It's been a few years since I've watched something on CBS that wasn't sports, an awards show, or Letterman. 2007, to be exact, when I watched Jericho because I thought that surely all those fans sending nuts to the network execs in order to save the show couldn't possibly be wrong (they were). However, Person of Interest stars Michael Emerson, whose Ben Linus was one of the best things about Lost for several seasons. His presence merits at least 44-minutes-plus-commercials of my time, if only for one night.
It's probably going to stay at one night. While Person of Interest has some sci-fi intrigue and decent action scenes, it's a police procedural at heart, and that's a genre I've never taken to. Even then, the particulars of the show don't work for me. It tries to create vague uneasiness about the surveillance state while claiming that eavesdropping is okay when done by the right people - for instance, the heroes hack into somebody's phone without qualms. Jim Caviezel, the show's lead actor, is portrayed as a badass but also a white hat good guy, which means he shoots a lot of people in the leg. By the eighth person, it becomes comical (the fate of one antagonist is left ambiguous, probably because the show is chickening out). It's also ludicrous how Caviezel's character goes from suicidal bum to Bruce Wayne/Batman hybrid in the span of a few hours, and one of the episode's plot twists is telegraphed a mile away because otherwise the story would be too straightforward.
Person of Interest isn't without merit; the action scenes are good, Caviezel is a convincing asskicker, and Emerson can play the role of the mysterious man pulling all the strings in his sleep. But as long as the stories lag behind the production and acting, I have no time for this show.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Let's talk about Hobo with a Shotgun & Escape from New York
Hobo with a Shotgun is a movie about a hobo with a shotgun. If you are still unconvinced about whether or not this movie is the kind you'll like, it isn't.
Director Jason Eisener has the faux-grindhouse look down a little better than Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez did in their Planet Terror/Death Proof double feature. It's more akin to House of the Devil, probably because of both films' low-budget aesthetic. It's easy to replicate the look and feel of a cheapie when your budget is only $3 million (I know it sounds ridiculous to call $3 million low-budget, but it's low). The synth-heavy score and ending credits power ballad are dead-on accurate, too.
There's a lot of cursing, a lot of titillating violence, and a lot of gore. Surprisingly, there is little nudity. The actors eschew actual acting for scenery chewing. Nobody is watching Hobo with a Shotgun for character development and I'm fine with that.
Of course, this means that the film lives and dies by its outrageousness. Eisener and screenwriter John Davies swing for the fences in every scene and they strike out as often as they hit home runs. But you can at least see the effort when they strike out; Hobo with a Shotgun does nothing half-heartedly, which sustains it through its leaner moments.
If anything in Hobo with a Shotgun can qualify for artistic merit, it's the cinematography, deliberately lush with garish reds, blues, and yellows. It's as over-the-top as the dialogue.
After taking in Hobo with a Shotgun's exploitative delights, and reading about the rioting in London, the next logical step was to watch John Carpenter's 1981 cult classic Escape from New York. It's the third Carpenter film I've seen, and the second starring Kurt Russell. Sadly, I have yet to be totally impressed with the director's work.
In its time, I'm sure Escape from New York's post-apocalyptic setting, antihero, and don't-trust-the-government spirit were all fairly revelatory. But now the movie has turned 30. When watching Escape from New York I got the feeling that I'd seen this all before, when really I've seen it all since.
Even then, there's little to recommend. All the characters are flat, even Russell's stoic, supposedly iconic Snake Plissken (give me Jack Burton any day), and the action scenes aren't thrilling. The final twist is too telegraphed to be effective. To his credit, Carpenter does a good job of capturing the feel of New York City gone to pot, and the use of light and shadow is especially effective. Escape from New York must be a product of its era, because aside from a really cool poster, I just don't see the appeal.
Director Jason Eisener has the faux-grindhouse look down a little better than Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez did in their Planet Terror/Death Proof double feature. It's more akin to House of the Devil, probably because of both films' low-budget aesthetic. It's easy to replicate the look and feel of a cheapie when your budget is only $3 million (I know it sounds ridiculous to call $3 million low-budget, but it's low). The synth-heavy score and ending credits power ballad are dead-on accurate, too.
There's a lot of cursing, a lot of titillating violence, and a lot of gore. Surprisingly, there is little nudity. The actors eschew actual acting for scenery chewing. Nobody is watching Hobo with a Shotgun for character development and I'm fine with that.
Of course, this means that the film lives and dies by its outrageousness. Eisener and screenwriter John Davies swing for the fences in every scene and they strike out as often as they hit home runs. But you can at least see the effort when they strike out; Hobo with a Shotgun does nothing half-heartedly, which sustains it through its leaner moments.
If anything in Hobo with a Shotgun can qualify for artistic merit, it's the cinematography, deliberately lush with garish reds, blues, and yellows. It's as over-the-top as the dialogue.
After taking in Hobo with a Shotgun's exploitative delights, and reading about the rioting in London, the next logical step was to watch John Carpenter's 1981 cult classic Escape from New York. It's the third Carpenter film I've seen, and the second starring Kurt Russell. Sadly, I have yet to be totally impressed with the director's work.
In its time, I'm sure Escape from New York's post-apocalyptic setting, antihero, and don't-trust-the-government spirit were all fairly revelatory. But now the movie has turned 30. When watching Escape from New York I got the feeling that I'd seen this all before, when really I've seen it all since.
Even then, there's little to recommend. All the characters are flat, even Russell's stoic, supposedly iconic Snake Plissken (give me Jack Burton any day), and the action scenes aren't thrilling. The final twist is too telegraphed to be effective. To his credit, Carpenter does a good job of capturing the feel of New York City gone to pot, and the use of light and shadow is especially effective. Escape from New York must be a product of its era, because aside from a really cool poster, I just don't see the appeal.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Let's talk about X-Men: First Class
X-Men: First Class is a first-class movie!
LOLOLOLOL. Now that we got that out of the way, here's some assorted thoughts on the film.
- First Class skims a fine line between prequel and reboot (a term that is frequently sloppily applied). Comic book continuity is notoriously hinky, and even the first four movies in the X-Men series didn't have ironclad continuity. Nonetheless, the series needed a fresh start. X3 was mediocre; X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn't even reach those heights. Origin stories are a reliable framework, and in First Class' case you get to cast dashing James McAvoy instead of (awesome but) ancient Ian McKellen. Besides, the dynamic between Professor X and Magneto has always been the intellectual backbone of the story, something the film franchise had moved away from.
- More supervillains need to do their dirty deeds in suits. Kevin Bacon's henchmen look pretty badass in their finely-tailored duds. Mr. Bacon himself, meanwhile, looks like a total dick in his 60's gear. I'm pretty sure he was wearing an ascot in one scene. Ascot = hate. No more spandex for anyone, please.
- Thor already had the title character eschew luscious Kat Dennings for stick figure Natalie Portman. Now compare Rose Byrne's skinny figure in a miniskirt to fuller-figured (which is to say, normal-figured) Jennifer Lawrence in a miniskirt. I'll say it again: friends don't let superheroes fall for skinny chicks.
- He'll never eclipse Jon Hamm as Man Crush #1, but Michael Fassbender has a rather square jaw, and piercing eyes, and he smolders, and he kills Nazis with such ease... sorry, where was I?
- January Jones is as lackluster as advertised. I'm not bothered by her interpretation of the character - her name is Emma Frost, so why not play her as an ice queen - but her iciness is flat instead of intimidating. The character is supposedly tempestuous in the comics, anyway, so maybe Jones really bungled this one more than I realized. On a side note, I wonder if I'm the only one who watched her seduction of the Soviet military head and couldn't help think of Nikolai Jackov, head of the KGB.
- But the misguided casting of Jones can't hold a candle to Glenn Morshower's role as a corrupt Colonel. You can't cast Aaron from 24 as a sellout! That's just wrong, man! A cameo by James Remar and a bit part for Michael Ironside, on the other hand: awesome.
- I didn't notice this until Adam and Matty pointed it out, but First Class' fight scenes are actually comprehensible. There's no Jason Bourne/Dark Knight shaky-cam, quick-cut fighting.
- Director Matthew Vaughn helmed the postmodern super-anti-hero film Kick Ass, which I didn't particularly care for. He plays First Class straight, with superior results.
- I caught a matinee showing of First Class; that night, I watched the Tony Awards. Hugh Jackman appeared in both, reminding me of this SNL sketch. It'll never be a classic but I have a soft spot for it, and I'll probably be shouting "TWO SIDES!" to myself for years to come.
- Henry Jackman's score during the end credits deserves a shoutout. It's not an iconic theme but it's tonally perfect.
LOLOLOLOL. Now that we got that out of the way, here's some assorted thoughts on the film.
- First Class skims a fine line between prequel and reboot (a term that is frequently sloppily applied). Comic book continuity is notoriously hinky, and even the first four movies in the X-Men series didn't have ironclad continuity. Nonetheless, the series needed a fresh start. X3 was mediocre; X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn't even reach those heights. Origin stories are a reliable framework, and in First Class' case you get to cast dashing James McAvoy instead of (awesome but) ancient Ian McKellen. Besides, the dynamic between Professor X and Magneto has always been the intellectual backbone of the story, something the film franchise had moved away from.
- More supervillains need to do their dirty deeds in suits. Kevin Bacon's henchmen look pretty badass in their finely-tailored duds. Mr. Bacon himself, meanwhile, looks like a total dick in his 60's gear. I'm pretty sure he was wearing an ascot in one scene. Ascot = hate. No more spandex for anyone, please.
- Thor already had the title character eschew luscious Kat Dennings for stick figure Natalie Portman. Now compare Rose Byrne's skinny figure in a miniskirt to fuller-figured (which is to say, normal-figured) Jennifer Lawrence in a miniskirt. I'll say it again: friends don't let superheroes fall for skinny chicks.
- He'll never eclipse Jon Hamm as Man Crush #1, but Michael Fassbender has a rather square jaw, and piercing eyes, and he smolders, and he kills Nazis with such ease... sorry, where was I?
- January Jones is as lackluster as advertised. I'm not bothered by her interpretation of the character - her name is Emma Frost, so why not play her as an ice queen - but her iciness is flat instead of intimidating. The character is supposedly tempestuous in the comics, anyway, so maybe Jones really bungled this one more than I realized. On a side note, I wonder if I'm the only one who watched her seduction of the Soviet military head and couldn't help think of Nikolai Jackov, head of the KGB.
- But the misguided casting of Jones can't hold a candle to Glenn Morshower's role as a corrupt Colonel. You can't cast Aaron from 24 as a sellout! That's just wrong, man! A cameo by James Remar and a bit part for Michael Ironside, on the other hand: awesome.
- I didn't notice this until Adam and Matty pointed it out, but First Class' fight scenes are actually comprehensible. There's no Jason Bourne/Dark Knight shaky-cam, quick-cut fighting.
- Director Matthew Vaughn helmed the postmodern super-anti-hero film Kick Ass, which I didn't particularly care for. He plays First Class straight, with superior results.
- I caught a matinee showing of First Class; that night, I watched the Tony Awards. Hugh Jackman appeared in both, reminding me of this SNL sketch. It'll never be a classic but I have a soft spot for it, and I'll probably be shouting "TWO SIDES!" to myself for years to come.
- Henry Jackman's score during the end credits deserves a shoutout. It's not an iconic theme but it's tonally perfect.
Let's Talk About Captain America
As I walked through the theater lobby after watching Captain America, I saw a poster for the latest Spy Kids movie, starring Joel McHale. After a few seconds of thought, I developed my new rubric for evaluating action movies: if the film is at least as entertaining as one of Community's paintball episodes, it has succeeded.
Captain America is never boring, the special effects are good, it isn't stupid, and the cast has no weak links. Yet, it's never truly entertaining. It's a perfectly average film. If I ever need to explain the concept of "less than the sum of its parts," I'll point to Captain America.
As several critics have noted, Captain America is not a flashy superhero. Chris Evans plays him perfectly earnestly because that's the essence of the character. I understand that. He's still boring. Nothing against Evans, that's just how the character is written. Perhaps in the upcoming Avengers movie, where he's a man out of his era, he'll have more material to work with.
The rest of the cast can be characterized the same way. Hugo Weaving plays the villainous Red Skull, leader of too-twisted-even-for-the-Nazis group HYDRA. Weaving is a pro, he knows how to play an antagonist, and he does a fine job but he's totally unmemorable. Hayley Atwell is the love interest, the role isn't an insult to women, and she turns in an equally fine but sparkless performance. Only Tommy Lee Jones, cast perfectly to type as a crusty Colonel, stands out. Stanley Tucci also brings some much-needed character to the film but his role is merely a minor one.
Captain America is also curiously devoid of action scenes. There's a fun jailbreak, and the climatic invasion of a HYDRA stronghold isn't bad. Mostly there's a lot of talking about whether Captain America is ready to be a hero or not. I said previously that Captain America isn't boring, which is true, but it's rarely thrilling.
Director Joe Johnston has helmed a WWII-era superhero film before, 1991's The Rocketeer. The Rocketeer isn't a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination but it's an interesting failure. Captain America is a pedestrian success.
Thor was Shakesperian, X-Men: First Class was heady, Iron Man was cheeky. Captain America is... competent. That's not good enough anymore.
Captain America is never boring, the special effects are good, it isn't stupid, and the cast has no weak links. Yet, it's never truly entertaining. It's a perfectly average film. If I ever need to explain the concept of "less than the sum of its parts," I'll point to Captain America.
As several critics have noted, Captain America is not a flashy superhero. Chris Evans plays him perfectly earnestly because that's the essence of the character. I understand that. He's still boring. Nothing against Evans, that's just how the character is written. Perhaps in the upcoming Avengers movie, where he's a man out of his era, he'll have more material to work with.
The rest of the cast can be characterized the same way. Hugo Weaving plays the villainous Red Skull, leader of too-twisted-even-for-the-Nazis group HYDRA. Weaving is a pro, he knows how to play an antagonist, and he does a fine job but he's totally unmemorable. Hayley Atwell is the love interest, the role isn't an insult to women, and she turns in an equally fine but sparkless performance. Only Tommy Lee Jones, cast perfectly to type as a crusty Colonel, stands out. Stanley Tucci also brings some much-needed character to the film but his role is merely a minor one.
Captain America is also curiously devoid of action scenes. There's a fun jailbreak, and the climatic invasion of a HYDRA stronghold isn't bad. Mostly there's a lot of talking about whether Captain America is ready to be a hero or not. I said previously that Captain America isn't boring, which is true, but it's rarely thrilling.
Director Joe Johnston has helmed a WWII-era superhero film before, 1991's The Rocketeer. The Rocketeer isn't a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination but it's an interesting failure. Captain America is a pedestrian success.
Thor was Shakesperian, X-Men: First Class was heady, Iron Man was cheeky. Captain America is... competent. That's not good enough anymore.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Let's Talk About Misfits: "Episode Five"
"No matter what I do, the ones I love will be the ones who pay." - Curtis
Yes, Curtis stole the line from Spider-Man but it works in ending his relationship with Sam, and it turns out to be somewhat true in the end. Simon doesn't love Sally, but he cares about her in his own creepy way, and yet because of his powers he unwittingly takes part in her demise.
(Uh, spoilers.)
(Also, yes, I've been watching Misfits on Hulu this summer but I haven't been discussing each episode.)
That segues into the big question the episode presents: is Simon a villain?
If any of the main group of Misfits was pegged to fit the archetype of "supervillain" it's Simon, although the show has avoided common tropes thus far in making any of its protagonists actual superheroes. He's a loner, he's the most genuinely antisocial of the group, Nathan picks on him all the time, and he just plain acts weird (I'd love to see him in a British television stare-off with Ruth Wilson from Luther). Like the rest of the misfits, he's covered up two deaths, so he's already on the fast-track to villainy.
But hold on a second. He's also a disturbed kid who could use a little therapy and a few good friends. He's been manipulated by Sally the entire time. And he didn't really mean to kill her, right? Right? Let's not even get into Sally, whose personal quest for justice crossed a whole ton of boundaries.
It's this kind of moral relativism that sets Misfits apart from, say, Spider-Man. I'm sure that the majority of the fans would like to see the series subvert the typical origin story in that the protagonists are all juvies (not an exact equivalent but close enough). Instead, it subverts the genre by not having anyone do anything remotely heroic. Curtis tries in the fourth episode, but by trying to fix his mistakes he ends up juggling girlfriends as an unforeseen consequence. Nathan isn't Peter Parker (thank God) and Simon isn't the Green Goblin. They're all just messed-up people who got thrown into an even more messed-up situation and they're having a hard time coping.
The first season is only six episodes long, so perhaps in the finale the show takes a sharp left turn and tries to become Heroes although it's extremely unlikely. There's only one cliffhanger; the other storylines are fairly stable at the moment, save for the inevitable part where Nathan and Kelly hook up, but that's hardly a game changer. Misfits inhabits some nebulous grey area between dramedy and genre show, and arguably if not for Nathan it would be a straight drama. I'm not sure what Misfits' game is but I want to know where it's heading.
Yes, Curtis stole the line from Spider-Man but it works in ending his relationship with Sam, and it turns out to be somewhat true in the end. Simon doesn't love Sally, but he cares about her in his own creepy way, and yet because of his powers he unwittingly takes part in her demise.
(Uh, spoilers.)
(Also, yes, I've been watching Misfits on Hulu this summer but I haven't been discussing each episode.)
That segues into the big question the episode presents: is Simon a villain?
If any of the main group of Misfits was pegged to fit the archetype of "supervillain" it's Simon, although the show has avoided common tropes thus far in making any of its protagonists actual superheroes. He's a loner, he's the most genuinely antisocial of the group, Nathan picks on him all the time, and he just plain acts weird (I'd love to see him in a British television stare-off with Ruth Wilson from Luther). Like the rest of the misfits, he's covered up two deaths, so he's already on the fast-track to villainy.
But hold on a second. He's also a disturbed kid who could use a little therapy and a few good friends. He's been manipulated by Sally the entire time. And he didn't really mean to kill her, right? Right? Let's not even get into Sally, whose personal quest for justice crossed a whole ton of boundaries.
It's this kind of moral relativism that sets Misfits apart from, say, Spider-Man. I'm sure that the majority of the fans would like to see the series subvert the typical origin story in that the protagonists are all juvies (not an exact equivalent but close enough). Instead, it subverts the genre by not having anyone do anything remotely heroic. Curtis tries in the fourth episode, but by trying to fix his mistakes he ends up juggling girlfriends as an unforeseen consequence. Nathan isn't Peter Parker (thank God) and Simon isn't the Green Goblin. They're all just messed-up people who got thrown into an even more messed-up situation and they're having a hard time coping.
The first season is only six episodes long, so perhaps in the finale the show takes a sharp left turn and tries to become Heroes although it's extremely unlikely. There's only one cliffhanger; the other storylines are fairly stable at the moment, save for the inevitable part where Nathan and Kelly hook up, but that's hardly a game changer. Misfits inhabits some nebulous grey area between dramedy and genre show, and arguably if not for Nathan it would be a straight drama. I'm not sure what Misfits' game is but I want to know where it's heading.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The unexpected nerd cred of De Palma's The Black Dahlia
I recently finished James Ellroy's The Black Dahlia. Since I'm a glutton for punishment and it was on Netflix Watch Instantly, I checked out the reviled 2006 Brian DePalma film adaptation.
About the film's content, there's little new to say. The novel was already incomprehensibly plotted in the second half, and while some plot lines were mercifully condensed, the finished version of the film is an hour shorter than the initial edit. Virtually everyone but Aaron Eckhart and Mia Kirshner was miscast (and even Kirshner was nearly ten years too old to play the title character). Because it's a De Palma picture it looks fantastic, but it's still a fairly lousy movie. Granted, it's hard to objectively consider a film when you've just finished reading the source material.
But what's really amusing about The Black Dahlia is its unexpected geek connections. Consider:
- One of the major plot points in the novel and the film is a painting of Gwynplaine, the main character in Victor Hugo's novel The Man Who Laughs. You probably haven't read the book or seen the 1928 film adaptation, but you know what Gwynplaine looks like: he's the visual inspiration for The Joker. Coincidentally, two years after The Black Dahlia's release, Aaron Eckhart would appear as Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, alongside Heath Ledger as The Joker.
- Screenwriter Josh Friedman created the (underrated) Fox series Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles, and helped meme-ify Snakes on a Plane.
- Fiona Shaw, who played Ramona Linscott, is better known as Petunia Dursley in the Harry Potter films.
- Patrick Fischler, who played Ellis Leow, was a member of the Dharma Initiative on Lost. You know, the guy who wasn't Horace Goodspeed or Radzinsky.
While not explicitly geeky, it's also worth noting that veteran character actor Mike Starr (you probably know him from Dumb and Dumber or the NBC show Ed) has a supporting role, and the Dahlia herself, Mia Kirshner, was Naked Mandy in 24. But it's funny that you can find nerdiness even in a place like crime noir.
About the film's content, there's little new to say. The novel was already incomprehensibly plotted in the second half, and while some plot lines were mercifully condensed, the finished version of the film is an hour shorter than the initial edit. Virtually everyone but Aaron Eckhart and Mia Kirshner was miscast (and even Kirshner was nearly ten years too old to play the title character). Because it's a De Palma picture it looks fantastic, but it's still a fairly lousy movie. Granted, it's hard to objectively consider a film when you've just finished reading the source material.
But what's really amusing about The Black Dahlia is its unexpected geek connections. Consider:
- One of the major plot points in the novel and the film is a painting of Gwynplaine, the main character in Victor Hugo's novel The Man Who Laughs. You probably haven't read the book or seen the 1928 film adaptation, but you know what Gwynplaine looks like: he's the visual inspiration for The Joker. Coincidentally, two years after The Black Dahlia's release, Aaron Eckhart would appear as Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, alongside Heath Ledger as The Joker.
- Screenwriter Josh Friedman created the (underrated) Fox series Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles, and helped meme-ify Snakes on a Plane.
- Fiona Shaw, who played Ramona Linscott, is better known as Petunia Dursley in the Harry Potter films.
- Patrick Fischler, who played Ellis Leow, was a member of the Dharma Initiative on Lost. You know, the guy who wasn't Horace Goodspeed or Radzinsky.
While not explicitly geeky, it's also worth noting that veteran character actor Mike Starr (you probably know him from Dumb and Dumber or the NBC show Ed) has a supporting role, and the Dahlia herself, Mia Kirshner, was Naked Mandy in 24. But it's funny that you can find nerdiness even in a place like crime noir.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Let's talk about Thor.
I know zip about Thor. He's not one of the more popular Marvel characters, and Norse gods don't get the pub that Greek or Roman gods do. The lack of name-brand recognition is a bit of a liability for a tentpole release in the current studio system, but it's also a benefit. With each new Batman franchise, whether on film or television, the audience brings a new set of preconceived notions into the viewing. Thor, in Kenneth Branagh's new film, is a blank slate: who is this guy?
Well, he's an alien. A superpowered being from a faraway planet, which totally explains why in Thor everyone has a British accent and Idris Elba is a deity from the Norse pantheon (I guess Marcus Samuelsson wasn't answering his phone when the casting director called). Heimdall isn't a black Norseman, he's a black alien who happened to be worshiped by Norsemen! Makes sense, right? But seriously, between this and How to Train Your Dragon, where the Vikings are voiced by Scots and Americans, Scandinavians are getting the shaft. And now the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an American? Low blow.
As played by Chris Hemsworth, Thor is more than just the Norse god of P90X, he's a good-natured hunk, commanding and noble in Asgard and charmingly out of his element on Earth. He may not know the etiquette of eating breakfast at the corner diner, but he'll kiss ladies on the hand. After suffering through movies with moribund Sam Worthingtons, it's nice to see a jock with charisma. The romance between Thor and Natalie Portman's astrophysicist is barely developed, of course, but nobody watches these movies for the love stories. Side note: why pursue Portman when Kat Dennings is right there? It's like passing up Joan Holloway for Betty Draper. Friends don't let Norse gods pick up skinny chicks.
Thor is chilling in New Mexico because his father Odin, king of Asgard, banished him for his impetuousness. Anthony Hopkins is suitably regal as Odin, and Asgard looks fantastic. The design of the otherworldly kingdom is composed with a stunning visual palette, and is doubly impressive when compared to the look of Green Lantern, which makes me flinch whenever I see an ad for it.
In terms of plot, Thor is a combination of a two familiar stories, the comic book hero origin story, and a tale of a brash warrior's redemption. It's nothing new, but it's told well (credit Branagh on this one). When Thor is finally worthy enough to wield his hammer and kick ass again, you'll think "hell yeah."
Rounding out the cast are Stellan Skarsgard as an avuncular scientist, Tom Hiddleston as the shifty god Loki, and Ray Stevenson as a husky Asgardian warrior. They perform admirably. My only real complaint is that Idris Elba isn't allowed to be more awesome.
Thor won't go in the Marvel film pantheon alongside Iron Man or X2 but it's a solid, good-looking, fun time at the movies. It may in practice be no more than an extended prequel to the upcoming Avengers movie (the Jeremy Renner cameo is useless and the post-credits stinger falls flat), but it stands on its own.
Well, he's an alien. A superpowered being from a faraway planet, which totally explains why in Thor everyone has a British accent and Idris Elba is a deity from the Norse pantheon (I guess Marcus Samuelsson wasn't answering his phone when the casting director called). Heimdall isn't a black Norseman, he's a black alien who happened to be worshiped by Norsemen! Makes sense, right? But seriously, between this and How to Train Your Dragon, where the Vikings are voiced by Scots and Americans, Scandinavians are getting the shaft. And now the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an American? Low blow.
As played by Chris Hemsworth, Thor is more than just the Norse god of P90X, he's a good-natured hunk, commanding and noble in Asgard and charmingly out of his element on Earth. He may not know the etiquette of eating breakfast at the corner diner, but he'll kiss ladies on the hand. After suffering through movies with moribund Sam Worthingtons, it's nice to see a jock with charisma. The romance between Thor and Natalie Portman's astrophysicist is barely developed, of course, but nobody watches these movies for the love stories. Side note: why pursue Portman when Kat Dennings is right there? It's like passing up Joan Holloway for Betty Draper. Friends don't let Norse gods pick up skinny chicks.
Thor is chilling in New Mexico because his father Odin, king of Asgard, banished him for his impetuousness. Anthony Hopkins is suitably regal as Odin, and Asgard looks fantastic. The design of the otherworldly kingdom is composed with a stunning visual palette, and is doubly impressive when compared to the look of Green Lantern, which makes me flinch whenever I see an ad for it.
In terms of plot, Thor is a combination of a two familiar stories, the comic book hero origin story, and a tale of a brash warrior's redemption. It's nothing new, but it's told well (credit Branagh on this one). When Thor is finally worthy enough to wield his hammer and kick ass again, you'll think "hell yeah."
Rounding out the cast are Stellan Skarsgard as an avuncular scientist, Tom Hiddleston as the shifty god Loki, and Ray Stevenson as a husky Asgardian warrior. They perform admirably. My only real complaint is that Idris Elba isn't allowed to be more awesome.
Thor won't go in the Marvel film pantheon alongside Iron Man or X2 but it's a solid, good-looking, fun time at the movies. It may in practice be no more than an extended prequel to the upcoming Avengers movie (the Jeremy Renner cameo is useless and the post-credits stinger falls flat), but it stands on its own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)