How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)

Although I wasn't crazy about How to Train Your Dragon 2 —don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, it just didn't live up to How to Train Your Dragon, in my opinion— I was still looking forward to seeing How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World as it is the final chapter of the trilogy. 

In this final entry, Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) and the other Vikings continue to rescue captured dragons and bring them to Berk. Hiccup's efforts to free the dragons, however, has made him a target for other warlords and Vikings, and pretty soon he and his people are forced to face an infamous dragon hunter (F. Murray Abraham) who uses a female Light Fury as bait to capture Toothless and plans on turning him against his friends. 

The plot is really interesting at first but unfortunately, as it develops, there are so many plot holes and inconsistencies with the previous films, that it's difficult to enjoy it. It doesn't help either that the story never reaches the depth and complexity of the first film, at times it so boring and dull, I lost completely my interest, and it's flat on emotions and drama. 

The characters, on the other hand, are nicely done. Not only they are still very likeable and therefore you care about them, but they have given more depth and development, especially the supporting characters who no longer have only a single trait to differentiate one from another —it's too bad most of these characters don't add anything to the story. The villain, unfortunately, is quite a disappointment as he's never as menacing and smart as he's said to be. The voice cast does a pretty good job though, even F. Murray Abraham who plays the weak villain.

The humour is also a bit of a letdown. While there still are some funny moments and jokes, most of the film's comedy is one-liners and jokes able to entertain only a kid. Sure, the film targets kids, but the filmmakers should have taken more into consideration the adults that watch the movie along with the kids.

Universal Pictures

The best aspect of How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, as well as the only aspect of the film that doesn't even come close at being a disappointment, is the animation. Just like its predecessors, this third film of the series looks stunning —from facial expressions to movements to textures, the animation is top notch.

Ocean's Eight (2018)

Ocean's Eleven is one of my favourite heist films ever. It's fun, entertaining, clever and the chemistry between the actors, it is simply wonderful. That's what I was hoping I would find in Ocean's Eight, the all-female spin-off of Ocean series. Unfortunately, it wasn't nearly as good as the "original" (in case you didn't know, Soderberg's film is a remake of a 1960 film, also named Ocean's Eleven, starring Frank Sinatra).

Newly released from prison, Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock), the young sister of Danny Ocean, puts in motion her five-year-in-the-making plan: she is going to get Cartier to lend a $150 million diamond necklace to a vain actress, Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway), for the exclusive Met Gala where she is going to pluck it off the actress's neck. To pull off the heist, she assembles a team of talented women.

The plot is pretty much garbage. It's often implausible and it is filled with gigantic holes. What's worse though is that it's not exciting nor that entertaining as it lacks suspension and surprises --there are twists, but they couldn't get more predictable-- and because of that, it ends up being quite boring to follow. It is simply too straightforward for me to really enjoy it --I love my heist movie guys to struggle a little, but everything goes according to plan here.

Another problem with Ocean's Eight is that it lacks interesting characters. They are just heist movie stereotypes and as such, they have no depth whatsoever. We don't get their background stories --what is all that sexual tension between Sandra Bullock's Debbie and Cate Blanchett's Lou about?-- and they lack strong motivations.

Warner Bros. Pictures

Then there's the cast. Some of the women in the film can't even act --Rihanna and Mindy Kaling-- and most of those who can do a terrible job. I love Sandra Bullock and the chemistry she has with Cate Blanchett is amazing, but she is kind of a boring lead. Anna Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter do a pretty good job though, respectively as the vain actress and her quirky designer. Carter stole the scene every time she was on screen for me. James Corden is pretty good too. He basically plays himself only with another name --he's not an actor, after all-- but he is the one, the only one, who delivers the humour in the final part of the film.

Despite the poor writing and the mediocre to say the least acting, Ocean's Eight doesn't qualify as the worst film of the year. Although the humour is flat at times, there are several humorous moments that will keep you interested, and to watch the heist being pulled off was entertaining despite the lack of tension.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

I read Greg Sestero's The Disaster Artist earlier this year and he did mention The Talented Mr. Ripley several times. I had never heard of it before but it stars Matt Damon, or Mark Damon as Tommy Wiseau misheard, so I thought I'd give it a chance. Even though I'm not a fan of Damon at all. 

New York, 1950s. Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) is working as a lavatory attendant when he borrows a Princeton jacket to play the piano. He ends up pretending to know wealthy Mr. Greenleaf's (James Robhorn) son, Dickie (Jude Law), and he is soon offered one thousand dollars to go to Italy and convince Dickie to return home. But when he gets there, he attaches to Dickie and his girlfriend Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow) and things get out of control pretty soon.

Just in case you haven't figured it out yourself, the plot is absolute nonsense from start to finish. It's not clever, it has many plot holes, some subplots that don't make a lot of sense and it unfolds in a quite predictable way. And I'm not saying this because I read it in Sestero's book. To be honest, it's been so long since I read it, I forgot everything I knew about The Talented Mr. Ripley's plot.

That being said, the film still managed to grab my attention. How did that happen? Simply because this is one of those movies that, rather than relying on a solid plot, rely on its characters, and Tom Ripley is a hell of a character. He is amoral, he lies and deceives all the time --his talents, after all, are lying, impressions and forgery. And boy if he is pathetic. Pathetic doesn't even come close to describe him. And yet he is so fascinating, so interesting, he keeps you glued to the screen. But that's not all. In spite of him having Matt Damon's face and the fact that he is such a horrible person, at the end you'll find yourself sympathizing with him. I guess I should give some of the credits to Damon too. He embodies the character's goofiness and geekiness very well and conveys the desperation of the character equally well.

Paramount Pictures, Miramax Films

The supporting characters are just as interesting and well-performed. Dickie is nothing more than a rich, spoiled, vain and cruel young man, but Jude Law's performance makes him quite remarkable. Marge is an intelligent woman who chooses to not see what's happening right in front of her. She is a bit clichéd as she is the typical woman who knows something shady is going on and becomes emotionally distressed because of it but nobody believes her mainly because she is a woman. Paltrow's performance though is good and makes you forget about those flaws. Among the many other supporting characters, there's Philip Seymour Hoffman's Freddie Miles. He's not on screen for a very long time and he is rather annoying, but because of Hoffman, he leaves an indelible impression.

At last, there are a brilliant musical score and terrific costumes, and the beautiful Italian scenery that makes The Talented Mr. Ripley even more pleasant to watch.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

I'm a sucker for Marvel and I'd watch anything they make. Those terrible movies with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garden and whoever played the Punisher are the proof.  What I'm trying to say is that's pretty obvious I was excited for Thor: Ragnarok. However, this time there wasn't just the fact that it's an MCU flick, but especially the fact that Taika Waititi directed it. Last year, he left me speechless, in a very good way, with Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and that's the real reason why I was really looking forward to seeing this. And once again he left me speechless. This indeed is the most entertaining, exciting and fun Marvel film since Deadpool.

Set after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron and picking up when Thor: Dark World left, first Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds out that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has taken over Asgard; then a new menace arrives, Hela (Cate Blanchett), the ruthless goddess of death who wants to steal the throne and rule Asgard, he gets imprisoned on the other side of the universe and finds himself in a deadly gladiator contest where he has to face an old friend of his, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), in order to survive and save Asgard.

It's a rather simple plot, a little predictable at times and it doesn't always make a lot of sense but it does have a few aces in the hole and the pace is just perfect which makes it very compelling.

And that's because of the direction Thor: Ragnarok took. Instead of being another dark-toned family drama like the previous Thor movies, Waititi's film relies more (like only) on humour. I'm sure many will complain about this, maybe saying that the dark tones were the only thing separating the Thor movies from the rest of the Marvel movies that all look the same (DC fanboys are so going to say this), but it works here. The humour is spot on (very close to Deadpool's): the jokes never feel forced and there are plenty of funny moments. This film is basically like a buddy-superhero movie with some sibling rivalry.

All that comedy though kind of throws away Thor's development achieved with the previous movies. Thor isn't indeed the serious God anymore, but he a funny guy. But this change is more than welcomed as Chris Hemsworth does comedy way better than drama. Seriously, I had no idea he could be so funny. The reason why I liked this Thor better though is that for the first time the God of Thunder is shown in all of his strength. Without the hammer.

The humour isn't the only charming side of Thor: Ragnarok. The visuals are just as charming, which makes of this one of the most beautiful to look at Marvel movies. The film is an explosion of vibrant colours, the photography and editing are stylish and the locations are just stunning. The CGI could have been better though. While it's great during the action, sometimes the background looks a little flat.

Just like the characters since there's no development whatsoever in here. I'm still trying to understand what the writers were trying to do with Hela's henchman played by Karl Urban. That character was such a mess. It's not like Tessa Thompson's alcoholic Valkyrie was that better. Or Cate Blanchett's Hela. Blanchett is very charismatic and her presence is just perfect for Hela, but the character itself wasn't that strong which is pretty common with Marvel. She did get more screen time than most Marvel villains though.

Worth of a mention are Benedict Cumberbatch who reprises his role of Doctor Stranger and Jeff Goldblum who plays Grandmaster, the host of that gladiator contest I mentioned above. The first has a hilarious cameo at the beginning of the film, the latter, although his performance reminded a lot of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, is very amusing.