Because I’m slightly busy this week, I thought it would be a good opportunity to go through every single Taika Waititi short film. To start off, Two Cars, One Night.

Although this is Taika’s first publicly released directorial debut, that doesn’t mean it’s at all bad. In fact, he was nominated for an Oscar because of it. Two Cars, One Night does what Taika Waititi always does, in that it takes a very mundane situation, and finds the comedy in it. The three characters in the short, all children, give great performances. It’s clear that this serves as a precursor to Boy, not only in the fact that certain actors appear in both, but also in the story itself. It does a lot in 11 minutes. Doing this, shows how much can happen in an 11 minute period, that just doesn’t really matter in the long run, but is meaningful in the moment. It sounds hard to explain, but it makes sense when you watch it. Another interesting thing done is the way Waititi shows the passage of time, often with everything moving fast with the focal point of the scene staying in real time. This was a nice touch. My only complaint would be that it’s low budget really caused for things to have poor visual quality. I also would have preferred a bit more set up. But, truly, Two Cars One Night is a great short film that serves as the jumping point for the rest of his career. 8.0/10

Tideland movie was uncomfortable to watch. In my previous review of Brother’s Grimm, I pointed out how this seemed to mark a downward spiral in Terry Gilliam’s directing, Tideland just confirmed this to me. It seemed that Terry Gilliam was really trying to make another Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a movie that made a statement on drugs, however, Tideland can’t make a statement. It can barely even bring itself to have a reasonable story, and much less, any characters you care about. Tideland seemed like a two hour long anti-drug campaign about its effect on children. Which is unfortunate, at first, I really liked how Terry Gilliam incorporated ideas of Alice in Wonderland as the basis for the plot. I think that a modern Alice in Wonderland retelling based on an abusive family could make for a great film, and Gilliam could do a great job with it. However, as it differentiated itself from Lewis Carol’s classic, the true holes in the story really stood out. As a start, the characters were all unlikable. There wasn’t a single character that I related to or even cared about their well being. The main character, I’ll just call her little girl for simplicity, is incredibly annoying. Getting a 12 year old to put on a couple of accents and run around a field for two hours isn’t entertaining. This might have worked if it was a kids movie, but, this is definitely not. There are plenty of heavy references to drugs, abuse, homelessness, and even unnecessary details about the little girl’s grandma getting too intimate with a little boy, who then grows up and marries the 12 year old main character. This is all just unnecessary. I agree, children living in an abusive family don’t have it easy, you just shouldn’t shove it down the audience’s throat like this. Gilliam acts like the audience has no clue as to what the “deeper meaning” of this is, so he just makes it so blatantly obvious that it’s hard to watch. Even Gilliam’s classic visual style is missing. In conclusion, the idea was there for a good movie, but (and I mean this in every regard) Tideland is nothing but a good movie. 4.7/10

Made by Denis Villeneuve, the director and writer of the upcoming Dune movie and Blade-runner 2049, Arrival is one of the most realistic, yet abstract, visions of what aliens visiting earth would look like. The overall premise is set up wonderfully, even though the exposition only lasts about five minutes. But, this is just the start of Arrival completely throwing out the stereotypical story structure. Arrival plays out more like a slow burn. There isn’t much action, or even major turning points. But this works, and that’s due to the wonderful way that Villeneuve captures the feeling of the unknown. One way he does this is through making the entire story take place in two locations, all in a central place. This allows all of the characters to have intimate moments while having each character reacting to the events in a similar way. By doing that, the extremely strange experiences the protagonists go through seem like it could be real. The realism is also due to the world building. It feels that the world response would, more or less, play out almost exactly like this, even though the film does shine a negative light on China in that sense. Personally, I feel that the US would attack the aliens first, but I’m not making this film. Another brilliant thing is the use of color. While color often sets the mood for a scene, the color in Arrival tells the story. Even though every color is somewhat dull, there are many oranges, blues, and greens in the bulk of the scenes. As for the aliens, it’s all black and white. Having this direct contrast separates the two worlds, and the ominous white light itself can inspire fear. Another important piece to the film is language. Being that, to most people, interpreting an unknown language is such a foreign task, it gives the protagonist a reason to be there. Speaking of the protagonist, Amy Adams gives a good performance, and so does Jeremy Renner. However, especially for Renner, I would have enjoyed a bit more backstory to the characters. It does seem like there is backstory at first, but… yeah. As for the other characters, I really didn’t care for any of the military people. It all felt too over the top for those roles. But, it was all worth it for the “twist” at the end. Which, like a good sci-fi film, inspires long strings of existential thoughts. Thanks Denis. Overall, Arrival was a very realistic and compelling look at what aliens coming to earth might look like. Even though it could have used more character development, it was still an incredibly good film. 9.0/10

One word comes to mind after watching Temple of Doom. Racist. No, actually three. Racist, sexist, cash-grab. The last one was hyphenated, but you get the point. Even with the great world building set up in Raiders of the Lost arc, Temple of Doom throws all of that away. While Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones is great (as always), the rest of the cast of characters just aren’t good. The sidekicks feature the young short round, a want-to-be Indiana Jones that is a huge Chinese stereotype. On the other hand there’s the singer, I forget her name because she’s completely irrelevant to the story. She spends the entire time screaming and pouring “expensive” perfume on an elephant. This is nothing like Raiders. The cast of characters all had a very good reason to be there, and had a very independent style of voice. Temple of Doom feels like it was written over the course of a week. The structure just doesn’t work, if anything, it feels more like an 80s video game where you have to escape the evil temple of native people, scary. Now, don’t get me completely wrong, the action in this is fun. Steven Spielberg and John Williams still have their moments to shine, but it just seems lacking everything that made Raiders such a charming film. Really, you could tell that the studio was trying… to make money. 5.7/10

I’m not going to say much about Brothers Grimm, because, I don’t really want to think about it anymore. At first, I had to check to make sure I was watching the right movie, because this does not feel like it was directed by Terry Gilliam. Down to just about everything. Even though I have criticized how all of Gilliam’s early films were Python-esque, they all had this wonderful sense of humor. And his later films held the grasp on the serious tones well while everything whimsical happened around the main character. Brothers Grimm doesn’t work like this. When the movie tries to be serious, it is way too over the top and the characters mean nothing. Heck, nothing meant anything here. I was rooting for the pack of wolves to kill Matt Damon in the movie… I was rooting for the opposition of Matt Damon, that’s a problem. When it tried to be funny, we had no reason to laugh. The main characters were incredibly over the top, and the only reason to laugh would be “oh, look, he did a Pratt fall for the eighth time in the past half an hour…” There’s a lot of falling in this movie, and that wasn’t fun to watch. It was just bland and forgettable, which is nothing like Terry Gilliam. My only guess would be that the studio was holding Gilliam back. Often studios can ruin a movie by holding the director back. However, then there are cases like the Extended English Cut of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where there was a lot that should have been cut. I believe there is a fine line between studio involvement and full creative control by the director. The Brothers Grimm doesn’t even come close to this line. I feel that, although I can blame this fault on the studio, that this could be the start of a third phase of Terry Gilliam, and it’s one I don’t want to see. If I had to give it any redeeming quality, I’d say that the premise is kind of cool. There are also one to two scenes that were entertaining to watch. But, really, it’s not on any streaming service, so don’t waste your money. It’s bland and forgettable, but has a couple of fun moments. 4.8/10

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a classic spaghetti Western, most well known for Ennio Morricone’s iconic score. Even though I had tried watching this before, I fell asleep early on, but I was determined to finish it. However, as excited as I was, when I sat down to watch it, I understood why I fell asleep. The movie is slow, and by that, I mean they could have trimmed at least an hour off of the run time. Through this painful slowness, they do build tension well. All of this stillness allows the relationships between the characters to grow, which is important in this story. They did a great job of making each character feel distinct to one another, however, there are really only three characters that actually do anything. These characters, while great, are all very stereotypical characters in Westerns, especially Clint Eastwood. The beginning of the film introduces him in a stereotypical way, but then a twist makes us think they’re doing something different, only for him to become stereotypical again. I am torn with this movie, there are quite a few scenes that are brilliantly shot and performed, however, there are just as many unnecessary scenes. My comment about the movie being slow isn’t all bad though, this can be used well. A great example of this is the very beginning, there is no dialogue until roughly the ten minute mark, even after that, there is very little dialogue. Which is good for two reasons. First, it makes all of the tension build in a wonderful way, having something this slow, focusing on the relationships between characters, makes it so the end result is even more satisfying. Second, it makes it so the awful ADR isn’t as noticeable, however, I’ll give it a pass as it was filmed in Italian. But, wow, the acting is really stiff and it does not sync up to the original actor’s mouths. This lack of dialogue is no easy feet, often, this can result in us not knowing the characters as well. But, with a three hour run time, I think I knew the characters pretty well by the end, which was rewarding in the final shootout. Especially after all of the slow boring scenes filling most of the second act, having everything culminating into one moment is extremely exciting. So, overall, I think that if it weren’t for Ennio Morricone’s brilliant score, nobody would have heard of the movie. Even though the movie is slow and boring for the most part, all of that makes the movie worth watching. 6.8/10

No director has made a cultural impact as significant as Steven Spielberg. Although his films aren’t necessarily best picture material, he shaped the idea of the blockbuster, and honestly, a lot of people’s childhoods in the 80s. E.T. is a perfect example of Spielberg at his best. The story is a unique movie that has the signature Spielberg charm. The overall premise, somewhat parodying the classic boy and dog stories, is based on Spielberg’s life in some ways. Now, obviously, young Steven Spielberg never met an alien trying to get back home. However, the relationships in the family were real to him. Family struggles are a fairly prominent theme throughout all of Spielberg’s movies, and that’s good. It’s a well known fact that when you write from what’s real to you, it will become real to the audience. Even though the relationships are great, I did find that some of the acting was a bit over the top at times. However, it’s important to note that E.T. is very much a children’s movie. The E.T. puppet itself was pulled off quite well, which is important. There’s always something special about using practical effects. Although sometimes (i.e. when E.T.’s spaceship lands at the end) the special effects did become bothersome, the magic of E.T. and some of the other effects greatly outweighed that. A lot of E.T.’s charm is also due to John Williams. It’s no secret that John Williams is the greatest composer of our generation, when he works with Spielberg, there’s always something that clicks, unless it’s 1941, nobody could have saved that movie. Although I forgot the bulk of the movie, there were quite a few scenes that stick in your head forever. That’s all thanks to Spielberg’s eye for the perfect shot, and this is pulled off more than once, notably, the bikes. Overall, while I praise E.T., it still isn’t Spielberg’s greatest. It has its problems, but, for what it’s worth, it has impacted numerous generations, and doing that is hard to pull off. 7.8/10

Although I love the MCU, I have somehow missed the opportunity to review any of the movies in the saga. However, now that I am watching every Taika movie (again), I will finally review one of my favorites, Thor Ragnarok. Now, is Thor Ragnarok a good movie, not really. However, in the context of the rest of the MCU, Ragnarok is quite the accomplishment. One think Waititi did for Ragnarok, that I admire, is the fact that he brought in a largely indigenous group to work on the film. While that doesn’t necessarily affect the quality of the film one way or another, it is a wonderful way to bring new voices into the ever expanding podium that is the film industry. Unlike other superhero movies of its time, Ragnarok doesn’t use dark colors and bland shots. Taika goes full out on the crazy colors and exciting locations. Through this, he takes the fun element that made comics work in the first place and brings that to a much wider audience. And, above anything, Thor: Ragnarok does everything it can to differentiate itself from other super hero movies. Even down to the music, by Mark Mothersbaugh, who did the score for the first half of Wes Anderson’s movies. His goal was simply to make it stand out, which, using the 80s synth worked well, especially in the context of Ragnarok. Taika also managed to take a character, who had movies mediocre at best, and completely re imagined him. I remember before Waititi took control of the Thor franchise, and, honestly, nobody liked Thor. That isn’t to say that there was a large hate group against Thor or anything, but, truly his character wasn’t going anywhere. While the structure is the incredibly basic story of the hero’s journey, it does so with twists to what we have come to know from the structures of previous Marvel movies, even parodying itself at times. However, the story didn’t take enough liberties to do my favorite thing in Waititi movies, and that’s adding the dramatic context and twist. From Eagle Vs. Shark to Jojo Rabbit, every one of Waititi’s movies is driven by the dramatic elements, however, done in such a way that comedy is completely welcome. In Thor: Ragnarok, this just wasn’t the case. The moments that could have been a breath were followed by a joke or an over the top action scene seconds later. Whether this is at fault of the Disney, Marvel, Feige, or even Waititi, it is very frustrating to have this movie break that trend through all of Taika’s movies. I’m certain that this was to separate the character from darkness after the disaster that was Thor: The Dark World, however, watching this in a way that wasn’t in the context of all the MCU films, that vibe wasn’t given off. In fact, that’s my biggest complaint with Ragnarok. Without the context of the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there’s a lot in the movie that just makes no sense at all. Although I’m a huge marvel fan, I tried to watch this through the lens of someone who has never seen a Marvel movie to avoid my bias. Because, this is an incredibly fun movie, more so than most Marvel movies. However, as a movie alone, it just doesn’t do itself justice. 7.0/10

Terry Gilliam has come a long ways since his days in Python. Both sides to his filmography have positive and negative outcomes, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a very unique exception to that. In all of Gilliam’s films there seems to be a very distinct look, not to the extent of Wes Anderson, but it’s definitely there. It seems to be somewhat different in the installment. Now, within the context of the film, it makes sense. It’s a film about a couple of drug addicts trying to have a good time in Las Vegas and live through this strange drug trip of a film. While, as I said, this is very different from what we have become used to from Gilliam, it works here. Occasionally, the action will even take place in the foreground, which is something I’m a fan of, and there’s plenty of non-nonsensical drug trip visions that add, not only to the quirkiness of the film, but also some of its more serious elements. Which brings me to the story. Terry Gilliam has never been the best at storytelling. He can come up with some wonderful creative overall ideas, but, often I feel that there’s just something missing to the stories in every single one of his movies. While it doesn’t necessarily apply to every one of his films, the missing piece in Fear and Loathing is clear. He has a hard time sticking to the plot. In fact, it seems that Gilliam almost completely threw the story out of the window in favor of the bizarre visuals and entertaining scenes. This is a fairly big problem, because it seems like there’s always too much happening at once in every scene, and often, many things aren’t needed to propel the story nor the characters. Speaking, or… Typing of the characters, the main two are great. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro are giving some great performances in the movie. Johnny Depp narrates the film in an excellent way, and has the clearest arc of anything in the film. As for Benicio Del Toro, he felt like a plus one to Johnny Depp. While he did give a good performance, it seemed that the only purpose he served was to Johnny Depp. The lacking character and story is partially due to the dialogue. Although the dialogue felt real, it felt too real for a movie that was seemingly trying to be a comedy, which is not what I would call Fear and Loathing. To put it simply, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is kind of like a road trip movie, but on a lot of drugs. It’s quite entertaining, despite my criticisms, and I’d most likely recommend it. It just doesn’t quite live up to what I know Gilliam is capable of. 7.3/10

The Life of Brian may not be the most of the Python’s films in America, but for a large portion of Europe, Life of Brian is more celebrated than Holy Grail. Unlike Holy Grail, The Life of Brian is directed by Terry Jones while Holy Grail was both Jones and Gilliam. Through this, it’s incredibly clear which parts of Holy Grail were Jones’s and which were Gilliam’s. While Terry Jones (RIP) tends to include the over-the-top comedy the audience has become so used to from the sketch show, Terry Gilliam relished in the darker elements that fuel the comedy. In Life of Brian, there is none of this. Life of Brian is an excellent example of a parody, but not in the stereotypical way. Terry Jones does this through focusing on the average human experiences. Which brings me to my big takeaway from Life of Brian, Monty Python’s humour is timeless. The original idea for the film was doing the true story of Jesus, but eventually evolved into focusing on someone who is mistaken as the messiah. While this is a very fun premise, the church did not like this. However, taking a sensitive topic as such and making a comedy out of it just makes it work that much more for a certain audience. The other strong tool they use is by not directly taking from the present time period in which Life of Brian was made. When politics or technology are jammed into these types of parodies, the comedy can only last at least a year. If you don’t believe me, watch some political SNL sketch from just a few weeks ago, and realize how it already hasn’t aged well. Life of Brian even has jokes that are ahead of its time, with the Stan to Lauretta scene. While to comedy may be some of the finest of all time, everything seems incredibly short and jumbled together. While Jones may have a better grasp on comedy, Terry Gilliam’s vision of the visual aspect is incredibly strong. Life of Brian is mostly full of bland shots that I’m sure left Gilliam shaking his head behind the camera. If this were made by any other comedy group, I don’t think Life of Brian would work. But, Monty Python has managed to make timeless comedy. The truth is, I doubt there will be another comedic force as important as Monty Python for a while. They took a huge risk when making The Life of Brian, and for the most part, it worked. 8.7/10