Thor: The Dark World - 2013

"Thor: The Dark World" - 2013
Dir. by Alan Taylor - 1 hr. 52 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

It's not that I didn't enjoy watching "Thor: The Dark World," it's more of an issue that I'm becoming super-aware of the Marvel Comics movie formula; introduce where the characters are at, big battle number one, hero suffers, then big battle two.  Also, don't forget the post-credits scene.  By all means, don't fix what ain't broke, but after three Iron Mans, a Captain America, an Avengers, and now two Thors (and the very recent "The Wolverine"), what's on-screen had better be transcendent, or there's going to be a whiff of formula dragging things down.  If "T2" (as I'll be referring to this film for the duration of this review) had come out ten years ago, it would have been a game-changer.  As things stand, it's a good film.  Maybe not quite as good as the first "Thor," which I enjoyed far more than I figured I would, and better than almost all of the non-Avengers-related Marvel movies.  But if there's going to be another Thor, it damned well better have Beta-Ray Bill in it.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, a bad guy named Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) tries to end existence, using a red goo of a weapon called the aether, but is deterred, and the aether is hidden, too powerful to be in anyone's hands.  In modern day, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is in Asgard, being held responsible for his actions in "The Avengers."  Odin (Anthony Hopkins) dictates that he's to spend the rest of his life in a dungeon, without any contact with anyone else, until he dies, which is quite a long time indeed.  Thor (Chris Hemsworth), is out and about, quashing rebellions around the nine realms, which has left he and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) separated and without communication for two years.  Jane, and her intern Darcy (Kat Dennings), and her intern, Ian (Jonathan Howard) stumble across some weirdness in an abandoned warehouse in London, which draws the attention of Malekith.  And fights.

If you're dealing with superhero movies, the two big questions are whether the action is up to snuff (it is), and whether or not the visuals are top-notch (and they are).  You could also hammer on casting, but seeing as how this is a sequel, you're either on board or not by this point (although I really like the cast of Thor, in general).  The "Thor" films both have a spectacular cosmic look, and Asgard is still an incredible visual.  Beyond that, the pair of battles with Malekith are engaging, and hold up.  While these are definitely strong points in "T2," they kind of have to be.  Like I said before, ten years ago, this kind of movie would have dropped jaws.  At this point in time, you can't really give too much credit for spectacular fights and visuals, because they're expected, and to fail to deliver them would be a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the filmmakers.

So then you get to whether or not the story holds up.  A huge part of the charm of the first one was watching Natalie Portman get flustered by a Norse God, and their dynamic shifts a little this time around (although not in a bad way, and it's not as if her character is unrecognizable).  One of the things that the Avengers line of movies have done well is provide a sense of continuity; Loki's situation is because of his actions in previous installments, and whatever has developed between various characters isn't just thrown away out of convenience.  At the core of this story is Thor being torn between duty and love, but the main impetus that drives the story is the usual bad guy getting ahold of a big-time weapon plot.  There are a couple of twists (to be expected when one of the main characters' superpower is the ability to cast illusions), but the plot isn't particularly clever on this front.  It is visually appealing, and works in a way that involves many characters, but since it's reasonable to expect that Thor isn't going to eat it before an "Avengers" sequel gets made, the stakes are necessarily not that high (despite what the story tries to convince you of).

In the absence of a compelling story with high stakes, the question becomes whether or not "T2" is a fun ride or not.  And it is.  The various characters have a fun dynamic, and the Asgardians provide the drama.  It's paced well, and the action is fun enough to watch, and the things that need to look really cool look really cool.  It is a fun ride, but it's not an indispensable chapter in the Avengers saga.  The first film was, as introducing the character and his role in the Marvel universe probably wouldn't have been satisfactorily explored had it been a subplot in "The Avengers."  This time around, "T2" is product.  Yes, it's well-crafted product, but by the end of these two hours, the larger Avengers story hasn't been advanced meaningfully.  To me, this is the first film in the Avengers cycle that you could skip without really affecting your enjoyment of the larger story.  You'd miss a fun movie that has some pretty good moments (at least a couple of which are because of Kat Dennings) and some great visuals, but when you go to "The Avengers 2," you're not going to have to ask whomever you're seeing it with why something involving Thor is happening.


3 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 2011

"The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" - 2011
Dir. by David Fincher - 2 hrs. 38 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

First things first, I haven't read the books, nor have I seen any of the three Swedish movies based on Steig Larsson's books.  This movie, directed by David Fincher, is my introduction to the material.  So there won't be any hand-wringing whatsoever about how this movie relates to the source material, although I've heard it's pretty faithful.   So, if you're like me and have had your head in a hole regarding this material (deliberately - I may eventually read the books, but I wasn't going to get that done prior to seeing this movie), let's have a quick introduction.

There are initially two storylines.  The first involves a disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), who has just been found guilty of libel against a businessman.  The second surrounds the girl who investigates Mikael for a background check on behalf of another wealthy businessman, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara).  The background check on Mikael is for what is publicly purported to be working on the memoir of Henrik Vanger, but is in actuality at attempt to figure out what happened to his niece, Harriet, who was murdered forty years prior.  Lisbeth and Mikael end up working together on the case.  Going into more detail of the plot seems unnecessary, and would ruin a lot of the movie.

There is a lot to praise about the movie.  The plot is somewhat complicated, but not confusing, and all the characters are distinct and have their own motivations.  And while it seems weird to call a movie that's more than two and a half hours long taut, it's an apt description.  There's a great tension to the story, and no real lulls to hamper that.  It's a tense movie punctuated by moments of real violence, and I found myself unprepared for those moments.  That's not a condemnation, either.  Rather than using violence as nothing more than fodder for entertainment, these events are consequential, and have emotional weight.  For instance (and in vague terms), the story between Lisbeth and her guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wageningen) leads to consequences that are horrific, well-earned, and shocking.  That combination of traits is consistent throughout the movie.

The acting is also uniformly excellent, particularly Rooney Mara's portrayal of Lisbeth.  She's distinct and believable playing a character that would be easy to overplay.  Instead of trying to convince everyone she's insane in a showy manner, she just does insane things in a way that makes you believe that she thinks what she's doing is normal.  That leads to a very explosive, dangerous character, in terms of the story.  I wouldn't want to slight the other actors, but much of the success of this material rests on Mara's shoulders, and she delivers.

For me, the entire movie just works.  Even though I was in a crowded theatre (there were 48 people in a room that had 51 seats), and even though this is a long film, I was never uncomfortable or bored.  My attention never wandered, and I was never distracted.  Those are barometers I use to judge how much I enjoy a film, especially when the run-time starts veering towards "Spartacus" levels.  Even more to the point, I'm completely looking forward to seeing another installment, and I wasn't even a fan going in.  This is one of the strongest mainstream films of the year.

4 / 5 - Theatre

Thor - 2011

"Thor" - 2011
Dir. by Kenneth Branagh - 1 hr. 55 min.

Official Trailer

Yep, another comic book movie.  I can understand if people are tired of that in general (geeks, your backlash is juuuuust about ready to be served, hope you've enjoyed your appetizer), but you only get to complain when the movies in question are not very good.  And "Thor" is pretty good.  It's another in a string of movies that are leading up to the sure-fire blockbuster "Avengers" movie due in 2012, right before the Mayan apocalyspe takes us all (along with the "Iron Man" movies and the forthcoming "Captain America").  Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) is exactly who you might think he is - Odin's son, the God of Thunder, taking residence in Asgard.  He's not exactly a super-hero like you'd expect - his story is fundamentally different than Iron Man's, for instance.

Instead of being sworn to protect humanity, Thor's a hot-headed prince who is clearly not ready to take over his father's throne.  There's a minor invasion into Asgard by the frost giants, and Thor wants a piece of flesh in retribution.  He won't be deterred, but it leads to his exile on Earth.  This has the effect of splitting the movie into two; there's the Asgardian material (which is about political intrigue and his scheming brother, Loki), and the fish-out-of-water material set on Earth.

Both parts of the movie are wound together, and there's not much confusion, either.  Visually, this movie's a stunner.  Asgard is beautiful, gleaming, and grand.  The Earth scenes are set in the southwest, as stark as Asgard is ornate.  Bridging the two is space, portrayed in swirling nebulae and zooming starscapes.  Given that the source material is visual in nature, it's not a surprise that it should be a strong suit of the movie, but it's worth noting that the film didn't fall short here.

One of the things that good comic book movies do that they didn't used to do (which is why they're better now than they had previously been) is that they're willing to find good actors to ground the more fantastic elements of the characters and stories.  In Asgard, Thor plays off of Anthony Hopkins (Odin), and on Earth, he's surrounded by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Cummings.  Hopkins rages very well, and it's so much fun watching Natalie Portman fall awkwardly for Thor.  In general, the Earth stuff is so much fun, and so funny.  The humor is natural and easy (in the way that Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow's dialogue feels natural between them), and it's a relief to have something that could have all the fun strangled out of it completely go the other way with it.

To put it in the "Avengers" hierarchy, "Thor" isn't as good as the first "Iron Man," but is better than "Iron Man 2."  It's also far better than either Hulk movie.  It's a beautiful spectacle, with a good story and a good balance between levity and action.  If you haven't seen any of those movies, "Thor" is a reasonable jumping on point - there are passing references to the related movies, but whether or not you get them doesn't affect the story in any meaningful way.  This is a really good popcorn movie, and probably should be seen on the biggest screen you can find.

4 / 5 - Theatre