Avengers: Infinity War

First Hit: Poorly conceived film because someone thought that putting every conceivable character under the sun into a single film was a good idea for a story.

Action for action’s sake is a waste of time because after a few minutes there’s no story to engage with and all the audience is doing is watching visual tricks on a screen. And, although I enjoyed the quips shared and pointed towards particular characters, in the end, it isn’t enough to make me want to recommend anything about this film.

I couldn't get into the plot of this film because there were so many small subplots and sidebars that I the real story became distractingly meaningless. However, my guess at the plot is: Thanos (Josh Brolin) was seeing his world fall apart because there were too many people, therefore by killing half the population in the universe, things will be peaceful and life would be able to support itself. The Avengers don't want this to happen.

To have the power to make this desire come true, Thanos needs six stones that are being held somewhere in the universe, a few of them are in possession of superheroes. So he goes about finding the stones and doing anything to get them.

To stop his quest, all the Avenger superheroes loosely come together to fight the good fight to defeat Thanos. Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Captain America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), War Machine/James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), Spider-Man/Peter Parker (Tom Holland), Black Panther/T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Nebula (Karen Gillan), and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) just to name some.

You can see from the above listing, along with another ten superheros, having this many characters makes for a confusing mess because each has to have their day in the story. This is exactly what we get - confusion.

Most all of the actors do their superhero thing and do it well enough. However, with everyone one splitting screen time and with minimal roles, it was difficult for anyone except Chris Pratt (As Star-Lord/Peter Quill), Downey, Hemsworth, and Cumberbatch to standout.  Ruffalo was also funny trying to turn into the Hulk. The rest was more like having them do cameos of their characters to show that everyone was onboard to fight Thanos. Brolin as Thanos was strong but it is hard to show the depth of character he was attempting give the audience through the heavy makeup. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeeely wrote an over ambitious screenplay that melted under the number of characters they had to bring in. Anthony and Joe Russo co-directed this mess and it showed. The use of effects was good, but effects to no make a film, characters do and shortchanging so many of them was its downfall.

Overall: I only went to this film because of the strong audience attendance and I cannot believe that the millions walked away satisfied.

Thor: Ragnarok

First Hit: Found this film and story to be silly and having a mediocre plot.

I know I’m not the target audience for superhero adventures. What I find is that the more films are made about these superheroes the less plausible they become. The fantasy kingdoms have no basis in anything relatable and with the stupidity and/or lack of depth of most of the characters, I check-out while watching them.

Here we have Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who is being imprisoned by a fire demon named Surtur (why, how and so what), learns that his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is no longer in his home world of Asgard (why, how and so what) and that everything is going to be succumbed by the prophecy of Ragnarok. This prophecy tells of the death of the gods including Thor because he’s the God of Thunder. This might be a good thing as these characters are getting long in tooth and stretched far beyond their original purpose. More importantly, they aren't interesting any longer.

Breaking free, he discovers that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been posing as their father Odin in Asgard. Together they endeavor to find their father Odin. In comes the older sister Hela (Cate Blanchett) who is the goddess of death and tells Loki and Thor that she’s taking over the kingdom of Asgard.

From here it just gets bad, we have flights of fancy to a planet called Sakaar where Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum) holds court. He pits Thor against Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) in a fight to the finish. Then they meet a drunk Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) who relinquishes her drunken lost ways and decides to fight the good fight to kill Hela.

Was there anything I liked? The tongue-in-cheek stuff was OK, but this film is all over the map in time, space, and story.

I didn’t care about any of the characters. I thought that many of the sets were fun to look at. Didn’t think the story was compelling or interesting. I wondered by Blanchett and Hopkins would do these parts. The constant battles are the same everywhere and there’s nothing new under the sun here.

I was left thinking; why can’t someone get creative?

Hemsworth did what he was told. There’s no real acting here, just a modern man playing a god and losing his hair along the way. Wondering if he gets his hammer back in the next movie. Ruffalo was OK, nothing interesting in this role for him. Thompson was adequate to the role. Goldblum was his over the top Goldblum – when will he actually act as something other than a smart-alecky buffoon. Blanchett was good, but I couldn’t help but wonder why she took this on. Hopkins, obviously, does things for money in some cases and this is one of them. Hiddleston was OK as the evil brother. Eric Pearson and Craig Kyle wrote a very mediocre, lackluster script. Taika Waititi threw everything at the audience and the outcome was how much shit actually stuck on the wall? Very little.

Overall: I’ve got to quit going to Marvel films because it is too hard to make the story work with what I see on the screen.

King Kong: Skull Island (3-D)

First Hit:  Although a couple of characters were OK and the CGI was strong, the film’s story lacked in generating any interest.

Really? The reason our government paid for this team of people to explore Skull Island was to beat the Russians to it. That this island had never been seen before, was clouded in its own weather system, and Bill Randa (John Goodman) believed it held secrets to ships sinking was neither believable nor explained.

What we got were strongly divided characters, a pacifist photographer named Mason Weaver (Brie Larson), mercenary James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston), angry Army helicopter platoon leader Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) and an oddly lost WWII pilot Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly). All of these, except Marlow, make it through the island’s protective weather in helicopters and as they begin dropping sonic bombs to develop an understanding what is underneath the island’s surface, the disruption wakes up King Kong who knocks helicopters out of the sky.

Now they all think that Kong is the enemy. Because he hurt his team, Packard is hell-bent on killing Kong. The audience knows this is a stupid idea. While the remaining exploratory team members try to find each other, they run into very tall spiders and some mean flying reptiles.

During all the commotion, one group finds themselves surrounded by a silent tribe of painted and scarred men and women. Just as this tribe is about to hurt them, Marlow appears in a jokingly funny sort of way. He has influence with the silent tribe because they let these new island invaders go.

We are given the story that Kong protects the tribe and humans from the skull eaters which are lizard like animals that live below the surface. This storyline can get worse and it does, however the CGI of Kong fighting the skull eaters was effective and interesting.

The storyline is weak and made up to only have these great fights between these large creatures. The filmmakers have some of the landing team be kind and helpful towards Kong which makes Kong become a  positive sympathetic character as he helps them survive the attack of the skull eaters.

Goodman is mediocre as someone who lost his son and wants to uncover the mystery of this island. Hiddleston is OK and is above the fray of this film's poor story and poor script. He’s believable in an unbelievable story. Larson is good as the photographer who is looking for shots that make her known. Jackson is fine but it is his character that I didn’t like. He was way too hawkish and illogical to make me care or want him to succeed. Reilly was the most interesting and amusing character in the film. He brought levity and fun to the overall experience. Jing Tian had a minor part and seemed out of place.  Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, and Derek Connolly wrote a very mediocre screenplay that had little depth. There were moments that they tried to create back stories for the characters, but there was little effort in this and therefore it failed. Jordan Vogt-Roberts did what he could with the story. Many of the shots were well crafted, but it is hard to make a good film with a mediocre story and script.

Overall:  This film fails to entertain and is lost because of the story and script.

High Rise

First Hit:  One of the worst spools of celluloid ever put together.

With two rather talented actors headlining this move, how did it become such a hot mess.

Tom Hiddleston (as Laing) and Jeremy Irons (as Royal) are living in a building that Royal has designed. The building is all inclusive meaning that is a gym, grocery store and other amenities allowing the residents to not leave the grounds if they choose not to.

The building they live in is one of five in the series Royal has designed. From a general design point of view, the buildings are supposed to look like a 4 bent fingers and a thumb lifting up from a palm which is the center courtyard. The status of a person is based on the floor they live on as demonstrated when there is a power shortage, the lower floors have more blackouts than the higher floors.

The theme, if there really was one, was lost on me and the actors, storyline, and lack of cohesion made it impossible to watch, although I will watch anything once.

Hiddleston’s character was not fleshed out enough to know why he acted and reacted the way he did. More than likely this was a story/screenplay issue as I do think Hiddleston is a good actor. Irons is a superb actor but his role as the high and mighty architect was flimsy at best. It was neither tolerable nor believable. I won’t bother with the rest of the cast as it isn’t worth it. Amy Jump wrote the screenplay and if this is her best work, she might think of another line of work. Ben Wheatley directed this with little thought about presenting a cohesive interesting story. It was more about bad behavior getting worse.

Overall:  Please don’t watch this film, as it will be a waste of time and money.

The Deep Blue Sea

First Hit:  Rachel Weisz gives an amazing performance in a good and sometimes overdone film.

This film slips time (where a film moves between future, film’s present and past) easily and effortlessly and this is true at the end as well.

However, at times the time slips are perfect and other times, I was annoyed because either I was caught up in the current segment and wanted more completion, or because I was still in the emotion of a previous segment, while we were leaving the current segment for yet another segment.

Regardless, it is Weisz (as Hester Collyer) that we watch. When the camera isn’t on her we want it to be. This is the power a good actor/actress can have when they are on top of their game. Hester is married to an older robust man who is socially prominent as a English Judge.

Sir William Collyer (played by Simon Russell Beale) loves his wife but is inadequate in many ways when you see them together. His upbringing as displayed on a visit Sir William and Hester make to his mother’s home, is tells the whole story. Mean, rude, and unkind, Sir William’s mother is overt in her dislike of Hester.

Hester meets a younger gentleman named Freddie Page (played by Tom Hiddleston) who, full of the bravery he displayed as a English pilot ace in World War II, finds himself a bit lost when he’s home. He hits on Hester at a highbrow club; she bites, and they have a torrid love affair which, for her, is based not only on physical lust, but an awakening of her whole female being – an exposing of her inner passions to feel.

For Freddie, he is carefree. He loves the sex, he loves Hester, but only at a level that leaves Hester sad – his level of caring isn’t enough for her. On the other side, Sir William won’t give her a divorce, and hopes she will come back to him as he loves her more than he can demonstrate. Hester doesn’t feel that feeling with him and at one point says; once you’ve tasted this deep unbridled love, you cannot go back or accept anything less.

Because William doesn’t let her go, she is nearly destitute but holds on to hope that Freddie will come home to roost, to live with and only want to be with her. We follow Hester through her dark depressed emotions and feelings as she navigates her conundrum; she can’t go back to Sir William and Freddie doesn’t meet their relationship at the same level – what’s a woman to do.

This film is darkly shot and it matches the correspondingly dark subject. Unfortunately for me, we there is an overtly and overly loud violin solo (towards the beginning of the film) which was distracting.

Additionally there were scenes which I was the only one in the theater who thought they thought were funny. One such scene was where Hester and Freddie were looking at a cubist drawing of Picasso’s. He made a remark that she said was childish.

He resented this and they got into a huge row in a very quiet museum. As their voices escalated he finally got mad and stormed off. She calls out after him, “where are you going” and he responds with “to the impressionists.”

I thought that was hilarious and laughed out loud. I was the only one. Then later on when the couple was discussing the argument and she asked him why he went to the impressionists, his answer was very funny.

Weisz is superb beyond belief. She probably won’t get recognized for this independent and limitedly distributed work by some awards show next year, but her acting here is brilliant. Beale is wonderful as a restrained man who loves deeply and will probably never find a way to express it because of how he was raised and his position with the government. Hiddleston is very good as the guy who is stuck a bit in the past, is still and will probably always be a boy at heart. Barbara Jefford is killer (in more ways than one) in her brief appearance as Sir William’s mother. Ann Mitchell is great as Mrs. Elton who runs the boarding house Hester and Freddie live in. Terence Davies wrote the screenplay and directed this well. I thought the dialog was amazing and very English while some of the time slipping was overused and distracting.

Overall: A dark powerful film about a woman who isn’t going to have what she wants and it is worth seeing.