Film Review: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

The end is nigh . . .

Thor: Ragnarok (12A)

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Mark Ruffalo

Director: Taika Waititi

The Plot: After spending two years travelling the Nine Realms in search of infinity stones, Thor (Hemsworth) returns to Asgard to find his brother Loki (Hiddleston) masquerading as their father Odin. They find the real Odin on Earth, and he's dying - but not before he reveals that they have a sister, Hela (Blanchett), the Goddess of Death. Imprisoned by him centuries ago for being too bloodthirsty, Odin's death releases her and she immediately attacks, destroying Thor's hammer Mjolnir and knocking them out of the Bifrost. As Hela conquers Asgard, Thor and Loki crash-land on the planet Sakaar and are captured by the celestial being The Grandmaster, who runs a gladiatorial "Contest of Champions" with slave fighters. To win his freedom and get back to Asgard to confront Hela, Thor must defeat The Grandmaster's champion - none other than the Incredible Hulk (Ruffalo) . . .

Review: It's quite remarkable to think that in just under ten years we've now reached the seventeenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel Studios has come a long way since they rolled the dice with Iron Man in 2008, and arguably one of the biggest reasons for their continued theatrical success is the sheer variety of what they offer. Yes these are all superhero films, but Marvel haven't been afraid to try out different genres and themes, or to balance darker plot lines with lightness and humour. After the general bleakness affecting the main Avengers storyline following Civil War, some laughs are just what the doctor ordered, and by God does Thor: Ragnarok deliver in that regard.

The standalone Thor films have always been funny, largely driven by the titular character's unfamiliarity with modern Earth society. This new film is not only the funniest Thor film to date, but is quite possibly the funniest MCU film that Marvel have ever brought us, even beating out Ant-Man or this summer's Spider-Man: Homecoming. It helps that director Taika Waititi comes from a comedy background, having helmed the hilarious What We Do In The Shadows, and his influence is clearly felt throughout.

I really can't do justice in words to just how funny this film is. There was rarely a moment that I wasn't laughing, and those rare moments were usually filled by gaping at the tremendous action going on. Thor himself is funnier than ever, getting lots of quips and banter with his interactions with Loki and the other characters. His scenes with the Hulk are particularly good, as the two have a odd-couple vibe going on, and these feature of a lot of physical comedy as well. And it's not just Thor and Hulk - the whole cast are funny, playing off of each other really well. There are too many funny moments for me to mention (I'd be here typing for hours) but among my favourites were any scene involving Korg, the soft-spoken slave warrior played be director Waititi (via CGI) to great effect; the play being put on for Loki's amusement in Asgard featuring some very famous faces portraying Thor, Loki and Odin; Valkyrie falling drunkenly off her ship during her dramatic entrance; Loki's 30-minute fall courtesy of one Stephen Strange, and The Grandmaster (played hilariously by Jeff Goldblum) randomly launching into a keyboard solo for no apparent reason.

Now despite the film's great humour and general light tone, it's not without its darkness. The film has the suffix of Ragnarok for a reason - the Asgardian prophecy about the end of days plays an important role in the story, and there's death and destruction aplenty throughout. Hela is a murderous whirlwind of destruction and there are casualties. What this means though is we're treated to some of the best visual effects and action sequences that I've seen so far in any Marvel film: there is some incredible cinematography going in in key battle scenes, none so more than the flashback sequence to Hela wiping out the Valkyries, which are coupled with moments of slow-motion and the film's synth-rock score to incredible effect. The arena battle between Thor and Hulk is a particular high-point of the film and outstanding in its physicality and excitement.

Even with all of the laughs and terrific action, I'm pleased to report that the film also has a good story arc for Thor himself. Over the course of Thor's appearances we've seen him go from arrogantly believing he knows best and the throne of Asgard belongs to him, to a humble hero who believes he still has much to learn before he can assume the throne. In Ragnarok he now finds the responsibility thrust upon him without choice: Odin is gone and Hela means to enslave not only the people of Asgard but the other realms as well, and he faces tough questions: without his hammer, is he still Thor? Does he have the strength to defeat his seemingly unstoppable sister? And if he does, does he have what it takes to take on the responsibility of being King? For all the comedic chops that Hemsworth gets to display in this film he also has these dramatic story threads to work with and he does them well.

It's not just Hemsworth that's on top form here. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is deliciously evil and clearly having a great time. "Oh, I've missed this" she declares after singlehandedly wiping out the Asgardian army in a beautifully choreographed sequence of flying blades. The look of the character is brilliant, managing to be deadly, crazy and still rather sexy while doing it and is a believable threat. She crushes Mjolnir with one hand. Badass. Mark Ruffalo offers another fantastic double-turn as the Hulk/Bruce Banner, now given more dialogue to play with when in Hulk mode. This Hulk, champion of the arena, has found people who adore him and doesn't want to return to Earth where people hate him; Banner, on the other hand, doesn't want to turn back into Hulk for fear that Hulk will take control permanently. Ruffalo plays both sides well and is funny throughout, especially in a sequence where he puts on a set of Tony Stark's clothes and signature shades. Hiddleston is on his usual top form as Loki, riffing well again with Hemsworth and continuing their ongoing storyline that leaves the audience guessing as to where his allegiances really lie. And finally I was really impressed by Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, the hard-drinking, exiled Asgardian turned bounty hunter who captures Thor on his arrival to Sakaar. There's depth to her character, still dealing with the memories of her fellow Valkyries being slaughtered by Hela, and she proves to be a match (and sometimes superior) not only in wits but in physicality to Thor as well. There are seeds being sown here for her to be a potential love interest for Thor and I'm looking forward to seeing more of her in future films.

There are some minor gripes to be found with the film. As excellent as Hela is, I found her to be under-used and I would liked to have seen more scenes involving her. Heimdall (played again by the terrific Idris Elba) also suffers in this regard and is only given a few short scenes to try and flesh out his character's transformation from stoic gatekeeper to renegade liberator of the people. The Warriors Three are rather unceremoniously killed off, and there was no sign or mention of Lady Sif, which I found odd. And finally, Jane Foster's absence is explained in a somewhat throwaway reference when a character commiserates Thor for being dumped by her. When did this happen? It's a rather poor way of writing her character out after establishing her firmly as Thor's love interest in the previous films and I hope this will be addressed again at some point.

So where does Ragnarok fit in, in the grand scheme of things? Well, it acts as more of a stand-alone story rather than a bridge to the upcoming Infinity War, although there are some effective links to the previous films: we see the Tesseract in the Asgardian vaults, which Hela comments upon as being interesting; the Hulk reverts to Bruce Banner after seeing footage of the Black Widow's final transmission to him in Age of Ultron and is unaware of what's happened, asking if Sokovia is safe and Ultron defeated, and Thor rather hilariously has to refer to himself as "Point Break" to activate the systems of Hulk's crashed Quinjet. While the conclusion of the story sees Thor heading back to Earth, and the first post-credits sting offers a tantalising link to Infinity War, this is very much a tale of Thor and Asgard rather than the Avengers, and after the somewhat disappointing second outing of The Dark World this is a fantastic return to form for the character.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
A hilarious, action-packed, visually stunning return for Marvel's thunder god. I don't know how they keep doing it, but every MCU film seems to be better than the last one and Thor: Ragnarok is no different. Incredibly funny, an effective story arc for the main character and great performances make this a winner. Go and watch it right now!

Film Review: Happy Death Day (2017)

Hey, it's your birthday!

Happy Death Day (15)

Starring: Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard

Director: Christopher Landon

The Plot: Tree Gelbman (Rothe) is a typical bitchy sorority student, and it's her birthday, but this will be a birthday unlike any other: beginning with waking up from a drunken one-night stand with nice guy Carter (Broussard), it ends with Tree being murdered by a masked killer with a grudge against her. But it's not the end - Tree reawakens and finds herself re-living the same day over and over, remembering everything but being killed in different ways no matter what she tries. As she begins to lose her wits, will she be able to work out who the killer is and break the cycle? And will anyone believe her?

Review: I like films that don't take themselves seriously. Happy Death Day is one such film, and it's also one of those gems that I knew nothing about (I didn't see a single trailer or poster for it beforehand) and turned out to be a winner. This is a very funny, original take on the horror genre.

Now wait a minute, I'm sure some of you are thinking, original, really? Haven't I heard of a film before where a character re-lives the same day over and over, unable to break out of the loop no matter what different things they try? Of course you have - Groundhog Day. Happy Death Day liberally borrows from that film, both thematically and in specific scenes, and it makes no attempt to hide it, with Carter at one point mentioning how similar the events happening are to the plot of Groundhog Day, to the non-plussed Tree who's never heard of it. One scene features Tree attempting to convince Carter of what's going on by correctly announcing events before they happen, a la Phil and Rita in the diner, and we even get a scene where we think the killer has been stopped and Tree has broken the loop, only for her to awaken again in the same day once more. While the concept as a whole isn't original, I've never seen it used within a horror film before, and I liked it a lot. There's even a nice special effect on the opening Universal logo, which glitches and rewinds itself twice before playing out in its entirety.

Truth be told, if this had tried to be a completely serious horror film, it wouldn't have worked. Happily though, the film has its tongue firmly in its cheek and it's very, very funny. There are one or two moments of physical comedy but the laughs mostly come from the dialogue - this is a very sharp script which pokes a lot of fun at the stereotypes of American college students, and the laughs come often.

The film is also very clever in the way it deals with standard horror movie tropes, particularly in scenes where Tree is either about to encounter the killer or is being chased. It knows that you know what's about to happen and so it plays with it, using camera angles and double-bluffs to good effect. While it is trying to scare you, and there a few effective jump-scares, the emphasis of the film isn't on the murders themselves - there's virtually no gore in the film, the camera cutting away every time the killer strikes a fatal blow to Tree - it's about having fun with the audience, and it works. There's a really nice transition effect at one point when the killer takes Tree out with a baseball bat, and she falls in slow motion only to land on Carter's bed as she reawakens in the morning. It also clocks in at a very sweet 96 minute run time, which is just right for a film like this.

Another clever aspect of the film is its use of misdirection and guesswork. During Tree's initial run-through of the day, we're introduced to the various people in her life, all of whom have the potential to be the killer due to the way Tree treats them. Clues and red herrings are presented liberally right from the get-go, and while it is quite easy to spot the killer if you're paying attention (I did) this is likely to keep a lot of people guessing right until the end, especially as there's more than one false finish. The film even has a laugh at its own expense once the killer and their motives are finally revealed.

Given the film's heavy influence of Groundhog Day, Tree's character has a very predictable arc. From the get-go we see that she's very much a bitch, treating everyone badly (Carter, her roommate Lori, her other sorority sisters, her father etc) and more interested in sleeping with one of her married professors than actually taking his class. It's quite obvious what's going to happen: over the course of the film the reason for Tree's behaviour is revealed and the significance that has with it being her birthday (it involves the loss of her mother), and she accepts that she's treated people wrongly and needs to change her ways. As predictable as this is, it still works, and it has to really, because as an audience it's hard to root for a character as bitchy as Tree initially is, but by the end when the "true" Tree has been revealed we're completely behind her, and a large part of this is down to her budding relationship with Carter.

Tree and Carter have a very likeable chemistry, which is helped by the two funny performances from Jessica Rothe and Israel Broussard. Rothe particularly shows some great comedic chops throughout, whether it's strutting through the campus nude on a day where Tree literally doesn't give a fuck anymore, or awakening and immediately yelling "SILENCE!!!!" before Carter can get a word in. Broussard is likeable as Carter, despite his nice-guy character being a bit predictable, and gets some of the laughs himself in the way he reacts to Tree's various incarnations. You find yourself wanting these two characters to end up together, which leads to an effective scene where even though Tree believes she's successfully broken the cycle, she has to reset yet again as Carter hasn't survived. Rothe and Broussard are, like the rest of the cast, relative unknowns (although you might recognise Rothe as one of Emma Stone's housemates in La La Land who sings "Someone In The Crowd" with her), and while none of the performances here are going to win Oscars, they're all perfectly acceptable for this kind of film and make it inherently watchable.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
A very funny, clever take on the horror genre that wears its similarities with Groundhog Day on its sleeve and has its tongue firmly in cheek. A sharp script, a likeable chemistry between the two main characters and a comedic performance from Jessica Rothe make this the most fun I've had watching a film in long time. Highly recommended!

Film Review: The Snowman (2017)

A freeze is coming . . .

The Snowman (15)

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Recbecca Ferguson, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Director: Tomas Alfredson

The Plot: In Norway, famous detective Harry Hole (Fassbender) is at a low point in his life, struggling to maintain a relationship with his ex-girlfriend Rakel (Gainsbourg) and her son, whilst battling alcoholism. When agent Katrine Bratt (Ferguson) is assigned to his unit, Harry becomes drawn into a new case where a serial killer is murdering women with illegitimate children, leaving menacing snowmen at each crime scene . . .

Review: Over the last few years I've grown to like crime thrillers more and more, and it's fast becoming one of my favourite genres not just in films but in books and television as well. The trailer for The Snowman had me quite excited: this is the first English adaptation of one of the Harry Hole novels by Norwegian novelist Jo Nesbø (taken from the seventh book in the series Snømannen), and while I haven't actually read any of them, I have read and watched the excellent film adaptation of his novel Headhunters, so this looked promising. Coupled with the great cast, the director from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and the great Martin Scorcese as executive producer, this should have been excellent. Sadly, it is not.

Now, that's not to say that the film is terrible. It isn't. The general plot is good, starting off with a reveal into the killer's origins, and the film moves at a slow but acceptable pace as the investigation proceeds. The murders are suitably gruesome without focusing on gore, and I felt the balance between the actual investigation and Harry attempting to salvage his personal life was struck quite well. One noticeable odd omission in the story, however, is the lack of any kind of explanation about the snowmen themselves and why the killer leaves them as their calling card. Strange, given it's the title of the film and that visually they work, giving a creepy feel to each crime scene. The film's strongest area is the cinematography - Oslo and its surrounding areas in winter make for a beautiful environment, and there are some wonderful shots to be found here.

Where things really begin to go wrong are the film's subplots, which I'm guessing were an attempt to flesh out Katrine's character but dont' really work. The first features a series of flashbacks to another detective Gert Rafto (Val Kilmer), who is investigating the same killer several years prior. It's a frankly odd performance from Kilmer, who's wearing facial prosthetics to make his mouth disfigured for an unknown reason, and it's clear that his dialogue has been re-recorded in post and then very badly dubbed back over, spoiling any impact this plot thread is supposed to have when it's revealed (spoilers) that he's Katrine's father and was also murdered by the same killer Harry and Katrine are investigating. There's no indication that Katrine is aware of the link and this falls flat as a result.

In another subplot, Katrine is shown to have something of an obsession with philanthropist Arve Støp (J.K. Simmons), going so far as to set up a honey trap for him where she takes a gun. While Støp is shown to be an unsavoury character dabbling in prostitution, little to no explanation is given as to why Katrine pursues him in the way she does, or what her ultimate motive is in taking a gun to the trap she lays. The plot thread has virtually no connection to the main story and this again falls flat.

After its gradual pacing, the film also has a very rushed conclusion that proves disappointing. On discovering the killer's identity, Harry pursues that person to a remote location where a hostage situation takes place. This culminates in a very poorly edited "fight" sequence (more of a desperate struggle) where it was difficult to tell what actually happened, and the killer's subsequent demise (spoilers) was sudden and disappointing, despite the thematic link to their origin.

I think a big part of the film's problems is down to the editing, and not just involving the subplots and rushed ending I've already talked about. Something that happens frequently in film is that trailers feature footage that doesn't end up being in the theatrical cut - just look at Rogue One, whose trailer featured a prominent shot of a TIE fighter hovering ominously into view above Jyn, and was notoriously absent from the film. The Snowman has a similar issue: I saw the trailer a lot in the run up to the film's release, and it gave the impression that the killer had a personal vendetta against Harry (case in point, dialogue from Fassbender saying "This is personal. He's been watching us this whole time, he's playing games" and the killer calling Harry and saying "You could have saved them, you know. I gave you all the clues"). These lines don't feature in the film, nor does a scene from the trailer where Harry frantically tries to enter a burning cabin looking visually anguished. I have to wonder if these scenes and more were shot to give that thread of a personal connection, but ultimately dropped. It would explain the horribly rushed ending, amongst other things.

A quick note on performances before I wrap up. No-one really shines here, despite the talent on display. With the exception of Kilmer though, there's no really bad performances.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
A fairly decent crime thriller that's spoiled by some sub-plots that are confusing and irrelevant, a rushed conclusion and poor editing. The marketing for this film promised a sort of personal game of cat and mouse between detective and killer, and the result is very different. Not terrible, just disappointing. Still, worth a watch.

Film Review: Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes . . .

Blade Runner 2049 (15)

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas

Director: Denis Villeneuve

The Plot: Set 30 years after the original film, Officer "K" (Gosling), a replicant, is a Blade Runner working for the LAPD, tasked with hunting down older illegal replicants. On his latest assignment he discovers evidence that a replicant woman once gave birth to a child - something that should not be possible. Tasked with finding and "retiring" the child, K's investigation leads him to his predecessor Rick Deckard (Ford), but he isn't the only one searching - the Wallace Corporation, creators of the replicants, are prepared to use deadly force to wipe out all knowledge of the incident . . .

Review: To say that the original 1982 Blade Runner is a cult classic is a bit of an understatement. It's popularity has endured over the years, and director Ridley Scott (amongst others) has tinkered with the story numerous times, resulting in something like eight different cuts of the film being available with more than one different ending. A sequel, then, needs to be something special in order to satisfy the hardcore fans of the original, many of whom were loudly negative when 2049 was announced.

I, personally, am not one of those hardcore fans. I know for a fact I've seen the film twice: once when I was about eleven, watching a VHS copy my Dad had recorded from TV, and I remember being very bored by it - let's face it, eleven was too young to understand the film really, and the kind of sci-fi I was looking for at the time was Star Wars, which Blade Runner clearly was not. I saw the film again later at university whilst doing my film degree, and while I was able to appreciate it more then (particularly Rutger Hauer's iconic final monologue) it still didn't leave much of an impression on me. I remember little about it, and I don't know which cut (or cuts) that I saw. So, I deliberately made the choice not to watch the film again before going in to 2049, as the film arrives to two distinct audiences - one generation who saw and remember the original, and a generation who hasn't. I was interested to see how the film would play out for me, with my vague recollections of being unimpressed with the original and my worry about it's two hour, forty-three minute run time.

Well, I'm delighted to report that this film is utterly fantastic. I was blown away by it, and it genuinely surpassed all expectations (and allayed all fears) that I had. This is a masterful piece of science fiction that has been exquisitely crafted and should not only win over a new generation of fans, but also satisfy those hardcore fans of the original. It's really that good.

Let's start by talking about that run time. Two hours and forty-three minutes is a long time to ask anyone to sit in a cinema screen. Possibly the biggest compliment that I can give the film is that I really didn't notice it at all - I was so gripped, so utterly absorbed in what was going on, that it genuinely didn't feel as long as it is. That's a testament to the quality of the storytelling, the performances and the visuals. But that's not to say this this is a fast-paced film - it isn't. It's sedate, taking its time to get from place to place, but what's going on is so interesting that this isn't indulgent. This is something that really impressed me.

2049 is a very visual film, and it's completely stunning to look at. The general look of the world was already established by the original Blade Runner, so what we have here is a more up-to-date presentation using modern technology. This isn't a shiny, clean look at the future - this is dark, and grim. The neon-soaked megalopolis of Los Angeles is covered by a layer of dirt and grime, permanently blanketed by grey clouds and pouring rain. It's an oddly beautiful environment, whether we're sweeping across the skies with K in his flying car or walking down the densely-packed streets as huge neon advertisements come to life. In complete contrast to this is the remains of Las Vegas, a dusty, irradiated ruin with a population of one. There's beauty in this location too, of a different kind. There's some fantastic cinematography on display in the film which, combined with the electronica score from Hans Zimmer that swells with synthesisers, make this a real treat for the senses.

The story itself is an excellent one, a compelling journey that has elements of a crime thriller to it as K investigates the history surrounding the replicant child, but also offers an incredibly satisfying arc as K undergoes a personal journey, questioning his own origins and allegiances, driven by memories that may or may not be his own and the suggestion that he could possibly be the child in question. Everything flows logically (and for the most part sedately, as already mentioned), the action moments are excellent, characters and tropes from the original film are used well (including a very brief cameo from Sean Young as Rachael) and it leads to an emotional conclusion.

Gosling is fantastic in the central role as K. As a replicant his character has been created to be unemotional and obedient, so this is a quiet, focused performance akin to his previous turns in Drive or Only God Forgives. He has more dialogue here, but it's in the moments when he deals with the memories that may or may not belong to him, giving the tantalising prospect that he was born rather than manufactured, and in his interactions with his holographic wife Joi (more on her in a moment), that he really shines.I won't spoil the story obviously, but these scenes are fantastic, completely emotional despite his character's lack of emotional display, and utterly believable.

Ford gives what I felt is his best recent performance to date, despite having what's essentially an extended cameo (don't be fooled by his co-billing and prominence on the poster, it's over an hour and half into the film before Deckard is re-introduced). This is a different version of Deckard, bitter after thirty years of self-enforced seclusion, and Ford plays it well. That said, there is one brief, embarrassing shot of him running where he looks every bit the seventy-five year-old man he is, but other than that he still looks the part, even in a fist-fight with K.

The rest of the supporting cast are also very good: Jared Leto as the sinister Niander Wallace, Sylvia Hoeks as Wallace's enforcer replicant Luv, and Robin Wright as K's commanding officer. But I was impressed most of all with Ana de Armas as K's AI wife Joi. This is a wonderful turn from an actress that only earlier this year I witnessed being saddled with a role of stereotypical eye-candy in the woeful Overdrive. Here, as a holographic woman unable to physically touch the man she's been programmed to love, she makes the character seem completely real, despite the terrific visual effects used to make her translucent at times. There are shades of Spike Jonze's Her going on with K and Joi's relationship, including a scene where she buys a prostitute so that she can "be" with K for one night, and the fate of her character and the effect it has on K is utterly heartbreaking. It's a fantastic performance.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

An absolutely terrific film that exceeded all expectations that I had for it. Visually stunning, with terrific performances and a storyline that grips from start to finish and makes the incredibly long run time fly by. Brilliantly directed by Villeneuve, this is a masterful science-fiction experience that honours the original while confidently standing up on its own. A must see.