Thor Ragnarok Review

Thor: Ragnarok is a fine, if not very fine, movie, which I mean in a good way (and not just for the talent involved).

Ragnarok seemed very much like director Taita Waititi's Batman Returns, in that he very much gets to tell a story he would normally tell, but with so many toys and characters and things to play with in the Marvel Universe.

As Marvel's third movie in 2017, Ragnarok struck me as the better versions of GOTG2 (space-fairing adventure) and Spider-man: Homecoming (comedic action), despite not being able to learn any of the lessons from either release due to production schedules. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Ragnarok shares many of the same plots and beats as GOTG2, but is what I'd argue to be the clearer superior movie.

However, I'm a bit mixed on the beginning, which was a little wonky and out-of-character for Thor, but "enough" humor (as not every bit hit) and certainly the action helped.

I LOVED so many little details (the dragon's eye roll) in Ragnarok. Taika's very good with details and building worlds. There's lots of intelligence with his movies, both in details and the script.

Acting-wise, I loved so many newcomers: Valyrie (Tessa Thompson) and  Hela (Cate Blanchet) were both awesome, kick-ass and sexy (while not being objectified); Jeff Goldblum (Jeff Goldblum) was lots of fun; and Taika Waititi was a scene-stealer in his role. For returning members, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) was pretty good, though a more mature (particularly emotionally) version, to an extent (though his plot was semi-moronic, unless everything was part of Loki's journey because it's a path he was already on...). Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Odin (Anthony Hopkins) seemed rather different from their normal selves, which isn't necessarily bad, just different (e.g. Batman Returns). Hopkins gets some big bonus points, as I loved his bit as Loki-Odin - I won't say anything more.

Regarding story, though, there was something ultimately kinda flat about the movie for me, with the stakes never really feeling that high or low. Thankfully, however, Ragnarok lacked scenes that undercut the emotion and drama like in Spider-man: Homecoming (so maybe it did learn something). It also lacked the general amateur storytelling skills in GOTG2. Disappointingly for me, and your mileage may vary, it never got quite as high as I think it could have (it did have a ton of the right beats, though).

Having now watched three of Waititi's movies (Ragnarok, Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows), Taika may be a better version of a modern Terry Gilliam, in that he's able to be so unique with his voice and have knowledge of and intelligence for utilizing different mediums and methods. His films are art.

That said, I'd love to see him develop and direct more TV pilots, as those three movies of his I've seen (Thor, Wilderpeople and Shadows) and indicative - Taika leaves me wanting more at the end, in both good ways and bad.

All said and done, Thor Ragnarok gets a strong RECOMMENDATION from me as a solid movie. It's a world I'd like to return to, as the comedy, visuals and music (and shoutout to the score by Mark Mothersbaugh) gel together in a fun way, which is exactly what Taika set out to do.

Westworld season 1 review

Westworld... high production values, took a few episodes to get to its story, yet ultimately... it falls flat on its face. It presents such lofty ambitions yet falls short. To break the series down to its components, here are other examples of things done better and save time:

Once Upon a Time in the West - A great western with an excellent villain, lame love interest, interesting "mystery" character, social commentary and a nice twist

Jurassic Park - When creations rise up against their masters (also by Crichton!)

Run, Lola, Run - On loops and learning

Groundhog Day - Also on loops and learning

Blade Runner - I think the second half/ending is a weak action sequence, but does a nice job of calling AI life into question

Ex Machina - AI learning

Her - AI learning

Robocop - Using memories to reclaim humanity (and be a badass revenge/Jesus movie)

ON CHARACTERS

The series has some very nice thoughts on life, emotions and consciousness (I LOVED that it called out human habits being an additional system/layer; that we don't necessarily have as much free choice as we think). However, the narrative was messy, using a gimmicked framing device with numerous flawed characters. Some issues...

Dolores - She's been doing this loop for years, hard to really get invested when she's programmed to be like this

Robert Ford - Good guy, bad guy, good guy, bad guy. His booking is messy, to say the least. Why is he doing most of the things he does? Outside of the narrative structuring, it doesn't really work

William - One brief period with Dolores and he becomes a monster? Ok.... Unbelievable romance (a recurring problem in Hollywood)

Lead writer guy - WTF is the point of you? You should have been fired long ago

Maeve - Could have been great, then twist! And more mystery box crap. Falls victim to her own programming. Pulling an Ex Machina would have been better

Felix - How were you even hired to begin with? Oh right, probably a game by Robert...

Teddy - Don't care about you. Your narrative was very messy.

Bernard - Actually, pretty well done,

Despite the character issues, the acting is generally very solid, with particular shout outs to Anthony Hopkins, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Jimmi Simpson and Ed Harris.

ON THE WORLD
However, there are some other issues that are squint-worthy, particularly with the world building:

1. The safety protocols don't make sense - guns don't work on guests, then they do, then they only do when convenient; yet the hosts can punch and beat up the guests, though (but not enough to leave a mark?). Also, if the Man in Black was desperately seeking a deeper level of the game, as the majority shareholder, couldn't he have easily requested a version of the game with no safety protocols??

2. How the company is run - which is to say POORLY. There is so much incompetence. Unless, it's all part of Robert's game, which makes his arc and narrative so convoluted...

And another issue with the story - convenience! Particularly in the last episode (how convenient the two villain helpers of Maeve don't get ANY injuries and are up against some Stormtrooper-level security guards). There was also some in the second-to-last episode, but I don't remember. The sex scene with Maeve and Hector was blatantly pretentious/stupid.

Some remaining questions:

1. What happened to the security guy taken out by the native tribe?

2. Why was Elise killed? Or is she even dead?

3. Why exactly was Teresa killed (vs something else)?

4. How much of an asshole is Robert that he set himself up to die and kill so many people with him? His goal was to build murder bots?

5. Why would I care about a second season of this when they botched so many ideas in the first season? Seriously, they spent so much time on this world, which Robert was the god of, and we get a tease for other worlds at the end that had no devoted time. Again, how is the business run??

OVERALL
Westworld has the same problem as Looper to me - using a gimmick narrative device (blurred timelines vs time travel) half-assedly to tell an emotional story that falls flat when broken down. if you can't actually tell a coherent story with your devices, you're doing it wrong, in my book.

Also, why couldn't anyone explicitly tell the MIB the purpose of the maze? They kept dodging saying it's "not for you" - why not say it's a journey of personal discovery, or the maze is in the mind to try and achieve consciousness? Dumb storytelling/bad dialogue choices... Not to mention who allowed the maze references to be placed everywhere, including the inside of a scalp?

All this said, I did find the series enjoyable and compelling (binge watching parts of it), just really, really flawed. It does a number of things well and a number of things poorly. Is it interesting with fascinating ideas? Yes. Is it a bunch of narrative smoke and mirrors? Yes.

Finally watched the pilot to Westworld. Thoughts with minor spoilers...

I largely enjoyed it as the first chapter in an ongoing story, so the slower pacing was tolerable. It did get particularly slow in the middle, but what can you do.

Easily the worst part of the episode was the music - the title sequence felt like a Game of Thrones rip-off (not surprising), the general score was whatever, and then the crowning achievement of crap: the cover of "Paint It Black." It was a bad cover and didn't fit the scene (felt forced). It's like they were going for Battlestar Galactica's "All Along the Watchtower" cover and failed miserably.

Also, there were some stupid (world-building) moments, which presumably will be built on but I'll call out now:
1. The engineer (is that her job?) lady kissing the whore IN THE WIDE OPEN. Unless your job is to QA the bots like that, you're going to be having a talk wtih your supervisor. Skipping the kiss and teasing her intrigue would have been a better way to go.
2. The dialogue writer is shitty with dialogue. This is a multi-million if not billion-dollar experience and they get a hack writer as the lead?
3. Similarly, why introduce a coup/climb the corporate ladder/nefarious ulterior motives for Westworld in the first episode? That scene could have been cut to shave time and placed in a later episode. Let Jeffrey Wright and Anthony Hopkins fuck up a bit more.
4. Back to the business of Westworld - this is a huge, highly resourced entertainment/electronics company and they do no real QA before releasing updates to their consumers? What in the fuck?!

What self-respecting company wouldn't have a beta environment with beta testers to test out the potentially dangerous and life-threatening robots. Maybe if they want to save expenses, but if there are fatal flaws and the company gets shut down, they have no business. I thought Jonathan Nolan had gaming experience...

A couple quick things I liked:
1. The "programmed" state of some of the narratives, with branching options. It was interesting to watch how the robots behaved when new elements would be introduced (e.g. robots being distracted or humans interfering). This helped to show how game-like the world is.
2. The fly narrative. A simple tactic, nicely executed.
3. Ed Harris as the Man in Black. Dig it.

I am definitely curious about the show and look forward to watching the next few episodes. This has me intrigued in a way that Preacher did not.

The pilot gets a solid RECOMMENDATION as a very good episode, just shy of greatness (though it may be arguably great).