Director Wes Anderson’s most recent movie, “Isle of Dogs,” is a success similar to his previous films, which include “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Moonrise Kingdom.”
The plot of the movie is set in the future, where a rampant “canine flu” in Japan forces all dogs of the nation to be quarantined on an island. A young boy named Atari ventures to this place in hopes of finding his beloved pet, Spots. As he searches for his furry friend and evades authorities, he’s assisted by five other anthropomorphic dogs: Chief, Rex, Boss, Duke and King.
“Isle of Dogs” carries the distinctive style that all of Anderson’s past films have: meticulously symmetrical compositions, distinct color palettes and an awesome soundtrack. As usual, it’s made with extreme technical proficiency, featuring creative and frequently stunning animation.
The dry and darkly humorous dialogue regularly seen in Anderson’s work is also featured. However, I found “Isle of Dogs” to be considerably funnier than his other films.
Maybe this is because of the story’s focus on dogs or just the talent of the actors themselves, but the innocently awkward conversations and endearingly naive nature of characters made the film far more comedic and pleasant to watch.
I will admit that Anderson’s films can be a bit jarring at times. His casual and apathetic handling of dreary subjects can be easily misinterpreted as insensitive, rather than an attempt at humor. “Isle of Dogs” focuses on subjects that are less dark than those featured in Anderson’s previous films, such as death, suicide and parental neglect. It is a much more light-hearted and pleasant film.
As funny and beautifully animated as “Isle of Dogs” is, it does have some flaws. The main one being is that the storyline is unpredictable, and not always in a good way. Subplots become more crucial than expected, plot twists have surprisingly little impact and impractical solutions are used to solve serious problems.
It’s not a movie to see if you’re really focused on the plot. This sounds a bit strange, as most movies are watched for their story, specifically. But Anderson’s films are intentionally made to be more than that; instead having numerous little details that eventually make a wonderful final product.
So if you enjoy lovable characters, amusingly eccentric dialogue and exquisite visuals, then this is definitely a movie for you.
Fresh into the film industry, Cory Finley has already written and directed his first cinematic work with “Thoroughbreds.” It is a brilliant work of thriller that swept the audience off its feet with meaty writing and enigmatic characters.
“Thoroughbreds” depicts sick behavior from two teenage girls, Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) and Amanda (Olivia Cooke), who reunite from their childhood friendship. When Lily explains her frustration toward her stepfather, Amanda brings forward a ploy — to kill him.
Inspiration from murderous classics like “Pulp Fiction” and “Perfect Blue” are present throughout. Even the most anticipated murder scene isn’t shown, and that’s fine, because “Thoroughbreds” isn’t about a great murder plan. It’s more of an extended metaphor for satisfying greed and questioning meaning in one meek life.
Lily is a full-on bourgeois who has been granted with every object she could ever wish for, and the next bullet point on her wish list is her stepdad dead. But Lily can’t get her hands dirty …
Amanda, on one hand, finds solace in expressing zero emotions, even when killing her prized horse. Lily, however, carries all the emotions Amanda lacks, whether it’s fear, wrath or nervousness. The abrasive contrast between the two creates a drip of eeriness and an oddly favorable relationship.
Both actors ace their provided roles and accentuate the characters’ personalities. Taylor-Joy is known for her notorious role in “The Witch” and Cooke will be one of the starring actors in “Ready Player One.”
The minimalistic soundtrack fits seamlessly with every scene. Although the majority of the film is percussive and more tribally rhythmic than melodic, the last scene features an acoustic guitar that is played so lovingly and with so much care.
The screenplay, laced with dark humor and weirdly lovable characters, is worth every penny spent. Cold, gashful and sinfully fun, “Thoroughbreds” is sure to be a classic for murder and thriller fans.
With the exception of Helen Mirren’s tasteful performance, the Spierig brothers’ “Winchester” is another movie to be added to the list of cliché horror films.
Based on true events, the movie is set in the 1900s in the dark and unusual San Jose mansion of Sarah Winchester, the widow of a gun manufacturer.
Troubled doctor Eric Price is sent to the mansion to assess Sarah’s mental state in order to determine if she is fit to run the company. To the doctor’s dismay, Sarah’s continuous building and plans for additions to the house is an attempt to appease the spirits and ghosts who have been killed by Winchester guns.
At the same time as the doctor’s arrival, an unknown spirit is present and more powerful than ever, refusing to leave until it gets the revenge it seeks.
“Winchester” had so much potential, but its execution was typical and dull.
The jump scares consisted of random ghosts popping up, which is seen countlessly in the horror genre and resulted in a loss of authenticity and mood in the film.
The arbitrary details to the house such as a finger suddenly appearing from a wall, roller skates, shaking cabinets and single mother all caused the plot to occur with no rising action or climax. It was all just a tangle of events.
The setting was an aspect the directors could have taken advantage of in order to induce more thrill. However, the only thing reminding me that this story was set in the 1900s was a couple of the costumes and one or two hairstyles.
There was no “wow factor” that made this movie one to remember, as it only included stereotypical components.
Mirren was one of the very few elements that uplifted “Winchester.” She delivered a convincing performance of a possessed and yet still intelligent and charismatic character.
Overall, “Winchester” lacked originality and thrill, and was not worth the line nor the ticket.
The 90th annual Academy Awards are coming up on March 4. For some, it’s another Hollywood gimmick to reel in viewers, and for others, it’s a show worth devoting their Sunday to.
Either way, 2017 started off with a bang, thanks to popular movies like “Get Out” and “Split,” and ended on a strong note with films like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “The Shape of Water” and “The Greatest Showman.” Over summer and autumn, blockbusters like “Dunkirk” and “It” raked in high box office revenues.
An alarming number of these films received awards and recognition from fans and critics. A few of these films will leave a mark in cinema history and many will stay close to our hearts.
Here are Oscar-winning predictions for fifteen categories, from “Best Picture” to “Best Original Screenplay.”
Most likely — “Lady Bird”
Should be — “Lady Bird”
“Lady Bird” is a grungy, yet humor-induced coming-of-age film that captures the audience’s attention, with heart and soul poured into each character.
Most likely — Guillermo del Toro (“Shape of Water”)
Should be — Christopher Nolan (“Dunkirk”)
Guillermo del Toro, the director of “Crimson Peak,” gained attention with “Shape of Water” in 2017 and won the Golden Globe for Best Director, but Christopher Nolan created a stellar film that left me in awe, with his beautiful screenplay that divides the story between land, sea and air.
Best Actor in a Leading Role:
Most likely — Gary Oldman (“Darkest Hour”)
Should be — Bruce Willis (“Split!”)
Gary Oldman leaves a powerful impression with his role as Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour,” but Bruce Willis has to get credit. He reveals 24 distinct personalities through the character of David Dunn in “Split!”
Woody Harrelson provides remarkable tension in the film as Chief Bill Willoughby, but my favorite was Steve Carell, who portrayed a sexist joker as Bobby Riggs in “Battle of the Sexes,” doing a phenomenal job integrating humor into the film.
Best Actress in a Leading Role:
Most likely — Saoirse Ronan (“Lady Bird”)
Should be — Jennifer Lawrence (“Mother!”)
Saoirse Ronan won hearts this year in her role as Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson and gained significant recognition from her fruitful expressions. Jennifer Lawrence, however, had a killer, raw performance in “Mother!” that brought me to tears and left me with goosebumps.
Best Actress in a Supporting Role:
Most likely — Allison Janney (“I, Tonya”)
Should be — Sarah Silverman (“Battle of the Sexes”)
Allison Janney nailed her role as LaVona Golden, an abusive skating mom who tears her daughter’s world apart, but Sarah Silverman’s role as a heavy-smoking manager cues laughter at the best times throughout the film.
Best Animated Feature:
Most likely — “Coco”
Should be — “Coco”
“Coco” accurately depicts Mexican heritage and culture, while kindling the importance of “familia” and “amor” with gorgeous animation by the one and only Walt Disney Animation Studios. “Mary and the Witch’s Flower” and “A Silent Voice” were runners-up, both produced by Japanese animation studios, but they lack the visual details “Coco” manages to implement.
Most likely — “Dunkirk”
Should be — “Dunkirk”
“Dunkirk” is impactful. It is visually stunning and jaw-dropping, even though practically the only colors present in the film are hues of blue and brown.
Best Film Editing:
Most likely — “Baby Driver”
Should be — “Baby Driver”
The majority of the actions and movements in “Baby Driver” are aligned with the soundtrack. Walking, gun shooting, tapping … all of it.
Best Costume Design:
Most likely — “Beauty and the Beast”
Should be — “The Beguiled”
Belle’s vivid yellow dress is sure to win judge’s hearts, but “The Beguiled” is filled with marvelous cream-colored lace dresses.
Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
Most likely — “Wonder”
Should be — “The Mummy”
“Wonder” accurately creates face deformity on ten year old August only using makeup. However, “The Mummy” introduces unique makeup techniques, utilizing black symbols and yellow double-iris contacts, that may change Hollywood standards.
Best Original Score:
Most likely — Hans Zimmer (“Dunkirk”)
Should be — Hans Zimmer (“Dunkirk”)
Hans Zimmer, the composer for big films like “The Lion King (1995)” and “Interstellar,” nails creating a dramatic score for “Dunkirk,” using a thrilling string orchestra.
Best Original Song:
Most likely — “This is Me” (“The Greatest Showman”)
Should be — “Remember Me” (“Coco”)
Though “The Greatest Showman” was entirely an impressionable musical, “Remember Me” in “Coco” infuses major scenes with warmth and heart.
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Most likely — “Call Me By Your Name”
Should be — “My Friend Dahmer”
“Call Me By Your Name,” an adaption of the novel written by Andre Aciman, is finished with magnificent cinematography and a beautiful screenplay, but “My Friend Dahmer,” adapted from the graphic novel written by Derk Backderf, wins it all with the character’s eerie movements.
Best Original Screenplay:
Most likely — “Shape of Water”
Should be — “Get Out”
“Shape of Water” redefines “beauty and the beast” romance, but “Get Out” creatively tackles racial inequality within the film by incorporating horror and hilarity into the screenplay.
“The Post” is everything that we have seen in Steven Spielberg’s previous works, however the film lacks a consistent theme.
This film depicts when New York Times first got ahold of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, assessments that would reveal an entire lineage of presidents that knew the war was a lost cause.
The Washington Post, a small local newspaper, led by publisher Katherine Graham (Meryl Streep) and editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), would get ahold of the same documents and be faced with the difficult choice to publish them or not.
Spielberg attempts to integrate a feminist theme into the film, by showing that Graham, publisher by inheritance and not choice, found empowerment through her decision to publish the Pentagon Papers at the risk of going to jail.
However, the weaknesses in this argument can be found through Spielberg’s determination to stick to historical fact. Instead of stretching how Graham used her executive power elsewhere, he advertised the fact that her only real contribution to releasing the Pentagon Papers was saying the word. It was unclear whether she was motivated by upholding freedom of the press, or she was simply rebelling against her oppressive, but knowledgeable board.
In the very scenes where Graham expresses how oppressed she feels as a woman in a man’s world, the dialogue is lengthy and unnatural. Spielberg tried to dive into the female perspective, but failed because he is not a female director.
Through this failed theme, he also aims to present the importance of freedom of the press, which although displayed abundantly, is overshadowed by the abrupt ending right after the Supreme Court ruling denounced barring the press with the Espionage Act.
Another significant theme that was expected about such an obscure war as Vietnam, was the morality of the politics being executed at the time.
With the opening scene of the Vietnamese war zone, that was all too similar to “Saving Private Ryan,” the audience only gets a glimpse at the lives being put in jeopardy and ultimately served as the purpose for the Pentagon Papers being released in the first place.
To add insult to injury, the veteran cast did little to improve the realism of the film. Streep and Hanks had a very awkward dynamic that fails to mirror Graham and Bradlee’s real-life relationship. This inaccuracy is shown in Spielberg creating a power balance between the two characters in the movie, when in actuality, Bradlee clearly had more authority than Graham. With its preachy morals and agonizing two-hour run time, “The Post” is nothing more than a typical Spielberg movie.
Going into “Justice League,” I set my bar lower than I’ve ever set any of my previous movie expectations.
Beforehand, I certainly felt that at least “Justice League” couldn’t reach as low as “Batman vs Superman.” Thankfully I was right. It was definitely more watchable, which is assuming your standards are just plainly watchable. If not, there are plenty of reasons why this film crashed before it even lifted off.
Let’s start with the most simple component an action movie must have: special effects. Overall, the movie had standard slow motion sequences and cliche fight scenes on a roof, things that are basically required for a superhero movie. The problem is how those scenes looked aesthetically. Gotham City was very obviously created with a green screen and Themyscira, the island of the Amazon women, looked completely different than it did in “Wonder Woman.” It didn’t help that the majority of the dialogue was masked by loud and typical superhero music.
Another major detail that “Justice League” couldn’t seem to get right was the plot. Scenes lacked transitions and there was no explanation to the characters’ thought processes and decisions. The antagonist, Steppenwolf, seemed out of place and I didn’t even know his name until I left the theater since the abundance of different accents in the whole movie masked the pronunciation of his name.
Speaking of the characters, the introductions were lengthy and unoriginal. Three new characters had to be explained within the movie, which is technically doable since Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” had done the same with Spider Man and the Black Panther. However, it took until the end of the first major fight for me to catch on to the origin of the new characters.
This movie does have positive attributes though. Gal Gadot’s depiction of Wonder Woman was consistent with her first movie, a fierce and powerful woman in the midst of a male cast. Her scenes almost embody the same passion that Patty Jenkins gave Wonder Woman. Newcomer Ezra Miller brings a new feeling of brightness in the midst of dark scenes. Miller mirrors Barry Allen’s awkwardness and unintentional humor, making the it one of the only times the audience laughed.
Perhaps director Zack Snyder was aiming for a dark and cryptic vibe intentionally. Unfortunately, the movie only provided a feeling of “cool,” rather than “wow” or even “interesting.” If they were going for that, then congratulations, it worked.
Personally, this movie wasn’t worth my attention of two hours and a $13 ticket. Though there were times where I found myself entranced by the slow motion and laughing at Miller’s performance as the Flash, I realized I was more confused than anything.
Spend your holidays watching something that is more thought provoking and, frankly, interesting, because if you’re looking for these things, “Justice League” is not the way to go.
A few months back, I stumbled upon a random movie trailer on Instagram as most of us do. After finding myself an emotional mess from only watching the trailer, I knew I had to see the full film.
“Wonder”, released on Nov. 17, bases its story on a boy named Auggie Pullman, played by Jacob Tremblay, and all the people involved in his life. Auggie was born with problems concerning his hearing, vision and normal facial features. As a result, he underwent a multitude of surgeries and was left with a face full of scars and a unique physical appearance. The movie details his struggles facing the norms and expectations of society as he enters public school for the first time.
This film took characterization to an entirely new level. I originally thought that the plot would only follow Auggie’s story. However, I was completely wrong.
“Wonder” told the stories of many other characters and applied equal if not more emphasis on their journeys compared to Auggie’s. The audience was taken into the lives of Auggie’s sister, fellow classmates and parents. We were pushed to see everyone’s perspectives and experiences, in order to understand that although Auggie faced major conflicts, he wasn’t the only one with problems.
The theater echoed with laughter and then complete silence as the film took the audience on a rollercoaster of emotions through witty comments made by Auggie and serious occasions addressing bullying.
Although the popular actors including Julia Roberts and Owen Wilson starring as Auggie’s parents might have triggered the attention of the film before release, the impeccable acting, significant themes and heartwarming story of “Wonder” are what makes the film truly inspiring.
A girl faces the wall in her parents’ garage, her back to the van behind her. Her outfit is a dedicated shrine to bubblegum innocence: there’s a little cat-shaped clip in her wavy hair, pastel dinosaurs on her pink shirt, purple speckles on her leggings and chunky magenta bracelets around her wrists.
The van starts rolling down towards her. She whips around and pushes it back with her bare hands, eyes flashing bright gold.
If there’s anything to be said about Marvel’s “Runaways”, which premiered Nov. 21 exclusively on Hulu Plus and is based off a comic of the same name, it’s that its characters are more dimensional than the writing appears to be able to handle.
From Molly (Allegra Acosta), the aforementioned super-strong “baby” of the teenage team, to Alex (Rhenzy Feliz), a nerd who just wants to unite his friends again, the first episode alone hooks the audience by offering quick glimpses into each character’s life. But with over a dozen main characters — parents along with the teens — the followup to that hook suffers in trying to live up to and maintain that potential.
In fairness, the plot is a lot to juggle. Episode one begins innocently enough: with a “Riverdale”-esque vibe of underlying menace, the teenagers go about their vastly different lives, having grown apart after the death of one of their friends. In the meantime, Alex windmills desperately in the background trying to reunite the six. It’s relatable in a quietly sad way — how many teens have seen their friends drift apart, maybe not because of something as morbid as a death, but because of diverging interests?
But soon (although not quickly — the show takes much too long to set up background details), that relative normalcy is shredded apart with the discovery that their parents may or may not be part of an evil supernatural cult. It’s one thing to call your mom evil for grounding you, but it’s another to call her evil after seeing her go about nefarious deeds in sinister red robes.
So that’s new.
Or rather, what’s new is how “Runaways” handles this dilemma. Again, in keeping with the “Riverdale” comparison, the show takes a magnifying glass to the parents’ lives as well, going so far as to turn the second episode into a retelling of the first one from the adults’ perspective.
The pacing, once more, suffers because of this, as the cliffhanger in the first episode is only returned to after 40 minutes of the second one, but it does give some much-needed time to flesh out the gargantuan list of characters.
So, the plot takes its time developing. The questions outnumber the answers. Everyone has weirdly nice houses where they can throw outrageous parties.
At the surface level, “Runaways” is much less in the vein of the recent, more lighthearted Marvel movies, and more like every “edgy” teen show you’ve ever seen, complete with a host of characters all unrealistically capable of popcorn-worthy snark like “Great party! Thanks for all the pizza and sadness.”
Yet, under all the formula, “Runaways” has heart inherent in its characters. So long as it chooses to focus on the teens it’s telling a story about rather than just the shiny technology and glowy magic, it compels you to watch more.
Tyler Perry’s “Boo 2! A Madea Halloween”is the second installment in the Madea Halloween movies.
The movie focuses on how recurring Madea character Tiffany is going to a halloween party that her dad doesn’t want her to go.
It was generally very funny. Perry played the role of as three characters himself: Madea, her brother Joe and Joe’s son Brian. Because Perry was three characters, the camera men did not show his body, only his face, to keep the audience from knowing he was all three.
The setting was at a lake where murders have taken place before. And the people who supposedly done the murders were thought to be dead.
The movie portrayed the cliche creepy lake: abandoned and people have been killed there before. Madea hears that Tiffany’s mom is letting her go to the party and tells Brian put his foot down on his ex wife.
Madea goes to get Tiffany from the lake. Conveniently, the party dies down and it’s only Tiffany and her friends. That’s when the “murders” start to pick off them by couples.
It usually just uses the typical type of teenager Halloween specials. The kids got scared and started to run and hide, while the same thing happened to Madea and her friends who were just trying to help Tiffany. They finally run into each other while running away from the “murderers,” and try to escape.
In the end they all find out that Brian and his friend were pranking all of them, to teach Tiffany and her friends the lesson of listening to your parents and not lying to them as well.
This movie can be compared to a “Scooby-Doo” episode, because the people who come and try to help the people who are getting scared, then get scared themselves. At the end they all find out it was someone they knew who was trying to teach the people a lesson.
“Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman,” released on Oct. 13, arrives only five months after the box-office success of “Wonder Woman.”
Rather than being about the superwoman though, this movie focuses on the inspiration and personal lives of her creators: Professor William Marston, Elizabeth Marston and Olive Bryne.
According to the movie, Bryne is not only a student of Mr. and Mrs. Marston’s psychology class, but eventually an addition to their three-way relationship. The story follows the trio as they hide their unconventional liaison from the public, develop the lie detector (an invention not many would connect to a comic book author) and formulate their beloved Marvel character, Wonder Woman.
This film has many flaws, including a momentous, glaring issue that discredits the entire story. It’s one positive characteristic is its veteran actors, who give passionate performances. Other than that, it fails in everything else.
“Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman” spreads itself too thin, taking on the topics of a three-way relationship of the characters, feminism and Wonder Woman. It fails to have a proper insight or compelling depiction of any of these subjects, but acts as if these characters and their melodramatic conversations provide a wealth of wisdom on the issues.
Despite being centered on a relationship amongst the characters, their interactions feel ham-fisted and rushed. One minute, they’re irritated and baffled by each other. The next, they’re feverishly confessing their love.
Of the three, Bryne is the most annoying. She’s a bland, shallow character, who we’re expected to believe has any chemistry with the loud, brazen and analytical Marstons. Even more baffling is the flippancy of her character. She switches from a quiet, shy girl to a ridiculously impulsive seductress. Her naivety and quiet nature was clearly intended to make her seem innocent and sweet. Instead, she’s just irrelevant.
For a movie supposedly focused on Wonder Woman’s origins, she is barely mentioned. The story instead deciding that melodramatic conversations and awkward sex scenes take precedence over our iconic Marvel character.
However, none of these things compare in terribleness to the actual main issue of “Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman,” which is the total lack of historical accuracy.
The film begins with a black screen and large words saying “A true story.” This is a total lie. It is not true in the slightest.
Angela Robinson, the director of “Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman,” made zero effort to keep any realism, choosing not to contact the family and instead label her own “interpretation” as fact.
“Yeah. I didn’t actually talk to … It was a conscious choice because I really just wanted to have my own interpretation of the story,” Robinson said.
Making such assumptions didn’t go unnoticed by the Marston family. Christian Marston, granddaughter of the Marstons and close friend of Bryne, has been vocal about her rejection of the movie.
“This film has no relationship to Wonder Woman, other than using the name to sell to the public. They are riding the coattails of the very successful Wonder Woman movie — even to the point of copying the promo posters,” Marston said in an interview with Big Fanboy.
The main inaccuracies of this movie often connect to Bryne. Unsurprising really, as she’s the most unbelievable and thinnest of the characters. Robinson not only decided to make a movie about a relationship she knew nothing about, but also focused specifically on the fabricated romance of Elizabeth and Bryne. However, there is no evidence that the two women shared any attraction at all.
“Gram (Elizabeth Marston) and Dots (Olive) were as sisters. This, by the way, is not from a child’s point of view; I was very close to Gram as an adult. My grandfather died before I was born, so I only know him through family stories. No love triangle ever even hinted at —-and Gram was very broad-minded and very open, so if it existed, she had no reason to hide it — especially from me … we discussed all aspects of life and human psychology,” Marston said to Big Fanboy.
During the movie, there’s a dramatic breakup that occurs between the Marstons and Bryne , who’s sent away with the children she’s had with the professor. Despite this being the climax of the story, this also never actually occurred.
“Hollywood drama. At that point in time there were four children, and Dots (Olive) sure as hell did not take off and abandon them!” Marston said to Big Fanboy.
According to The Verge, various other plot points that moved things along also never happened. The film shows Professor Marston making a lie-detector machine that is regularly used throughout the story. In reality, the machine he created never actually work, but inspired the basic idea of a polygraph. The entire story is told through flashbacks as Professor Marston tries to defend his comic book to the Child Study Association of America (CSAA). In actuality, Wonder Woman was far too popular for any of its critics to have much power or influence. There was no hysterical burning of Wonder Woman comics and there was no involvement from the CSAA.
“Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman” is a deceptive movie that twists the stories of real people into melodramatic events for its own benefit. Yet such lies couldn’t save the film from it’s own bland dialogue and cliche story.
Genre: Drama Rating: R Release Date: October 13, 2017 Director: Angela Robinson Stars: Luke Evans, Rebecca Hall
Stuck up sorority girls and generic Hollywood humor litter in director Christopher B. Landon’s recent work, “Happy Death Day.”
The “Groundhog Day” inspired film earned $26.5 million in box office over the first weekend and that number continues to rise, surpassing “Blade Runner 2049.”
Unfortunately, “Happy Death Day” is as forgettable as it sounds. It’s your run-of-the-mill horror flick, snuck in with some cheesy dorm room love and a predictable ending — which I undoubtedly called in the beginning.
On a numbered scale, “Happy Death Day” would be smacked down in the middle. The “jump scares” wear out after Tree dies her umpteenth time, but the comedy and thriller blend has a hearty early-2000’s approach to the horror genre.
The minor plot twists in the film added dimension. Although it can’t fulfill past “just alright,” it managed to add grip and escape a few gasps out of fellow audience members around me.
Some may disagree: “trashy characters tossing around smutty punch-lines to wind down to some unthoughtful moral? Possibly the worst.” I beg to differ though; nothing is worse than “Flatliners.”
Maybe invite a few friends over. Order a couple of boxes of cheese pizza and cookie dough ice cream while you’re at it. Select this as your choice of dumb-fun horror flick for the night.
In this third installation of the Thor movie series, “Thor Ragnarok” takes a less serious angle than in the past movies.
Throughout the whole entire movie it felt as if the movie had a “Guardians of the Galaxy” feel to it. The vibe that “Guardians of the Galaxy” brings it bright, flashy, funny, spontaneous and a startrekish feel. That is exactly how “Thor Ragnarok” felt.
Even though this Thor movie is different than the other ones, it brought a new view of Marvel characters such as: Thor, Hulk, Dr. Strange, Loki and Heimdall.
New characters Valkyrie and Korg brought the funny and “Guardians of the Galaxy” component to the movie.
The movie followed all of the other Thor movies in that with every problem Thor faces it always deals with families problems, and how his family squabbles affect other people and worlds.
In this Thor movie the family problem was that Thor’s unknown older sister was out to kill Asgard and every other world.
However in “Thor Ragnarok,” the characters lightened the mood whenever the family issue arose, by saying or doing something that was funny.
The comedy in this movie was present in every scene which made it so good. I would die of laughter whenever Korg or Hulk died because they always said something stupid but it was always funny.
I would recommend that if you want to see a funny movie and have watched previous Marvel movies that to go see the movie as soon as possible, it’s a great laugh.