Infinity War a big, bold Avengers installment

Thanos (Josh Brolin) in a scene from Avengers: Infinity War. Image courtesy Disney.

Avengers: Infinity War makes it clear from the start exactly what the eponymous superhero group faces. The movie kicks off showing the brilliant power its villain Thanos (Josh Brolin) possesses, while hinting at just how zealous he is about it. Stakes matter in a movie as big and bold as Infinity War; viewers need to respect what the nearly two-dozen heroes have to battle against to make the necessary bloat worthwhile. The heroes in this movie aren't simply fighting the concept of amazing destruction, but a being legitimately powerful enough to make that happen. What they face is important, and the movie never lets up on how much they have to accomplish to win.

Infinity War is both the movie one would expect from Marvel's years of buildup and something largely unexpected. It's as big as it should be, littered with heroes ranging from franchise staples to new additions in the last decade or so of movies. Viewers get barbs lobbed between Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Star-Lord (Chris Pratt). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) chills with Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel). Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Vision (Paul Bettany), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Captain America (Chris Evans), Mantis (Pom Klementieff) Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Bucky (Sebastian Stan), and Drax (Dave Bautista) take on aliens and other malevolent beings. Spider-man (Tom Holland) is around being all doe-eyed and awkward. Almost everyone of note from a decade of movies is here, and Infinity War spends a lot of time ensuring they all get a few moments to shine. The result is an immense run time, although directors Anthony and Joe Russo keep the drag to a minimum, making for a pretty smooth 150-minute movie. 

 

Pretty much every aesthetic selling point is handled well in this movie. The action sequences are well coordinated and range from small melees to epic battles against alien beings. The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s trademark jokes work more often than not, in large part because the addition of so many otherwise unconnected characters adds a new dynamic to the banter. On the most basic level, Infinity War is the movie people who have followed this franchise would want; the good stuff is there, and it's done rather well. And yet there's still a lot of unexpected bits to Infinity War. With the high stakes established so early, the tone of the movie is not as bright as the banter makes it appear. The jokes aren't as jovial or friendly as they usually are in Marvel films; in this case, the humor is rooted in fear and stress, a reaction to the situation the heroes face. The tone is less hopeful than before, more desperate and worrisome.

A lot of that has to do with how writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely plan their narrative. The film’s focus at first glance is stopping Thanos, the actual protagonist is Thanos himself. It's his quest to collect the Infinity Stones that drives the movie, his journey toward what he believes to be a better universe. The heart of Infinity War lies not amongst the collection of heroes, but with its villain. Brolin's Thanos is not a simple monster bent on destruction for the sake of destruction, or evil just because the film requires him to be the villain for the heroes to fight. The methods to his goal of creating balance in a chaotic universe are horrifying, but there remains an iota of logic to what he wants to accomplish. In his mind, he’s performing a selfless act, and its his fervor as much as the abundance of power he seeks that makes him so dominant. Fanaticism is incredibly dangerous, especially for an infinitely powerful being capable of sacrificing everything for what he deems to be a necessary cause.

 

Making a superhero movie based on the villain is an interesting, albeit counterintuitive choice. What it does though is give Infinity War a sense of urgency it didn’t have before, selling Thanos’ power and conviction to his cause. It makes for a fairly dark superhero movie, adding enough shade to a sunny franchise to keep the audience guessing at what comes next. There’s still reasons for optimism in the Marvel Universe, but they are far more difficult to find than ever been before.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 150 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away
Target audience: People who have watched MCU movies for the last 10 years, as well as anyone else into comic book movies.

Take the whole family?: The tone gets pretty heavy, and families who prefer to limit their children's exposure to violence should keep the kids home. Generally though this isn't too problematic.

Theater or Netflix?: Totally worth a trip to the cinema.

What happens next?: That is an enormous question. Looking at the upcoming slate of films – Ant-Man gets his sequel in a few months, followed by a Captain Marvel movie – gives a little idea of how things will play out. But given how this movie goes, there's a whole lot of room for interpretation for the next installment. Although that is half the fun of these movies; trying to figure out what happens next.

Watch this as well?: Just pick just about anything from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and you'll be in pretty good shape. D.C. has Wonder Woman, but that’s about it.

Ragnarok finds humor at the world's end

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) in Thor: Ragnarok. Image courtesy Disney.

Thor: Ragnarok is a weird movie. It's weird because it's a movie about Norse mythology that focuses more on technological marvels than the mythology inherent to its title. It's weird because of the dramatic tonal shift from the other Thor movies. And it's super weird because Jeff Goldblum shows up with shockingly blue facial hair and literally melts a man with a stick. Ragnarok is a trip, but it is one heck of a journey to a place more bizarre than other Marvel movies have ventured.

What's so hard to reconcile about Ragnarok is how lightly the movie takes the end of a world. Superhero movies are all about saving planets from destruction while making sure the people are safe and the damage is minimal. A few jokes are sprinkled in to ensure the story doesn't get too dark, but for the most part the superhero as savior concept is a foundation for a lion's share of comic book-related lore. Except for Ragnarok, in which the threat of the destruction of Asgard starts as a gag between Thor (Chris Hemsworth reprising his role) and a skeleton just above a pit of fire. It sets the rhythm for the rest of the movie, with the comedy taking a precedence over the gravity of the situation the characters face. Everyone cracks a few jokes, from the naturally talkative Loki (Tom Hiddleston), to the goddess of death/destroyer of world Hela (Cate Blanchett), to the otherwise stern Heimdall (Idris Elba), to the fallen Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson). Even the Hulk, the Incredible Hulk and not Bruce Banner (both of whom are versions of Mark Ruffalo) showcases something resembling a sense of humor.

And you know what? It's actually kind of glorious in its own way. The sense of humor is akin to what’s found in the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Ragnarok makes it unique by changing the context to make the jokes a greater joke itself. Ragnarok is a slightly different family tree as Dr. Strangelove, in which the biggest laugh is earned by the insanity of the movie mocking the inherent somber nature of earth's destruction. The story Ragnarok tells is just as dark as Dr. Strangelove, but with brighter colors and Disney's stamp of approval. That also means the Thor movie can't be as nihilistic as Dr. Strangelove is; it is still a blockbuster first and foremost. But director Taika Waititi and the screenwriters push Ragnarok further than the other Thor films to do what the best MCU movies have done; make a movie with their own imprint on it. There are, again, limits to how far creatively the filmmakers can get with the Marvel movies – an entire cinematic universe is at stake – but Waititi and company turned a Thor movie into a comedy. Like the excellent Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the very good to great Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Ragnarok stands on its own as a piece of cinema.

Still, there remains a bit lacking with Ragnarok that pushes it a step or two down from the aforementioned Marvel movies and puts it more on par with the fun Spider-Man: Homecoming and Iron Man 3. There is what should amount to a great story arc involving Thor and the uncovering of his father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) past, something that should force the mighty god of thunder to confront his own background and the demons his father has wrought upon his people. It's a Shakespearean bit in line with the first Thor movie, with the evil Odin committed living far beyond the good he brought in. Ragnarok barely touches the surface of this story, having Thor just sort of go with the news that his father was a monster for a very long time. That could be marked as a sign of character growth, but Thor does drop a few tears for Odin early on, and the amount of time the movie spends reconciling Odin's history is disappointingly minimal.

But the baseline for a quality superhero movie – good action, likable characters, expansive world building – remains intact, and the goofy nature and general oddness of the situation only add to those key elements. To repurpose another classic literary line, Ragnarok opts to end the world not with a whimper but with a bang and a lot of laughs along the way toward doom.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 130 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: As with every Marvel film, everyone who has ever watched a movie from the MCU and wants to keep up with the ongoing story.

Take the whole family?: Really depends on how OK the parents are with a lot of violence but little blood to show for it. A couple years under the PG-13 mark should be fine.

Theater or Netflix?: It's fun for a trip to the theater, although the 3D isn't really worth it though.

How has 2017 been for the MCU?: Pretty great. Despite releasing three movies, two of which were a second and a third installment to long-running series, this is the first time in a while that Marvel fatigue hasn't hit that hard. It helps that the three movies released were good and different enough to offer some separation to the weary viewers. It also offers some hope for 2018, with the release of Ryan Coogler's Black Panther and the probably stupidly stuffed Avengers: Infinity War.

Watch this as well?: Along with the other MCU entries, comedian/author John Hodgman has a comedy special devoted to the impending Ragnarok, called John Hodgman: Ragnarok, that is quirky and hilarious, highlighted by his decision to send a kid out in the cold to wait for doom to come

They ain't afraid of no ghosts

Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Kristen Wiig and Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.

Before diving too deep into this review, I have to state for full disclosure that I worked on Ghostbusters as an extra when it filmed in Boston. I'm actually visible on screen during two shots at a concert if you keep your eyes open, and I was paid to work on it. I'm opting to review this though because I feel I can separate my involvement during filmmaking from any critical thoughts I have about the film itself. Also, any bias I have for the film is rooted heavily in childhood adoration for the movies, cartoons, toys and everything else Ghostbusters related. The only reason I signed up was an affinity for the franchise. In the end, it's nostalgia that shifted my view of the new Ghostbusters toward favorable, despite a few glaring flaws the film doesn’t recover from. It's not my longing reflections into the past that fuels the positivity; it's for the girls in the audience who really, really need role models like the four women who fight against the afterlife and a society in which its simpler to describe women as crazy than correct. I have a number of great memories tied to this franchise not just related to watching it, and it's nice to know that a lot of kids will have their own in the coming decades.

Still, this is not a particularly excellent film. Paul Feig's reboot, which stars Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon as the eponymous ghoul fighters, has one enormous flaw that filters down to create smaller problems that result in an unexpectedly rough Ghostbusters experience. The central issue is a product that clearly shot to be longer than the shade less than two hours it ended up being, but was edited down to a more digestible run time. Whoever edited this film had to eliminate a substantial amount of material, but the film wasn't cleanly put back together after the hacking and slashing ended. It leads to a number of uncomfortable segues, truncated exchanges, far too fast cameos, scenes that sometimes end on off beats and jokes that fall flat.

What would have been the central character arc of the film, a reunion between Wiig's disgraced scientist Erin Gilbert and her former best friend Abby Yates (played by McCarthy), is brought up and then put on stasis until it is magically brought up again as a motivating factor at the end. The relationship is not captured as overly tense, nor do the two ever have a true reconciliation over what was a friendship ruined; even the rift between them is never explained at length. Ghostbusters has a habit of making things pop up and then go away for a spell before cropping up again. The crew's dimwitted secretary (played by Chris Hemsworth) shifts from bored and unqualified to answer phones to super eager to be a Ghostbuster without ever expressing a desire to become one earlier. Even the film's villain (Neil Casey) drifts in and out, his intents explained through exposition and mutterings by the character himself. There is enough underlying plot and story to indicate Feig and fellow writer Katie Dippold had something deeper planned out for this project; they just seemed to run out of the time they needed to make it come to fruition.

But just enough success creeps out between the off moments to make Ghostbusters a perfectly serviceable summer flick. The film's commentary about the additional hurdles women face when venturing into uncharted fields is valid and underrepresented in cinema. Feig has also done the Lord's work in unleashing the wonderful insanity that is McKinnon upon theater goers. She shines as off-kilter and very flirty (at least toward Wiig) scientist Jillian Holtzmann, who conveys much through a sly glance and a subtle line reading that registers just enough before fleeting through the mind. Jones, as former MTA agent Patty Tolan, sneaks in a few laughs as well from her character's perpetual incredulous reactions to the phantasmagoric events around her. (Wiig and McCarthy seem to have the most difficult time with the material.)

It is a little unfair to Ghostbusters or any film to say it needs to exist despite being a sometimes funny but very flawed film, but it kind of is necessary. The little girls with the proton packs in the theater falling in love with the Ghostbusters (they adored Holtzmann) deserve positive characters to emulate like I did as a kid. Even if the reboot isn't necessary, a film featuring four comediennes playing scientists whilst fighting against the sexism they face daily is a hugely important thing to have. Besides, this movie isn't any worse than Ghostbusters II.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 116 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who enjoyed the original and young girls searching for role models.

Take the whole family?: Some of the ghosts get a little freaky looking, but it is mostly harmless for kids ages 8 and up.

Theater or Netflix?: As long as its a matinee, theater is an acceptable alternative.

Who is your favorite Ghostbuster?: Bill Murray's Dr. Peter Venkman is far and away the best Ghostbuster; a charming rogue who always has the perfect comeback. Reality has taught me I can never be Venkman – I'm probably more of a Ray Stantz – but it doesn't hurt to dream.

Watch this as well?: Definitely the original Ghostbusters, which Murray absolutely steals. One of the animated shows that came about from it, The Real Ghostbusters, has several entertaining and interesting episodes, although most of those came before Dave Coulier replaced Lorenzo Music as Venkman.

'Winter's War' battles against a lack of necessity

Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star in "The Huntsman: Winter's War." Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

If you squint hard enough you can almost see the charms hidden within “The Huntsman: Winter's War.” It's more often than not light and goofy, rarely laden with that dour weight plaguing the first “Huntsman” film and seemingly happy to drift away into sub-mediocrity. It's a perfectly forgettable film that neither strains brain cells nor the viewer's patience, lasting only a few minutes longer than it ought to but still well short of interminable like, say, another recent blockbuster film featuring rodents and capes.

Any true enjoyment of “The Huntsman” – a title that is technically a misnomer – is rooted in how much one enjoys watching star and titular outdoorsman Chris Hemsworth in action. He's about as close as current cinema has to a galoot; a large, amiable enough fella who works his way through films with a smile and an admirable torso while sporting a horrendous accent that flitters away when he forgets his character has it. To be fair, employing an accent in the first place is silly enough for a movie based on a Teutonic fairy tale existing in what narrator Liam Neeson acknowledges is a fantastical world. Why the filmmakers decided to have native Californian Jessica Chastain adopt a brogue while South African Charlize Theron has nary an accent will never receive a proper answer. And at least Emily Blunt retains her natural speech patterns for once. But back to Hemsworth, an attractive actor who grits his way through a role that never quite works for him. He's never quite robotic or stiff, yet he lacks a certain lightness of being too him to be too charming, as if he's trying a little too hard to be funny to compensate for his physical excellence. Still, there's something inherently sweet about Hemsworth, whose physicality is never bulky enough to be threatening and whose persona is never too serious or self important. He's workmanlike, never strong enough to boost a film but rarely a true detriment to the final product either, the kind of leading man who could be interesting as a character actor down the line once the good looks begin to fade a little.

Hemsworth is fine, as is Chastain, as is Theron in a much weaker role than the evil queen presented in the first film, and as is Blunt as a woebegone ice queen/little sister to Theron's wicked Ravenna. Slightly less fine is everything around them, essentially a movie that never really knows where it's going or what it wants to do with itself. It starts off as a prequel to “The Huntsman,” depicting the origins of Blunt's frosty queen and her hatred of love and how Hemsworth became the eponymous character, or at least one of them along with Chastain and a whole host of child soldiers. Then it segues into a sequel, mostly eliding over the presence of Snow White (and, of course, Kristen Stewart) but still bringing back one of the seven dwarfs (Nick Frost) and eventually adding three more (Rob Brydon, Sheridan Smith and Alexandra Roach), leading to a net negative of three dwarfs. Goblins and faeries are tossed in as well for reasons that may or may not be related to the plot from “The Lord of the Rings” because the writers couldn't come up with a plot of their own.

“Winter’s War” perhaps might have worked as either a prequel or a sequel; combining both is sloppy and requires the frequent insertion of a rather bored Neeson to keep track of what’s happening. This is a very mismatched film, dependent on miscommunication to advance the story. A nice spot of tea would resolve most of the character’s problems, our at least hash out the idea that villains aren’t to be trusted.

And yet “Winter's War” could be much, much worse than it is. The tone is either amiable or solidly campy, especially whenever Theron pops up and excessively emotes and snarls at Blunt and Hemsworth. It's almost disappointing to say this film isn't quite a trainwreck – a complete disaster is a joy on its own – but it doesn't induce bile either, and it'll assume its fate of fading into the nether regions of the memory bank until the commercials for the DVD come out in about four months. At the least, it's not going to disappoint audiences hoping for something resembling greatness from what is slowly morphing into a film franchise; expecting an ant hill and finding a molehill instead has its benefits.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 114 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: People who like Chris Hemsworth as a leading man.

Take the whole family?: Some of the content is a little more shocking than expected, so follow the ratings recommendation.

Theater or Netflix?: Stay at home and stream it if you want to see it.

Does anything disappoint in this film?: The only thing that serves as a proper letdown is what happens to Charlize Theron's Ravenna. She's a complex figure in the first film, tragic and somewhat pitiable given her background and her ambitions. All of the nuance is lost this time though, and the movie even goes out of its way to make her even more sinister because of one truly vile act she technically commits before the start of “The Huntsman.”

Watch this instead?: This one's definitely a blast from the past, but “Ladyhawke” is a pretty fun little knight story with an interesting premise and a very young Michelle Pfeiffer. You could hit up the recent works of the three leading ladies: “Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Sicario” and “Crimson Peak.”