Coco (2017) review + Olaf's Frozen Adventure (2017) review

The time has come once again, folks, for the newest effort from the legendary animation studio, Pixar. Pixar, of course, needs no introduction. Since 1995, they’ve given us an endless array of animated masterpieces that have helped to make them pioneering forces in the art of computer animation, from the early classics like the Toy Story films and The Incredibles (which is finally getting a sequel next year) to recent gems like Up and Inside Out. And now, they’re back again with their second 2017 outing (after Cars 3 was released earlier this summer) in the form of Coco. With Coco, Pixar takes us on a fantastical journey inspired by the most famous Mexican holiday, Día de Muertos AKA the Day of the Dead, where families come together to honor their fallen loved ones. In the director’s chair for this one is Lee Unkrich, who’s been a mainstay at Pixar ever since they started producing their own feature films. Initially, he was an editor for films like Toy Story and A Bug’s Life before he started to work as a co-director on projects like Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo. Then, in 2010, he finally got promoted to the role of lead director for the third installment of the Toy Story franchise, and to call Toy Story 3 a success would be a massive understatement. It grossed over $1 billion worldwide and was only the third animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and while it didn’t end up winning that award, it did win the Oscar that year for Best Animated Feature. And as for his latest outing, Unkrich proceeds to give us yet another gorgeously animated and heartfelt Pixar adventure that treats its subject matter with the full respect that it deserves.

In a peaceful little Mexican village, a young boy named Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) finds himself in a troubling situation over one of his family’s longtime traditions. While he yearns to become a musician like his idol, the late Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt), his family has regularly enforced a ban on music ever since Miguel’s great-great-grandfather left the family to embark on a musical career. Miguel’s passion for music is only fueled further, however, when an old family photo implicates that his great-great-grandfather was, in fact, Ernesto de la Cruz. Thus, on Día de Muertos, Miguel sneaks into the local mausoleum dedicated to de la Cruz and proceeds to take his guitar in the hopes of performing in a local talent contest. In the process, though, he ends up being transported to the Land of the Dead, where the deceased reside until they return to the land of the living every year on this day to visit their living relatives. While there, Miguel is reunited with all of his ancestors who must now try and get him back home before sunrise; otherwise, he would become a skeleton and be stuck in the Land of the Dead forever. But when his ancestors demand that he give up his dreams of becoming a musician as a condition of the return process, Miguel decides to try and find his great-great-grandfather so that he can return home without having to give up on his dream. And so, Miguel teams up with a charismatic con man named Hector (Gael Garcia Bernal), who allegedly knows de la Cruz, to find him in the hopes of proving to his family that this is who he’s meant to be.

Prior to this film’s release, it did attract some skepticism early on from those who were fearful of how Pixar would handle a story that was based on such an important aspect of Mexican culture, especially after an incident in 2015 in which Disney tried to trademark the phrase ‘Día de Los Muertos’. And, of course, there was a lot of tumultuous uproar made by those who accused the film of being a rip-off of the 2014 animated film The Book of Life, even though its director, Jorge R. Gutierrez, clearly denied this multiple times. Well, fear not, folks, as Pixar does treat this staple of Mexican tradition with the respect that it deserves. While Coco does focus a lot on Miguel trying to follow his dreams of becoming a musician, its plot is ultimately steeped in the one thing that the Day of the Dead celebrations are all about, and that is the importance of family. During his journey, there are several instances in which Miguel tries to distance himself from his family when they discourage him from being a musician. At the same time, though, Miguel also begins to realize how much his family truly means to him when he starts to learn the truth behind the events that caused them to carry out their ban on music in the first place. This paves the way for a great plot twist in the third act that further strengthens the emotional poignancy of the story. Yes, just like all the great Pixar films, this film is sure to hit you with the feels at certain points, especially near the end (don’t worry, no spoilers…). 

As for the animation… well, it’s Pixar, what do you expect? It’s bright, crisp, and colorful, and just like the plot itself, it utilizes its Mexican roots to their full effect, effectively giving us a great visual world to explore in its version of the ‘Land of the Dead’. The great animation also ties in well to another key element of this film, its music. Yes, Coco is quite arguably the first major musical that Pixar has ever done, and the music, written in part by Frozen songwriters Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez and backed by the usual great score by Michael Giacchino, is excellent. And of course, like any great Pixar film, it boasts an excellent cast of characters. They’re so solid, in fact, that because the story is so well-handled, even the characters that initially come off as being rather stern become more sympathetic once we get to know them better. This includes the likes of Miguel’s great-great-grandmother Imelda (Alanna Ulbach), who was the first to initiate their family’s music ban after her musician husband left her all those years ago, and Miguel’s grandmother Elena (Renee Victor), who continues to enforce it to this day. But, of course, it’s ultimately the lead duo of Miguel and Hector who are the true emotional core of the story. As the film’s likable young protagonist, newcomer Anthony Gonzalez shines in what will surely be a breakout role for him, while Gael Garcia Bernal gets to work with a great redemption arc that slowly but surely begins to reveal more of the charismatic Hector’s background.

I’ve talked before about the internet’s extremely severe attitude towards Pixar in recent years that has mainly come as a result of some of the strictest expectations that have ever been seen from the film fan community. This has especially been the case ever since 2011’s Cars 2 ended up being the first project of theirs to attract primarily negative reviews. And thus, nowadays, I find that the current internet mentality towards Pixar films is that if a film of theirs isn’t a straight-up masterpiece effort of storytelling, then it is effectively deemed as a ‘failure’. This has been a fate that has sadly affected perfectly decent films like Monsters University, The Good Dinosaur, and Brave, just to name a few. Thankfully, though, that has not been the case with Pixar’s latest outing, as Coco is being regarded by many as one of the studio’s best films yet. And quite frankly, it’s easy to see why, as the film is a heartfelt tribute to arguably the most famous holiday in Mexican culture. Not only does it handle the concept of death and the afterlife in a smart manner, but it also ties it all together perfectly with a poignant story that’s focused on the most important element of Día de Muertos, family. Add in a great cast of layered characters and a toe-tapping soundtrack of songs and you have what is easily one of the best animated films of the year, if not the best. Simply put, Pixar has done it again!  

Rating: 5/5!

OLAF’S FROZEN ADVENTURE – SHORT REVIEW

Now as many of you know, in lieu of the traditional Pixar short that plays before every new Pixar film, Coco was paired with a 21-minute featurette from Walt Disney Animation Studios, Olaf’s Frozen Adventure. This is the first time since 1990 (when The Prince and the Pauper ran in front of The Rescuers Down Under) that a short film of this length has been shown in front of a Disney film. And in this instance, it comes in the form of the continuing adventures of sisters Anna and Elsa and all of their friends from Disney’s 2013 global phenomenon, Frozen. In this new short, the lovable snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a quest to find a new holiday tradition for Princess Anna (Kristen Bell) and Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) when the latter realizes that, because of all the time that she’s spent secluded from society, she and Anna don’t really have a family tradition of their own. As for the short itself… well, if you’re one of those people who are 100% sick to death of ‘Frozen mania’ at this point, then clearly this isn’t going to do anything for you just like when Frozen Fever ran in front of the live-action remake of Cinderella back in 2015. For the record, I still think that Frozen Fever got way too much flak from the internet, but that’s another story at the moment because… damn! This new short is clearly turning out to be far more controversial compared to its immediate predecessor just because it was paired with Coco instead of airing on TV as was originally intended. It’s been so controversial, in fact, that Mexican theaters straight-up pulled it in favor of just showing Coco. And to be perfectly frank, it isn’t doing much better here in the states…

But for those who still love the original film and its endearing cast of characters, then I’m pleased to say that this new short will provide you with even more great moments with them that will hopefully hold you over until the release of the impending sequel in 2019. Now, granted, that doesn’t mean that I think that this is as good as the original film. I do agree with a common argument that’s being brought up in that it sort of rushes through its track list of songs (which, for the record, weren’t done by Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez this time around). Still, the characters are just as lovable as ever and while the songs in this short probably won’t become as popular as the ones from the original film, the final song ‘When We’re Together’ is an undeniably sweet melody. Plus, I won’t lie… the ending is so damn heartwarming in terms of its ultimate resolution, and it serves as yet another perfect representation of the heartfelt narratives that have made up this entire franchise. In short, those who are absolutely dreading the thought of having to sit through this new entry in the Frozen franchise shouldn’t fret too much about it, because from what I’ve heard, this is only going to be running in front of Coco for a limited time. So if you’re this upset about it, just wait a while before you go to see Coco… it’s that easy. But in all seriousness, Olaf’s Frozen Adventure isn’t even remotely as bad as the internet is currently putting it out to be. I mean, really, is it ‘that’ hard to just sit through a 21-minute short film?

Rating: 4/5

UPDATE: It has just been recently announced that Olaf's Frozen Adventure will be pulled from theaters starting on December 8th, presumably in the wake of all of the backlash that it has received from audiences ever since it debuted in front of Coco. And yet, I still don't think that it's as bad as the internet says it is. I mean, seriously, I've seen several online articles recently that have accused the short of being 'offensive' to Pixar fans and for harming the reputation of Coco by overshadowing it. Well, I'm a Pixar fan... and yet I can safely say that I wasn't the least bit 'offended' by this short. Heck, if you ask me, this whole backlash towards an innocent holiday short is far more harmful to Coco's reputation than the short itself. Why? Because THAT, folks, is how Pixar's latest masterpiece is being overshadowed; not directly by the short that precedes it, but because people are truly making a mountain out of a molehill. Once again, I must ask; is it really THAT hard to sit through a 21-minute short that precedes an animated film that's just under two hours?

Justice League (2017) review

For the past decade, Marvel Studios has dominated the superhero film genre thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which was an unprecedented success story as nothing like it had ever been done before in the context of live-action films. After starting out strong with a series of solo outings that slowly but surely began to lay down the foundation for a larger universe, the MCU truly hit it big in 2012 when it brought all of its main heroes together in what ultimately became one of the landmark entries of the genre, The Avengers. But while the Avengers have undoubtedly become one of the most famous squads in the world of film, there is another superhero team that is arguably more iconic than them. I’m, of course, referring to DC Comics’ own legendary superhero group, the Justice League. Ever since the group’s initial creation in 1960 as a revamp of DC’s Justice Society of America, the Justice League, made up of several of the company’s most legendary heroes including the Holy Trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, has become a staple of the DC universe. Aside from their various runs in the comics, the team has also left its mark on other facets of pop culture, including several video games (e.g. the Injustice fighting games) and a bunch of hit TV shows, most notably the Justice League cartoons from the early 2000’s that were created by the team behind the iconic Batman: The Animated Series. And now almost six decades after their initial comic debut, the Justice League has finally hit the big-screen in DC’s highly-anticipated crossover event.

However, the journey that this film has gone on to make it to this point has been rather rocky, to say the least. A full decade prior to its release, a different iteration of Justice League was in the works under the direction of Mad Max creator George Miller. Ultimately, though, this version ended up falling by the wayside due in large part to the 2007-08 Writers’ Strike. It wouldn’t be until after Warner Bros and DC managed to successfully resurrect the Superman franchise in 2013 with Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel that the idea of a Justice League film was once again put into motion. And thus, the DC Extended Universe, DC and Warner Bros.’ answer to the MCU, was born; but again, things haven’t exactly gone smoothly for this franchise since its inception. While both Man of Steel and its 2016 follow-up Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (which introduced Ben Affleck’s rendition of the titular Dark Knight) did perform solidly at the box-office, they also yielded an extremely polarizing response from both critics and audiences. Simply put, these films have had as many extremely devoted fans as they’ve had their extremely vocal critics. Thankfully, though, the franchise did manage to rebound a bit this year thanks to the long-awaited solo outing for DC’s legendary heroine, Wonder Woman, a well-deserved success story for everyone involved on that production, especially director Patty Jenkins and lead actress Gal Gadot. But now we turn our attention to director Zack Snyder’s third entry in the DCEU, Justice League, which… is once again proving to be quite controversial amongst critics. And to be perfectly blunt… this time I can see exactly where they’re coming from when it comes to this film’s biggest issues.

At the end of Batman v. Superman, Bruce Wayne AKA the Gotham City vigilante Batman (Ben Affleck) saw his faith in humanity restored following the noble sacrifice of his ‘nemesis’ turned ally Superman (Henry Cavill) against the monstrous creature known as Doomsday. Despite this, however, the world finds itself plunging into greater chaos following Superman’s death, effectively leaving it open for an invasion by the god-like being known as Steppenwolf (portrayed by Ciaran Hinds via motion-capture). Backed by his army of extraterrestrial creatures known as Parademons, Steppenwolf seeks to reclaim the three mysterious devices hidden on Earth known as ‘Mother Boxes’ that grant unparalleled power to those that use them. To deal with the invasion, Bruce and Diana Prince AKA the Amazonian warrior Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) begin to recruit those who are just like them (referred to in the DC universe as ‘metahumans’) in order to form a team that’s powerful enough to take on Steppenwolf and his army in light of Superman’s absence. In the process, the two end up recruiting Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, the ruler of the undersea kingdom of Atlantis (Jason Momoa), college student Barry Allen AKA the speedster known as ‘the Flash’ (Ezra Miller), and Victor Stone (Ray Fisher), a former football star who was turned into a cyborg after a near-fatal car accident.

Simply put, when this film focuses on what audiences came to see (namely, the Justice League in action), it does deliver on that front. There are tons of great character moments here and there to satisfy the DC Comics faithful who have been waiting to see these characters together onscreen for years. However... that doesn’t mean that this film is devoid of some major flaws. For one thing, it’s all over the place when it comes to its tone. This aspect of the DCEU has been a primary source of contention amongst critics as both Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman were heavily criticized for being too dour. Thankfully with this film, an attempt was at least made for it to be more light-hearted compared to its predecessors; and yet, despite this, its attempts at humor are hit and miss at best. It also tries to balance said humor with some of the more serious aspects of the plot, something that it doesn’t necessarily succeed at doing. Overall, it seems as if a lot of this film’s tonal issues were a direct result of the biggest moment that occurred during its production, when Snyder was forced to step away from the film due to the death of his daughter and Joss Whedon (who, of course, is no stranger to this genre) was brought in to oversee rewrites and reshoots. However, while watching this film, it becomes abundantly clear that Whedon was forcibly rushed when it came to the process of finishing it, resulting in not only those aforementioned tonal issues but also some dodgy CGI as well (e.g. the now-infamous attempts that were made to digitally remove the mustache that Henry Cavill had grown prior to reshoots that he had to keep for the upcoming Mission Impossible 6).

Among other things, this film is primarily tasked with serving as the proper ‘introduction’ of three new main characters to the DCEU; Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. Although the three of them had already technically been introduced in Batman v Superman via a series of brief cameos, this film serves as the first instance where they were each given a lead role. And overall, the film does do a decent job of establishing the DCEU’s iterations of these classic characters, as each main protagonist (both new and returning) does manage to get his or her own standout moment. Despite what I said before about the film’s humor being rather spotty, Ezra Miller’s Flash does get a lot of the best lines in the film as the inexperienced rookie who’s brought in to help deal with a daunting ‘save the world’ scenario. As for Aquaman, while it seems like a lot of his character development is being saved for his upcoming solo film next year, Jason Momoa does, at least, make a good first impression as DC’s often mocked aquatic-based superhero. Finally, with Cyborg, Ray Fisher does a good job of conveying the character’s inner turmoil given his tragic backstory. As for the returning heroes, both Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck are solid once again as Wonder Woman and Batman, respectively. Gadot continues to shine as the DCEU’s best protagonist, even amidst all of this film’s shortcomings, and Affleck still stands strong as the DCEU’s grizzled interpretation of the Dark Knight. And for those who weren’t too big on how Batman was portrayed in BvS, namely via his tendency to kill bad guys, you’ll be pleased to know that they do dial back on that characterization here.

Now, at the risk of delving into spoiler territory (though, really, everyone basically knew this already going in)… yes, Superman returns in this film after the character’s death in BvS. I won’t be getting into the exact specifics of how he’s brought back but I will say that, with this film, Henry Cavill has thankfully been given the chance to, shall we say, ‘act’ like Superman. Granted, I did think that he did a solid job in the previous two films that he appeared in but, at the same time, those films didn’t exactly give him the best material to work with, either. With Justice League, though, we finally get a Superman reminiscent of Christopher Reeve’s iconic iteration of the character from the original Superman films. But while all of the main leads get a solid amount of material to work with in this film, the same can’t be said for its supporting characters as they are all basically limited to ‘cameo’ appearances a la Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg in BvS. This applies to not only returning DCEU players like Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Connie Nielsen as Diana’s mother Queen Hippolyta but also newcomers like Mera, Queen of Atlantis (Amber Heard), and J.K. Simmons’ version of Commissioner Jim Gordon, characters that are clearly being intended to have more substantial roles in future films. And as for the main villain, Steppenwolf… he’s practically a non-existent threat. Despite Ciaran Hinds’ best efforts in the role, the character gets nothing of value to work with here; no backstory, no sense of what he’s trying to accomplish, no indication of his relationship to another famous DC comics antagonist (and future big bad of the DCEU) Darkseid, etc.  In other words, he’s one of the genre’s weakest villains ever.

So before any of the hardcore DCEU fans out there get on my case because of what I’ve said in this review, let me be perfectly clear; I didn’t outright ‘dislike’ Justice League. As I said before, when it focuses on its titular squad of superheroes, it does lead to some great character moments between them. At the same time, though, the overall execution is quite sloppy. While I do appreciate the efforts that were made by Zack Snyder and company to avoid delving into the dour tone that many felt plagued Batman v Superman, the film still suffers from having a rather inconsistent tone. And while the main leads are all solid in their respective roles, the plot is basic, the humor is hit or miss, and the main villain is pathetically weak. In short, a lot of this feels rushed, which arguably isn’t that surprising seeing how this came out only one year after Batman v Superman. And while both Snyder and Joss Whedon tried their best to fix some of the most glaring issues that people have had with previous DCEU installments (save for Wonder Woman), it just wasn’t enough to overcome the immense time crunch that they were both clearly under. With that said, though, if you’re a long-time fan of DC and these characters, I bet that you’ll probably be satisfied with this long-awaited live-action adaptation of arguably the most famous superhero team in all of pop culture… who, quite frankly, deserved a hell of a lot better than what is practically the DC equivalent of Fan4stic. I wish I was kidding about that comparison, but I’m not; granted, it’s nowhere near as bad as Fan4stic, but it too is a case of a studio trying to salvage a reportedly disastrous cut of their tent-pole release only to make things worse in the process.

Rating: 2.5/5 (So yeah, my streak of giving every major superhero film this year a 5/5 rating officially ends here. Still, despite my issues with Justice League, this has been one of the genre’s greatest years ever, which is something that will certainly be emphasized in my impending ‘Best Films of the Year’ list. But as for this film… well, as much as I hate to say it, it is most likely going to end up appearing on… the other list…)

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

When it comes to some of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie is undoubtedly one of the most legendary in that field. Over the span of several decades, the late English author was well-known for writing several classic mystery stories, so much so that she currently holds the record as the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies of her work sold. And in her first novel, 1920’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles, readers were introduced to arguably her most famous creation, the Belgian detective known as Hercule Poirot. Poirot went on to appear in 33 of Christie’s novels, her 1930 play Black Coffee, and over 50 of her short stories. But as for the most famous story that he ever appeared in, that honor goes to Christie’s 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express, in which the detective with the well-groomed mustache found himself dealing with, as the title suggests, a murder mystery onboard the titular Orient Express. This particular Christie story has already been adapted to the screen several times over the years, including a star-studded 1974 film adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet and an episode of the long-running British TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. But now Poirot is back on the big-screen once again in a brand new take on this iconic story, with Sir Kenneth Branagh taking on the role of the legendary detective. He also serves as the director of this new film which, like the 1974 adaptation, also features a star-studded cast. And overall, despite some of its shortcomings, this new version of Murder on the Orient Express does manage to be a solid adaptation of its source material.

As the film begins, we are introduced to the man himself, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), the most famous detective in the world. The year is 1933 and despite Poirot’s plans to go on holiday after his most recent case in Jerusalem, he receives a telegram demanding that he return to London to take on a new case. To get there, Poirot’s friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) offers him a compartment on the luxurious Orient Express, which Bouc has just been appointed the director of. Whilst onboard, Poirot is joined by an eclectic group of passengers, including young governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), American socialite Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), and immoral businessman Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). Ratchett ends up approaching Poirot and asks him to be his bodyguard as he fears that he’s in danger. Poirot refuses but, soon enough, Ratchett is found dead in his cabin from several stab wounds. When the Orient Express is forced to make an unscheduled pit stop due to an avalanche, Poirot quickly begins to investigate the cause of Ratchett’s death. Deducing that one of their fellow passengers was responsible for the crime, Poirot works tirelessly in order to figure out which one of them is the murderer. And as he soon finds out, this case ends up having some noticeable connections to a highly public kidnapping/murder case that had occurred a few years back.

Now, just a quick disclaimer; at the time that I’m writing this, I have not read the original Murder on the Orient Express novel. I also haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of this story, which of course includes the last major feature film adaptation from 1974. And from what I’ve read online, comparisons between this film and its various predecessors have been quite common. Thus, given what I just said about my general unfamiliarity with the source material, unfortunately, I can’t really add much to that discussion. What I will say, though, is that Branagh does do a good job in making this film an engaging murder mystery, and because I didn’t really know anything about the plot before seeing it, it allowed me to go into the film without already knowing the final outcome. With that in mind, however, I am aware that some have been rather mixed on the ending, not because it changes anything (from what I’ve read, it seems like Branagh stayed generally faithful to the source material) but more in the case of how Branagh handles it as director. Some have felt that the ending diminishes the impact of the final reveal by way of how Poirot ultimately responds to it. And despite this being my first major experience with this classic murder mystery story, I will admit that I did find that the ending didn’t quite have the impact that it wanted to leave on the audience. Still, at the very least, the build-up to the final reveal is well-handled and the film is well-made on a technical level, benefitting especially from some great cinematography from Branagh regular Haris Zambarloukos that was shot on 65 mm film a la Dunkirk.

As noted earlier, the 1974 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express featured an all-star cast that included the likes of Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery just to name a few. The same applies to this new version as well, with names like Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp… and again, that’s just to name a few. And, of course, Kenneth Branagh not only directs the film but stars in it as well as the one and only Hercule Poirot. Branagh does a great job in the role, excellently conveying both Poirot’s wisdom and eccentric nature, two traits that very much help him when it comes to solving cases. As for the rest of the cast, they’re all great as well but they admittedly don’t have as much to work with compared to Branagh. Now, to be fair, it can be argued that this is just a consequence of being a story in which there are 12 primary suspects. Still, aside from a select few like Gad and Ridley’s characters, most of their roles in the film are basically just limited to one or two major scenes that they share with Poirot, who interrogates them all one at a time. Ultimately, though, if I had to pick the biggest standouts of the supporting cast, that would include Michelle Pfeiffer as the headstrong Mrs. Hubbard, Judi Dench as the pushy Princess Dragomiroff, and Leslie Odom Jr. as the often put-upon Dr. Arbuthnot.

So as I’ve made it clear, this film basically served as my introduction to Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. As such, I can’t really say much about how this version of the story compares to other adaptations of it because simply put, I haven’t seen any of them. With that said, though, I am aware that some have been critical of this adaptation for not really doing anything new with the source material. And, of course, some have also taken issue with the ending, which I’ll admit is an argument that I do sort of agree with in terms of how it kind of lessens the final resolution of the main conflict. Still, for the most part, I found this to be a solidly made mystery thriller. While the plot does maintain a ‘slow burn’ style of pacing throughout, there is never a dull moment in this film. And like many of Branagh’s films (e.g. his remake of Cinderella and the first Thor film), this film does benefit from some solid production value, namely in regards to the cinematography, and an excellent ensemble cast. In short, if you’re like me and you’re not too familiar with the original source material going in, at the very least this film serves as a nice way of introducing newcomers to Christie’s work. And given that the film ends with a nod to another Poirot story, the potential is there for a sequel or two adapting other classic Christie novels. But if you are familiar with this story and the previous adaptations of it, this adaptation may seem a bit more questionable given everything that’s come before it. Overall, though, this film does succeed when it comes to being an entertaining popcorn flick that’s worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 4/5

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) review

Thor Odinson AKA the Asgardian God of Thunder has been a vital member of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its core superhero team, the Avengers. Despite this, however, many have viewed the character’s solo outings as being some of the weakest installments of the MCU. Now, to be fair, this wasn’t always the case; namely, back when the first Thor film came out in 2011. If anything, that film was arguably Marvel Studios’ first big ‘risky’ project, as it was the first MCU film to focus on a character who didn’t primarily reside on Earth. As such, there was a considerable possibility that this tale of god-like beings could’ve ended up being incredibly cheesy. However, thanks to the Shakespearean influence from director Kenneth Branagh, the film did manage to make its arguably ludicrous setting feel believable. But while the film did do solidly with both critics and audiences, I think it’s safe to say that, nowadays, you don’t see it brought up too often when people discuss their favorite MCU films. The same can be said for the 2013 sequel, Thor: The Dark World. While not technically a critical/commercial failure, many consider it to be one of the weakest installments of the entire MCU if not the absolute ‘worst’. And while I don’t think that it’s as bad as some people have put it out to be, it’s undeniably one of the prime examples of an MCU film that was heavily influenced by the studio’s infamous (and now thankfully disbanded) creative committee. After all, if it wasn’t for some highly publicized creative differences, the film could’ve been directed by Patty Jenkins who, thankfully, would go on to direct a far more successful superhero film four years later with DC’s Wonder Woman.

So with all this in mind, it’s safe to say that there’s been a lot of pressure on Thor’s third solo outing to, shall we say, ‘redeem’ the franchise. And thus, here we are now with Thor: Ragnarok. Fans of the comics, as well as those familiar with Norse mythology, will no doubt recognize the subtitle for this film as the plot is based around the fabled apocalyptic event known as Ragnarok. In both Norse mythology and the comics, this was a major event in which the kingdom of Asgard was destroyed and several of its most notable inhabitants were killed. But while the film does focus on the prophesized destruction of its main protagonist’s home-world, do not expect a huge and serious fantasy epic going in. Instead, Thor: Ragnarok can arguably be described as an 80’s-inspired ‘road trip comedy’ starring not only Thor but also the Incredible Hulk, whose plotline takes influence from the character’s popular Planet Hulk storyline from the comics. In the director’s chair is Taika Waititi, who is arguably the biggest ‘out of left field’ director that Marvel Studios has ever hired… which, for them, is saying a lot. Over the past few years, the New Zealand native has become well-known for his work on several critically acclaimed films. This includes 2014’s mockumentary horror comedy What We Do in the Shadows, 2016’s adventure dramedy Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and a few episodes of the hit HBO comedy series Flight of the Concords. And as for Thor: Ragnarok, his first big-budget feature, he proceeds to give us a highly entertaining film that not only stands as the best Thor film yet but also one of the best MCU films to date as well.

At the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Thor Odinson AKA the God of Thunder (Chris Hemsworth) left Earth to embark on a quest to try and find the mystical objects known as Infinity Stones that he had seen in the visions that he had during the film. As this film begins, it has been two years since then and Thor has not had much success with this current endeavor. To make matters worse, when he returns to Asgard he learns that his treacherous adopted brother Loki AKA the God of Mischief (Tom Hiddleston), who had been presumed dead during the events of Thor: The Dark World, has been impersonating their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), ruler of Asgard. And then if that wasn’t enough, Thor and Loki soon find themselves dealing with a new threat in the form of Odin’s firstborn, Hela the Goddess of Death (Cate Blanchett). After being imprisoned for several eons due to her ever-growing ambition, Hela has now returned and is hell-bent on conquering the Nine Realms. When Thor tries to stop her, she ends up destroying his hammer, Mjolnir, and he ends up getting stranded on the planet of Sakaar. There, he becomes a prisoner of the planet’s eccentric ruler, the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), and is forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena where his opponent is his old Avenger ally (and ‘friend from work’) Dr. Bruce Banner AKA the monstrous creature known as the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).  And thus, Thor now finds himself in a race against time to return home to Asgard and stop Hela before the kingdom’s prophesized destruction, AKA Ragnarok, can occur.

So yes, as it’s been well-documented by several critics, Thor: Ragnarok is easily one of the most comedic outings of the Marvel Cinematic Universe… which, to be fair, is something that the MCU has always been known for anyway. Right from the get-go, this film is jam-packed with humorous bits of dialogue and funny sight gags. This, however, has proven to be a rather controversial development for some fans due to the fact that, in the comics, the Ragnarok storyline of which this film takes its name from was more serious in tone. Ultimately, though, this doesn’t prove to be as big of a problem as those fans may have feared, because while Thor: Ragnarok is undeniably one of the funniest MCU films to date, that doesn’t mean that this is all that it has going for it. When the story delves into the whole Ragnarok prophecy and Hela’s takeover of Asgard, the film does take these events seriously. Plus, for a film that is part of the allegedly so-called ‘kiddie’ franchise that has been the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it isn’t afraid to pull a few punches here and there to once again prove that long-standing argument wrong. Simply put, while the film is an absolute riot when it comes to its humor, director Taika Waititi establishes a solid tone that does, in fact, manage to keep it from just being a straight-forward comedy. And don’t even get me started on all of the great minor touches that he adds to the film to make it all the more memorable, from the implementation of the scores from the previous two Thor films to a scene that, no joke, pays homage to the infamous tunnel scene from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

As noted earlier, Thor: Ragnarok mainly revolves around the duo of Thor and Hulk, a crossover that excited many due in no small part to some of the great interactions between the two of them in the Avengers films (e.g. the scene in the first Avengers where Hulk abruptly punches Thor off-screen after an intense battle… need I say more?). It’s also quite good that these two were paired together for this film seeing how, as far as the MCU films are concerned, we haven’t seen either of these two in more than two years. Not counting Thor’s cameo during the mid-credits scene of Doctor Strange (a sequence that is expanded upon here with Benedict Cumberbatch returning, of course, as the titular Sorcerer in a brief cameo), these two haven’t had a major role in an MCU film since Age of Ultron. But even after all this time, Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo both do excellent jobs once again in their respective roles as the film allows the two of them to utilize their comedic timing to its full potential. This, in turn, results in some of their best performances as Thor and Hulk (definitely Hemsworth’s best and arguably Ruffalo’s best). Another major returning player to the MCU is Loki, and heck, he hasn’t been seen for longer than Thor and Hulk combined. His last appearance was in Thor: The Dark World… all the way back in 2013. He almost appeared in Age of Ultron but his scenes ended up getting cut. Still, just like Hemsworth and Ruffalo, Tom Hiddleston is still great as always as the cunning but deeply-layered God of Mischief who continues to maintain a strenuous relationship with his brother.

Moving on to the new characters that are introduced in this film, first there’s Tessa Thompson as one of the Grandmaster’s assistants who, as we learn, is an Asgardian who was once a member of the kingdom’s elite Valkyrie squadron. However, we also learn that she is the only survivor of the group following a devastating battle with Hela long ago, which gives the character a solid backstory and character arc as a hard-drinking warrior turned scrapper who’s trying to escape her past. Plus, Thompson works excellently alongside Hemsworth, Ruffalo, and Hiddleston and proves to be a great new badass addition to the MCU’s lineup of female leads. As for Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster… well, he’s the Jeff Goldblum that we all know and love, simple as that. Finally, we come to the main villain of the film, Hela AKA the first lead villainess of the MCU films. And while I admittedly wouldn’t call her one of the ‘best’ MCU villains to date, Cate Blanchett certainly kills it in the role. Sure, the final conflict between her and Thor’s team sort of concludes rather quickly but, as noted before, the film does treat her as a serious threat throughout. She also gets a great henchman in the form of Skurge (Karl Urban), an Asgardian warrior who allies with her when it gives him an opportunity for the attention that he has long yearned for. And he ends up getting a surprisingly layered character arc as a result, effectively making him one of the MCU’s greatest henchman characters.

For many years, Marvel Studios tended to get a lot of flak from critics who argued that they often limited the creative visions of the directors that they’ve hired, resulting in a few ‘copy and paste’ installments. And while I don’t fully agree with that argument, I think it’s safe to say that this hasn’t been as much of an issue since the studio’s controversial creative committee was disbanded. Case in point, Thor: Ragnarok gives us one of the most creatively visionary installments in the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. While the previous two Thor films stumbled a bit when it came to their overall tone, this film decided to just fully embrace the silliness of its cosmic-based premise. Because of this, Thor: Ragnarok is yet another highly entertaining installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe thanks in large part to it being one of the funniest entries of the franchise. With that said, though, the film’s primarily comedic tone may throw some people off given the generally serious nature of the Ragnarok story arc from the comics. However… that’s the whole point! Director Taika Waititi did state that his overall intention with this film was to make a ‘fun’ superhero adventure, and that is exactly what he did. Sure, maybe it doesn’t have the best overall plot of these MCU films, but seriously… what’s so wrong about a ‘fun’ superhero flick?

Rating: 5/5! (And yes, I’m well-aware that I’ve given this rating to every major superhero film that has been released this year. Now it’s time to see if Justice League will also earn that rating and officially confirm 2017’s status as one of the genre’s greatest years ever… though, to be perfectly frank, this will still be the case even if Justice League doesn’t turn out that good (though, of course, hopefully, it IS good!))