Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Coco”

Some things are clearly divisive in Coco.

I’m sorry, but I gotta say this. It’s too soon for Christmas! It’s way too soon for people to put up their Christmas decorations and sing Christmas songs and play those Christmas shorts whether they’re classics or modern hits! Please, just wait until Black Friday at the very earliest! I love Christmas just as much as anyone, but one of the many reasons I love it is because it’s a truly special time of year. If we oversaturate ourselves with the Christmas spirit, then it won’t be truly special anymore and it’ll just become part of the ordinary mundane existence we live through throughout the rest of the year! So please, in order to maintain that festive feeling at all, don’t put up your Christmas decorations in September.

Miguel activates a curse in Coco.

Feel like that was unnecessary, repetitive, uninventive, and long? That’s how I’d describe Olaf’s Frozen Adventure, the short that played before the newest Pixar feature, Coco. Set in Mexico on Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), the film tells the story of Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez), an aspiring musician who looks up to legendary singer Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). The problem is that his family has a long history of banning music, instead leading the shoe making business. But after Miguel is mysteriously transported to the Land of the Dead, he must find a way back home before sunrise or not at all.

Miguel looks on in shock and awe in Coco.

Okay, so while my mood is still a little sour, let’s talk about what’s wrong with the movie. I know what you’re thinking, “oh, it’s Pixar, they’re better than this!” But that’s the thing. It’s Pixar. They’re better than this. And the biggest problem with this film is how much of its story can be traced back to other films. Yeah, a lot of people were thinking about The Book of Life (2014), and reasonably so because of the similar setting. But that’s all Coco takes from that film. The main plot I summarized above is straight from Pixar’s own Ratatouille (2007), but that’s not all. There’s a major plot point that if someone from the Land of the Dead is completely forgotten by those who are living, they’ll fade away into nothing. Okay, that’s also a major plot point in Inside Out (2015). There’s also a plot point (that I won’t give away) that borrows from both Up (2009) and Toy Story 3 (2010), and now you see what I mean. Pixar is ripping off its own filmography for this movie, and after awhile it’s very noticeable. And for a movie that condemns plagiarism and praises originality, coming from the most original animation studio in the US, that’s more than a little annoying.

Security isn’t really any better in the Land of the Dead in Coco.

It’s a shame because, as is typical for Pixar, the story they come up with is just about top notch. The themes of family are explored in a unique way that younger audiences will easily understand, but also in a way that can be appreciated by adults. It’s also not that predictable, even for Pixar standards, although if you were to go back and rewatch it you’d see the hints dropped everywhere. The animation is phenomenal, the voice acting is very good, and it has a number of genuine tear-jerking moments in the third act. And even though I just bashed the film for ripping off other (some far superior) Pixar movies, it’s all done very well. Again, my only criticism of the story is that it could’ve been a lot more original.

Hector is shocked to see a living person again in Coco.

I guess in order to balance the scale, I should point out that all the characters are easily identifiable. We all want to be remembered when we’re gone, in fact my biggest fear is the possibility of being forgotten. And if you’ve ever seen a loved one grow old and lose those memories of you, you’ll identify with both Miguel and Hector (Gael Garcia Bernal), as well as pretty much everyone in Miguel’s family, both living and dead. And because the characters are so great, those moments when the film pulls at your heartstrings are all the more effective because it’s characters we loved getting to know experiencing realities we’re all too familiar with. This is why movies in general are so great, because they can be the perfect blend between fantasy and reality.

Compromises are a difficult necessity in Coco.

So all around, I did enjoy the movie. I’d even go so far as to say it’s far better than the average animated film, but that’s to be expected from Pixar. So as far as Pixar standards are, this is less of a WALL-E (2008) and more of a Monsters, Inc. (2001) in terms of quality. Not bad at all, but far from the best Pixar has to offer.

Rating: GO

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Darkness will soon become light in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Times are changing in Hollywood, and I’m not just referring to the risks filmmakers both young and old are taking when making their movies nowadays. Everyone is rightly upset about all the sexual abuse happening on the casting couch, and happy that people are finally coming forward in taking a stand. But there are still some traditions in Hollywood that never die, such as making a topical but safe film like Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and releasing it in November in order to secure Oscar nominations. It’s a tried and true strategy that is sure to bring in accolades, and in this case it may deserve them.

Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

The film stars Frances McDormand as Mildred Hayes, who rents out three billboards and plasters messages on them calling out the local police department for still not making arrests in the case of her deceased daughter. The billboards and their messages quickly become a topic of national conversation, both placing pressure on the police to find the man who raped and murdered Mildred’s daughter, and also turning many of the townspeople against Mildred as they believe the billboards are in bad taste.

Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men) and Frances McDormand (Fargo) understand each other’s frustration in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

This movie is covering a number of current events issues that are on everyone’s minds right now. The obvious one is sexual assault, as that’s what sets the main plot in motion. It also cracks down on police officers, whether it’s about the time it takes to solve serious cases or how they crack down on minor offenses, sometimes with racial motivations. And yet the police officers in the film are presented as very human, albeit easily agitated. There’s a scene near the beginning of the film where Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) explains to Mildred that there are a number of civil rights laws preventing the police from investigating every single person in even the town, let alone the state or the country, and while there is understanding there is still anger in everyone’s hearts.

Frances McDormand sets the plot in motion in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Frances McDormand brings everything to the forefront with her performance here, never holding a single emotion back. The trick to her performance is that she knows how to show each emotion and when, whether it’s anger or sadness or disappointment, or even those fleeting moments of joy that the mother of a victim so rarely finds in the months after. You can see why this woman would want to call out the police in the boldest way possible within the limits of the law, because whether she likes it or not she needs them on her side to catch a rapist.

Sam Rockwell (Moon) may be about to lose it in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

But she’s not the only one attacking the role with full force, as Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell take on roles of different extremes: the victim and the victimizer. Harrelson’s police chief fights back with vengeful reason, understanding that anger only begets more anger, a lesson he tries to convey to Sam Rockwell’s racist cop who sometimes hates white people just as much as black people. Rockwell is once again gunning for the Oscar by going above and beyond the call of duty for his role, just as his character progresses to go above and beyond the call of his position and remove the cloud of judgment blocking his deductive talent. The only question now is will he finally earn a nomination, or will the rug be pulled out from under him at the last minute?

Frances McDormand and Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones) out at dinner in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Now this film won the top prize at the Toronto International Film Festival, which all but guarantees a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars. Does it deserve it? Well, yeah, but I think it should be noted that despite approaching a number of hot button topics, the film plays its approach very safe. Aside from an aforementioned scene with McDormand and Harrelson, it never really goes into the dynamics of police work, sexual assault, or racism. It just states that they exist, and that’s just about it. More time in the story is devoted to the quirks and absurdity of the town and the events happening now instead of the why, such as the billboards going up at all or the town midget who’s also a used car salesman (Peter Dinklage). It’s not a bad thing, it just tells its story and doesn’t try to go beyond, despite how far beyond the actors are going to tell this story.

The media loves a hot-button story just enough in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Is it an Oscar contender? Yes. Does it deserve it? I’d say so. But this is still an example of Oscar films playing it safe to appeal to the current establishment of the Academy. It’s not likely to get casual moviegoers fired up like the billboards did the town of Ebbing, Missouri. If it does, then that means it’s speaking to your faults somehow.

Rating: GO

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Lady Bird”

Saoirse Ronan (Atonement, The Grand Budapest Hotel) and director Greta Gerwig on the set of Lady Bird.

I’m just gonna come out and say it. I have never seen a single movie starring Greta Gerwig. I’m not even exaggerating, I scrolled through her entire filmography and I haven’t even seen one movie with her in it. Even though I’ve been an avid moviegoer for years, none of her movies have ever interested me enough to see them at all. So I honestly didn’t understand what all the hype was about when she released her directorial debut, Lady Bird, especially since she doesn’t even have so much as a cameo in the film. But because I have no frame of reference of her talent as an actress, and because this is such a familiar story you can almost plot it out beat-for-beat, I was shocked to bear witness to her newly revealed talent as director of one of this year’s best films.

Saoirse Ronan spends quite a bit of time in a cast while leading the cast of Lady Bird.

Set in Sacramento during the 2002-2003 school year, the film stars Saoirse Ronan as Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson, a senior in a Catholic high school dealing with the usual drama that teenage girls deal with (along with actual drama class): simple-yet-complicated romance, strained relationships with her mother (Laurie Metcalf), a quest for her own identity, and a burning desire to move out of the small town of Sacramento (be honest,is it really that small?) and to a much larger and more diverse part of the country. So yeah, you’ve all seen this story before, so what is it about Lady Bird that makes it so good?

Saoirse Ronan is quick on her feet and quicker in her performance in Lady Bird.

Well the answer might not be obvious, but I think the best thing about this movie is the pacing. I was quite amazed at how much story they were able to cram into a 90-minute runtime while still developing the characters, particularly Lady Bird herself. Sometimes all you need is one shot to convey a life-changing moment, and there are quite a few of those in this film. Two of my favorites in this film go back-to-back with each other, the first is one where Lady Bird makes a shocking discovery (to say anymore about that would be spoiling a major plot point), and the very next shot shows her and her best friend (Beanie Feldstein) sitting in the car listening to and singing along with their music while the actors show their reaction. With barely a line of dialogue between those two short scenes, each of which consists of only one shot, Gerwig trusts fully in the actors to tell her story, and tell it quickly.

Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf (JFK, Scream 2) in a turbulent mother/daughter relationship in Lady Bird.

In order to accomplish this feat, Gerwig needed talented actors to fill out her cast. Saoirse Ronan is fresh off an Oscar nomination, and definitely deserves yet another one for this performance. I don’t know how she’s altering her voice like that, but even for her age it sounds young and immature, and very close to that of a friend of mine. That’s just one way of noticing the dedication she put into this role, even not wearing makeup and allowing her acne to show so she’d look the part. Also noteworthy is Laurie Metcalf as Lady Bird’s mother. It would’ve been all to easy for Greta Gerwig herself to take on this role since she’s following in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood and Ben Affleck as actors becoming directors, but Metcalf brings tough love, gentle disappointment, and stubborn vulnerability in all the right moments, living up to the trust that her director has placed in her.

Saoirse Ronan and a barely-seen Lucas Hedges (Moonrise Kingdom, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) at the back of an arc in Lady Bird.

And that’s another great thing about this film. It’s a very human film. The characters don’t just stay one way throughout the entire film, or even progress from point A to point B. The relationships have constant ups and downs, and some characters come and go. But every single relationship Lady Bird has in this film means something, whether it’s one of the boys she dates or the girls she hangs out with. The only ones that are constant are her family, but even those relationships fluctuate between moments when they’re inseparable to when they refuse to speak to each other, all of which capture what it’s like to be a frustrated teenager. There’s only one plotline that’s brought up and doesn’t really go anywhere, but that’s one minute out of the entire film, so it almost gets a perfect grade there.

Saoirse Ronan screams for joy in Lady Bird.

Even though I haven’t been inducted into the Greta Gerwig fandom, I’m excited to see how she develops her directing skills. If her future movies are so sharply written and paced with as much faith in the actors as she does, then I can see this lady bird flying to great heights.

Rating: GO

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Justice League”

From left-to-right: Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, and Ezra Miller form the beginnings of an iconic team in Justice League.

The Justice League has long been the defining superhero team in comics and television. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, among others formed a team to fight the battles no one superhero could fight alone. Now that DC and Warner Bros. have re-introduced their greatest superheroes to the screen, they decided it was reasonably time to have them team up with others and save the world. The result is Justice League, and you can tell that like the team, this movie is the sum of many parts that don’t always mesh together, but get the job done.

From left-to-right: Jason Momoa, Gal Gadot, and Ray Fisher stand prepared for battle in Justice League.

Set only a few months after the death of Superman (Henry Cavill) in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), the film sees Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) on a quest to find other heroes to fight the evil Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds) and his army of Parademons before they can collect three Mother Boxes and turn Earth into the latest software update of his own homeworld. These new heroes include the Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and as all superhero team-ups work, they must learn to work together with each of their unique abilities in order to win the day.

Gal Gadot (Fast & Furious) and Ben Affleck (Gone Girl) collaborate in Justice League.

Every movie is a collaborative effort, but this one especially. Even though the sole directing credit goes to Zack Snyder (Watchmen), the standard reshoots that are commonplace for all major blockbusters were overseen by Joss Whedon (The Avengers), both very competent filmmakers in their own right. And while they both brought their A-game, you can tell which scenes were Snyder’s and which were Whedon’s. Sometimes the dialogue is hopeful, meaningful, and captured with a bit of grain in the shot, and that’s noticeably Snyder as he sees DC. Other times, it’s very quippy and that grain isn’t there, and anyone who’s familiar with the MCU will instantly recognize the Whedonisms here. Neither are bad, but it is inconsistent, and you can even spot the differences in the same scene at times.

Amber Heard (Pineapple Express) has one pivotal scene in Justice League.

Because of this, the plot is also incoherent. The main plot stops midway through in favor of a subplot that comes out of nowhere, and then it picks right back up out of nowhere. There is also a family living in the setting of the climax that the film keeps cutting back to, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why. One scene early in the film showing Steppenwolf’s invasion of this area would’ve been enough to convey the danger faced by civilians and the world. We don’t need to see the daughter pulling out a can of bug spray (as cute as it is) that she’ll never use in the movie. While some of the payoff overall does work (the subplot that appears out of nowhere), some of it does not, and it isn’t even something that you could set up for a sequel without really stretching the source material thin (unless the daughter was really Plastic Man the whole time!).

Henry Cavill (The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) still has a bit of a mustache in Justice League.

The effects are also pretty bad. It’s no secret that the effects team had to digitally remove Henry Cavill’s mustache during post-production due to his commitment to Mission: Impossible 6 (2018), but that’s not the only thing that’s wrong with the effects. Cyborg never looked like he was really there with the rest of the team, and the way his character was portrayed (for the most part) didn’t do him any favors on that front either. Steppenwolf was just a standard CGI bad guy, and never looked like he posed a credible threat. The purpose of visual effects in film is to convince the audience that the impossible is real, like they could reach into the screen and touch the Na’vi in Avatar (2009) or the T-Rex in Jurassic Park (1993), especially when they go to such painstakingly lengths to make it look like something that could exist in our world. But if the threat doesn’t look real, how are we supposed to be invested in the stakes?

Ciaran Hinds (There Will Be Blood) is unrecognizable as Steppenwolf in Justice League.

On the note of the villain, I questioned the choice to use Steppenwolf as a villain in the first film from day one, since he was a footnote in both the comics and the animated series. But I was open to the possibility of the film creating a new version of the character that would stand on its own as a threatening antagonist that didn’t feel like a foot soldier for a much bigger threat (*cough* Darkseid *cough) that will hide itself until the trilogy-capper. But alas, Steppenwolf only has four scenes in this movie, and he exists only as a dragon for the heroes to fight. You could have swapped him out for anyone and it’d be the exact same character, just some boring wannabe-warlord who wants to bring death and destruction for no reason, not even the interesting kind of no reason like “because it’s fun” or “anarchy”, but just for the sake of doing it.

From left-to-right: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller, and Jason Momoa suit up and prepare for battle in Justice League.

So is there anything about this collaborative effort that works? Well, yes. The team. None of these heroes are particularly interesting on their own, save for Wonder Woman, Flash, and Aquaman, but together they form bonds that are stronger than the characters themselves. Flash and Cyborg have a great scene together where they bond over being “the accidents” of the group. There’s a great joke about life and death near the end of the film that I won’t give away, but you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it and the characters involved in it. Flash and Batman have a fantastic scene about the former’s fear of combat that immediately pays off in him being the biggest help in the midway battle. Aquaman also has a lot of great moments, even throughout his short but effective character arc. There are more that I can’t talk about offhand, but I promise that the relationships between these characters are what make the film worth the price of admission.

Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower) is running for a reboot in Justice League.

Maybe I wouldn’t be quite as harsh on this film if it was a four-part pilot for a new TV series, as some of my criticisms like the unfocused plot and the lackluster villain would fit better in television. But even if that wasn’t the case, there are enough character moments between the cast members that make this an admirable, albeit mixed entry in the DCEU. It stands united by the sum of its parts, but alone they would all fall down.

Rating: SLOW DOWN

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Murder on the Orient Express (2017)”

Too many suspects to name or remember in Murder on the Orient Express.

Something you’re going to hear me say a lot (if you can hear my text, that is) is that I hate unnecessary remakes. While there have been some good ones like Ben-Hur (1959) and The Magnificent Seven (1960), the best remakes brought something new to the table that the original didn’t or couldn’t, but still stayed true to the source material. But in recent years, Hollywood has become obsessed with rushing out remakes that not only bring nothing new without destroying the source material, but also just aren’t good movies that can stand on their own, like Ben-Hur (2016) and The Magnificent Seven (2016). Murder on the Orient Express (2017) is one such film, and it may as well have been animated because that at least would’ve brought something new to the story that’s been told seven times so far and hasn’t changed at all.

Michelle Pfeiffer (Dangerous Liaisons, mother!) gives the best performance in the film and still brings nothing new to Murder on the Orient Express.

But since today’s generation probably hasn’t read the book by Agatha Christie or seen the 1974 film or any of the TV adaptations, I’ll write the synopsis anyway. The 2017 film stars director Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot, the world’s greatest detective. Upon being summoned to London to take on another case, he takes the Orient Express to get there from Israel, and it is during this journey that another passenger is murdered and the train stopped by an avalanche, forcing Poirot to solve the murder case before the killer strikes again. If you’re familiar with the source material, you already know how it ends and you don’t need to see this movie unless you’re curious how Branagh keeps such an obscenely large mustache on his face. If you’re not, they assume you are and make it painfully obvious while also rushing through story beats and having characters come to impossible conclusions because that’s how it happened in the book.

Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl) flashes a death threat in Murder on the Orient Express.

I’ll say this in favor of the movie, the actors clearly wanted to play these roles. Granted, there’s not a lot of passion in them, but you can tell they wanted to put on their resumes that they were in Murder on the Orient Express, although a few of them do stand out. Michelle Pfeiffer gets a great scene near the end, and though it’s just like in every other adaptation, it’s still delivered with the power you’d expect from Pfeiffer. Josh Gad (Frozen, The Book of Mormon) feels more at home here than he did in Marshall (2017), but that’s probably because Branagh is directing it slightly more towards a crowd-pleasing action comedy than a tense mystery thriller. Johnny Depp surprisingly gives one of his more subdued performances in recent years, but as the murder victim he doesn’t get a lot of time to show it off. Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love, Skyfall) even gets a moment of sass while being interrogated by Poirot. But most of them unfortunately do not leave any impression at all because they’re there for the sake of being there, not to actively contribute anything to the film.

Kenneth Branagh (Much Ado About Nothing, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) appears angry at his mustache in Murder on the Orient Express.

And then of course there’s director/star Kenneth Branagh. The saying goes, “you win some, you lose some.” Branagh had a win earlier this year with his performance in Dunkirk (2017), and this was his loss. Like the rest of the cast, you could tell he wanted to be there only to say he was there, but also to say he directed Murder on the Orient Express. Everything about this interpretation of Hercule Poirot was a live-action cartoon character, from the way he measured the size of his eggs to the size of his impossible-to-grow mustache to the Frenchest of French accents. He criticized Willem Dafoe’s (Platoon, The Florida Project) German accent, so I have the right to criticize his French accent as being a stereotype of French accents that even the French would laugh at and say is straight from an American cartoon.

An obvious CGI mountain range is obvious in Murder on the Orient Express.

And that’s my main issue with this movie. It’s a live-action cartoon. Everything from the physics of the world to the CGI of the scenery passed by the train (yes, there is CGI in Murder on the Orient Express, this is what we’ve come to) to the over-the-top performances and costumes from the actors to the cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos. We’ll get to the cinematography later, but first I’d like to address this cartoon thing. I assume this was done to get teens to go see it, but it was kept live-action to get the older crowd who know the source material into the theater. The idea to make a cartoon version is unique, but not if the film is still live-action, especially since I’d actually be interested in seeing an anime version of this story. You could take your time with the mystery, explore each character’s backstory, inject lots of comedy while still focusing on the drama, and get breathtaking cinematography that captures the mood of a mystery set on a stranded train. Seriously, get Ryohgo Narita (Baccano!, Durarara!!) on this project and you might have something pretty cool. But when your movie opens with a poop joke, I guess I should’ve known I was going to get a pile of crap.

No CGI required in Haris Zambarloukos’s (Thor, Cinderella) cinematography to create that effect in Murder on the Orient Express.

Right, now about that cinematography. For some reason, Zambarloukos and Kenneth Branagh decided they wanted sweeping shots of CGI mountains and cities early in the movie, and then in the second half they shot literally every character (not literally shot every character) through that ornate-but-colorless glass window you find in the middle of your grandmother’s front door so as to create three faces of the same character. Okay, you can do it, but why? What does it do to signify deeper meaning or bring the audience deeper into the world instead of pulling us out. My best guess is that they’re trying to show that there’s more to everyone’s stories than we’re initially allowed to believe, but when two characters in the beginning have a conversation that’s supposed to be vague that literally gives everything away, all that fancy camerawork feels rather distracting, doesn’t it.

The train, much like the audience, is finally released in Murder on the Orient Express.

In conclusion, remaking a mystery film seems rather pointless, especially one so famous as Murder on the Orient Express. As far as this adaptation goes, the actors are there just to be there and Kenneth Branagh sought out to make a live-action cartoon so he could get as many people to see it based on how it looked rather than how good it actually is or isn’t. It’s derailed and stranded just like the titular train, only this time help is not coming to save it.

Rating: STOP

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Wonderstruck”

Millicent Simmonds and Oakes Fegley (Pete’s Dragon) on the poster for Wonderstruck.

One of the most beautiful things about film is that it’s completely subjective, and nowhere is this more true when a film is completely divisive. I’m talking about the kind of divisive you get when audience members disagree with critics audience members who disagree with critics who disagree with other critics. Whether it’s about the vulgar excess of The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the scientific complexity of Interstellar (2014), or whatever the hell we witnessed in mother! (2017), divisive films often spark knee-jerk reactions and constant debate. Then there’s that film that seems to have people split down the middle but, for some reason, doesn’t spark that kind of strong reaction from audiences. This is where Wonderstruck comes in, and I have to ask, does it deserve it?

Oakes Fegley embarks on a journey to New York City in Wonderstruck.

The story is set in two different time periods, the 1920s and 1970s. In the 20s, it follows a deaf girl named Rose (Millicent Simmonds) who runs away to New York to find an actress she idolizes, while in the 70s it follows a boy named Ben (Oakes Fegley) who, after being recently orphaned and rendered deaf in an accident, also runs away to New York in search of the father he never knew. The two stories are shot very differently, the 20s like a silent film without the intertitles and the 70s with a hint of film grain that was common for the time. For the most part, this allows both narratives to be distinct from each other while also blending together to form a work of art.

Millicent Simmonds watches a silent film while starring in the silent film portion of Wonderstruck.

They’re also edited together in such a way that they connect with each other and this allows for some very interesting parallels. For example, the scene of Ben’s accident is intercut with Rose exiting a silent movie theater only to find that every screen will soon be playing talkies only. This scene works as it shows both characters being forced out of their normal world and into the other’s, Ben becoming deaf after a life of being able to hear and Rose losing the only place where she felt accepted. They also often visit the same locations at the same time in the film, especially in the extended sequence involving the American Museum of Natural History.

Millicent Simmonds explores the sights of New York City in Wonderstruck.

The score and sound design are also noteworthy, especially for a movie about deaf children. The score has two different styles and primary instruments reflecting each time period, the 20s focusing on the piano and the 70s on the guitar. The piano themes do pop up quite a bit in the 70s though, but the intent appears to show a sense of wonder or nostalgia. There are also moments, however, where I could hear the guitar playing in the 20s, and that was rather jarring to hear, especially since the black-and-white dialogue-free story with Rose was so carefully crafted like a silent film. But they make up for that in the sound design here, with many different sounds woven into the score at the appropriate times. One such example is when Rose’s father signs to pass the pepper, and the sound of a pepper jar shaking is heard while he’s signing.

Jaden Michael, Oakes Fegley, and Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights) in Wonderstruck.

With so much effort put into making this film a technical marvel, one must wonder why that same effort wasn’t put into the story. What I mean by that is there’s really no reason for these stories to be so connected with each other, although they can’t really stand on their own. Parallel editing is nothing new, and it can work wonders. Dunkirk (2017) is a perfect example of editing narratives in different time spans done right, but that’s because each narrative drops hints of the others while building to a collision in the third act. Maybe Wonderstruck would be better received if the third act wasn’t quite as underwhelming, as neither storyline drops hints of the other and there are some story elements we never get closure on, along with some we do where the closure seems forced and/or comes out of nowhere. I also don’t understand why Julianne Moore was not only cast in this movie, but given two roles to play when neither of them have very much screentime at all. I get how they’re connected, but like the plotlines there was almost no reason for them to be. I guess I expected more from writer Brian Selznick (Hugo) and director Todd Haynes (Carol), but then I think that Haynes was the best choice to adapt Selznick’s novel. So, what went wrong?

Millicent Simmonds senses visible disapproval from her father in Wonderstruck.

As far as the film goes, I don’t think anything went wrong that wasn’t a problem with the source material. The major problems come from the story, and the filmmakers mostly do a great job juggling everything in this puzzle to make it work. I would say they mostly succeeded. As nothing but a work of art, Wonderstruck is one of the year’s best. But as a coherent narrative, it’s uneven story may turn off some viewers. I loved it, though.

Rating: GO

Stop, Go, or Slow Down: “Thor: Ragnarok”

Mark Ruffalo (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) barges out of the gate as the Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok.

In the last five years or so, every studio in Hollywood has tried to start a shared cinematic universe, mostly to mixed results. Whether it’s new cinematic universes like the DCEU or the Dark Universe, or even long-established franchises like Star Wars and Transformers, everyone wants to not only get onboard the bandwagon, but force their way into the driver’s seat along with enough luggage to fill the Auto Train’s autoracks. Even though there have been a few hits along the way, most of the time we’re left wondering why they even bother making these movies. Then every few months, we get another entry in the everlasting Marvel Cinematic Universe that reminds us what everyone else is trying to copy, and Thor: Ragnarok of all movies has come to teach the world once again that Marvel is king.

Tom Hiddleston (Midnight in Paris) and Chris Hemsworth (Rush) must join forces once again as Loki and Thor in Thor: Ragnarok.

Set two years after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), the film once again stars Chris Hemsworth as Thor, the Asgardian god of thunder, in the middle of a long journey through the cosmos to find the Infinity Stones (don’t ask, we’ll be here all day). His quest is interrupted when Thor encounters Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death, and is literally thrown to the other side of the known universe where he must find a way back to Asgard and stop Ragnarok, the end of all Asgardian civilization. Along the way, he must recruit old and new allies such as his adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), a distraught and alcoholic Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), and fellow Avenger the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).

Chris Hemsworth and Clancy Brown (The Shawshank Redemption) as Thor and Surtur in a fight scene choreographed to Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” in Thor: Ragnarok.

Look, I’m gonna say it right now, it’s a Marvel movie. As enjoyable as every Marvel movie is, each one has its share of problems that are common throughout the MCU, and Thor: Ragnarok is no exception. The two that stand out the most in this film are the villain and the score. I’ll start with the score because it is a nice homage to the first movie’s score, albeit as an 80’s retro remix. Having said that, it’s still not a very memorable score. I actually remember the score for Thor: The Dark World (2013) better because that theme was played before every MCU movie for a few years after, and I don’t see that happening with this one. I also didn’t care for the use of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song”, as much as I loved hearing it in the trailer. That kind of soundtrack fits perfectly with Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) when the tone and story are both established to fit in with it, but not so much during the opening action scene in Muspelheim or the climactic battle on the Bifrost Bridge.

Cate Blanchett (Carol) hams it up while Karl Urban (Dredd) looks on in Thor: Ragnarok.

As for the villain, it’s also a mixed bag. When I heard Cate Blanchett had been cast as Hela, the goddess of death, I was very excited. Whenever she walks into a room, she instantly commands the atmosphere without even trying. The way she walks, the sound of her voice, her speech patterns, all of those stellar qualities have propelled her to two Oscar wins, as well as a well-deserved status as one of the greatest actresses of our generation. Here, her talent is barely utilized. Her posture is great throughout, and the character fights with a graceful brutality that you don’t see often in superhero movies. But I feel like either the projector was sped-up for her scenes or she was talking much faster than normal because her elegance in voice was gone. I get that it’s a Marvel movie and she wanted to have fun, but you can take your time and savor the moment like an exquisite beef steak, which is exactly what the GODDESS OF DEATH would do in this movie.

From left-to-right: Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, and Tom Hiddleston in Thor: Ragnarok.

I feel like I just went on a rant there, so I’ll move over to the positives before the Internet assumes I hated this movie (spoilers: I really liked it). As always, Chris Hemsworth is the same likable, headstrong, one-note hero that we’ve come to love over time. Tom Hiddleston is still the same devious, sympathetic, charismatic trickster that we’ve come to love. Mark Ruffalo, now more than ever, carries Bruce Banner like he’s been through Hell and back and is both ready and hesitant to face the devil again. Franchise newcomers Tessa Thompson (Creed) and Jeff Goldblum (Jurassic Park) bring their own known and distinct acting styles to the characters of Valkyrie and the Grandmaster. May they never change.

Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo look nothing like themselves in Thor: Ragnarok.

Most everything else about this film is standard Marvel, so what is it that makes Thor: Ragnarok one of the best-reviewed superhero films of all time (93% on Rotten Tomatoes as I write this review)? I have two theories, and I’m inclined to agree with both of these common compliments myself. One is director Taika Waititi (What We Do in the Shadows), who infuses the franchise with a new energy that Thor hasn’t seen when he’s not teaming up with the other Avengers. He brings a lot of comedy and fast-paced action to the mix, something that the Thor movies have struggled to balance in the past. The other is that, without giving too much away, there are actual consequences to just about every action that is made in this movie. Thor loses his hammer fifteen minutes in, then he has his hair chopped off by one of the best Stan Lee cameos ever, and that’s not even scratching the surface of it. By the time we see him in Avengers: Infinity War (2018), Thor will be at a much different place than he was in his 2011 debut film, as will both Loki and the Hulk. Or maybe it’s because Natalie Portman (Black Swan) decided to sit this one out, I don’t know.

Chris Hemsworth unleashes maximum Thor-verdrive in Thor: Ragnarok.

Whatever the case may be, Thor: Ragnarok proves that Marvel is constantly finding new ways to stay fresh while also staying true to the tried-and-true formula that has worked for Marvel over the last ten years. Is it the best Marvel movie ever? No, and I wouldn’t even say it’s the best Thor movie. But it’s fun, funny, and full of the things we love about the MCU.

Rating: GO