Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2022)

7. Thor: Love and Thunder

The cinephile crowd is a fickle bunch. In the two years since "Jojo Rabbit's" release, Taika Waititi has gone from a beloved favorite of indie snobs everywhere to... Divisive, to say the least. Part of that is an inevitable backlash, following the New Zealand filmmaker's Oscar win for "Jojo's" script. (Itself a divisive film, which the Film Twitter crowd seems to completely loath these days.) After you're declared Great by Hollywood's inner circle, some folks will just instinctively say you were never good to gin with. Some of it is, no doubt, overexposure. Waititi and his quirky charm has started to pop up everywhere in the last two years. And it's not always been well used. Maybe it's just expected that some of your fans will turn on you, after you go from directing microbudget comedies to multimillion dollar superhero epics and having threesomes with Rita Ora. 

As the director returns to the Marvel Cinematic Universe with "Thor: Love and Thunder," the Taika Backlash combines with a growing distrust of Disney/Marvel's campaign to completely dominate all of pop culture. The latest "Thor" movie has received mixed reactions from professional critics but people on the internet fucking hate this movie. They've dragged it for its special effects, which has further shined a light on how Disney treats the nonunion visual effects industry. Taika's seemingly flippant attitude towards making it, and his supposed co-opting of queer culture, has now made him Film Twitter's public enemy number one. Many are saying that "Thor 4's" lackluster response is signaling the end of the MCU's box office dominance. (This has not actually been reflected in ticket sales.) At least, there's been a growing frustration with the lack of direction in Marvel's latest phase. Of course, nobody actually gives a shit what Twitter thinks about anything. What do I, your average comic book/movie nerd, have to say about Waitit's latest smart-ass superheroic saga? 

"Love and Thunder" returns to the Asgardian God of Thunder after the events of "Avengers: Endgame." Thor is paling around with the Guardians of the Galaxy, righting wrongs when he's needed, but generally feeling like he's lacking something in life. When he discovers that a madman named Gorr – wielding a reality warping weapon called the Necrosword – is slaughtering gods all over the universe, he returns to Earth to warn the residents of New Asgard. This is when Thor discovers that his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster, now wields a reassembled Mjolnir. After Gorr takes the children of New Asgard to his shadowy home realm, Thor, Jane, Valkyrie, and Korg set off in a mission to save them. Along the way, Thor will meet Zeus and Eternity, Jane will grapple with having terminal cancer, and the two will rekindled their romance. 

In "Endgame" and here again, it was emphasized that Thor has lost all of his family. His parents are gone, his brother is gone, his closest friends are gone, and even his home world is gone. He's still doing what he's always done, being a superhero, but he feels unrooted from the life he's known. It's a dilemma that faces many people as they get older and the people they've always relied on die or drift away: Thor is having a mid-life crisis. Taika Waititi, being the filmmaker he is, is all too aware of the inherent humor in a larger-than-life literal God struggling with very Earthly emotions of loss of direction. Yet "Love and Thunder" works best when addressing this idea. That, at some point, all of us (even superheroes) have to decide what we're going to do with the rest of our lives.

Ultimately, Thor's latest adventure points him towards an answer. Gorr the God Butcher is a villain that has embraced revenge. A monk of his world's religion, whose gods ignored his cries when his daughter was dying, Gorr has decided that destroying deities is the way forward. Thor, on the other hand, re-devotes himself to human connection. It's no mistake that kids play such an important role in the story. Gorr can't let go of the pain of the past and move forward. Thor, similarly, is grappling with his emotional baggage. He has to learn to look forward to the future with a renewed hope. This sees the themes of arrested man-children struggling to grow up, that have characterized several of Taika's films, coming to its inevitable conclusion: Thor matures and starts the next stage of his life.

As much as I appreciate the themes "Love and Thunder" plays with, I do agree with a lot of the criticism the sequel has received. Waititi claimed the "Thor" franchise as his own with "Ragnarok," injecting a much-needed degree of irrelevant humor and wackiness into the stately sci-fi fantasy series. It was a good anecdote to the Shakespearean grandeur of "Thor" and the comic book "Game of Thrones" thing "The Dark World" did. Yet I think it's possible that Thor has gone too far in the other direction now. The amount of jokes and gags in the first half of "Love and Thunder" is overwhelming. There's sight gags about New Asgard becoming a tourist attraction. A pair of screaming space goats is an absurd joke the movie returns to way too much. The dry one-liners, silly quips, and comic relief is unending. This is most apparent in the character of Korg, whose constant jokiness is frequently overbearing. Is the movie taking any of this stuff seriously? Is the goofy himbo Chris Hemsworth now plays Thor as related at all to the somber hero of those earlier films? 

Eventually, after a visit to a cartoonish CGI city full of obnoxious gods and pratfalls, "Love and Thunder" does find its center. The more the focus turns towards Thor and Jane's relationship, the better the movie gets. One of the sequel's better montages is devoted to showing the peak of Thor and Jane's relationship and how it slowly fell apart. And it wasn't because of world-ending cataclysms. It's because they were two people with different life goals who slowly grew apart, despite loving each other. As they meet again, and realize how much they mean to one another, that bond reforms. It's a well done demonstration of resolving baggage with a long time ex and builds towards a touching finale.

And it is nice to have Natalie Portman back. She still has dynamite chemistry with Chris Hemsworth. Portman is most charming as a newcomer superhero trying to get a handle on the traditional aspects of the role. Unfortunately, the scenes devoted to Jane's cancer diagnosis do stick out a bit in such a flippant film. Tessa Thompson returning as Valkyrie is another welcome sight and she gets to exercise a little more of that energetic screen presence of her's. Thompson really can say a whole lot with a single wink. Russell Crowe, sad to say, totally obliterates his scenes as Zeus. He puts on a ridiculous accent and squeals his way through some painfully bad “funny” dialogue, sucking all the grandeur out of the Greek king of the gods. 

Luckily, the film does find a compelling villain. Christian Bale returns to the world of superheroes as Gorr the God Butcher, the Nosferatu-looking adversary. (A nice detail is that the religious markings Gorr wore as a monk are scarred over once he turns to god butchering.) Bale brings a lived-in weariness for the world to many of Gorr's scenes, which nicely establish him as a man who carries enormous loss on his shoulder. Yet the actor also gets to really ham it up a couple of times, vamping wickedly for an audience of captured children or taunting the bound heroes. It's refreshing to see Bale, so intense and grim in most of his roles, really cut loose like this and just have some fun. He adds a lot of pep to “Love and Thunder.” 

Gorr's backstory, though it falls short of the epic storyline the character had in the comics, also helps make him a compelling villain... In fact, he might be a  little too compelling. “Thor: Love and Thunder” repeatedly shows the gods Gorr is butchering to be vain, self-obsessed tyrants that do not care for their worshippers. It's hard to argue with the villain's conclusion that they need butchering. I's certainly implied that the murder of their gods have negative effects on various civilizations but the film only gives us glimpses of that. While providing plenty of examples of the gods being assholes. I suppose the only reason we're suppose to root against Gorr is because we like Thor and his friends and want them to live. I kept waiting for Gorr's scheme to threaten everyone, not just the gods, or for Thor to realize the villain's grievances were at least valid. The movie just glosses over all of this. The result is a bad guy who is bad mostly because he opposes our heroes. (And I guess his methods are brutal but the gods really had it coming.)

Ultimately, Taika Waititi's approach to epic sci-fi/fantasy has its ups and downs. Blending his take on Thor with eighties style day-glo imagery, heavy metal font, and some choice needle drops – lots of Guns 'N' Roses, this time out – definitely is a fun take. Gorr's Shadow Realm is definitely the visual high-light of the film. Presented in high contrast black-and-white, it's a moody setting that fits the horror movie style antagonist. Yet other parts of “Love and Thunder” are honestly tacky looking. Omnipotent City, the home of the guys, is a mishmash of Moebius-style architecture with a hundred different colors and style, which just sears the eyes. The same is true of several of the alien worlds visited in the opening montage. 

And, as the Film Twitter crowd have been happy to point out, some of the visual effects are surprisingly shoddy at times. It's not that the CGI characters look bad. That's never been the issue. Instead, the way the green screen is aligned with the other actors looks inexcusably bad sometimes. Thor on a platform before the council of Gods looks incredibly awkward, for one example. You see this in the action sequences as well, which are unusually choppy and overedited at times. The shadowy monsters Gorr summons seem like they're cool looking but we never get a good look at them. Too many of the action scenes seem to degraded into characters knocking each other across the room. 

It's fair to say that “Love and Thunder” is uneven. It takes far too long to find its footing, the script is underdeveloped in some regards, and it's surprisingly sloppy in departments that a big budget movie this expensive to make really shouldn't be. If one were to accuse Marvel of starting to coast a little on their past successes, it perhaps wouldn't be totally unfair. Yet I still found plenty to enjoy here. The film's heart is in the right place and the cast largely nails the landing. I definitely think Taika Waititi needs to return to low-budget comedy to re-calibrated his sensibilities. (That doesn't seem to be the plan as, aside from that soccer movie that's never coming out, he's got three different sci-fi project lined up.) And perhaps Thor should be handed over to someone with a little more respect for mythology. Nevertheless, “Love and Thunder” kept me largely entertained throughout its run time. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2019)

6. Jojo Rabbit

One assumes that Taika Waititi didn't have especially large budgets at his disposal in the early years of his career. Even after gaining a following, you'd think he had to restrained his ideas in order to attract financiers. After hooking his wagon to the Marvel machine, and directing what's regarded as one of the best of the recent glut of superhero flicks, it seems Taika Waititi can get whatever crazy idea he wants into a movie. And the movie he wanted to make was an adaptation of the novel “Caging Skies” by Christine Leunens. In which the director himself would play a boy's imaginary best friend: Adolf Hitler. The Jewish Waititi would get in front of the predictable controversy by declaring “Jojo Rabbit” an “anti-hate satire” from the beginning. Surprisingly, the film would attract rave reviews, picking up multiple award seasons nominations and wins. And now it's up for Best Picture, among other Oscars. That's pretty far from “Eagle Vs. Shark.”

The year is 1944 and Jojo Betzler is a ten year old boy living in western Germany. Even though the war effort is collapsing and the allies are closing in, Jojo is a fervent supporter of the Nazi Party. In fact, he often imagines Adolf Hitler as his best friend. While at Hitler Youth camp, Jojo enthusiastically throws a grenade and ends up badly blasting his own face. Retreating into his own home, he lives with his loving mother – who doesn't understand his enthusiasm for National Socialism – and has few friends. This is when he discovers a secret: Mom is hiding a Jewish girl in the upstairs crawlspace. At first repulsed, Jojo soon becomes fascinated with her. And slowly, his views of the world change.

First and foremost – and this should really go without saying but – “Jojo Rabbit” is mocking Nazi Germany and everything it was built upon. From the beginning, Naziism is presented as loosing ground. The Hitler Youth camps are a pathetic charade, commanding officers showing off to easily impressed children. Said officer himself is a failure, who suffers one pathetic humiliation after another. The Nazis are shown as obsessed with the Jews, who they have demonized in the most cartoonish way. It's a salient point that the only people in the film who seem to take Nazi philosophies very seriously are children, thoroughly indoctrinated and too young, too naive to question the obvious flaws. In fact, the film presents the most sincere Nazis as nothing but bullies. Jojo gains his nickname when he refuses to kill a rabbit, who is then brutally slain by the older kids.

Which brings us to Jojo and his relationship with Hitler. Or rather “Hitler,” a childish imagining of what the dictator might be like. Hitler gives Jojo pep talks, building him up when he's feeling down. He goes on playful adventures with the boy, running through the woods with him. He's everything the kid admires, who eats unicorns and stands up for what he believes in. It's obvious what Waititi's goal is here. He's not just comparing the hero worship Nazis had for Hitler with a boy's childish admiration for his imaginary friend. Jojo is a boy without a father, vulnerable, sad, lonely. Extreme ideologies like Nazisms prey on people just like that, those that need something within them fulfilled.

Yet “Jojo Rabbit” isn't just about making fun of Nazism and everyone that believes in it. It's also a film about the boundlessness of boyhood energy. Jojo is a typical ten year old. He's bursting with life. He plays cute games with his best friend, the portly Yorki. Though having his face scarred puts him down, it doesn't take him out, as the kid remains as peppy as ever. Waititi's visual sense often matches this energy. When he goes racing off to grab the hand grenade, the camera races along with him. Often, where the boy's eyes look are paired with zippy crash-zooms.

Considering the cult movie appeal of his previous films, it might be surprising that Taika Waititi's latest has picked up so many awards and nominations. Truthfully, it's only when compared to the likes of “Boy,” “Eagle vs. Shark,” and “What We Do in the Shadows” that “Jojo Rabbit” seems especially mainstream. This is still a quirky indie comedy. There are surreal touches throughout the film. One extended sequence has Jojo, dressed as a robot, walking around Germany and spreading Nazi pamphlets. Captain Klenzendorf designs a cartoonish battle outfit... Which he later actually wears into combat. The style of eccentric, goofy, and intentionally artificial dialogue found throughout Taika's earlier films remains present here.

Waititi's personal themes are continuing to grow and evolve as well. Throughout his first five features – yes, even in “Thor: Ragnorok” – he touches upon the premise of boys becoming men and man-boys becoming man-men. “Jojo Rabbit” returns to the coming-of-age stylings of “Boy” and “Hunt for the Wilderpeople.” Jojo will begin the movie as one person and ends it as another. In a way that especially recalls Waititi's fifth film, he's even put through the emotional wringer and eventually has to fend for himself. This is a film of a boy dealing with loss and love and it transforming him, in a way perhaps more blatant than what Boy or Ricky Baker went through.

That lack of subtly is a flaw of sorts in “Jojo Rabbit.” This is ultimately a film about the transformative power of love. And that romance is something that has rubbed “Jojo Rabbit's” detractors the wrong way. Jojo and Elsa, the Jewish girl up-stairs, begin hating each other, as you'd expect an anti-Semite and and a Jew to. However, the two misfits begin to bond through letters Jojo has forged from Elsa's deployed boyfriend. Personal taste varies but I personally found this courtship adorable. Though their relationship begins with knives drawn, Jojo soon comes to admire Elsa's creativity and Elsa becomes attached to Jojo's capacity for sweetness. By the end, they are making the most adorable advances towards each other. This is a romance characterized by furtive glances and awkward shuffling of feet. It's super cute.

What makes this romance even more believable and touching is the young leads. Roman Griffin Davis, in his debut role, impresses as Jojo. He shows an incredible nuance, acting with his face without overdoing it, suggesting the feelings the boy is having with just a raise of an eyebrow or a rabbit-like twitch of his nose. He's hilarious, in his line delivery, but also poignant, when breaking down into tears. He also has excellent chemistry with Thomasin McKenzie, also fantastic in “Leave No Trace,” as Elsa. McKenzie shows a similar grace and determination, knowing when Elsa needs to be a little spit-fire and when she needs to be a quick-thinker with a fighting spirit.

Among the film's supporting cast, Scarlett Johnansson as Jojo's mom has gotten most of the praise. And not without good reason. Johansson plays an idealized movie mom. During an especially touching moment, she role-plays as both Jojo's mom and his father. It's such a sweet sequence and just one example of the lovable power, based in understanding and sympathy, Johansson brings to the role. As Jojo's other parental figures, Waititi himself is naturally hilarious as Hitler, luxuriating in the absurdity of the role of Hitler: Dad Figure. Another stand-out part is Archie Yates, as Yorki, who gets some of the film's funniest roles as the dim-witted but utterly sincere kid.

However, some of the performances in the film are not so balanced. Sam Rockwell, playing another “lovable racist,” maybe goes too broad, too quirky as Captain Klenzsendorf. Rebel Wilson, meanwhile, is definitely too far on the broad and aggressively wacky side. This represents another flaw in “Jojo Rabbit.” During a key sequence, Jojo gets a first-hand look at the war he's been praising up to this point. While most of the actual horrors, the real bloodshed, of combat are kept off-screen, it's clear the boy is unprepared for what he sees. Weirdly, during this serious moment, Waititi exposes his wacky and quirky side again. It's a strange mixture, the film veering towards goofy and serious at the same time. As if it's a little too afraid to actually confront the ugliness the film is about.

In fact, it's fair to say “Jojo Rabbit” might be too cute. The film's haters have lobbed this criticism at it, that it's far too flippant to grapple with such serious topics. What's most frustrating about this is that it didn't have to be this way. There's a moment in “Jojo Rabbit” that is truly intimidating, a fair depiction of the horrors of Nazi Germany. At one point, a team of black-suited officers – led by an unusually intimidating Stephen Merchant – searches Jojo's home. Elsa is nearly captured and it's a sequence of sustained tension, a real suspense reaching out of this cutesy comedy. (It's also a scene that suggest Waititi could make a decent thriller, if he ever wants to.)

How much “Jojo Rabbit” works for you seems dependent on how much you can handle this disconnect. I find myself agreeing, for the most part, that “Jojo Rabbit” maybe is too light-hearted for its chosen subject. It successfully rips down Nazism without interrogating the real horrors of what the regime wrought too much. Yet I was also successfully charmed by its cast, its visual approach, and its soundtrack. Waititi has already ridden the film's success, as his next two projects are lined up and ready to go. Whether the Academy will be able to put aside the movie's issues and embrace its pluses like me remains to be seen. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2017)

5. Thor: Ragnarok

People prone to bitching about such things often say the Marvel Cinematic Universe isn't director driven. While there's a degree of truth to this belief, it seems to me Marvel has frequently sought out really interesting filmmakers to make their movies. It seems unlikely to me that Shane Black or James Gunn would have ever directed blockbusters with 100 million dollar plus budgets if the Marvel higher-ups hadn't decided they were the right people for these big jobs. The same could be said for Taika Waititi. While the first two “Thor” movies were major money-makers, they weren't terribly well liked. “Thor” was generally considered the lame duck of Marvel's original franchises. Waititi was selected to re-invent the franchise. It seems to have worked. “Thor: Ragnarok” would become the highest grossing film in the series and win enthusiastic reviews from both fans and critics.

Following the events of “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” Thor is being haunted by dreams of Asgard’s destruction. After defeating Surtur, the fire giant that will bring about Ragnarok, he returns home to find Loki ruling in his father’s place. Odin has been displaced on Earth but his time is running short. As the Highfather dies, his eldest child is unleashed. Hela, the immensely powerful goddess of death with an unquenchable thirst for conquest, is freed. She easily destroys Mjolnier. As Hela heads for Asgard, Thor and Loki are tossed off the bifrost. They arrive in Sakaar, a planet at the distant end of the universe. Forced into the gladiatorial games of the deranged Grandmaster, Thor is reunited with the Hulk. As Hela subjugated Asgard to her rule, Thor and a group of new and old friends try to find a way home.

A genuine criticism that could be made of the first two “Thor” movies is that Asgard was the least interesting part of it. Waititi brings his well-established love of eighties pop culture to “Thor,” allowing the franchise to embrace its day-glo fantasy roots. This is a movie that starts with Thor fighting fire giants and a dragon while Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” blares on the soundtrack. Most of the movie is set on a bizarre alien world, full of strange creatures and colorful set design. The Asgard segments feature an army of undead warriors, a giant wolf, and Surtur emerging at full power. Moreover, “Ragnarok” takes full advantage of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s narrative connection. As in the comics, this is a movie that allows Dr. Strange or the Hulk to show-up without much set-up. Yet, unlike overstuffed flicks like “Captain America: Civil War,” the film’s identity as a “Thor” movie is never compromised. This is “Thor 3,” not “Avengers 2.5.”

The true indicator that Waititi made “Thor” totally his own is how much the film reflects his sense of humor. His non-Thor roles have made it clear that Hemsworth’s strength lies, not in his smoldering good looks or action hero physique, but in his goofball charm. Hemsworth proves adapt at Waititi’s style of comedy, gracefully running with stumbly dialogue about haircuts, hammers, getting dumped, and snakes. There’s a satisfying running gag about who is the strongest Avenger. A cameo-packed Asgardian play is hilarious gag that’s really allowed to breath. There’s surreal gags about circular rooms, Loki’s illusions, and weapon selection at the coliseum. This is sealed by Waititi giving himself the role of Korg, a giant rock monster that leads a slave’s rebellion... Who speaks in a soft New Zealand accent and delivers some of the film’s oddest, funniest dialogue.

While “Ragnarok” is, surprisingly, a really funny movie, it certainly doesn’t skimp on big action scenes. That opening fight with the first giants is pretty damn cool, especially the concluding chase with the dragon. Thor and Hulk’s gladiator match really exploits the ridiculous strength of both characters, while including lots of comedy derived from their interaction. The finishing blow of Hulk leaping high up into the air is especially good. The entire last third is a series of escalating action sequences. We have an awesome space ship chase, with Thor and Valkyrie leaping in-between vehicles. That’s a climax-worthy action beat shoved into the middle of the movie, because Waititi isn’t done having fun yet. The actual climax is even bigger, featuring a lightning-charged Thor sweeping down onto a bridge full of zombies, Hulk fighting the Fenris Wolf, heroic sacrifices, and just as much action that can be squeezed in as possible.

Another element Marvel movies have frequently been criticized for are their lack of memorable villains. The previous “Thor” movie was a serious offender in that regard, with the utterly blank Malekith. As an attempt to counteract that, they made sure “Ragnarok” had a memorable adversary. It’s not like Hela is an especially deep villain. Her motivations are only slightly less vague than Malekith’s, as she’s driven by a little-expanded-on desire to conquer Asgard. Yet a lot can be done just by sticking a fantastic actor in a part. Cate Blanchett has never been more striking. While Loki sabotaged his dad in hopes of gaining his approval, Hela rejects Odin’s peaceful ways with vicious glee. Blanchett uses this as a foundation to build a hugely entertaining performance. Maintaining an incredible sense of style throughout, Blanchett plays Hela as someone who deeply enjoys being evil. All of her scenes are a joy.

While I’m mostly pleased with how “Ragnarok” refocuses and reinvents the “Thor” series, I do think it went a little overboard with tearing down what came before. Upon entering Asgard, Hela proceeds to kill Volstagg and Fendral with ease. Two of Thor’s major supporting characters are killed off quickly, never mentioned afterwards, presumably to make a new villain look more serious. At least Hogun gets a decent fight scene before Hela tosses a necrosword through his chest. Even then, Thor never acknowledges that three of his closest friends just died. I get that he’s busy with stuff but a nod in that direction would’ve been nice. (At least Sif is spared, thanks to Jamie Alexander having a scheduling conflict with “Blindspot.” Hopefully, she’ll be able to return at some point.) I understand most people weren’t that invested in the world of the first two “Thor” movies. Yet I wish so much hadn’t been tossed out so quickly.

Waititi is obviously playing inside of someone else’s sandbox here. As much as he makes this story his own, it’s still a Marvel movie. Yet the humor wasn’t his only attempt to put his stamp on the material. Most unexpectedly, the Hulk becomes the latest man-child in a Taika Waititi film. Like “Eagle Vs. Shark’s” Jarrod or Ricky Baker, the big green brute has a bit of an ego. He brags about his superior strength and fighting abilities. But it’s all a cover for his insecurities, as Hulk suspects everyone on Earth actually hates him. His childish tendencies – playtimes, a casual attitude towards nudity, temper-tantrums that can only be soothed by a motherly voice – also leads to a degree of social awkwardness. Such as the violent way he blocks Valkyrie from leaving a room, which he follows with a meek “please.” It’s also evident that Mark Ruffalo really enjoys a chance to play Hulk when he isn’t just smashing things.

Since “Ragnarok” kills off or removes Thor from most of his supporting cast, the sequel has to give him another group of friends to bounce off of. Luckily, Marvel provides a deep collection of characters to pull from. Removed from the end-of-the-world stakes of the “Avengers” flicks, Mark Ruffalo really gets a chance to shine. His comedic abilities truly gets displayed here, in his frustrating relationship with his alter-ego and Tony Stark’s pants. Though very different from her Marvel comics counterpart, Tessa Thompson is nevertheless delightful as Valkyrie. Her story arc – a warrior that’s been disenfranchised for millennia regaining the will to fight – is a bit rushed. Thompson’s acerbic delivery and unspoken sexual tension with Hemsworth patches over a lot though. With a reluctant Loki, Tom Hiddleson’s mischievous grin and charmingly weaselly demeanor being well established by this point, the hastily named Revengers make a fantastic team.

The setting of Sakaar is so fabulously weird that it allows Waititi a chance to include some truly eccentric characters. The most prominent of which is Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster. Goldblum is allowed to turn one of Marvel’s Elders of the Universe into a Jeff Goldblum character. The hedonistic character has Goldblum’s patently hilarious style of stuttered, eccentric, improvised dialogue. He’s a frequently hilarious addition to the film, centering its oddball soul. Even better is when Goldblum gets to play off Thor at his most serious or a very grim Rachel House as Topaz. One must also mention Miek – Korg’s insectoid sidekick in a knife-handed robot body, who manages to be hilarious without saying a thing - and Skurge the Executioner – a long-running baddie in the comics that is turned into an amusingly braggadocio hanger-on by Karl Urban – even if neither get much in the way of satisfying character arcs.

In fact, “Thor: Ragnarok” is having so much fun with its weird humor, its expanded cast, and its cosmic setting, that Thor himself sometimes feels a little underserved. The growth he makes with Loki is satisfying, the two brothers coming to an understanding by learning neither will ever fully trust the other. (Even if they will always have that special connection of being siblings.) Yet Thor struggling with his own lack of power, loosing his hammer and getting tossed across the universe, could have been a little better. The last minute power-up he receives to best Hela seems like something out of a fighting anime, the hero searching his soul to discover the secret technique needed to win the day. It feels a little cheap and keeps Thor’s victory from feeling truly earned.

After seeing “Ragnarok” the first time, I absolutely enjoyed it but was left with one question. For most of the narrative, the film is split between two settings. Thor and the Revengers attempt their escape from Sakaar while Hela takes over Asgard. Both settings have their subplots, concerning Korg’s rebellion and Heimdall protecting the Asgardian citizens. Both come to a head at the end. Yet there is a slightly perturbing disconnect between the two, the sequel sometimes feeling like two largely separate stories slotted together in a not-totally-equal way. I realize this is a criticism bordering on knit-picking but it keeps me from fully loving the film.

Yet you can’t complain too much when the overall film is as funny, exciting, and highly entertaining as this one. Taika Waititi delivers the expected big action and comic book thrills of a Marvel movie while being allowed to indulge his oddball humor and pet themes. Adding to that success is a huge pack of wonderful performers having a ball, fantastic production design, and a score that brilliantly balances the movie’s epic fantasy and New Wave vibes. It definitely ranks among the most entertaining of Marvel’s films. It would turn the public around on the “Thor” franchise. Hemsworth is one of the few Marvel stars that seems interested in returning after Thanos is defeated, so hopefully we haven’t seen the last of this group. If Waititi could return with him, I’d be totally down for that. [Grade: B+]

Another benefit a little indie director has to being scooped up by the Hollywood franchise machine is that a big commercial hit can allow him to continue to make weird shit. Taika Waititi's next project is a comedy in which the Jewish actor plays the idealized version of Hitler that exists in the mind of a young German boy. The project sounds daring and hilarious and probably wouldn't have gotten funded if the director's last movie hadn't made 854 million dollars. Obviously, I'm pretty excited for "Jojo Rabbit," or any future project this fantastic oddball filmmaker brings us, and look forward to its release this fall.

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2016)

4. Hunt for the Wilderpeople

I'll admit, I'm not horribly well-read in the cinema of New Zealand, outside of Peter Jackson movies. However, it certainly says something about the country's collective taste that Taika Waititi has made the highest grossing New Zealand-made movie twice. While he wouldn't really breakthrough with global cinema fans until “What We Do in the Shadows,” “Boy” was a big hit in his native country. It's a trick the director would repeat with “Hunt for the Wilderpeople,” which managed to out-gross “Boy's” success. You could read into why this is, as both of these films see Waititi celebrating the culture of his home land. Or maybe New Zealanders just have a weird sense of humor.

Ricky Baker is a twelve year old juvenile delinquent. After being in and out of a series of foster homes, his slightly overzealous Child Protective Service agent gives him one more chance. He's taken to the home of Bella, an exceptionally loving woman, and Hector, her quiet and prickly husband. Ricky quickly feels welcomed on their country farm. When Bella dies suddenly, Hector is heart-broken and Ricky is expected to be sent to juvenile prison. Instead, the two go on the run in the New Zealand Bush. As they stumble toward adventure, Ricky Baker and Hector unexpectedly become folk heroes. 

“Hunt for the Wilderpeople” is adapted from a book, “Wild Pork and Watercress” by Barry Crumb. Despite this, the film could not be more of a Taika Waititi production. The same themes the director has been tinkering with from the beginning as present. This is another story about misfits and bullshitters attempting to find their own place in the world. The filmmaker takes this theme to its most sentimental extreme. Ricky Baker is a chubby, weird kid who pretends he's a bad-ass but his lying and criminal activities are downplayed. Hector is an illiterate and antisocial ex-con. Both have their hearts soften and learn a lesson by their adventure in the bush. While this might sound like the director softening his rough edges, it's the perfect fit for the material. “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” is the most cuddly of Waititi's films but no less his own.

The film also sees the director putting his mark on a few particular genres. “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” is undeniably both a buddy movie and a road trip picture of sorts. At story's beginning, Ricky and Hector don't like each other very much. Hector is put off by the kid. Once Bella dies, he starts to resent the foster kid as a reminder of his dead wife. Ricky, meanwhile, finds Hector to be a stuck-up jerk. (He's not wrong.) Eventually, the two learn to love each other over their journey. And while there's very little tripping across roads in “Hunt for the Wilderpeople,” the sense of adventure and journey that drives a road trip narrative is certainly present and accounted for.

There's another genre rolled into “Hunt for the Wilderpeople's” DNA. The film is all-but a parody of what TVTropes calls the Kids' Wilderness Epic. As a kid of the nineties, I sat through “The Amazing Panda Adventure,” “Yellow Dog,” “Alaska,” and read “Hatchet” and “Island of the Blue Dolphins” in school. (The genre is at least as old as 1858.) Waititi's film puts an irrelevant spin on these story types. Ricky is set adrift in the wild, forced to find food and make shelter. He even befriends an especially unhinged local. However, the movie is playing with these ideas. It's never that hard for Ricky to find food. Ultimately, the act of being stranded in the forest is pretty fun.

Don't think that Waititi holds back on his typically quirky sense of humor by playing in these other arenas. “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” is frequently hilarious, with many of the surreal asides the director is well known for. This is probably the only time I've seen that old cartoon gag of someone being so hungry, they imagine somebody as food done in live action. This includes the delightful sight of a talking cheeseburger. Later, the quiet scenery of a New Zealand road is interrupted by a vehicle leaping through the air. Waititi has a hilarious cameo as a preacher who gives an especially rambling eulogy. There's a friendly family with an odd sausage obsession and a man who likes to dress up as a bush. Ricky's habits include dancing and pop culture references that range from Tupac, to Megatron, the Terminator, to shit getting real. Few minutes go by in “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” without a major laugh.

Once again, the jokes and gags do not simply exist for their own purpose. The sense of melancholy that always floats under his films is especially pronounced here. Bella is the type of person who doesn't give up on people. She saw something special in Hector and sees it in Ricky. By treating the boy with love, by doing simple things like putting a hot water bottle in his bed, When she dies, suddenly and without warning, it breaks both of their hearts. Though she's only in the film's first half, this sense of loss floats over the rest of “Hunt for the Wilderpeople.” It grows and extends into an encounter with a wild boar, for one example. Finding peace with loosing perhaps the only person to love them unconditionally is what truly drives Ricky and Hector's journey.

Visually, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” at first seems to be more still than Waititi's other movies. Perhaps another reason the film did so well in New Zealand is because it's a celebration of the country's natural beauty. The film is set almost exclusively in the rolling green hills of the New Zealand countryside and the lush rain forest of the Bush. The film begins with a drone shot through those same hills, as if to establish the gorgeous setting. And it can't be unintentional that the huia, an extinct bird and national symbol of New Zealand, plays a small but significant role in the story. Sometimes, Waititi's camera just let's the viewer soak in the beauty of this place.

However, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” certainly contains the same peppy streak that characterized the director's other movies eventually. Once Ricky Baker and Hector become folk heroes of a sort, the camera kicks into gear. We get an energetic montage devoted to how their story is spreading. The car chase that comprises the film's climax is similarly fast-paced in its direction. By frequently assuming Ricky's point-of-view, Waitit allows himself some imaginative moments. Such as the funny way he establishes Ricky's instantaneous crush on the one young girl he meets on his adventure. 

This would be the break-out role for Julian Dennison, who is now showing up in big budget tent-pole releases. And it's no wonder why, as Dennison is so hugely entertaining in this film. He brings Ricky to life in such a full-bodied, intuitive way. You get the impression that it's very easy for him to imagine being this kid. Ricky is impulsive, juvenile, and prone to exaggeration. Yet he's ultimately just unloved and needs someone to believe him. Dennison so nicely captures these two extremes. He's also really, really funny. He has a perfect grasp of that uniquely Waititi-esque dialogue, making awkward statements and unsteady conversation in a hilarious way.

Starring opposite Dennison is Sam Neill, another proud New Zealand export. Hector allows Neill to indulge in his grumpy side. He's an ideal straight man to Ricky's frequently goofy antics, responding to the kid with annoyance and a stiff upper lip. His growing exasperation is very funny, especially in a sequence involving some interloping hunters. Yet Neill is very good at showing the genuine affection Hector eventually feels for Ricky, most prominently in a scene where they talk before bed. The slow way Neill reveals that warmth is very much earned by the movie, which allows the character to be as grouchy and dismissive in the early scenes as he needs to be.

While the film revolves around these two characters and their relationship, there is a delightful supporting cast here. Bella, a saint-like character that loves Ricky the moment she sees him, might've been a hard part to play. Rima Te Wiata totally nails it, creating an utterly lovable and deeply empathetic woman with only a quarter of the screen time as the other characters. Rachel House, now established as a Waititi regular, is hysterical as Paula. Though only a child welfare worker, she treats her job as the most serious business in the world. House hilariously captures that type of personality, somebody who greatly overestimates their own importance without a moment of doubt. Rhys Darby also shows up for a very funny small role. And let's give it up for the dogs, Tupac and Zag, both of whom are very good boys.

The musical score is also excellent, especially how the gag about Ricky's birthday song comes full circle during the credits. Waititi apparently struggled to adapt “Wild Pork and Watercress” for years before realizing he had to make the project more of his own. (Apparently, the book is a darker affair.) I'm glad he did, as he created by far his sweetest film yet. While not as funny as “What We Do in the Shadows” or as personally biting as “Boy,” the film is still very funny, deeply felt, and beautifully acted. In short, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” is utterly delightful from beginning to end. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2014)

3. What We Do in the Shadows
Co-directed with Jemaine Clement

As I've said in the past, Taika Watiti and Jemaine Clement go back a ways. The two have known each other since at least 1999. They have often collaborated on projects together. Watiti directed four episodes of “Flight of the Conchords,” the comedy show that launched Clement to worldwide cult fame. Another early project the two worked on together was a 2005 short film entitled “What We Do in the Shadows: Interviews with Some Vampires.” The half-hour film was clearly something both of them enjoyed creating. A feature length version of “What We Do in the Shadows” followed in 2012. The vampire comedy would be enthusiastically received, expanding Watiti's audience by a large percentage.

In Wellington, New Zealand, there is a underground society of vampires. A group of documentary filmmakers have been invited into this secret subculture, their safety guaranteed as long as they hold on to crucifixes. The chosen subjects is a quartet of vampires living in the suburbs. Jovial Viago, edgy Vladislav, macho Deacon, and ancient Petyr squabble among themselves and prepare for an upcoming undead masquerade ball. Deacon's human familiar, Jackie, mostly provides them with food. One night, one of their intended meals – an ex of Jackie's named Nick – gets bitten by Petyr. The newly minted vampire does not have the tack of the others and quickly throws their existence into chaos.

One of my favorite styles of comedy is when the fantastical is contrasted with the mundane. “What We Do in the Shadows” is practically built upon this joke format, which easily explains why I like this movie so damn much. Within its opening minutes, we see a group of vampires bickering about washing dishes. The argument eventually escalates until they are flying in the air, hissing at each other, and bumping chests. Comparing utterly ordinary, everyday events with the vampires' nature as supernatural creatures is perhaps the film's funniest comedic streak. Viago's attempt to drink blood goes horribly wrong, leading to him wiping the mess up with paper towels. Since they have to be invited everywhere, the vampires have trouble getting into nightclubs. The process of becoming a vampire is repeatedly compared to a bad hang-over. Simple acts, like taking off a mask or playing music, seems to stymie them. Taika Watiti and Jemaine Clement found a rich comedic vein to prob by showing paranormal creatures embroiled in the pettiest of everyday concerns.

While “What We Do in the Shadows” is a collaboration between Watiti and Jemaine Clement – both are credited as writers and directors on the film – it's easy to see how this film connects with Watiti's previous two features. Much like “Eagle vs. Shark” or “Boy,” this movie is about a group of outsiders who are, to put it charitably, dorks. These vampires are not effortlessly cool and mysterious seducers, no matter how much they want to be. Vliago is still reeling from having his heart broken eighty years ago. Vladislav still thinks of himself as a Carpathian warlord but is weighed down by a massive but wounded ego. Deacon thinks of himself as sexy and dangerous but still passes most of his actual work over to a suburban mom. They use their powers as much to play juvenile pranks on humans as to prey on them. This is another subversion too, turning otherworldly vampires into very Earthly losers. But mostly it's just because these are Waititi's favorite kind of people, nerdy outcasts consumed by their own social failings.

The supernatural powers and intricacies of vampire life certainly allows Watiti to indulge in the absurd comedy he so excels at. The vampire's ability to fly are often played for laughs, a petty squabble between Deacon and Nick climbing onto the ceiling. Later, Nick's human friend Stu attempts to teach Vliago martial arts, resulting in a lo-fi recreation of Liu-Kang's bicycle kick. One of my favorite gags, also among the film's quickest, is a random appearance by Vladislav's failed attempt to turn into a cat. From Petyr's perpetually hissing visage, to a failed attempt to wearing a silver necklace, to an absolutely hysterical fight via bat transformation, Watiti doesn't so much parody vampire cliches as he uses them as a launching ground for his nutty wit.

Another way “What We Do in the Shadows” delightfully makes its vampires weirdos is by emphasizing how out of touch they are with the modern world. They all dress like goth fanboys in quasi-turn-of-the-century garb. (How the inability to see themselves in the mirror contributes to the oddness of their outfits is also examined.) They cling to hopelessly out of date rituals and habits, such as when they shame Nick out of the group. Their attempts to interact with modern pop culture, like Viago deciding to dress as Blade for the masquerade ball, are awkward. Stu attempts to introduce the bloodsuckers to the internet, cameras, cell phones, and other modern conveniences. They are largely baffled, though Vladislav likes Facebook and eBay, both amusingly small gags. As proven when an attempt to draw a victim out of his home fails, due to the man being totally absorbed by his laptop, “What We Do in the Shadows” realistically approaches how centuries-old vampires would react to the modern world.

While the film's central cast is a hugely talented collection of comedic performers, “What We Do in the Shadows” is only giving us a small peak at a much bigger world. We get little previews of other corners of this universe, featuring other really funny performers. The best of which is devoted to a group of werewolves. Like everything else it tackles, “What We Do in the Shadows” reduces the epic hatred traditionally seen between vampires and werewolves into a childish rivalry. While the vamps relishes in their own hedonism, the wolves flock together and follow surprisingly wholesome rules. We also meet a pair of beat cops. Hypnotized by the vampires, we are greeted to a hilarious sequence where the regular cops are utterly blind to the gruesome weirdness easily noticeable to the audience. Not to mention there are zombies – who are very offended by zombie stereotypes – and vampires with their own purposes, like a pair of “teenage” girls who prey on sexual predators.

As in his previous features, Watiti's goal here is not just to make the audience laugh. Though we do that a lot, there are other emotions bubbling under “What We Do in the Shadow's” surface. One can't overlook that heartbreak is what truly motivates Vliago and Vladislav. Though they are very silly characters, their endless lives are characterized by loss. This becomes especially noticeable in two scenes. When Petyr falls to a random vampire hunter, the vampires' grief is very real. At the end, after they think Stu is lost, Deacon launches into a monologue. Though it reflects his deeply dumb personality, it also shows there's a sense of brotherhood among these guys. They protect each other and are deeply hurt whenever one of their friends are taken away. Being a vampire is pretty lonely, it turns out, and they take connections where they can get it.

Taika Watiti and Jemaine Clement birthed this project both in front of and behind the camera. Watiti plays Vliago. It shows the performer's talent for extremely specific eccentricities. Though he couldn't be more different from “Boy's” Alamen, both are rule by obsessive desires. Vliago likes to keep things tidy, insisting the flat is clean or that certain rules are followed. Watiti is very good at getting laughs out of this fussy personality. Especially when it collides with his impolite desires. Such as blood gushing from a victim's neck. Or the particular way he appreciates his long-lost girlfriend's photo, a subtle dirty joke. Of course, relatable as his neurosis might be, Vliago is as much of a jerk as the other vampires. He doesn't treat his former familiar very nicely either.

As much as I like Watiti, Jemaine Clement really walks away with the show here. Like “Eagle vs. Shark's” Jarrod, Vladislav is a big idiot who greatly overestimates his own grandness. This becomes especially apparent when the truth of his often boasted about rivalry with “the Beast” is revealed. Also like Jarrod, Vlad collapses into despair when it becomes impossible to hold his fragile ego up. More than anything else, Clement's ability to make a particularly spoken line or a quizzical facial expression hugely funny is what truly drives his performance. Clement puts thought into everything his character does, finding new and exciting ways to make the audience laugh.

Rounding out the trio is Jonny Brugh as Deacon. While Vladislav at least has a broken heart under his macho bluster, Deacon is as big of an idiot as he appears to be. Young at only 183 years old, Deacon fancies himself the cool one of the group. He wares leather pants and performs “erotic dancing” for his friends. Brugh commits fully to the ridiculousness of the character, making Deacon a delightfully entertaining fool. This contrasts nicely with Cori Gonzalez-Macuer's Nick, who is very similar to Deacon. Both are preoccupied with their own power. Naturally, they come into conflict, neither aware of how similar they are to each other. This is stressed with a funny gag of Deacon accusing Nick of copying his fashion. 

“What We Do in the Shadows” was made in 2014, when found footage was still a prominent fixture in the horror genre. The film is actually a mockumentary, a similar if related genre, but utilizes many of the same tricks. Such as the unseen camera people rushing around in a panic, using dark photography to disguise a low budget. While his previous features were characterized by highly imaginative direction, Taika Watiti doesn't let the limitations of the film's format hold him back. He frequently cuts away to stationary images or old photographs, visually fleshing out the movie's world. This also keeps the film lively, never feeling weighed down by the formalities of the documentary style.

“What We Do in the Shadows” was a bonafide cult hit in 2014. Though it only grossed six million dollars at the box office, that was still a considerable profit compared to its one million budget. Mostly, the film's success would come from critics and fans. That following has led to two spin-offs thus far. “Wellington Paranormal” was made for New Zealand television and follows the pair of clueless police officers met in the film. An American television adaptation – produced by Watiti and Clement – is premiering on FX later this month. And you still occasionally hear rumbles of a sequel, which would follow the lycanthrope pack and be delightfully entitled “We're Wolves.” Whatever the quality of its follow-ups and spin-offs – pretty good, from the sounds of it - “What We Do in the Shadows” stands by itself as a hilarious and fantastically made piss-take on the vampire legends. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2010)

2. Boy

One can't discuss Taika Waititi without eventually bringing up his unique heritage. His father is Maori while his mother is Jewish, a combination that is difficult to recall in any other pop culture figure. Moreover, his films seem to display a distinctly New Zealandian sensibility. “Boy” was his second feature but was initially intended to be his first. A viewer can't help but see the film as a highly personal one for Waititi, what with it being about a Maori boy growing up in the lush New Zealand countryside during the early eighties. (Further emphasizing this suggestion is that Waititi shot much of the film in his childhood home town.) It's hard to imagine anyone without that particular background to produce a film quite like “Boy.”

In 1984, Alamein – everyone just calls him “Boy” – grows up in his largely Maori community. His mother died while giving birth to his brother, Rocky. His father, also named Alamein, is serving a term in prison following a botched bank robbery attempt. Boy currently lives on his grandmother's farm, with a pack of cousins, often attempting and failing to make friends and impress his girl. When his dad returns home, a pack of cronies in tow, things start to change. Alamein Sr. drives a cool car, brings extravagant gifts, and fancies himself the leader of a motorcycle gang. He's searching for a cache of money he stored before going to prison, promising Boy adventure and riches once its uncovered.

As the title suggests, “Boy” is Taika Waititi's take on the coming-of-age story. Boy struggles with the typical difficulties of adolescence. He's bullied by kids at school, has weird friends he isn't sure he likes, and tries to impress a girl that clearly wants nothing to do with him. His relationship with his father forms the backbone of the film. At first, he idolizes his fathers, seeing him as this unknown hero in his life. However, “Boy” is ultimately a story about the titular character realizing his father is a massive screw-up and asshole. While this is well-trotted cinematic gang, Waititi brings his trademark sense of humor and creative direction to the material.

A connecting fiber “Boy” has with Waititi's debut, “Eagle Vs. Shark,” is the role of an overgrown boy in a man's body. Like that film's Jarrod, Alamein is deeply immature. He tells over-the-top lies to his kids, promising things – like tickets to a Michael Jackson concert or pet dolphins to ride – that he clearly is incapable of delivering. Like Jarrod, he boasts about achievements he most certainly have never actually done. Some of these, like seeing “E.T.” or listening to “Thriller” multiple times, are extremely pedestrian in nature. The kind of stuff only a young child could be impressed with. Alamein's arrested development is most apparent during a sequence where Boy plays soldiers with sticks... Only for the reveal that Alamein is playing the same game more enthusiastically than his sons.

Alamein Jr.'s childish daydreams about his father allows Waititi to indulge in the absurd, whimsical sense of humor that was quickly becoming his calling card. Boy dreams up all sorts of unlikely scenarios. Like his dad digging himself out of prison and then killing the guards with a spoon. He's shown fighting in wars or training as a samurai. Yet the best moments are the musical ones. Drawing from his love of Michael Jackson, Alamein Jr. more than once imagines his Dad recreating famous dance moves from the “Billy Jean” or “Beat It” videos. This sharply contrasts with the drunken clumsiness or embarrassing bar room defeats that happen in reality.

The most quirky digressions in “Eagle Vs. Shark” were animated sequences, showing various objects lurching to life in stop-motion. “Boy” shares a little of this style. Rocky scribbles drawings, reflecting his view of the world. A few times, we see these doodles leap to life. His father's arrival is shown as eyes and big teeth lurking to life out of a shadowed car. Later, Alamein Sr.'s temper-tantrum is depicted as his snarling face fusing with the house. The crude animation is done in the same pencil drawing style that Rocky works in, making these flights of fancy a further glimpses into the young characters' minds.

“Boy” is less oppressive zany than “Eagle Vs. Shark,” being a more naturalistic film that is less self-aware in its own wackiness. This isn't to say “Boy” doesn't contain lots of comedy. It's actually a very funny film. The interaction between Boy and his friends provides much of the humor. Such as a sequence where he navigates the maize fields, a random comment randomly turning the conversation toward bodily waste. Or his extremely awkward attempts to impress the girl he likes. Boy's dad leads to quite a few absurdist antics. Like his inability to leap through a car window, another way the movie undermines his attempt image of tough guy bad-ass-ery. There's a lot of quirky laughs to be had here through the frequently hilarious dialogue.

Ultimately, as funny as “Boy” often is, there's also a heart of sadness underneath the jokes. Boy does not talk about the death of his mother much throughout the film, instead fixating on and looking up to his father. His brother, Rocky, meanwhile, is obsessed with his mother's death. He blames himself for it and spends many hours sitting by her tombstone. The kids' father almost never talks about their mom at all. His inner sadness becomes rage, which frequently ends up targeted at the boys. There are confrontations, between son and father, between car and goat, that bring this deep sadness – this longing, this hope for connection to those who are lost – to the surface. Though full of giddy joys, “Boy” is also a movie about sadness. Because adolescence is a sad time too, of learning that those you once thought reliable are not.

Another similarity “Boy” has with Waititi's debut is that it's a movie about outsiders. While none of the characters are extreme in their quirkiness as those in his first film, there's a definite sense that our protagonists stand apart from the rest of the world. Rocky is a weirdo who believes he has superpowers, often thinking he can move things with his mind. Eventually, he bonds with a strange, possibly homeless man that loiters around the town. Similarly, Boy often seems to be closer friends with his pet goat, Leaf, than anyone that is human. Though he has a group of followers, it quickly becomes apparent that their father is a huge weirdo too, hopelessly wrapped up in his own juvenile fantasies of power and coolness.

“Boy” is set in the early eighties. This is very apparent in the pop culture references generously sprinkled throughout. To two items, especially. In 1984 New Zealand, Michael Jackson is the peak of cool. The characters talk about him constantly, wearing clothes inspired by him, attempting to mimic his dance moves, and generally wielding his image as a token of awesomeness. Boy's dad, meanwhile, repeatedly references “E.T.” over and over again. Waititi does not include these pop culture references for their own sake. Instead, these trivial icons provide a way for the characters to communicate. M.J. and Spielberg's little alien occupies the characters' subconscious. So, of course, they are going to talk about them a lot.

The film would be the debut role of James Rolleston. Rolleston was a last minute replacement for another actor. A week before filming, Waititi realized the other kid just wasn't cutting it and Rolleston was promoted from a background role to lead. It was a wise decision. Rolleston is the perfect lead for “Boy.” He has a funny and bubbly personality, bringing an incredible youthful energy and sense of humor to every line he's given. Rolleston is also more than capable of handling the film's heavier moments, seeming genuine in his pain and anger. I'm happy to see Rolleston has gone to a decent career too, despite some personal struggles.

Furthering how personal a project “Boy” was for him, Taika Waititi also stars in the film as Alamein Sr. This is exactly the kind of absurd character that Waititi specializes in, as an actor. Alamein is constantly making proclamations of his goofy achievements, which Waititi bites into with full force. He insists people call him “Shogun” and treats his ridiculous motorcycle gang as a totally serious endeavor. Waititi's ability to keep a straight face when delivering even the most ridiculous dialogue makes this character even funnier.  The actor manages to gets laughs out of swaggering with a machete or just the way the character wears a brain bucket style motorcycle helmet on his head.

Though the movie cycles through a number of emotions, it ultimately concludes on a joyous note, with a dance party ending that is totally earned. It's the ideally giddy note to take a film that does such a good job of capturing the energy youth on. “Boy” would be a surprise success in New Zealand, actually becoming the highest grossing locally made film in the country. Remember what I said about Waititi's specifically New Zealandian sensibility? That's what I was talking about. It is a heartfelt and frequently hilarious motion picture, showing the way its star/director/writer can mine laughs out of the most personal of material. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Taika Waititi (2007)

Following the success of his entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Taika Waititi is suddenly a widely beloved director. Of course, up until his big budget entry in a billion dollar franchise, Waititi was mostly only known among fans of weirdo comedies. (At least in America. He's one of New Zealand's most successful native filmmakers.) Does it bother me that a bunch of nerds only known this talented, hilarious guy from the one cape movie he made, to the point that he's asked to direct even more of them? I mean, only so much in the sense that I wish people would seek out obscure, oddball flicks more. As we journey through his cinematic career, we'll get a good sense of Waititi's lovably nutty style.

1. Eagle Vs. Shark

Wikipedia so astutely describes Taika Waititi as having “a variety of artistic interest.” This is apparent in the wide selection of projects he has been involved with over the years. The New Zealander got his start as part of a five-man comedy ensemble called So You're a Man, before forming a smaller comedy group with Jemaine Clement called The Humourbeasts. Waititi has acted, worked in television, and done music. Yet it seems likely his work directing film is what he'll be best remembered for. After being nominated for an Academy Award for his short, “Two Cars, One Night,” he would make his debut feature in 2007 with bizarre romantic-comedy “Eagle Vs. Shark.”

Twenty-something Lily does not have much in her life. Following the death of both of her parents, she lives with her older brother and works a dreary job at a mall fast food place. (Which she's quickly let go from.) That's where she meets Jarrod. An awkward nerd employed at a near-by video game shop, he invites Lily's pretty co-worker to a party, where everyone is instructed to dress as their favorite animal. Lily, who is developing a crush on Jarrod, goes instead. After she performs well at his favorite video game, the two immediately hit it off.  Soon, Lily is pulled along on a road trip with Jarrod, meeting his equally strange family, as he embarks on a quest of vengeance against the person who bullied him in high school.

I first saw “Eagle Vs. Shark” quite a few years ago, through my cable provider's free movies section. (I know that sounds awful but I saw a lot of weird movies that way, honestly.) At the time, the film playing in the background while I did home work, I dismissed it. Waititi's debut struck me as another insufferable indie comedy quirk-fest. The inexplicably popular “Napoleon Dynamite” was still relatively fresh in my mind and this film seemed similar. Granted, this accusation is not totally without basis. The film is loaded with aggressively quirky, cringe comedy. Such as the painfully bad celebrity impersonations Lily's brother performs any time he gets a chance. Or the profanity laden petty arguments Jarrod has with his siblings. Or, honestly, just about every character or line of dialogue in the film.

Re-watching “Eagle Vs. Shark” in 2019 though, the extreme awkwardness and stilted conversation of its main characters suddenly take on a new meaning. I know there's this tendency in certain corners of the internet to try and diagnosis any and every character imaginable as somewhere on the autism spectrum. But I think there's an actual case to be made with Lily. Her social interactions are uncomfortable. She often repeats the same phrase, which it seems she has extensively rehearsed. She has little understanding of humor, as she finds her brother's awful jokes genuinely amusing. She seems unable to read the disinterest most people have in her hobbies, notably with her dispassionate co-workers. She peruses her interests – marine animals, Jarrod himself – with a laser's focus. While the film never describes Lily as neurodivergent, it's a conclusion that's hard to avoid from a modern perspective.

If Lily is autistic, it would contrast in an interesting way with Jarrod. See, Lily's eccentricities are no one's fault, that's just how she is. Jarrod, on the other hand, is an asshole. He meets Lily by assuming her pretty blonde co-worker will want to date him, a gangly and extremely awkward nerd. He makes people at his party compete for the honor of playing a video game with him, a competition he gives himself a trophy for. He constantly brags and builds up his own accomplishes. He lies, claiming he looks like Hugh Jackman or that Lily has performed certain honors. Meanwhile, he treats those around him badly. He negs Lily's own achievements, downplaying her choice of shark as her favorite animal or her superior gaming skills. Sometimes, he's just rude for no reason. Like yelling at Lily's brother after he gives him a rotten apple or picking fights with friends and siblings.

Jarrod is an utterly petty, egotistical man-child and that was obviously the filmmaker's intention. However, Waititi also understands that behavior like this doesn't exist in a vacuum. Pretty early on, it's clear that Jarrod is overcompensating for something. He knows how pathetic he is, even if he's not entirely willing to admit it, and his lies are a smoke-screen to cover that. Once we meet his family, we understand why he feels this way. His brother, the sibling favored by his father, committed suicide a few years back. Dad blamed Jarrod's overall patheticness for his brother's death. His father makes no attempt to show any interest in Jarrod's life and he's relentlessly teased by his sister. This is why Jarrod wants his family to be impressed with Lily. This is why he exaggerates his own lack of skills, why he relates to the proud and predatory eagle. He's desperate to be loved, to be acclaimed for something. His asshole behavior is born of hurt and neglect.

However, “Eagle Vs. Shark” does have a problem. If Lily and Jarrod alone were the weirdos and outcasts in the film's world, the odd romance they create make a lot of sense. Instead, Lily and Jarrod are simply two oddballs in a story seemingly populated exclusively with oddballs. Lily's brother is an eccentric, obsessed with his bad impersonation and weird drawings. Jarrod's family includes his sister and her husband, who have a weird fixation on neon-colored gym suits. His father is confined to a wheelchair (which leads to one of the film's best reveals) and just quietly mumbles through most scenes. His friends, which include a computer expert who obviously knows nothing about computers and a random metal head, are even stranger than him. This is the element where “Eagle Vs. Shark” tries too hard. By making everyone a fucking freak, the freakiness of the protagonists are less interesting and funny.

“Eagle Vs. Shark's” status as an aggressive quirk-fest is evident in ways outside its script and characters. The movie's production design is an aesthetic that is hard to define but is nevertheless easily understood as the “mid-2000s indie comedy” styling. You can see this in many of the film's odd gags. Like the fast food place Lily works at being the strangely named “Meaty Boy,” which sells a burger with the bread on the inside and meat on the outside. Or the “Mortal Kombat” style video game Jarrod plays at his party, where very bizarre characters pummel each other in unbelievable ways. There's a movie theater that resembles a dinosaur, clashing and ugly colors in almost all the backgrounds, and characters generally making the tackiest fashion choices possible. While the comparison to “Napoleon Dynamite” is largely unfair – “Eagle Vs. Shark” is far more self-aware than that pre-fab cult classic – the general look of the films are comparable.

The extreme quirkiness of “Eagle Vs. Shark” extends to Taika Waititi's visual approach as a director. The movie's brief run time is filled with a number of unexpected visuals tricks. Rotten apples that are discarded by Lily and Jarrod earlier in the film later return as stop-motion characters, going on a little adventure together. (Presumably because both characters are metaphorical rotten apples.) This follows a river being portrayed as a stop-motion collection of transparent plastic. Later in the film, sleeping bags jerk around the scenic New Zealand countryside through a similar stop-motion tactic. Watiti also throws in some slow motion during the intentionally anti-climatic fight scene or Lily having visions of sharks. It's fairly inventive, even if it is abreast with the movie's sometimes overbearingly quirky style.

When “Eagle Vs. Shark” was being produced, Loren Taylor and Taika Waititi were dating. The Lily character actually predates the film, the director being inspired by the odd character his girlfriend cooked up. So it's no surprise that Loren Taylor's acting is lived-in and relaxed. Despite the character's heavy amount of quirks, Taylor defines Lily as a person. She's not just a collection of gimmicks. She's shy and humble, unlike her boyfriend. She wears her emotion on her sleeve, showing her obvious infatuation with Jarrod upon meeting. The biggest difference between the two is Lily's ability to forgive, both others and herself, and Taylor handily captures the sweetness.

“Eagle Vs. Shark” is probably of most interest to Waititi fans for being another starring role for Jemaine Clement, future Conchord and regular presence in Waititi's films. Jarrod is the kind of oversized comedic character that Clement specializes in. Like many of Clement's creations, he acts tough and puffed-up to hide an easily wounded heart. It's not an easy role to play. The audience must recognize Jarrod is a huge asshole. We must like him in spite of his priggishness but the performer can never let that vulnerability become too obvious. Somehow, Clement balances all of these qualities, creating an equally sympathetic and obnoxious character.

Since “Eagle Vs. Shark” is a comedy, all its quirky excesses can be justified as long as its funny. Luckily, the film does bring the laughs fairly consistently. There's a lot of good ol' fashion absurdity here. Like the bizarre candles Jarrod creates, in hopes of selling to very specific demographics. Or the way he struggles with a condom before having sex with Lily for the first time. His long-standing grudge with the high school bully results in a number of extremely awkward phone calls. Their showdown goes in some delightfully unexpected directions. Probably my favorite gag involves Lily and Jarrod disagreeing on the merits of tents or sleeping bags. Or what becomes of an eagle-shaped cake she bakes for him.

Ultimately, “Eagle Vs. Shark's” piling on of self-aware quirkiness may not be for everyone. Even as someone who generally likes the film, it comes dangerously close to being too fucking much for me. (There's even an acoustic cover of a well known pop song near the end.) What saves the film is a genuine affection for its fucked-up character, an actual sense of heart beating beneath the cringe-inducing uncomfortableness. Separate by a few years from the age of indie quirk, you can also appreciate the movie's inventive production design and puckish creativity a little more now too. While it still feels a bit like Waititi was trying to chase some trends, it's a decent slice of oddball comedy in its own right. [Grade: B]