Eagle vs. Shark – Review

Alas, I’m back this week to break another promise.  I know those of you who actually read this regularly – thanks for that, by the way – are waiting with bated breath for the Tuesdays with Cory Christmas Extravaganza (Part 1 of ?), but that’ll have to wait another week, as I’ve seen an older movie recently that I felt the strong urge to say a thing or two about.  That movie, which I streamed with friends as part of a semi-regular Cinematic Appreciation Society, was Eagle vs. Shark, a 2007 indie romantic dramedy from writer-director Taika Waititi, who’s known these days for such Kiwi comedies as What We Do in The Shadows (which a number of people have been essentially begging me to see, but I still haven’t seen) and Hunt for the Wilderpeople, along with the much more commercially present Thor: Ragnarok.

Bring back disposable cameras!  Maybe don’t bring back that haircut.  Actually, was that haircut ever even a thing?

Eagle vs. Shark is most readily comparable to Napoleon Dynamite (2004), both in terms of its comedic stylings and its extremely quirky production design.  Now, I’m well aware that Napoleon Dynamite is something of a divisive film – I myself consider it great, and middle-school me thought it was just out-of-this-world fantastic, but outside of its cult following it’s a film that’s fairly maligned for reasons that I understand in spite of the fact that I enjoy Jon Heder‘s antics.  I’m mentioning this because I imagine that Eagle vs. Shark would hit the mainstream American audience (most of whom I can’t imagine have seen this film) a similar way, in that a fraction of that audience would really enjoy it, whereas the rest would hate it.  The comedy of Eagle vs. Shark is almost exactly the same hyper-awkward brand at times to the point that Waititi is arguably guilty of plagiarism, but there’s also a fair bit of the customary dryness typically associated with British/New Zealander humor tossed in.  If you’re into that sort of thing, it winds up being quite funny, and I found myself laughing pretty hard during certain segments.

Probably one of the funniest scenes, featuring Eagle vs. Shark’s funniest supporting character (elite hacker Mason, played by Cohen Holloway).

The film follows two lovers who are about as un-star-crossed as you can get: first, we have Lily (Loren Taylor), a closet songwriter and extremely shy doormat who gets walked all over from the first frame, but who somehow manages to remain starkly optimistic throughout.  Eagle vs. Shark‘s plot takes her from a short-lived job at a fast-food restaurant to a “Dress as Your Favourite Animal” party to which the film ultimately owes its namesake (note the “u” in favorite there), where she manages to impress her crush the old-fashioned way: by performing formidably in a tournament-style Mortal-Kombat-esque video game competition.  From there, a cringey romance is born that takes Lily and her new boyfriend and electronics store employee Jarrod (Jemaine Clement, who you probably know from Flight of the Conchords, among other things) back to the latter’s hometown so he can confront his ultimate enemy in a fight, presumably to the death.  As I’ve mentioned, the romance that forms the central conflict of Eagle vs. Shark is very Napoleon-and-Deb: cute in some sort of way, but drenched in stifling nerdiness and social ineptitude that manifests in the form of baffling character choices.  I’ll also report that it often hit too close to home in terms of forced reliving of my high-school years.

Jarrod in full combat gear.

But there’s definitely more beneath the surface of Eagle vs. Shark than there is beneath the surface of Napoleon Dynamite.  There’s some somber subplot in the form of Jarrod’s everlasting battle to make his father proud of him in light of the suicide of his prodigal son and Jarrod’s younger brother (cameo’d by Waititi himself).  There are a few more mini-twists in terms of the central romance than you’d typically find in a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy, with an early breakup and the discovery that Jarrod has a child (presumably conceived with his late brother’s widow, though that’s more subtext than anything, and I could be wrong).  Overall, there’s a much stronger sense of character growth than there was in Napoleon Dynamite, with the majority of that growth being parceled out slowly throughout the course of the film rather than in a single climactic and bizarre dancing scene – though Eagle vs. Shark’s catharsis sequence certainly claims its share of bizarreness – and in direct address of Napoleon’s haters, that’s almost certainly for the best.

No, this isn’t the cover of an alternative album.

There’s also a solid amount of visual pizazz lent to Eagle vs. Shark by Waititi.  As I’ve said, in the production design sense it’s all Napoleon Dynamite here, with wallpaper, outfits (seriously, I need one of those track suits like, yesterday), and an astounding abundance of bland colors that makes you wonder what year the film is taking place in.  Beyond that, though, lies a handful of shots with Wes Anderson-y cinematography, and some solid use of visual metaphor, both in terms of the recurring stop-motion apple motif (are the apples the characters’ souls?) and the overtly artsy but not remotely unpleasant sleeping-bag sequence towards the film’s end.  The film’s pleasingly brief 88 minutes are also scored wonderfully by The Phoenix Foundation, among others.  In the cinematic sense, I guess what I’m trying to say with this paragraph is that maybe what Eagle vs. Shark is is an exercise in the time-honored tradition of taking familiar thematic elements and wrapping them in novel packaging to make them fresh again, and in this case, that packaging is absurdly quirky.  It all begs the question: is such a rewrap happening too soon?

Putting a romantic bus scene at the end of a movie is a bold move.  I mean, hasn’t Taika seen The Graduate?

So yes, in many ways, Eagle vs. Shark is a carbon-copy of a surprisingly successful movie that came three years before it, and it’s hard to say for this reviewer whether the seeming homage went so far as to become blatant theft of intellectual property.  With that said, I don’t altogether agree with its midrange Rotten Tomatoes score, and I feel that the film undoubtedly appeals, either intentionally or unintentionally, to a larger audience than that of the higher-rated Napoleon Dynamite, and carries with it both a bolder directorial flair and a more prevalent penchant for subtext that actually sends a message.  If you can handle the jokes that are so awkward that you can’t even laugh at them, then Eagle vs. Shark is likely for you.  Check it out on Amazon, Youtube, Google Play, or likely most places in which you can pay to stream a movie.

Thor: Ragnarok Review

This is a big one – Tuesdays with Cory gets its first crack at American cinema’s most formidable juggernaut: the Marvel money machine.

Short hair, don’t care.

What consistently amazes me about the seemingly infinite draw of the MCU is the fact that no matter how intense the action may get, no matter how powerful the endless forces of evil may be, and no matter how dire the circumstances of its various heroes may seem, it feels to us the viewers that these heroes are never in any sort of real danger, be it because of our faith in their godly or otherworldly skills, or – on a deeper level – because of our trust in their purity of drive and spirit to do good.  What is perhaps more interesting than even that, though, is the fact that in spite of this certainty that nothing truly devastating can happen to a primary protagonist in the MCU, we keep coming back.  Maybe the promise of some bloodshed when the Infinity War installments drop is what has us on the hook as an audience, or maybe what makes the MCU so fundamentally appealing has nothing to do with the creation of any edge-of-the-seat thrills.  Either way, or whatever the answer may be, I know I’ll be a continued viewer after Thor: Ragnarok (no real surprise there), and based on the turnout I saw this past Friday, I join a hefty portion of America’s audience in saying so.

In any case, enough with the psychoanalysis.  As usual, let’s try to avoid the spoilers.

Pacing-wise, Ragnarok starts somewhat slow – though I’ll be the first to admit that I may only feel this way because I hadn’t seen the comparatively maligned Thor: The Dark World, and therefore was at times slightly confused about how a given character had wound up where.  When things started to pick up for me was when Dr. Strange briefly entered the picture (I’m not considering this a spoiler, as this scene is also featured in the post-credits scene for Strange’s own movie), and from there the action was more or less non-stop on a journey to a pretty bananas ending – when I say bananas, I mean this more in terms of CGI and the insane breadth of the battle-scale than in anything plot-related, which I’d say is pretty typical at this point for the Marvel fare we’ve all grown to love.

That headdress would probably be pretty useful for roasting marshmallows…

Indeed, throughout most of the movie, Thor: Ragnarok follows the now twice-tested formula pioneered by another of Marvel’s more successful mini-franchises – Guardians of the Galaxy.  The similarities are at times as subtle as 80’s-esque scoring (provided here by Rugrats/Devo legend Mark Mothersbaugh) and the overwhelmingly vibrant use of bright pastel colors, but more often than not where the callouts show up are in the movie’s extensive use of humor, specifically in terms of banter-heavy dialogue.  By dropping an immensely likable cast of characters into a vividly depicted and outrageously cosmic world – a world capable of containing such timeless fixtures as an intergalactic wormhole known simply as the Devil’s Anus (yes, really) – the opportunity for such banter, which is often juvenile in nature but never remotely tasteless, is near-infinite.

My face when people walk into a sold-out theater during the opening credits, foolishly expecting to find good seats.

Another strong similarity Ragnarok shares with Guardians is that Thor’s third go-round is consistently driven by a star-studded and endlessly talented ensemble cast.  Chris Hemsworth, while clearly trying to maintain his strong grip on the title of most physically impressive on-screen hero (I mean, that shirtless scene, come on), also gets ample chance from Kevin Feige and director Taika Waititi to flex his comedic muscles as well, and his constant injection of humor throughout is one of the things that makes Ragnarok great.  Other highlights from the main cast of protagonists: the return of Mark Ruffalo‘s continually tormented but often hilarious Bruce Banner/Hulk, Tom Hiddleston‘s further development of what has to be the single deepest relationship in the MCU (with his brother), and relative unknown Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie.

Yep, Loki’s still kickin’, and not only that, his character still seems unsure about good versus evil.

The true gems of Ragnarok in the way of cast, though, are the so-called “guest stars” in what might as well be a Marvel television series at this point (though I suppose those already exist).  Jeff Goldblum, who apparently finally got sick of making those thoroughly lackadaisical Apartments.com commercials, is incredible as the Grandmaster of Sakaar (if you haven’t seen Ragnarok yet, just think a more fleshed-out and perhaps slightly more comically sinister version of Benicio del Toro‘s Collector from Guardians, and you’re basically there), as is director Taika Waititi himself playing a cameo voice role as unexpectedly kind deathmatch arena fighter Korg.  Cate Blanchett, though given a woefully unoriginal role as Hela (I swear, it seems like Marvel has more or less given up on writing an interesting antagonist at this point – Loki may be as close as we get), also performs well, even if she really only took the role to “get fit and punch people.”  There are a few other surprise cameos of note, but I won’t spoil them here.

The Grandmaster himself.

The highlight reel scene of Ragnarok is most likely the Sakaar arena setpiece we’ve all seen in the countless trailers and TV spots – it was even cleverly featured as a turn-off-your-cellphone ploy in the theater I was in before Ragnarok began.  There’s a lot to love about the scene, from Hemsworth’s “friend from work” line, reportedly supplied by a Make-a-Wish kid visiting the set, to the appearance of Thor’s classic helmet from the comics.  On top of that, it’s without a doubt more interesting to watch Thor fight without his trusty hammer Mjolnir (more on that in the movie itself), and one of the themes of Ragnarok’s slew of combat scenes is that at the end of the day, as Anthony Hopkins‘ Odin so wisely states, Thor isn’t God of Hammers.  Taking all of the frenzied fights we’ve come to expect and adding a dash of drama, a healthy supply of comedy, and some truly badass background music in the form of Led Zeppelin’s Norse-inspired Immigrant Song, and you’re good to go.

That is 100% not Mjolnir.

While I’m not sure Thor: Ragnarok really “sets a new standard for the MCU” as the Rotten Tomatoes consensus seems to suggest, what I will say is that it’s doubtlessly another successful entry in the Marvel mythos, treading on ground that’s surely familiar at this point, but doing so confidently and with a nonzero measure of flair.  With an ending that clearly does its part in setting the stage for the upcoming Infinity War, it’s fair to be excited for what’s to come.