Showing posts with label Taika Waititi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taika Waititi. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2020

Idiot Boxing: What We Do in the Shadows, season 2 (2020)

The crew celebrates Nandor's 800-somethingth birthday in
typically foolhardy fashion.
No Spoilers, so read away!

A still funny but slightly lesser sophomore season from the brainchild of Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi.

The show still focuses on a quartet of vampires living in Staten Island, New York. Three of them embody the classic vision of vampires, hailing from the Europe of centuries past and exhibiting an unfailing sense of superiority, despite the fact that they are often hopelessly out of touch with modern times. They are also looked down upon by nearly every other vampire in the vast underworld community of nightwalkers. The fourth - the energy vampire Colin Robinson - may be more in tune with modern times, but is so horribly boring that he's equally derided by his vampiric peers. The big twist at the end of the first season was actually about Guillermo, the semi-pathetic familiar to the especially dim-witted, 800-year old vampire Nandor. Guillermo, long awaiting his master to fulfill his dream and turn him into a vampire, learns that he is a descendent of the renowned vampire-slayer Abraham Van Helsing. This syncs up with the fact that Guillermo had accidentally slain several vampires through the course of the first season, including the powerful and feared (but also completely deranged) "Baron."

This second season follows a similar rhythm to the first. Each mockumentary-style episode is mostly stand-alone, with the overarching story continuing to be Guillermo's attempts to reconcile his still-present desire to become a vampire with the fact that he is a world-class vampire killer. This is a skill that he finds himself using more than he would like, as many other vampire clans are constantly sending assassins after Nandor and the other vampires in their home, due to the belief that it was they, not Guillermo, who killed The Baron. Mostly, though, each episode has its own self-contained focus.

Laszlo squares off against a dangerous rival in a sleepy town
pub in Pennsylvania, where he's been hiding out in the episode
"On the Run." This was my favorite episode of this season.
I thought this season was still quite funny, though not as consistent as the first season. Of the ten episodes, there were a few that I found were noticeably less funny than most entries into this still-young series. Oddly, it was the first three episodes - "Resurrection," "Ghosts," and "Brain Scramblies" - in which I found more gags that were only so-so, mixed in with some really good moments. Once it got to the middle part of the season, things picked up noticeably. "Colin's Promotion" was a good one, in which Colin Robinson works his way up the chain of command at work and sees his energy-siphoning powers grow immensely strong. And "Witches" was a solid entry with plenty of sexual humor - something that is always Laszlo's strong point. My personal favorite, though, was "On the Run," in which Laszlo flees Staten Island, fearing for his (after?)life. The always-over puffed up vampire takes refuge in a small Pennsylvania town, and there are a ton of hilarious moments as he "blends in" with the locals.

Season two also had a bit of a "reveal" at the end of it, which I won't spoil for anyone, and a third season has been confirmed. However, I seem to recall reading that show co-creators Jemaine Clement or Taika Waititi may step away from the show going forward. If that is, indeed, the case, then I hope whoever picks up the reins can keep the show going strong. It's really one of the best comedies that I know of on TV right now, and one could see it remaining so for several more seasons. 

Monday, May 7, 2018

Retro-Trio: Noah (2014); AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004); Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Noah (2014)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

My third time seeing the movie, and I still think it's phenomenal.

I gave this one a full review back when it was released, and you can view it here, so I'll keep this one short. It's been about two years since I last saw the movie, and it has grown no less impressive to me. What stands out most at this point for me are the overarching theme of the burden of responsibility and the film's expert pacing.

I still find Aronofsky's take on the titular Old Testament protagonist highly compelling. With Noah almost literally having the weight of the world on his shoulders, his anguish is palpable. This, however, had the potential to become a bit dull if it had been the only struggle or storyline in the movie. Rather, we also get the added and essential layer of Noah's misunderstanding of the responsibility thrust upon his shoulders by his lord. Because of his sorrow at having to see and allow nearly every person in the world die around him, he takes on a completely apocalyptic view of everything - to the point that he swears to slaughter even his own adopted grandchildren, should they be born. It is a brutally dark turn, but one that captures both the light and dark sides of Old Testament "heroism."

The pacing of the movie is also phenomenal. Considering how much is covered - from revealing this particular version of Noah's earth, right through the entire flood and its toll on Noah and his family, the tale moves along at a very satisfying pace. Nothing feels bogged down or rushed at any point, with the entire epic tale clocking in at just a bit over two hours. It's a testament to Aronofsky and his editor Andrew Weisblum that they told such a grand story so efficiently.

I actually bought this movie on blu-ray, and I haven't regeretted it. It's one that I've obviously gone back to a few times already, and will continue to do so in the future.


AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

After so many years avoiding this movie, I have to say it wasn't bad. Not great, by any means, but not bad either.

Like plenty of sci-fi adventure geeks, I revere the original two Alien movies, and I absolutely love the original Predator. I own all three movies and watch them about every year or two, and still rank them among my favorites. Still, I'm all too aware that, like many sci-fi "franchises," the quality of the originals faded severely as studios kept cranking out follow-ups. The Alien and Aliens are iconic; Alien 3 was mediocre at best, and Alien: Resurrection was a total mess. Predator is brilliant; Predator 2 was decent but a dropoff, and 2010's Predators was a dull rehash of the original.

Tucked in, just before that final Predators film were the two "AVP" flicks - Alien versus Predator. This first one, released in 2004, tells the story of a group of scientists gathered by billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland (a name familiar to Alien movies devotees) to explore a mysterious heat signature detected at a remote, abandoned station on Antarctica. The team digs deep beneath the surface to discover a wildly elaborate, labrynthine pyramid structure. As they explore, they ascertain that it was built by a race of extra-terrestrial hunters - the "Predators" introduced in that film series - as a staging ground for periodically staged hunts of trapped xenomorphs known from the Alien series. Little does the team of explorers know that the initial heat signature also acted as a beacon to a trio of Predators, who have also arrived on the scene to take part in the ritual hunt.

Nobody will ever mistake AVP for the very best of either of its root film series, in terms of quality. The acting is spotty at best, with the two main leads clearly being hired for their looks over their acting skills, and the dialogue is rather tepid throughout, with nary a decent one-liner to be found. And the little attempts at human connection or emotion fall pretty flat. But as an action/adventure film, the movie does just enough right to hold one's attention; at least it did for me. The backstory of the Predators arriving on earth centuries earlier and being revered as gods by the ancient Aztecs is fun, and the setting of the subterranean pyramid works well for this sort of picture. None of it is overly original, but it shows just enough novelty to keep things interesting. And the fights between the Aliens and Predators, mostly kept to small-scale, one-on-one fights, work well.

This movie is a decent way to scratch the "Alien" or "Predator" itch that one might have, while not watching the vastly superior original films. Several friends had recommended it to me, and I can now see why they enjoyed it, for what it is. However, since those very same friends have told me what a piece of garbage the followup AVP: Requiem was, I will avoid that movie like xenomorph blood.


Eagle vs. Shark (2007)

Director: Taika Waititi

Within the last few years, I've grown to become a great fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi. It began around 2015, after watching and loving his vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows. Then, my wife and I fell in love with his 2016 film The Hunt for the Wilderpeople, followed by backtracking to his earlier film Boy, which we also greatly enjoyed. The most recent icing on the cake for me was his deft and hilarious handling of large-scale superhero movies with the brilliant Thor: Ragnarok. Having gone 4-for-4 with me, it was only logical to go all the way back to Waititi's very first feature-length film, the low-budget regional Kiwi flick Eagle vs. Shark.

The wife and I really liked it.

The movie tells the story of Lily (Lauren Taylor), a rather shy young woman who works at a fast food restaurant and harbors a crush for the nerdy Jarrod (Jemaine Clement), who works at the nearby video game shop. When Lily is callously fired, she dares to crash a video game party that Jarrod hosts, and the two sleep together. Lily is then caught up in Jarrod's grand plan to return to his hometown and fight the boy who used to bully him in high school. In Jarrod's hometown, though, Lily begins to see Jarrod as more self-involved and immature, which culminated in his breaking up with her. However, she also sees that much of it stems from a bizarre home life where his deceased elder brother has cast a long shadow over the entire clan. Lily ultimately finds herself stuck in Jarrod's remote, rural town, biding her time for several days before Jarrod's scheduled fight.

This movie is a nearly perfect blend of Wes Anderson's sweeter films, a few dashes of Napoleon Dynamite, and Waititi's innate, quirky New Zealand sensibilities. The main characters Lily and Jarrod are painfully awkward in most circumstances, though Jarrod in particular is possessed of a wildly misplaced self-confidence and arrogance sometimes found among nerddom. Despite their trouble in most social situations, the two find just enough common ground to let each other into their lives, at least to a certain extent. While the tone is certainly off-beat, there is a certain level of authentic heart to the proceedings - something which Waititi would more masterfully use in his later films. In Eagle vs. Shark, these elements may not be as finely tuned, but they are still highly effective. This is all balanced well with a steady dose of oddball humor - from Lily's uncomfortable interactions with her snooty fast-food coworkers to Jarrod's "kung fu" training in preparation for his revenge fight, plenty of the scenes would be right at home among the best things you've seen in Rushmore and the like.

Not that I needed any more encouragement, but this film only solidified Waititi's place in my mind as a modern director whose films I now eagerly anticipate. And as much as I loved Ragnarok, I would actually prefer that he go back to smaller-scale, more personal flicks such as Eagle vs. Shark. This is clearly where he has made and can continue to make more meaningful, unique, and touching movies.

Monday, November 6, 2017

New, Spoiler-Free Release! Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

No Plot Spoilers! Have no Fear!!

In one of many entertaining twists, the god of thunder must
learn to cope without his legendary hammer, Mjolnir, as he
fights as a gladiator against a very formidable opponent.
Director: Taika Waititi

Far and away the best Thor movie, which may not be saying much. But I'll also say that this is now among my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies.

Those of us who follow the MCU last saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as he helped save earth from the destructive machinations of Ultron in 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron. While the other Avengers regrouped and formed a new team, Thor and the Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) disappeared without a trace. Thor: Ragnarok brings us up to speed fairly quickly, with Thor having been searching various realms around the universe for information about the cosmically powerful Infinity Stones. This search eventually puts him on the trail of his missing father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). When he and his ever-treacherous brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the god of mischief, eventually find Odin, the events that follow unleash Hela (Cate Blanchett), an immensely powerful force of destruction. Thor and Loki are inadvertently hurtled across the universe and land on a remote planet ruled by a barely sane overlord, Grandmaster, who runs a massive gladiator competition. Thor and Loki must figure out a way off the planet and get back to Asgard, which Hela means to take over as a first step towards dominating the universe.

Even more than the nearly uncut entertainment that is the Guardians of the Galaxy films, Thor: Ragnarok is unadulterated fun. Purists and fans of more intense superhero movies like the Dark Knight trilogy or even Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War (all of which I love, by the way) may take some umbrage to the generally silly, even campy, tone of this latest MCU offering, but I loved it. Admittedly, I am a fan of New Zealand director Taika Waititi's goofy sensibilities. Even when I could see the gags coming, they were executed so well that I always got a chuckle out of them. And anyone who's enjoyed the odd, deadpan humor of Flight of the Conchords (several episodes of which Waititi either wrote and/or directed) or the vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows will catch on and laugh heartily at the banter and comedy in Ragnarok.

My main concern going in was whether or not Waititi would be able to offer some worthy action sequences, given that he'd yet to tackle any sort of big-budget project of this sort. I was glad that he eased these worried by giving us several highly entertaining, well-executed fight and battle scenes. I won't put them on par with the best of what we saw in The Avengers or the Russo brothers' two Captain America movies, but there are more than a few spectacular displays of mythical might in the film. Many of us viewers in the theater were ooh-ing, ah-ing, and basically having fun with many of these sequences.

Cate Blanchett cuts a menacing enough figure as the blood-
thirsty Hela, even if the villain is yet another mostly one-
dimensional adversary in an MCU replete with them.
I can't say that the movie fully delivers in terms of any touching or emotional beats. Yes, there is a bit more exploration of the love/hate relationship between Thor and Loki, and the theme of vengeance and maintaining bonds with one's people. But these always take a rather distant backseat to the action and humor. Another aspect where I would say the movie falls a bit short is one that has been a blind spot for most MCU movies - not being able to conjure up a completely well-rounded, thoroughly compelling villain. Cate Blanchett plays the role of Hela just fine, and the character is certainly powerful. And her backstory does offer more than many other MCU villains, making her out to be a bit more than simply a massive force of inexplicable rage. The rage is there, but there is some explanation for it this time around. Still, she is ultimately just a baddie who wants to kill everything and everyone in her path who won't bow to her will. Far physically weaker villains like Adrian Toomes in Spider-Man: Homecoming or Helmut Zemo in Captain America: Civil War were better developed and more compelling.

A final note to those who may be wondering just how inundated with the MCU one has to be in order to enjoy this movie: you don't need to know a ton. Even if you haven't seen earlier MCU films, the key points are summarized within the movie fairly well, if briskly. While I can't call Ragnarok a complete stand-alone movie, it does quite well on its own merits. Of course, if one wants to do all of their homework, I would recommend watching the first two Thor movies, The first two Avengers movies, and maybe even Doctor Strange, which does have a minor connection here. If you've the time and inclination to take in those five films, you'll completely understand all of the main references and connections in the film.

So this one is plenty of fun. It might not be the tightest movie we'll ever get in the MCU, but it has a cheeky, high-spirited, and playful attitude that makes it a joy to watch. I already have my tickets to see it again in a few days. What other endorsement need I make?

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Retro Duo: Boy (2011); Enemy (2013)

Boy (2011)
The titular Boy, with his flighty but artistic brother Rocky
tagging along. Boy's T-shirt puts on display his love of pop
culture of the 1980s, when the story takes place.


Director: Taika Waititi

A brilliant early feature film from New Zealand native son, Taika Waititi.

I picked this one up on the recommendation of a Kiwi friend of mine, after I had told him just how much my wife and I had enjoyed Waititi's recent film Hunt for the Wilderpeople. This friend actually stated that he enjoyed Boy even more, and I can now see why. The movie tells the story of the titular Boy, an 11-year old native Maori growing up in rural New Zealand in 1984. Like most of his family, friends, and those around him, Boy is obsessed with American pop culture, especially Michael Jackson. Such pastimes help him get through a rather tough life taking care of his several siblings, as his mother has long since passed away and his father has been in prison for several years. Boy's life takes a wild change when his father Alamein (Taika Waititi) is released from prison and turns up to resume his role as Boy's father. The problem is that Alamein is essentially a 30-year old adolescent even more obsessed with 1980s pop aesthetic and machismo than the local pre-teens.

Not unlike Waititi's later Wilderpeople, Boy does an excellent job of blending the quirky humor endemic to the region with some truly heartfelt examination of relationships between people. Yes, the surface makes many of the characters seem almost cartoonishly goofy at times, but the motivations and impulses behind their buffoonery have a genuine feel. Boy's adulation of his criminally immature father makes all the sense in the world for a motherless kid who is desperate for a father figure. And both his and his father's actions are, while laughably silly at times, do reflect relationship dynamics that feel authentic. In certain ways, there is a similarity to the movies of Wes Anderson, whose meticulous aesthetic and peculiar humor are just window dressing on what are usually touching relationship troubles between family members. Waititi achieves much the same effect, including some of the same humorous tone as Anderson but utilizing a look much more his own and that of his native New Zealand.

This is an easy movie to recommend. Only those with a low tolerance for quirky films would have any great problems with this one. It's a brilliant blend of humor, heart, and region that was a pleasure to watch.


Adam and Anthony's meetings are far from the joyful
"separated at birth" kinds of reunions that one might hope for.
Rather, their dual existences suggests far grander and darker
things about the world around them and their perceptions.
Enemy (2013)

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Intense. Menacing. Puzzling. Bizarre in a way that would probably make David Lynch proud. Enemy was not exactly what I expected from the talented director of Sicario and Arrival. But it is quite good.

The movie follows Adam, a college professor who seems to be going through the motions of his life with limited engagement or passion. This includes his job and his sexual relationship with what seems to be a relatively casual girlfriend. One day, Adam is watching a movie and sees an actor who looks exactly like him. Overcome by curiosity, Adam tracks down the actor, Anthony, and tries to make contact with him. Once the two come into contact, things become stranger and stranger for the both of them, and the very question of their being separate people starts coming into question. Sprinkled through the movie in a handful of different scenes are strange sequences involving spiders, sex, or a combination of both. At the story's end, only one of the two "twins" is left alive, although his identity is still in question, as is his perception of the reality around him.

I'm still trying to figure this film out, several weeks after I watched it. The fact that I am still immensely impressed by it and may watch it again, despite its disturbing tale and imagery, speaks to me of a richness that is all too rare in movies. The tale of Adam and Anthony can probably be interpreted in countless ways (and I've already looked up a few very solid, highly fascinating theories), and they are all intellectually stimulating. Some touch on themes of masculinity, while others on the notion of being an unwitting puppet under a totalitarian system. And there are certainly plenty of others. As tricky as it can be to arrive at a clear, definite explanation for the surreal elements of the story, it is quite clear that the writers and director Denis Villeneuve were expressing a fantastic and disturbing vision. It is not unlike certain films of the aforementioned David Lynch, perhaps most notably Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive, wherein questions of identity and connection can abound but the sense of a cohesive artistic work still runs through the work.

Now that I've seen several of Villeneuve's movies, I'm all in with him. Like one of my other favorite modern directors, Darren Aronofsky, he tackles movies on vastly different but challenging themes and tones, and he does it with an amazing knack for visual and narrative artistry. I'm immensely excited about his upcoming Bladerunner: 2047, and whatever else he decides to helm after that. As for Enemy, it won't be to everyone's tastes, to be sure, given the dark mood and rather disturbing suggestions about relationships, identity, and society. But for those willing to delve into such places, this is a warped trip worth taking. 

Monday, July 24, 2017

New(ish) Releases: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2015); Silence (2016)

Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2015)

Director: Taika Waititi

Great little movie which feels like New Zealand's comedic answer to the films of Tom McCarthy, such as Win Win.

The story follows the often funny, sometimes sad bond which grows between Ricky (Julian Dennison), an orphan and wanna-be gangster of Maori descent, and Hec (Sam Neill), the crotchety old husband of Bella, the woman who adopted Ricky. Ricky is brought to the couple as his last chance to avoid being put into the juvenile detention system for repeated minor acts of delinquency and vandalism. His new home is in the "bush" area of New Zealand - a rural area where Hec and Bella carve out a modest but fairly happy life by the sweat of their brows. When Bella passes away unexpectedly, though, the overly vigilant child protective services come to reclaim Ricky in order to put him back into the system. Ricky and an very reluctant Hec then go on the run, into the untamed wilderness area around Hec and Bella's rustic home.

The movie has plenty of odd and off-color humor which feels like a novel blend of sillier British shows and the more thoughtful dramedies of the aforementioned Tom McCarthy. The classic setup of two wildly mismatched characters finding themselves stuck together works brilliantly here, thanks to sharp writing and directing, along with typically excellent acting from Neill and Dennison. There is plenty of humor poking fun at some New Zealand culture, most of which I followed but some of which was a bit lost on me. It may be a very regional movie in many ways, but there is certainly a rather universal appeal to the greater story.

Though I did feel the movie lost a little bit of steam during its third act, it does offer a fairly satisfying ending. This was the second film I've seen directed by New Zealand native Taika Waititi, along with his hilarious 2014 vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows, and he's becoming one of my favorites. I can't be sure how he'll do with his massive-budget, fantasy/action fest Thor: Ragnarok later this year, but I'm definitely pulling for his success.


Silence (2016)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Visually stunning drama that packs more intellectual than spiritual or emotional punch than probably intended.

Based on the Japanese author Shuusake Endo's novel of the same name, the movie follows a pair of Jesuit priest from Portugal who, in the 17th century, make an ill-advised journey to Japan. The priests, Rodrigues and Garupe (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver), set out to find their old mentor, Father Ferreira (Liam Neeson), after they receive word that he has renounced Christ and become an apostate upon torture at the hands of the Japanese imperial government. The two young priests secretly make their way to a small village where Ferreira had previously ministered, though they must exercise extreme secrecy and caution due to Japan's official outlawing of the Christian faith. Over many torturous months, they are separated and face physical and spiritual hardships of immense intensity. Father Rodrigues does eventually track down Father Ferreira, although their reunion is far from what the younger priest had been hoping for.

This story was based on the highly-regarded novel of the same name by Japanese author Shuusaku Endo, published in 1966. Endo, himself a Catholic, often explored the theme of Catholicism's tortured history in the country of his birth. As such, this story looks back at one of the earliest and most brutal periods of friction between the East and West, as metastasized in the ruthless torture and killing of thousands of Jesuit priests at the time. Endo's novel and Scorsese's movie take a fascinating look at the idea that Catholicism was like a seed that would never find purchase in the "swamp" of Japan, in terms of spirituality. The notion that the two were simply incompatible is probably the most engaging part of the story, especially in seeing the lengths to which both sides will go to either maintain their faith or annihilate what is seen as a foreign infection of the mind and soul.

One of several brutal, if brilliantly filmed, scenes of Christians
being persecuted to death by hardline government officials.
Yet, the movie never completely impacted me the way that I was hoping. I've long been interested in religious history (though an agnostic myself), especially in Jesuit history. The Jesuit tradition of forging into foreign lands to bring not only their religious message but also broader education has long been one that I admire in many ways. And there have been a few excellent movies depicting the rigors of their mission, namely Black Robe and The Mission. That latter movie, in particular, did an excellent job depicting the larger Jesuit pursuits while also imbuing a tale with sympathetic characters and emotional heft. Unfortunately, Silence never quite elicited that same feeling from me. The young priests are clearly very dedicated, but I couldn't shake the feeling that we never fully get to know either of them as real people. Instead, they are simply vessels of faith, swimming upstream for reasons that I wish had been more thoroughly explored.

The one other issue I had with this movie is the depiction of government official Inoue, who is tasked with tracking down and weeding out any vestiges of Christianity in his district. I found that this character comes off with over-the-top unctuousness which makes him cartoonishly villainous. This was a shame, since there are actually a few thoughtful and philosophical verbal exchanges between him and the young Jesuit priests. But these and nearly everything else Inoue does are undermined by an overly sleazy, slurred delivery of his lines that would be more fitting for a B-grade horror movie bad guy. Yes, the character is meant to be dislikable, but I feel that it would have been far more interesting had they given him a more noble carriage and not made him so easy to despise.

If you've heard anything about this movie, it is likely about the visuals. They are truly stunning. As Martin Scorsese has shown time and time again, he knows how to find cinematographers and put them in positions to create visual masterpieces. Silence is no exception. It is an odd contrast to the spiritual turmoil and physical tortures being suffered throughout the picture, but the landscapes, costumes, and sets are beautifully captured, making the movie a pleasure to drink in for much of its considerable running length. It also helps that the acting is (aside from Issei Ogata's portrayal of Inoue) strong.

I recently read the novel, which Scorsese remained highly faithful to. While anyone interested in solid film making or the religious and spiritual themes would appreciate the movie's strengths, those more intrigued by the latter would perhaps gain more from reading the novel.