Thor: Ragnarok Review

If "Thor: Ragnarok" proves anything, it's that Thor himself is the silliest superhero on the big screen. His superpowers are super strength and... his ability to win fights with a hammer? I guess "Thor the Super-Carpenter" didn't sound so good. Chris Hemsworth plays the titular, self reminding "God of Thunder," a buff but oblivious Avenger who never seems in on the joke, but then again, the jokes are not that funny to begin with.

Here we follow Thor initially on a quest to find his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), where, alongside hi brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), find out that he is dying. As if hearing your father (or adoptive father) is passing isn't bad enough, they also discover that they have an older sister, Hela (Cate Blanchett), who can escape exile now that Odin will no longer be around. Sounds like they need a family therapist. Then he dies, she shows up, and breaks Thor's hammer. Sounds like he needs to take a trip to Home Depot.

Through some excess in plot Thor ends up on Sakaar and is captured by Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and wrangled into the "Contest of Champions," run by the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). Goldblum steals every scene he's in, having far more fun with the material deserves. He forces Thor to battle his "champion," who turns out to be the Hulk (played amazingly lethargically by Mark Ruffalo), they fight, more plot happens, they reconcile, and so on. Thor is trapped into battling by a small shock-transmitter that is sunk into his neck, and this little piece of technology ends up being like one of those gadgets in a James Bond movie, where it is introduced, then utilized just when the hero needs it. Of course, it is a lot less exciting then that, as it is simply used to disarm Loki , who by this movie is little more of a smug "hey I'm a good guy now but don't trust me!" character. Aside from all the Grandmaster scenes, I was just begging the film to move beyond the planet Sakaar, which is a banal movie junkyard location- there is only so many piles of trash you can see before you've seen all the variety film's real and computer-generated set pieces can offer.

Hela has the people of Asgard in hiding, refusing to accept her as their ruler. Thor, the Hulk, and Valkyrie, now a dull drunk-turned hero, end up leaving Goldblum's land and park on the bridge entrance of Asgard to battle her, but what fun can come from watching a bridge blow up? It's not some super cool, space bridge- it's a bridge. I've already exhausted myself from all these obviously CGI fight scenes from every other Marvel movie; if it wasn't for the title on my theater ticket, I'd forget which movie I was watching.

The remaining Asgardians escape via a large spaceship during the final battle on Thor's computer-generated home planet. This is when the plot gets a little creaky, as it is explained that Hela's powers come from Asgard, which is also explained to be not a place but a "place where Asgardians live (or something like that)," so why does she want to kill the Asgardians? She would have no power if she killed them! Why couldn't Thor just toss one of those shock-transmitter things on Hela? I guess stupidity runs in the family.

The Foreigner Review

Tell me if you've heard this plot before: a man's loved one is killed, and he goes on a one-man vendetta to find out who's responsible. Oh- you've heard this plot dozens of times? Well I've seen it more times than that, and "The Foreigner," which casts Jackie Chan against Pierce Brosnan, is a pretty good one. It is a tightly woven little thriller that lifts many scenes from many other movies, but it all works pretty well here. It isn't as good as one would hope, considering the talent on and offscreen, but it works.

Chan plays Ngoc Minh Quan (and yes, I had to Google his name), whose daughter was killed in a bombing by a generic group of goons who call themselves the "Authentic IRA." He pursues Liam Hennessy (Brosnan), a former IRA member now doing something in the British government (I'm guessing it is important too, as he has to pay for two homes, two lady friends, and many more bottles of whisky). Quan believes the former 007 knows more about the bombings than he's telling him (in hat thick brogue), but Hennessy brushes him away as his sordid political past resurfaces and becomes his top priority. This is when the plot becomes nothing more than a "stupid movie character motivation," as even after Quan bombs his office, he still isn't concerned about the so-called "Chinaman."

His disinterest allows Chan to show that he has still got it after all these years, playing wonderfully against type, as he mopes his way from action scene to action scene, playing convincingly a sorrowed former father. Oh, and by the way, he is a retired special forces officer. Because how else could he swing from roof tops and disarm bad guys with sticks and fabric? (I guess they could have tossed in some brief "he's part robot" plotline, but I suppose that'd be ripping off too many movies...)

But we spend a lot of time with Hennessy, who goes half-soused from meeting to cafe to farm house, as he attempts to maintain his numerous connections while pressured even further by the police, his superiors, and his wife, to tell them what he really knows. Most of the movie are scenes like this, intermittently interrupted by Chan's stunt work. I liked these parts more, as the whole political backdrop becomes a bit murky, with double agents, lies- everything we've seen before. We've actually seen all of this before, but it came down to which I'd rather see with a fresh coat of paint- phone calls between men in suits or gritty, hand-to-hand combat?

We all know how this will end, and it ends exactly how it has in every other movie like this (think "Death Wish"), but I was along for the entire ride. Chan and Brosnan are convincing as the dispirited and the "possibly" corrupt politician, and they both command each scene they're in. Walking into a theater to see this was like finding some lost VHS I would have rented in the early 90's, with a few recognizable names, an explosion here and there, one or two love affairs, a handful of terrorists- even a synthesized score! There isn't an ounce of originality here, but as a pedestrian throwback to the gritty action-thrillers of yesteryear, you get what you pay for.

Blade Runner 2049 Review

With so many franchises getting revamped, rebooted, sequeled (or whatever you want to call it), it seems "Blade Runner, the fabulous 1982 financial bomb, couldn't escape Hollywood's greedy grasp. Yet, "Blade Runner 2049" is a better-than-average sequel, set long after the events of the first one- I'm guessing it was cheaper than making CGI Harrison Ford ala Jeff Bridges in "Tron: Legacy."

The plot has us follow K (Ryan Gosling), a "blade runner," or in non-movie terms, a cop who kills outdated replicants. "Replicant?" That is just a fancy term for android (fanboys will argue petty nuances differentiate the two, but I digress). Older model replicants revolted when used as slave labor, but the first movie goes over more of that in detail. Nevertheless, K finds the remains of a female replicant who died of a failed c-section, something which K's superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) fears will cause replicants to demand equal rights (posing the question "does giving life make you human?"). Of course, the film asks a lot of questions, but they go unanswered to service the visuals, which yes, are magnificent, but then again, so were the visuals in the original film. So why a sequel? To be honest, it is more of the same- glorious looking sameness, but same all the same.

The plot eventually takes us to Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), though his screen time is significantly slimmer than the trailers suggest, but he is always nice to see. Charming but curt, he spends most of his time drinking from marvelous set piece to the next, sharing exposition with Gosling, who stands up fairly well to the legendary actor. Gosling is fine here as replicant K, robotic in response time but not in movement, well, not until the punches need to be thrown.

Deckard has been in hiding ever since the events of the first movie, and it is a rat race for both K and Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), a "bad" replicant working for her manufacturer Wallace (Jared Leto). Sylvia is completely fine here, but Leto unfortunately copies his poor performance as the Joker in "Suicide Squad," only without the facepaint and perhaps a bit more screen time.

While "Blade Runner 2049" is an ambitious orgy of spectacle, it is not an action film, no matter what the trailer implies. It asks questions for which it provides no answers to, and takes its time moving from one inquiry to the next. At 163 minutes, this is a long picture- sure, I can't recall a movie that dedicated itself so unbridledly to its visuals as this one, but there is about twenty minutes of fat to this otherwise entertaining parade of eye candy; sterile, nonplussing eye candy. I admire the film's technical achievements, but there is little else to recommend here.

Cult of Chucky Review

Sometimes a movie, devoid of intelligence and logic, is one of the most entertaining films all year. "Cult of Chucky" is one such flick. Going direct to video allowed the filmmakers to show gallons of blood for sheer sleezy exploitation, and I cheered every moment of it. I don't admire it's beliefs, but it's dedication to its craft is commendable- just be prepared to see in detail how far they take such craft.

Picking up after the events of 2013's "Curse of Chucky," we follow Nica (Fiona Dourif) as she transfers from a mental institution to a "medium security" one- in the world of the "Chucky" movies, that simply means that there are no cameras and is severely understaffed (which makes sense, considering that either of the two would have prevented much of the bloodshed). She, of course, still believes that the titular doll is responsible for the events of its predecessor, to which no one listens, and when the bodies hit the floor, people still don't listen. Stop me if you have heard this plot before. But its brilliance is in its simplicity, or rather, that the story is threadbare so not to get in the way of creative ways people are dispensed. One of my favorites involves the arm of- well, actually, I had better not spoil it for you.

Of course, Dr. Foley (Michael Therriault) thinks that bringing in a "Good Guy" doll, the brand name of the toy in the franchise, would be a good idea during therapy, just in case you were wondering how the doll gets into the hospital (though the film makes bigger leaps in logic, so I'm surprised they even bothered with an explanation here).

To call the characters as thin as paper would be an insult to handy writing equipment, all your usual suspects in a film taking place much inside an insane asylum, but the acting is top-shelf, or at least never boring. Everyone is over the top but convincing, from a murderous mother to a debauched doctor, and the film never flinches from displaying just how nutty these people are. (A nice touch is the blood stain on the mommy's blouse after she breastfeeds- actually, let me just stop myself from actually finishing that sentence. I would need to take a shower if I did.)

Among the small cast includes Tiffany Valentine (Jennifer Tilly), a fan-favorite who tosses another Chucky doll into the mix when she visits Nica. She tells her that she is the legal guardian of Alice, Nica's niece, and that she has died. She says that Alice would have wanted her to have the doll. Devotees know her true motivations.

But wait, there is more! More of what? Why, there is yet another Chucky puppet, this time from Andy (Alex Vincent), reprising his role from the first two movies in the series (as well as a cameo in the last film). But I'm getting too nitpicky about the plot- just know that there is three times the killer-doll-carnage.

How can there be three Chuckies when franchise lore (is there even such a thing?) if the original doll is possessed by the soul of Charles Lee Ray, as explained in the first film? Well you see there is voodoo (how the soul initially found its way into the toy), which eventually gets into Nica's body, allowing her to walk (even though she's born a paraplegic and her legs would be too weak to hold her weight- but I don't know...). Nothing makes sense here, but it is ninety one minutes of sheer insanity, no pun intended. "Cult of Chucky" won't convert those who didn't enjoy the previous six films, but it is amazingly trashy, and wholly entertaining. And I guess that was all I wanted the day I watched this.

Jeepers Creepers 3 Review

Watching a movie like "Jeepers Creepers 3" in a packed theater was a blast, fans lined nearly every seat at my showing, who jumped at every scare and laughed at every funny moment- intentional or not. Any horror buff could see every "shock" coming a mile away, which is something I fancy myself as, but that doesn't mean I didn't leap from my seat from time to time. It is the kind of movie where your heart skips a beat at the loud musical clash, only to find yourself laughing at yourself for falling for such an old trick. Yes, you have seen every scene "Jeepers Creepers 3" has to offer, but it is an effective little horror-comedy; the latter part I'm not sure was intentional.

So the plot goes like this: every 23 spring for 23 days, the Creeper gets to eat. Does it travel the world? Are there more of these things? (Are they what killed the dinosaurs?) Questions like this only distract from director Victor Salva's nack at building suspense, who introduces characters, you guess which will survive, only to find your guess was completely wrong. And there are a lot of characters, something that plagued the second installment back in 2003. Here, they are all cliches, but the actors deliver each line as if they are auditioning for a Steven Spielberg film; you see all the muscles in their faces as they speak some pretty ridiculous dialogue (including one of my favorites "... you just want to hold hands with that thing!" or something like that. I'm not sure, I was too busy laughing to hear the entire exclamation). That all adds to the charm, playing out like a lost relic of the '80's slasher cinema. There isn't as much skin shown as those movies, but with the director's sordid sexual past, I guess that is for the best.

There are more questions that burn only when you step back from the insanity onscreen: why are all the cell phones here flip phones? Why are there so many antique cars driven casually in this fictional movie town? Why is the newest car I saw a Ford Bronco? What decade does this film take place?! But I could go on forever, so let us get back to the review.

There are two primary stories that play out simultaneously and independently: one where Addison (Gabrielle Haugh) struggles to feed her horse on her grandma's farm (played by Meg Foster), who struggles to cope with the death of Kenny (Jordan Salloum), who is her son? Grandson? The film doesn't make a big deal about plot. Ken died at the hands of the Creeper, who appears in her mind warning her that the antagonist will be back (of course it is, there wouldn't be a sequel he didn't). Addison, often called Addy, flirts around with the idea of actually flirting with Buddy (Chester Rushing), who's family owns the local horse food store. What happens between the two is obvious, but the awkwardness of the two characters almost leads to unorthodox chemistry. But who cares about that when the other story, the one where non-believer Stg. Tubbs (Brandon Smith) becomes a believer by partnering up with believer Sherif Tashtego (Stan Shaw), is so goddamn interesting!? They are by far the best thing in the movie, particularly Tubbs, who's facial expressions and commentary to Tashtego's speeches are almost as over-the-top as the speeches themselves. They ham it up, lavishing in the absurdity of their situation while never "winking" at the camera like they're in on the joke.

The Creeper (Jonathan Breck) himself is effectively played and costumed, as he enters scenes above both the camera and the other characters. He has plenty of bizarre weapons at his disposal, even his truck is loaded with traps to keep outsiders out and those on the inside, well, in. The way he "smells" his victims is creepy (pun intended), but he doesn't have much to do aside from stalk and kill people, but I guess that is kinda the point of this type of movie. He doesn't stand up to Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger, but in a cinematic world of killer dolls, ghosts, and clowns, he'll have to do.

While the makeup is well-done, the other special effects often expose the film's low budget- it doesn't help that much of it is filmed during the day (one scene scene suffers from some obvious CGI explosions and bullets). When the sun does set in movie world, the night obscures much of these monetary quirks, where fortunately much of the blood is shed under the dull light of the moon. Another sore spot is the film's abrupt end, interrupting what should have been a climactic foot-chase scene to slot this film clumsily into the series' chronology.

Things here almost came together into a small-scale guilty pleasure, and there are elements that are better than the two-and-a-half star rating imply (particularly its idiosyncratic sense of humor), but there are just a few too many cracks in this old-fashioned horror flick to get a full recommendation.

It Review

Like many Stephen King novels, the latest horror film this week is "It," based on his 1986 novel, though people are probably more familiar with the famous 1990 miniseries. It is all the same seeing it on the big screen: kids become friends, get in trouble, fend off bullies, oh yeah, and get stalked by a murderous clown named Pennywise. You know, typical childhood stuff.

Now look, I, along with many, suffer from coulrophobia, or you know, the fear of clowns. A popular choice for an irrational fear, but it is a fear (you won't find me at many carnivals). So as an exploit of this aberrant phobia, "It" works. The clown, portrayed by Bill Skarsgard, does little other than yell "boo" at the screen and the group of kids known as the "Losers," but then again, I suppose any one dressed as a clown would spook me if I was in a dark basement. It doesn't make the film any less effective, I would be lying if I didn't jolt out of my seat a time or two, but he brings zero personality to Pennywise. His scary makeup and prosthetics make him a frightening clown, not so much is performance.

But the group of kids are wonderful, so realistic; every scene was like watching a group of potty-mouthed kids enjoy their summer (well, perhaps "enjoy" is not the word). Though they're led by Billy (Jaeden Lieberher), the standout is little Jack Dylan Grazer, who plays the group's germaphobe Eddie, who's almost whiny fear is particularly realistic- he was the only one who truly looked frightened, almost struggling to speak his lines. It could be because the child actor struggled remembering them, but on screen, his terrified looks and pronunciation was most realistic.

The film lingers on each kid; we meet their parents, some abusive, some over-protective, with at least one a rapist, and watching the children growing together to escape their homes was charming and far more dramatic than scary- if you were to walk blindly into the theater, you might think you were watching long-lost scenes from "Stand by Me." The bullies, the romance, the banter, there are so many moments here far better than a movie about a psycho clown deserves. And that is the biggest fault here: there is simply little for Pennywise to do while the kids act like kids. There is a part when little Mike (Chosen Jacobs) was being beat up by Henry (Nicholas Hamilton), the leader of the bullies. Right, picture it, they are at a stream, bully pounding on Loser member, when he looks next to him and sees Pennywise smiling. But then it is right back to the fight. What is the point of the clown?! There is a story about friendship buried somewhere here, but it functions independently from all the blood and gore; just when these moments gain momentum, bam! Scary clown.

Unfortunately, while much of this clown action simply involves Pennywise running towards individual kids and occasionally showing his mouth packed with rows of pointy teeth, there is one exception. It's in the film's opening scene, when Georgie (Bill's brother, played by Jackson Robert Scott) loses his paper boat down the sewer. You know the one, it is the most iconic moment of the book. But what I simply cannot condone is what happens to poor little George- we watch as his arm is chewed off by the aforementioned chompers. Blood pours out of his arm before he is ripped down the storm drain. It amazes me that the book's infamous sex scene goes unmentioned here, but this level of violence is exploited, especially when the violence has no point. How many kids do you hear about getting killed by clowns? This isn't war, this isn't a reality. If there isn't a reason for this level of violence towards kids, then there is no reason in showing it, let alone opening a movie with it. I get zero pleasure with the notion of either, no thrill- nothing but unacceptable disgust. It is one thing to suggest the killing of a child (think of that part in "The Mist," or the one in "Pet Sematary," works based also on stories by Stephen King), but by showing it in such detail turns this otherwise uneven adaptation into a "geek show."

Pennywise himself is underdeveloped, but from what I gathered, he lives in a well in the town's abandoned house, coming out every 27 years to feast on children. He is controlled by fear, exactly like Freddy Kruger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" film series, rendering Pennywise harmless if the kids are not scared; when scared, the kids imagine lepers, dead brothers, all sorts of gross stuff that chase the children around. But this makes no sense for the titular clown- not only does he need to wait all those years to eat, he is completely dependant on kids' fear. What if there are no kids when he comes out to eat (hey, it could happen), could he survive on adult's fear? Why such a random number like 27? His existence is barely explained, and we never know what he can do or can't do. This doesn't keep you on your feet as it should. Not knowing his tricks should work in the film's favor, but in the second half of the picture he recycles much of what he has already done; you groan at the screen each time the clown impersonates Billy's dead brother. The film does teach us that Pennywise can do one thing however, and that is set up a sequel.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day 3D Review

What other score could you give the second in the Terminator franchise? It is the best film in the series, as well as arguably the best flick by director James Cameron, and easily Schwarzenegger's most iconic role. All this reissue brings is a 3D gimmick, which aside from have the T-1000's liquid metal arm swords come slightly towards audience's eyes, is an excuse to see a real summer blockbuster on the big screen again. None of that matters; this is one of the greatest in the science-fiction genre, as well as in the action category (and why not, it is a superb picture amongst any sequel).

The point of a 3D re-release isn't to attract a new audience; after all, who is gonna pluck down eleven bucks to see a 26 year old film? I saw it in a cramped theater spotted with only fans of the movie, who gripped their armrests at every tense moment and laughed at all the jokes (one of my favorites is when a beat-up Schwarzenegger quips "... I need a vacation"). So let me not waste my time repeating the plot (life's too short, and I'd like to have this review finished before they re-release "Terminator 3").

Without going into detail of exposition, the performances hold up all these years later, with Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong perfecting capturing the mood of a hyper-dysfunctional mother and son. She chain-smokes her way out of a mental hospital, being committed following the events of the first film, with a body almost as bulging than her costar Arnold. He does what he does best here, cracking jokes with the straightest of faces and kicking ass with the biggest of muscles. He is amazingly charming, whether he is fighting a biker or pondering why humans cry, this is a surprising example of his strength as an actor.

The brilliance to "Terminator 2" comes to its action, where like "Jurassic Park" a few years later, mixed thrills with this new thing called "CGI," where computers created images no one had ever seen before. Here, the T-1000, dubbed the liquid Terminator, morphs his arms into swords and heals himself after every bullet. But what is most remarkable is how little there is of it; every explosion, chase, and stunt looks real, with true momentum to bodies thrown from crashing cars and verisimilar force when a human leaps from a fiery blast. Computers here only enhance what is seen on the screen, taking control only where practical effects would fail.

And it is every bit as good as you remember, if not more spectacular on the big screen, where it belongs. Every explosion rumbles through the speakers of the theater, just the way they should, and if you can, see it in a multiplex that hasn't been renovated in twenty something years, if you want to get real experience of this antiquated actioner.