Minor spoilers ahead.
I'm generally a fan of Taika Waititi's films, but I confess that I didn't understand why "Thor: Ragnarok" had the overwhelmingly positive reception that it got. Sure, it helped transition Thor into a more comedic character, and introduced Tessa Thompson's Valkyrie, among others. However, what I've always liked about Waititi is his ability to pair the irreverence with more heartfelt stories, and "Thor: Ragnarok" was pretty much all irreverence. I think that's why I was so pleasantly surprised by "Thor: Love and Thunder," which is much more of a movie about emotions and personal growth than any of the marketing let on. It's also very much a kids' film, in a summer that has suffered from a dearth of good kids' films.
Thor, who we last saw with the Guardians of the Galaxy, is still adventuring through the cosmos. We see him check in with Valkyrie, find an injured Sif (Jamie Alexander), and learn about a new threat - Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale), who is on a quest to rid the universe of all the deities he can get his hands on. Meanwhile, Thor's ex-girlfriend Jane Foster has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and winds up gaining his powers through some mystical shenanigans with his hammer. Jane and Thor cross paths again, sparks fly, and you can guess what happens next. Parts of the story are incredibly dark and bleak with Gorr's young daughter (played by Hemsworth's daughter India) dying in the opening pre-title sequence. Parts of the story are incredibly silly, like Thor being rewarded for his exploits with the gift of two giant goats who scream a lot.
And how does Taika Waititi get these two parts of the film to mesh? Well, that's the film's biggest problem. He doesn't. "Love and Thunder" swings wildly between the funny, lighthearted parts of the film where Thor trades jokes with Korg, and the more serious, heartrending material where Jane is dying of cancer, and a grief-stricken Gorr is not coping well with the loss of his daughter. The former works better, because we get plenty of the usual Marvel spectacle, and a lot of the humor is specifically aimed at the very young and immature. The plottier stuff feels more rushed, with muddled stakes, and clearly there was a lot left on the cutting room floor, considering the amount of people announced for this film who are nowhere to be found. Still, it mostly works, and Waititi is able to keep all the balls in the air. There's a gorgeous black and white battle sequence. Russell Crowe shows up as Zeus. Though some of the execution is clumsy and odd, I appreciate having a Marvel film that is willing to go this hard on genuinely risky material.
On to "Top Gun: Maverick," which I've put off writing a review for because I can't imagine I can say anything about it that far more eloquent reviewers haven't already said about it. Yes, this long-gestating sequel to 1986's "Top Gun" military action adventure film is a rare legasequel that works, and is actually better than the original film. Yes, Tom Cruise at sixty is still as much of a movie star as he's ever been, and watching him woo Jennifer Connelly, and corral youngsters Miles Teller, Glen Powell, Lewis Pullman, and Monica Barbaro makes it clear he hasn't lost an ounce of charm with age. Yes, the glorification of the American military industrial complex is blatantly obvious, but the film is such a piece of fantasy that the enemy is not only unnamed, but totally anonymous throughout - barely glimpsed enemy pilots are always fully covered in black face masks.
Joseph Kosinski and his collaborators treat "Maverick" as a throwback, replicating the opening aircraft carrier sequence with a new version of the "Top Gun" anthem blaring through the speakers. The whole story is a lead-up to a big final mission, leaving aside all the complications of the politics and ethics of war, in favor of the video game simplicity of achieving new benchmarks and powering through tricky flight parameters. What really sells it is the past three decades of filmmaking advancements, that allow the cameras to now be in the air with the fighter planes, or right alongside the speeding motorcycles, ridden by a Tom Cruise who is doing all his own stunts. It's a vast improvement from the first "Top Gun," where all the aerial combat footage was obviously acquired separately, and had to be written and edited around. There are several shots in "Maverick" that echo shots from "Top Gun," except executed the way we all wished they could have been the first time around.
So, I understand why filmgoers have flocked to the film. It's an uncomplicated, scintillating action spectacle that just wants to deliver an adrenaline high and have the audience leave feeling like a million bucks. The characters and performances aren't great, but they're good enough. The mission isn't really plausible, but it feels just plausible enough that you can set disbelief aside for a while and enjoy the ride. And it's nice to see Val Kilmer again, though I have to wonder how Kelly McGillis is doing these days. And the cult of Cruise is still weirding me out something fierce, but it's also nice to know that his clout means that I don't have to worry about a "Top Gun 3" for the foreseeable future.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment