Thor: The Dark World Movie Review

Before Thor hit theaters in 2011, I really wasn't familiar with that particular line of Marvel Comics. But after seeing the hero in action in Thor and The Avengers I've really come to like the titular character and his adoptive brother. When Thor: The Dark World (2013) was announced I was chomping at the bit to see these characters in action again.

Eons ago a race of beings known as Dark Elves tried to send the universe into darkness by useing a weapon known as the Aether. Warriors from Asgard stopped them but their leader Malekith (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston) escapes to wait for another opportunity. The Asgard Warriors find the Aether and since it cannot be destroyed, they hide it. In present day, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) awaits the return of Thor although it has been two years since they last saw one another. In the meantime, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) stands imprisoned for his war crimes on Earth while Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been trying to bring peace to the nine realms following the reconstruction of the Bifröst, the "Rainbow Bridge" between realms, which was destroyed two years earlier. Jane discovers an anomaly similar to the one that brought Thor to Earth. She goes to investigate, and becomes infected by the lost Aether. Learning of Jane's sudden disappearance, Thor goes to Earth to retrieve her and takes her to Asgard to try and remove the Aether. Malekith, upon sensing the Aether's location attacks Asgard. In a desperate attempt to stop Malekith, Thor is forced to seek help from the treacherous Loki.

While I did enjoy the first Thor movie, I think this is more of what fans were originally hoping for. Thor travels to more of the Nine Realms, we get to see more of Asgard, the characters are a bit more developed, there's bigger action. I really appreciate how events from Thor and The Avengers are acknowledged and were used as plot devices. The Bifröst is kind of a teleportation device that was destroyed at the end of Thor and without it, the Asgardians couldn't travel the Nine Realms to keep the peace. Also Loki tried to take over the Earth in The Avengers and is being imprisoned for it. Because details like these were included, it makes the world setting a bit more believable.

Most everyone reprises their previous role, including Idris Elba as Heimdall, Kat Dennings as Darcy, Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig, Rene Russo as Frigga Thor's mother, and the legendary Anthony Hopkins as Odin. All do a great job, and their characters are more fleshed out. For example, Dr. Selvig had his brain taken over by Loki in The Avengers which has caused some psychological problems that are both useful and a hinderance. Darcy is now more than comic relief, and plays a more active part in helping saving the world. Tom Hiddleston is simply amazing. His role as Loki did for the Marvel Comics movies what Heath Ledger did for the The Dark Knight as The Joker; they added a hugely successful character that everyone both loves and hates and made the movies all the better for it. What was really interesting is Loki's relationship with his adoptive mother Frigga. Loki is at a very low point and his mother is the only one to offer him compassion; while he tries to act strong and tough, Loki needs his mom. I love Christopher Eccleston; he was a great bad guy in 28 Days Later, and he makes a great, if shallow, megalomaniacal villain out for revenge here.

I was a bit disappointed in Natalie Portman's role. While Jane is certainly longing for Thor, they don't really do a whole lot together; even in scenes where both characters are present. It's a bit sad that the love/hate sibling relationship between Thor and Loki outshines the romantic love interest between the hero and the damsel in distress.

I love this mash up of sci-fi and fantasy. There are holes in space, spaceships, and other sci-fi gadgetry alongside swords, magical items, and spell casting. It's high end sci-fi/fantasy stuff  that is pretty fun to watch. Parts of it feels a bit rushed and undeveloped. I didn't understand why physics didn't apply on part of earth when the worlds were aligning, and why Earth machinery used to detect spatial anomalies was suddenly able to create them. But who cares? It's a sci-fi/fantasy/superhero movie! While the "what" of the story should make some sense in the big picture, some "why" questions don't require detailed answers to still make a fun movie. That results in a story that is mostly just fun to watch and doesn't require a great deal of mental energy to enjoy.

The fight scene at the end was really exciting, but what was also neat was that while these god-like beings fought one another, the humans helped the hero save the day and keep other people safe. They did this in Man of Steel, too. The humans are being heroes every bit as much as the super-powered being from another planet; not just standing idly by and hoping everything turns out okay. They even help Thor get an edge in the fight. I love how everyone gets to help save the day.

Thor: The Dark World was fun, but wasn't a great movie. The action is good, the acting is mostly good, the special effects are great, the story isn't all that original, but the characters are really good; Thor and Loki in particular are interesting with the trust issues and sibling rivalry dynamic. It's better than the first Thor movie and it embraces it's fantasy roots with some exciting and entertaining results. Thor: The Dark World is worth seeing, but probably after it hits home video. Of course if you are collecting the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, you'll want to buy this on Blu-Ray. And of course, stick around for the post-credits scene.

Which of the villains in these Marvel/Avengers movies have you liked the best? I think I have to go with Loki. Comment below and tell me your favorite!

Hitchcock Review

Alfred Hitchcock was one of the most famous directors in film history. He had an iconic and entertaining public image as well as creating some of the most influential films in his day. Psycho is easily my favorite Hitchcock film; I got to analyze Psycho to pieces in my film class. I knew what kind of a sacrifices Hitchcock made for that film, but I never envisioned making a movie about making Psycho. Someone did think of it and thus Hitchcock (2012) was born.

in 1959, Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), are at the top of their creative game as filmmakers amid disquieting insinuations about it being time to retire. To recapture his youth's artistic daring, Alfred decides his next film will adapt the lurid horror novel, Psycho, over everyone's misgivings. Unfortunately, as Alfred self-finances and labors on this film, Alma finally loses patience with his roving eye and controlling habits with his actresses. When an ambitious friend, Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), lures her to collaborate on a work of their own, the resulting maternal tension sullies Alfred's work even as the novel's inspiration (Michael Wincott) haunts his dreams.

So, Hitchcock opens with a scene where Ed Gein, the real life inspiration for Psycho's Norman Bates, kills someone for calling him a "momma's boy." Before the scene becomes gory, the camera slowly pans to the left and settles on Anthony Hopkins in a remarkable prosthetics and make up job casually sipping some tea as he watches the murder take place. He then turns to the camera and speaks briefly to the audience in Hitchcock's signature coyly grim demeanor about how these events inspired a great movie. It starts off just like an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Not only did this set a fascinating tone for the movie that draws you in from the get go, but also it put me, as a Hitchcock fan, in a some kind of film-production enthusiast overload. I was put in an "awesome coma" before the movies' title had a chance to appear on screen.

Anthony Hopkins and Alfred Hitchcock

The casting was beyond compare. Anthony Hopkins is incredible as Alfred Hitchcock. Granted, Anthony Hopkins is incredible as anything, but makeup job and prosthetics aside, Hopkins captivated Hitchcock's vocal tone, speech inflections, and mannerisms perfectly! Even the script gave him dialogue that sounded exactly like things Hitchcock would say. Scarlett Johansson and James D'Arcy were cast to play the stars of Hitchcocks' masterpiece Psycho. They look and act so much like Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh it was simply amazing. Whoever did the casting for Hitchcock deserves an award.

The movie is about a married couple. Both are aware of their age, the romance in their relationship is basically dead, they are at a low point in their lives with all the personal sacrifices they each made for the Psycho film, and both have reason to suspect the other of infidelity. What I loved about both these characters is they are able to become more unified as they work together on a mutual project, which also happens to be something that I am passionate about: movie making! Hitchcock shows us how most of Hitchcock's films would have been much weaker without the unseen collaboration from his wife. Unlike a lot of contemporary movies, Hitchcock depicts a marriage as something that is reciprocally beneficial and requires much work and trust from both husband and wife to succeed. I really appreciated that aspect of the movie.

Hitchcock is a movie about making a movie. It captivates the energy and excitement of making a film and creating art. The movie depicts Alfred and Alma as being highly passionate about film and struggling to create despite the apathy and business side of the industry. The studio execs want movies that are exactly like every other film; it's safe and will guarantee a profit. Hitchcock wants to be bold, take calculated risks, and refuses to make standardized art just to make money. That resonated with me immensely as I hate seeing movies that follow a moneymaking formula and have no  heart. That, coupled with watching some classic scenes being filmed, was just fantastic to behold!

Hitchcock was an excellent film that hit nearly every point that makes a good movie while also catering to my fascination with film as an art medium. The acting was superbly presented by an outstanding cast, the plot was good, the history was mostly accurate. The allusions to the Psycho movie were creative, meaningful, and well implemented without actually showing clips from Psycho. I also loved seeing Hitchcock and Alma in a masterful creative collaboration that culminated in making movie history. If you like Alfred Hitchcock movies at all, I think you owe it to yourself to see this one. You'll probably get more out of it if you've seen Psycho. If you haven't seen Psycho you should see that, too. Not everyone will enjoy it as much as I do, but I still implore you to see Hitchcock; it's a good, solid movie that is worth owning.

What is your favorite Alfred Hitchcock film? Comment below and tell me why!

Meet Joe Black Movie Review

Every year we get a new set of drama films about life, love, human nature, beauty, and fulfillment. A lot of these drama films are sickeningly obvious attempts to win an award since they are released one or two months before The Oscars. Such “Oscar Bait” is usually fraught with big name actors and dramatic situations which are much more sappy than touching; such as New Year’s Eve (2011). Meet Joe Black (1998), directed by Martin Brest, was probably Oscar Bait, but it still did some creative things.

William Parrish (Anthony Hopkins) is a wealthy media tycoon who has a heart attack a few days before his 65^th birthday. He survives, but is unsure of how much longer he has to live. Later that day, Parrish’s youngest daughter Susan (Claire Forlani) meets an attractive young man (Brad Pitt) at a coffee shop and the two become love-struck. After they part, the young man is killed and his body is becomes inhabited by Death who is coming to warn Parrish of his impending death. Death meets Parrish in his own home, appearing as a handsome visitor. Parrish and Death formulate an agreement that Death can remain with Parrish as a guest to experience some of life in exchange for postponing Parrish’s death. Parrish formulates the name Joe Black for his guest to use. Susan is astonished to see the stranger from the coffee shop at her family dinner table that evening, and wants to pursue the relationship, not knowing that it is now Death. Joe Black’s presence in Parrish’s life causes complications as he joins Parrish in board meetings and family parties, all while Parrish worries about the repercussions of his daughter’s infatuation with Death incarnate.

One of the more interesting components of this film was the character of Joe Black. His character was riddled with abstractions of death that have taken on the form of a personality. Joe insinuates himself into situations where he’s not welcome; his presence makes things uncomfortable and awkward, he always gets the last word, and he’s accustomed to being an unquestioned authority. Joe is more of an angel of death than a dark foreboding reaper. Joe has a few humorous lines. In one scene Parrish is stressed about the legacy he’s leaving behind to which Joe says, “Careful Bill, you'll give yourself a heart attack and ruin my vacation.” There were a few illogical aspects of the character, too; Joe Black seems oblivious to some normal interactions and things like peanut butter. Is this the first time Death has used a body to experience living? It doesn’t really say.

There is a sex scene between Joe and Susan, which was interesting. It was graphically rather  tame, but unlike most sex scenes it focused primarily on the man, not the woman. This was an important character-developing scene because it was a new experience for Joe, and his expressions were communicating that this was so much better than peanut butter.

Parrish was also a pleasantly surprising character. Most wealthy, powerful tycoons in movies are depicted as being uncaring, money grubbing, power hungry scrooges. Parrish is none of these things. He’s kind and loving, he cares for his family, and he misses his deceased wife. He does use his position of authority and power when it is needed, but he is still a unpretentious person. It was good to see this kind of a character for a change.

As a supernatural romance/drama of sorts, this movie could have included a lot of dark visual effects to develop the embodiment of Death. But there wasn’t. This movie was very much grounded and realistic. We’re given reasons to understand that Joe Black really is Death. There are no dark clouds or glowing eyes to depict this. It’s all taken care of in very natural character development.

Meet Joe Black was probably Oscar Bait, but it wasn’t a bad drama. The romance wasn’t the focus of the film, it was more of a commentary about love and life. If you’re the kind of person who enjoys a good drama film once in awhile, Meet Joe Black is a decent choice. But I could see some of viewers not caring for it.

Thor Movie Review

Marvel Studios has been making a lot of Super Hero movies over the past couple of years. Hardcore Marvel fans are getting revved up for the Avengers movie; hints of this major crossover movie have been dropped since Iron Man (2008). But possibly the most difficult Avenger to make a movie for would be Thor; he’s not human, he’s a god, most of his story and adventures don’t take place on Earth. Thor is so far removed from these other heroes that doing his story justice would be pretty tricky. Fortunately, 2011’s Thor movie (directed by Kenneth Branagh) pulled it off well.

Many centuries ago, a race of Frost Giants tried to take over Earth. A powerful race called the Asgardians lead by their king, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), thwarted the Frost Giants. These events became Earth’s Norse Mythology. Years later Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the son of Odin is to be made king of Asgard. The Ceremony is interrupted by some Frost Giants in the castle. Thor gathers some friends to retaliate against the Frost Giants’ home world, demanding answers. In doing so, Thor violates a treaty between the Asguardians and the Frost Giants. King Odin puts a stop to Thor’s juvenile, violent tirade and as punishment for Thor’s arrogance and stupidity, banishes Thor to Earth in modern day New Mexico as a mortal, stripped of his powers and strength. Thor, assisted by an astrophysicist college student Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), must try to recover his powers, atone for his mistakes, regain his father’s respect, stop the Frost Giant’s impending attack, and reclaim his place as heir to the throne of Asguard before his manipulative brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) claims it for himself.

A big obstacle for the writers and film makers of this movie was that a majority of the characters are gods. Things could easily have gone overboard; making the characters so foreign to the audience that they wouldn’t be able to relate to the characters. But even the mortal audience can understand the sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki, being severely humbled, discovering what your limits are, and loosing the respect of someone you admire. Also, you get a sense of what each character is capable of doing or not doing. It was never remotely established that these characters can do anything at all; they do have the powers of gods, but they still remained believable within the context of their world setting.

The special effects and CGI graphics were stunning. Occasionally you get movies that are simply a display of visual effects with a weak storyline stringing them together like in Tron: Legacy(2010). The visual effects in Thor complimented the storyline so well that they simply blended together. Asgard was nearly completely done in CGI; it was pretty and sold the idea that here magic and science truly are the same, as Thor describes it. Traveling between worlds via the Bifröst was a colorful spectacle that was awesome to see, but still held to the movie’s color scheme and helped establish the power of the Asgardians.

The pacing of the movie was done well. The prologue, narrated by Odin, seemed a little bit rushed; similar to the opening prologue to The Lord of the Rings (2001). There was a lot of back-story to establish but it was important to the main events, and had they revealed the back story slowly over the span of the movie it wouldn’t have set up the main plot as well. It was important for the audience to be on the same page that Thor was from the beginning. During part of Thor’s duration on Earth the pacing slows down. But this, coupled with the far reaching expanses of desert, establishes the feeling of despair and of being lost. Aside from these two points in the movie, the pacing is fairly consistent and keeps the audience interested without allowing them to fall behind.

Thor was a well done film that was enjoyable to watch. Marvel fans will enjoy seeing it. Even those new to these Marvel characters will enjoy this film. Between Thor’s endearing dialogue, the stunning visual effects, and fun characters, Thor is certainly worth watching or adding to your home movie collection.

Who is your favorite superhero from The Avengers lineup? Comment below and tell me why!