deal of effort went into it. The town of Suburicon does have that familiar but haunting feel to it, with how perfect almost everything looks to these people. And the acting is really good too; Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Gary Basaraba, Noah Jupe, Oscar Isaac, Glenn Fleshler, they’re all fantastic here. They all have great timing, especially with making the serious moments odd but quirky and funny. It’s just that this film’s plot is poorly cobbled together, that it also ruins any of the upcoming jokes you can see coming a mile away.

This was really upsetting, because with the kind of talent they have a part of this, I’m left asking “how?” Suburbicon should have been a success, but I guess it doesn’t matter how big your talent is, not everything can be bullseyes. And considering how this film is bombing as badly as it is, both critically and financially, I finally understand; it’s just a bad movie. Is it one of the worst films I’ve seen this year? No, I’ve seen far, FAR, worse.

Rating: D+

Blade Runner 2049 - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 13 HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

            I’ve already given my thoughts on “Blade Runner,” along with my experiences with the movie, and what has changed about my opinion since I first viewed it. I still believe the film is overrated, but I do have a stronger appreciation for it, considering it’s a film that has gotten people talking about it to this day. And with The Final Cut, it really allows you to soak in the true meanings behind the film and be engulfed in this world that has so much to learn about it. It is a film that does stand the test of time, regardless of flaws.

            Word of a sequel being made first popped up in 1999, but nothing was getting off the ground until 2014, when Ridley Scott confirmed it was being made. It not only had Scott returning to produce the film, but it had Hampton Fancher returning to write the script, with help from Michael Green. Green also worked with Scott earlier in the year on “Alien: Covenant,” but also had “Logan” under his belt, as well as the upcoming “Murder on the Orient Express” film. Harrison Ford also agreed to reprise his role of Rick Deckard as well, much like with what he did with “Han Solo” a couple years prior, and the film was set to star Ryan Gosling as a new Blade Runner.

Only burning question left was, who was going to direct the movie, and the answer we got was Denis Villeneuve. At the time, Villeneuve was already best known for “Prisoners” and “Enemy,” and had just wrapped “Sicario” at the time of his attachment. It left me a bit cautious, as I wasn’t too big a fan of “Sicario,” but last year had my worries put to rest, after witnessing Villeneuve’s last movie: “Arrival.” If you haven’t seen “Arrival,” then by all means, stop reading and go watch it. “Arrival” was not only a true modern sci-fi masterpiece, but it really had the kind of intellectual flare that very few sci-fi movies have. Seeing that movie allowed a sense of comfort to be brought, knowing that a film maker with the kind of tenacity and ambition as Villeneuve, was going to be handling a project such as this. And from what I was seeing, it got me invested in revisiting the original again.

I saw the film at a double feature with the first at one of my local Regal theatres, because apparently only one Regal per city was allowed to do it or something, and I’ve given this film a good amount of time to think on. So now the question everybody wants to know is this: what are my thoughts on the movie? Do I join the crowd of critics and cinephiles that are astounded by it, or am I in the minority that thinks it’s a long, bloated, overrated mess, seeking attention for people to listen? Well, let me say that “Blade Runner 2049” is not only good, but I would dare even put it among other legacy sequels. “The Godfather Part 2”; “Aliens”; “Silence of the Lambs”; “Terminator 2”; “The Dark Knight”; “Mad Max: Fury Road”; now “Blade Runner 2049.”

But what exactly makes me put it up at that level of praise? Because it does one thing that many sequels tend to have trouble doing, and that’s expand the future it created. Almost all of the advertising and technology that you saw in “Blade Runner” is kept in continuity for the sequel, like Atari and Cocoa-Cola reigning supreme in the gaming and soda wars. They never showcase any current trends or politics, no social media is present, and doesn’t feature any of the tech we got later on, like smart phones. It wasn’t a film that was being made for the same reason as any other sequel like “Kingsman The Golden Circle,” “Spiderman: Homecoming,” or “Transformers The Last Knight” were commissioned. It felt like this was a film that was purely made to introduce more to this world, in a way that feels like it was important. And all the new tech that they do showcase does feel in tune with how this world would evolve in its own version of 2019 to 2049. It really is spectacular to see Hampton Fancher write this world as if it was just the very next day, but especially to see Dennis Villeneuve both surpass and honor it like it was just now being created.

What also makes this especially important to go see on a big screen is the cinematography and score. Roger Deakins has had such a keen eye with a camera, and out of all the movies that he’s worked on as director of photography, I would most definitely say this is his best work yet. The look of this film is practically orgasmic to witness, it looks so beautiful. Every shot and frame of this movie has such a rich and captivating aura to it, really feeling like you’re looking into a world that’s both familiar and not…if that makes any sense. And the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is similar in that familiarity I talked about, but it really emphasizes just how majestic and epic this film is.

Ryan Gosling is absolutely spectacular as the new Blade Runner; with him being a replicant, you have a whole new wave of possibilities to work off of, considering he’s not lucky like Deckard to have a Rachael in his life, and his involvement with this case has much more secrets to it than he had hoped. His arc really does go into themes about life and what our true purpose is, and if we really have a destiny of our own set to happen. Gosling carries those ideals with a great deal of strength, and I don’t know anyone else who could have done it better. After this, “The Big Short,” “La La Land,” and “The Nice Guys,” seems like Gosling is having quite the winning streak.

Harrison Ford return as Deckard is especially welcome, and it was actually nice to see him in a sequel role that he’s actually invested in. While he doesn’t really appear until much later in the film, you definitely feel his presence throughout the film, especially in the beginning. And when he does show up, it feels rewarding, and the scenes that he and Gosling share really showcase some of the best acting that Ford has given in a long time. Now a big question people have is, do they confirm Deckard is a replicant? Thankfully, they don’t, and I’m really glad for that. This tells me that the people behind this more than respect their audience, by keeping that mystery a secret, as opposed to confirming a side and disappointing the others. And it also adds onto more questions about replicants than we thought, wouldn’t you say?

As for any problems I had with the film, there were two big problems I used to have with the film. For a runtime almost at 3-hours, I questioned why it needed to be as long as it did, but after going into it again, I almost didn’t want it to end, because I was just so captivated by what was on screen; maybe I was just tired when I first saw it. The other problem I used to have with the film was Jared Leto; he wasn’t bad, but much like with “Suicide Squad,” he was so hyped up, but barely has twenty minutes of screen time. At first, I asked why would they even bother getting Leto for the part, but it could be just on the part of mis-marketing, which is why I don’t like watching trailers anymore. I’ll even admit, I have not watched the new “Star Wars” trailer, so I don’t know what people are pissed about in it.

So with this big resurgence for the “Blade Runner” story, should there be third one? Well, I think it is possible to make it a trilogy, but there’s no need to rush it. I feel like if they did want to do a third one, they would play this smart and give it a few years to get the correct story going for it. That, and you would have to make sure everyone is fully dedicated to it; this film would not have been as good if you didn’t have people who cared about it like they did. So keep it in mind: plan it out, don’t go rushing it.

With that said, “Blade Runner 2049” is an absolute masterpiece, and I’m so happy to have seen it when I did. If you love the first film, I guarantee you that you’ll fall in love with “2049.” From its cinematography, to its writing, the scope of the world, the lead performances, the new possibilities to theorize and talk about…it’s a film that I’ve been pining to see come alive for so long. If there is one sci-fi epic that you must absolutely see this year, it’s this film. Much like with “Interstellar,” “Inception,” “The Martian,” “Gravity,” and Villeneuve’s last film “Arrival,” “Blade Runner 2049” is the next modern sci-fi classic of the year.

Rating: A+

And with another month of October done, so passes another Halloween. Thank you all for joining me on our fourth year of Halloween reviews for the month, and I hope to do this again next year, for our 5th celebration. I know I kind of cheated a little bit, re-talking about a couple horror films I talked about in previous vlogs, but you never exactly know when someone's mind does change after a while. That, and I was aware about half of the reviews were more sci-fi related than horror, but don't worry. I'll change that next year. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish up "Stranger Things" season 2.

Happy Halloween, everypony!