Thor: Ragnarok - There is no justice in the film industry

As little as ten years ago, if you were to ask the average film-goer which film they would think would be better out of the third instalment of a lesser known Marvel comic book star, aka Thor, or the first outing for DC’s ‘Justice League’ featuring some of the biggest comic book names in superheroes ever created, ala Batman and Superman.  I’m guessing most wouldn’t ever have heard of a Norse god when compared to Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent.  However, in late 2017 ‘Thor (part 3): Ragnarok’ was released a few weeks before ‘Justice League’ and completely sunk all hope for Batman and co at setting the Box Office alight in terms of superhero-related movies.

I know there’s quite a heated debate between the Marvel and DC community, but I like to think of myself as one of the ‘neutrals.’ Batman is probably my favourite superhero, so I was hoping beyond hope that Justice League would live up to its potential.  I even saw it before Thor: Ragnarok and thought it was pretty good.  However, when I then went and watched Thor, I kind of realised why Justice League was flagging.

I can think of a handful of ‘elite; sequels that surpass the original, but they’re the minority (Aliens, T2, Empire Strikes Back and so on), but I can’t quite recall any third instalments that blow both predecessors completely out of the water.  In short… Thor: Ragnarok is epic.  It feels like it’s been given a much bigger budget and the freedom to really have some fun with the characters.  I think it’s the general consensus that it’s the ‘funniest’ of all the Marvel cinematic universe films to date.  It never really takes itself too seriously and is all the better for it.  You really get the feeling that the cast were generally having a laugh while they were doing this.

All the old faces you’d expect from the previous Thor outings return, i.e. Anthony Hopkins, Thor’s mates (all of which names escape me right now!) and, most importantly, Tom Hiddleston as Loki.  It’s kind of a thing that Marvel doesn’t really know how to do its villains too well and most people feel that Loki has been the one and only highlight of the enemies the Avengers have had to face.  Therefore, Ragnarok plays on this perfectly and beefs up his screen time even more than ever.  That’s not to say that Cate Blanchett isn’t good too as ‘Hela.’ In fact, she actually has some decent lines and we may be witnessing the film with both the best and second best villains in at the same time!

However, no matter how good the supporting case is, the film is called ‘Thor’ after all and it wouldn’t be anything without Chris Hemsworth’s (disgustingly perfect) shoulders to rest on.  He has really settled into the character and his interaction bounces off characters new and old alike.  There’s only a small amount of new faces added to the film, but they feel like they’ve been there all along.  And, without getting back into the Thor versus Justice League debate again, the fact that these new characters seem so easy to relate to compared to JL’s characters who feel like they’ve been crowbarred in just to add to the ‘hero-weight’ – just shows how well-written Thor is.

As much as I wanted to enjoy Justice League more, I just couldn’t.  Thor was simply too much fun, much more action-packed, wonderfully light-hearted and literally a more colourful film to watch.  If I had to pick a fault I’d say that the CGI still looked a little fake in all of the newly-built worlds, but the fun you can have with this mammoth of a popcorn movie more than made up for that.

I’m not saying that I haven’t enjoyed Marvel’s previous output, but I really hope they make more like this.  Oh, and did I mention the electro music is awesome as well?

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Justice League - The Simpsons did it

Right now, the long awaited ‘Justice League’ is taking a bit of a hammering at the Box Office.  People are already claiming that it signals the (premature) end to comic giant DC’s ‘shared universe’ (which, in case you’re not up on the cut-throat world of comics and their filmic interpretations) was Warner Bros’ answer to the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut that is Disney’s ‘Marvel cinematic shared universe.’ And, they may be right, but sadly for possibly the wrong reasons.

The tragedy is that DC has – arguably – the most famous and beloved superheroes in its arsenal, i.e. Batman and Superman (whereas Marvel was forced to rely on (due to licensing issues) a rag-tag band of its lesser-known stars such as Iron Man and Thor).  Twenty years ago if you had told the cinema-going public that they were about to witness Bruce versus Clark slug it out on the big screen it would probably have been seen as the cinematic event of all time.  However, ‘Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice’ kind of whimpered its way through the public’s consciousness, leaving no one that excited (and die-hard DC fans more worried) about the film that was supposed to bring all their most beloved heroes together for their first major outing.

Critics have already slammed ‘Justice League’ for being a ‘directorial mess,’ citing a change of directors for the post-production phase and general studio interference.  Now, I’m not saying they don’t have a point.  Original director Zack Snyder wanted a film that was closer to three hours, yet the studio wanted as many showings per day as possible, therefore made the cinematic cut just under two hours.  So the finished product does feel decidedly unfinished.

Also, a few weeks before ‘Justice League’ came out, ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ sneaked out in cinemas.  And, despite it being about one of my afore-mentioned ‘lesser’ heroes and it was the third instalment in Thor’s personal film career, it was amazing.  It performed better than even Disney had hoped and forced ‘Justice League’ onto the back foot in the public’s and critics’ eyes alike.  There are plenty of other minor gripes like the 'forced' humour that secondary director Joss Whedon seemed to feel the need to add, JK Simmons being very underused as Commissioner Gordon, continuity issues, things that aren’t properly explained due to the harsh cutting to save runtime, the – slightly cheesy – CGI, especially in the film’s villain himself, Steppenwolf and that one terrible line poor Jeremy Irons is forced to utter during the final battle.  However, I felt the real problem lay in the fact that ‘Justice League’ was released too early.  Superman was only given one solo film, before sharing the stage with Batman (for a new caped crusader’s first outing after Christian Bale refused to reprise the role and link Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy into this new shared universe).  Aquaman was decent enough, but he would have benefitted from having his own stand-alone film shown BEFORE he was put into JL.  The Flash makes his first film appearance, despite DC giving him his own (highly-prised) TV show and then choosing to create a new version for the big screen.  And, as for Cyborg, personally I liked him, but no one besides die-hard fans of the kids’ cartoon ‘Teen Titans’ will know who he was.  Wonder Woman was about the film’s only real character people felt they connected with due to her having a hit film (or should I say the ONLY hit film) prior to this get together.  Therefore, whereas much of the audience this film was meant for has already seen this kind of ‘superhero shared universe’ played out by Marvel characters.  All of which had their own solo films to build up their characters and bring a sense of grandeur to the point in time when they finally come together as one unit.  Here, it just felt rushed for the sake of ‘playing catch-up.’

If you’re wondering what my ‘Simpsons-related’ title refers to, it’s about a little-known episode of ‘South Park’ which made fun of itself and ‘The Simpsons’ where the jokes come from the fact that the Simpsons has been on TV for so many years that they’ve done everything and there’s nothing that ‘South Park’ can do that feels original.  This was how I felt watching ‘Justice League.’ Every time something happened a little voice in my head said ‘Marvel did it, Marvel did it, Marvel did it’ and that was kind of disappointing.  Whether it was watching Aquaman fly and fight like Thor or the team chasing Infinity stone-like cubes to stop them  falling into Thanos’ hands (sorry, Steppenwolf), everything felt like I’d already seen it before – and, sadly, better.

I didn’t hate ‘Justice League,’ in fact I found it an okay movie and definitely not as bad as many of the online community is making out.  However, it is definitely a missed opportunity and could have been so much better if handled with just a little more care and forethought.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse - If you’ve seen one ‘zom-com’…

Once upon a time a zombie film was a rarity after the millennium.  Now it seems that the genre has been done to death and distorted and blended with every other genre in an attempt at keeping it fresh.  Here, in ‘Scouts’ Guide to a Zombie Apocalypse’ we have a comedy/horror (or ‘zomcom’ as I’m informed they’re referred to as).  However, a gory undead outing with laughs is nothing new – and it hasn’t been since about 2004’s ‘Shaun of the Dead.’ And, in short, it doesn’t even come close to ‘Shaun of the Dead.’

This isn’t a bad film.  It just offers absolutely nothing new.  If you’re a fan of zombie films then you’ve seen better.  If you’re a fan of zombie-comedy films then you’ve seen better.  If you just like gore there’s about as much gore in the average episode of ‘The Walking Dead’ as you have here.

It’s about a group of geeky scouts who get caught up in an undead uprising.  Pretty soon you have all the tropes you’d come to expect with the genre, i.e. boarding up windows, headshots, have-sex-and-die moments and characters turning into zombies after being bitten.  There’s the obligatory hot girl and geek will they/won’t they subplot and the only really memorable actor (David Kochner) is woefully underused.  This film kind of reminds me of both ’Dance of the Dead’ and ‘Deadheads’ in tone and feel, only they’re both better!

There’s about one really funny (if a little gross!) moment involving what someone is forced to hang on to when about to fall out of windows and the zombie animals made me smile, but that’s about it really.  The ending tries to be exciting, but – guess what – I’ve seen people using hedge trimmers to slice up zombies with before (Peter Jackson’s ‘Braindead’) and I just got annoyed when no one noticed a zombie attack on a crowded dance floor (surely someone would have filmed and uploaded it to Instagram?!).

I can only recommend this if you really love zombie/comedy films and you’ve never seen one before.  Otherwise, just put your DVD of ‘Shaun of the Dead’ in – I know you’ve got a copy somewhere!

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

The Night Before - Where are the jokes?

I’ll start by saying that I’ve been a long time fan of Seth Rogan, even through some of his (supposed) ‘misfires’ such as ‘The Green Hornet,’ therefore I was quite surprised that ‘The Night Before’ sneaked by my consciousness and popped up to view on an online streaming services.  I read the blurb about three old friends going out just before Christmas for one last big party before they all have to carry on with their adult lives and figured it would be worth an hour and a half of my time.  It wasn’t.

Since watching it I’ve read a number of reviews, many bashing it for its ‘glamourising drugs,’ one viewer going as far as to say that ‘the drugs were almost like a character in themselves.’ However, that didn’t bother me so much as the fact that I just didn’t laugh.  Most comedies fail to make you split your sides with laughter, but you should at least get a few chuckles and wry smiles out of a known comic actor’s offering.  I just didn’t.  There were simply no jokes.  There was a lot of shouting and a few gross scenes, plus a fair amount of swearing (again, swearing bothers me about as much as dtrug-use, but it needs to be incorporated into the jokes, rather than just to fit as many four-letter words in as possible).  There are undertones of likening the story to a modern retelling of ‘A Christmas Carol,’ therefore expect the odd (borderline) supernatural experience to be thrown in there.  I don’t know whether it was supposed to be really supernatural, or just brought on by the drugs, but it wasn’t necessary to what little plot there was and it certainly wasn’t as clever as it was supposed to be.

I wouldn’t even call the humour ‘crude,’ simply because there wasn’t any humour on display.  The three central characters just bumble from one drunken/drug-induced (supposedly comedic) set-piece to the next as they go around town.  If they were likeable you may actually care about their lives and the problems they’re (sort of) trying to escape from (namely growing up), but you don’t.  They come across as the sort of ‘bros’ you don’t wanna know.

I still like Seth Rogan and will look on this as the first of his ‘misfires’ that actually misfired with me.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Beetlejuice - Needs more Keaton

You’re probably already aware that ‘Beetlejuice’ is considered a ‘classic’ when it comes to modern cinema and I don’t really disagree.  However, upon re-watching the eighties horror/comedy today I still level the same criticism – not enough of the titular character, aka Michael Keaton.

The story follows a young couple who find themselves dead after an unfortunate road accident.  Now they’re forced to spend the afterlife haunting their own dream home, now infested with the (annoying) living.  And, in an effort to drive out these fleshy interlopers, they enlist the help of one particularly unhinged fellow spirit, known as Beetlejuice.

It was directed by Tim Burton as (arguably) the height of his career.  It’s wonderfully gothic with all his best trademarks all over the place (not counting the lack of Johnny Depp).  The only aspect of the film that rivals Keaton’s performance are the (completely non-CGI) special effects which add to the atmosphere perfectly.

Maybe today the film is looking a little dated, but it’s one that you have to suspend your disbelief and enjoy it for what it was at the time, rather than compared to today’s filmic offerings.  I wait for the (depressing) day when I hear it’s going to be remade with all CGI environments.  That will probably happen, but no matter how much computer trickery they employ, they’ll never be able to CGI another performance as good as Keaton’s.  And that’s why the original will always stand out (and not just as an excuse to laugh at how unbelievably young Alec Baldwin looked back then!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mindhorn - A nice little chuckle

‘Mindhorn’ is one of those films that just do the job if you’re looking for something simple which will amuse for an hour and a half.  There aren’t that many ‘laugh out loud’ moments, but, if you’re into this kind of humour, then you should have a smile on your face for most of its runtime.
Julian Barratt (most famous from TV’s ‘The Mighty Boosh,’ but did better in the much maligned ‘Nathan Barley’ in my opinion!) is always good value for money and this is his first outing as a ‘lead.’ He plays the titular ‘Mindhorn’ – a TV detective from the eighties whose career has lasted about as long past 1989 as you might expect for someone from that era.  He spends his time making embarrassing TV commercials and being bitter about how his fame has descended into this.  However, when a real life police case on the Isle of Man needs his ‘expert’ attention, he thinks this may prove to be a way of getting back into the public’s awareness.

I guess what you need to know before you watch this is what sort of comedy this is, as the style will totally dictate whether you like the film or not.  Like I’ve already hinted at, it’s hardly a ‘laugh out loud’ affair.  Its humour derives more from unsubtly poking fun at the very niche genre of ‘80s detective TV shows.’ It has plenty of references and throw-backs to the genre and the laughs come more from watching an incapable, slightly self-obsessed, character succeed despite his own failings.
Julian Barratt is the star and he carries the film.  His character could have been too unlikeable to root for, but he plays it tragic enough (ala Boosh/Barley) for you to feel sorry for him at the same time as probably not wanting to hang out with this guy in real life.

If you get your laughs from subtly smiling at cringe-worthy humour like ‘The Office’ and ‘Peep Show’ then this should entertain you, plus Barrett’s fans will have been waiting a long time for him to shine on his own as a leading man – and he does it well here.  Probably more a 6 out of 10, but I’m feeling generous.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that