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!

The Others Movie Review

Haunted house movies can be kind of fun, but they tend to be formulaic. We’ve come to expect a handful of visuals that seem to appear in every haunted house movie. Some of us still get a kick out of them, just like we do when going to Halloween attractions that always seem to have a guy with a blade-less chainsaw and hockey mask. The Others (2001) shows us some predictable qualities, but strays a bit from the standard haunted house movie.

Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman), a devoutly religious mother of two ailing children, has moved her family to a mansion on the English coast while awaiting the return of her husband Charles (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston) from World War II, though he is declared missing. Their children, Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley), both suffer from a rare photosensitive disease that renders them extremely vulnerable to sunlight, prompting Grace’s rule of having only one door open in the house at a time. When Anne begins claiming to see ghosts, Grace first suspects her newly arrived family of eccentric house attendants are responsible, but chilling events and visions soon lead her to believe that something supernatural is indeed going on.

Surely you’ve seen a haunted house movie before. What do you expect to see in such a movie? Flashy visual effects, violent shocks, telescoping hallways, doors that will not lock or will not open, graves opening in the basement, blood oozing from the walls, etc?  None of that is in The Others. In fact, just about the only haunted house cliché in The Others is the token bit of dialogue that seems to appear in every haunted house movie, “There’s something in this house. Something… diabolic.” While I’m a big fan of the creepy antics in Poltergeist (1982), it was refreshing to see a haunted house movie that deviates so much from the norm.

The tone in The Others is also different. Normally such movies go out of their way to create a sense of foreboding and disquiet. While The Others did create a spooky quality when called for, it primarily had this languorous, dream-like feel; almost as if you weren’t sure if any of it was actually happening.

The director, Alejandro Amenábar, also did some really neat things with lighting. Because of the children’s photosensitivity the curtains in the house were always drawn in scenes with the children, so the house was often stiflingly dark with oil lamps and candles lighting the scene. Other times the curtains were open, shedding lots of light onto the scene and leaving nothing to the imagination. That gives the audience a reason to think spooky beings are lurking around the house until a well-lit scene comes a long and we’re shown there isn’t. And that gives us a distressing sense of uncertainty that allows us to relate to Grace as she questions the possibility of supernatural presence. The lighting also helped develop the characters, Grace particularly; the lighting technique where half of a character’s face is illuminated (as you can see in the movie poster) is often used to depict the character torn between two possibilities, or to depict uncertainty. This technique is used with Grace a lot as she carries an oil lamp with her through the house.

Grace was a good character; she’s a devoutly religious woman, she loves her children, and wants what’s best for them. Nicole Kidman does a fine job of depicting these qualities in Grace. She’s not a typical horror movie hysteric. Her reaction to the strange goings on around her home is completely reasonable, even relatable. Her overt religiosity gets a bit annoying at times. I would caution some viewers about The Others if you are sensitive to themes of one’s religious beliefs being challenged or even proven wrong. Grace has trouble accepting the idea of ghosts in her house when she has a very firm belief in the Christian ideas of heaven, hell, purgatory, and limbo.

The Others is rather slow moving, but remains interesting. It’s a little over an hour and a half, but it feels longer than that. And while it shows us that movies can indeed be creepy without being laden with superfluous special effects, we become aware of how much the movie isn’t showing us. The suspense is supposed to be rising, but I imagine the audience is mostly becoming impatient. There is only so much precursory hints of ghosts that you can take before it becomes annoying that you aren’t actually seeing ghosts.

The Others isn’t a bad movie. It remains grounded in the sense that we don’t need mind bending visuals and special effects to generate a creepy feeling. There’s some good cinematography and acting. It’s very atmospheric and spooky. Still, I saw the ending from a mile away. The Others probably won’t impact you that deeply. It’s a good movie for what it is, but chances are you’ll forget about it before too long. I recommend seeing it if you’re in the mood for a safe, but creepy movie. Especially around the Halloween season. But I don’t think it’s worth rushing out to get a copy.

Do you have a favorite Haunted House movie? What is it, and why do you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!

28 Days Later Movie Review

Danny Boyle is responsible for some great and critically acclaimed films which include 127 Hours (2010) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Once, while discussing zombies with friends, I was shamed for not having seen Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002). Apparently you can’t discuss zombies with any kind of authority without having seen it. I managed to see it recently; now I can talk about zombies.

British animal liberation activists break into a laboratory in Cambridge to free some chimpanzees being used for medical research. A scientist begs them not to free the chimps because they are infected with a virus that causes rage. He is ignored and the chimps escape. Twenty-eight days later, a young man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma, alone, and in an abandoned hospital. He wanders out to find London completely empty. Jim draws the attention of some zombie-like humans who begin chasing after him. He’s rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who explain about the rage virus and how it has decimated the country in a matter of days. They meet up with man named Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) who are following a radio broadcast promising a cure for the virus. When they reach the source of the radio, they find some corrupt renegade military personnel, lead by Major Henry West (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston). The military platoon quickly proves as much a threat as the rage-zombies.

Zombies have become such a common theme in movies, literature, comic books, and video games that I’m starting to wonder why people in zombie movies don’t seem to know what zombies are when they see them. I know several real people who have zombie survival strategies planned out, yet no one in movies or video games ever seems to have heard of zombies.

I don’t recall hearing the word “zombie” in 28 Days Later. I think that’s a good thing; actually calling them “zombies” would have weakened the movie and made it seem cliché. The infected weren’t your average zombies. They weren’t shambling, decomposing corpses; they were awake, alert, and filled with uncontrollable rage. The rage virus had more of a psychological effect than a physiological one. This seemed like a modern metaphor for social rage (road rage, air rage, etc). Rather than having a virus that kills victims and turns them into monsters, the virus amplifies something negative that is already in each and every person to levels beyond their control. Having the existing negative qualities deteriorate us into monsters is much more disquieting, I think.

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. The drive behind classic zombie movies revolved around fear of nuclear power and its possible ramifications. I think the rage-virus is more applicable to this generation; society seems much more frightened of disease than of nuclear power. Just think of the real world reactions to anthrax bioterrorism, the bird flu, swine flu, mad cow disease, and foot-and-mouth disease. Does a viral outbreak really terrify us these days more than a nuclear holocaust?

I could go on about the social commentary derived from this excellent film, but how does it stand as a zombie movie? Pretty darn well. Even if you just want to watch a movie about a few people struggling to survive a zombie apocalypse, 28 Days Later is a good movie to watch. It’s got a fairly small cast which gives the movie ample amount of time to develop the characters into people we care about. We even see them spiral downward from a civilized state into a survivalist mentality that doesn’t differentiate them much from the rage-zombies they are trying to avoid, even without becoming infected. And there is plenty of blood splattering gore to appease fans of zombies and the horror genre.

Parts of 28 Days Later are so obviously cheap that it is sometimes distracting. A lot of the sets were claustrophobically small; there even was a scene filmed with a Canon XL1 digital camcorder that anyone could get on Amazon.com. However, in spite of its low production budget, the movie is so well executed that you can’t help but get drawn into it. You become aware of how cheap the movie is only fleetingly, and then get sucked back into the film right away.

This movie is really great; Zombie mayhem, some excellent actors portraying good characters, social allegory, suspense, and fun, unabashed violence. I wouldn’t recommend this to younger audiences; the imagery gets pretty intense. I cringed watching it and occasionally had to hide under my zombie-proof blanket. 28 Days Later was a fun zombie flick to watch and was highly satisfying. I’m looking for a copy on Blu-Ray for my shelf.

There are lots of types of zombies in movies and video games. What’s your favorite kind and where are they from? Comment below; let’s talk zombies!