Forcing Humor Undermines Thor: Ragnarok

The Good: Hela and Heimdall have interesting arcs, One or two performance moments
The Bad: Forced humor, Simplistic plot, Obvious plot reversals, Light on character development, Special effects are surprisingly mediocre
The Basics: Thor: Ragnarok takes a surprisingly serious premise for a fantasy/action movie and undermines almost all of it with forced attempts at humor that often fall flat.


There is no real purpose in an American reviewer reviewing a Marvel Cinematic Universe film anymore. By the time a Marvel Studios film is released in the United States, it has been out in theaters in other countries for at least two weeks and die-hard fans who want spoilers have a tendency to look up the foreign press reviews while American reviewers are embargoed from publishing their reviews. So, when Thor: Ragnarok was released in theaters in the United States, I did not rush right out to see it. Instead, I waited for the first surge crowd to dissipate and then I saw the film a few days later. All of this in spite of me being generally psyched about Thor: Ragnarok from the latest preview trailers.

It was not long into Thor: Ragnarok, though, that I became certain that the best moments of the film had been put into the film's trailer. The big reveal of the Hulk was certainly gutted by the preview trailers, but what surprised me most was how much of the film's sense of menace was undermined by the near-constant attempts at humor. Ironically, the film's funniest moment was virtually buried by the reaction to the joke prior to it (in the full theater I was in, I found myself as the only one laughing when Tom Hiddleston's reaction shot - which was, admittedly, entirely dependent upon viewer's seeing The Avengers - at a key moment was focused on for too brief a moment after one of Chris Hemsworth's well-spoiled lines).

Thor: Ragnarok is a conceptual failure and one suspects after the hype for the film dies down, more and more fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be able to admit that the film is a painfully forced bridge movie. Despite the constant menace to Asgard, most of Thor: Ragnarok is actually about reconciling the final moments of Thor: The Dark World (reviewed here!) and re-integrating The Hulk and Thor into the narrative after the events of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!). And to accomplish those rather simple goals, Thor meanders through his own film making dull jokes while the compelling original elements of Thor: Ragnarok are largely neglected.

The concept of Ragnarok is the end of the world, which in Thor: Ragnarok is supposed to come in the form of Surtur. So, in one of the few remarkably sensible plot points for Thor: Ragnarok, the first thing Thor does is kill Surtur and steal his magical helm so he cannot fulfill the prophecy of Ragnarok and destroy Asgard. Unfortunately, the menace of Ragnarok hangs over Asgard, but is quickly swept aside by a bevy of jokes that fall flat.

Thor, who had figured out how to prevent the prophesied end of Asgard had also already figured out that Odin had been replaced by Loki. But, alas, the big emotional moment of Thor somehow realizing that Loki is both still alive and has weakened Asgard's place in the Nine Realms through his decadence is not actually in Thor: Ragnarok. Thor and Loki take a brief trip to Earth where they search for Odin who promptly dies (or dies enough so that Asgard is now helpless).

And helpless Asgard is to the first-born of Odin, Hela: the Godess Of Death. Hela makes an excellent entrance, announcing herself to Thor and Loki and enlisting arguably the worst, most dimwitted d-rate sidekick villain of all time in the form of Scourge (poor Karl Urban!). Hela then immediately begins a campaign to take over Asgard and at this point, Thor: Ragnarok makes its fatal narrative divergence. Hela inadvertently knocks Thor and Loki out of Asgard by shoving them out of the Einstein-Rosenberg Bridge teleport. When that happens, Thor and Loki go on a grand comedic adventure and Hela and Heimdall are left holding the bag on the vastly more interesting and compelling Ragnarok plot.

Hela is an instantly intriguing villain and Cate Blanchett does the best she can with the material she is given for the firstborn of Odin. Hela reveals that Odin built Asgard on genocide and conquest, with Hela herself as Odin's executioner. The idea that something grand had some truly sinister origins is a distinctly American idea, yet the U.S. gets Thor: Ragnarok after most of the rest of the world. And in Thor: Ragnarok, the horror of how Odin built his empire is not given time within the narrative for reflection or emotional consequences for the characters. Instead, when Thor gets around to trying to stop Hela, he does so without any reflection on how his father betrayed him by not telling him the truth and/or making a philosophical argument to Hela that Odin evolved beyond his need for violence and conquest. Sadly, Thor: Ragnarok is all fisticuffs and little philosophy, which is truly disappointing because the inherent conflict between Hela and Heimdall is a compelling one.

Heimdall spends Thor: Ragnarok as a fugitive. He creates an underground railroad intended to save as many of the Asgardians as he possibly can from being murdered by Hela and her army of the undead. Heimdall does what he can to avoid direct conflict with Hela - despite the fact that the Asgardians are being hunted because of him and his theft of the sword that unlocks the bifrost - and instead concerns himself with actually trying to save Asgard. Heimdall is, easily, the smartest character in Thor: Ragnarok as he attempts to get people out of the way of the Goddess Of Death as opposed to *snicker* trying to find a way to kill her.

Seriously, when Thor comes back to Asgard and starts hacking and stabbing at Hela, the sequence is about as ridiculous as Wonder Woman trying to subdue the god of war by fighting him physically in Wonder Woman (reviewed here!). The Goddess Of Death cannot, logically, be killed by . . . well, death. Death empowers the Goddess Of Death; her demise would have to come from a nontraditional means, much like the only way to defeat a God Of War would be through creating a lasting peace.

So, while Thor: Ragnarok has the seeds of a great, truly epic, story of the destruction of Asgard and the attempt to save its people, Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost and Taika Waititi instead send Thor and Loki into a comedic adventure on an alien world where they are reunited with the Hulk, meet the last surviving Valyrie (which is an elite fighting order, not an individual character) and meander their way back to Asgard. In the previous Thor films, the humor worked by contrast. Thor encountered humans who had very different views on the world compared to the arrogant God and humor resulted. In Thor: Ragnarok, Thor just runs around making jokes. And he plays them off an often humorless Loki and Bruce Banner, arguably the least funny character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

By the time Thor gets around to trying to interface with the true menace of Ragnarok on Asgard, Thor is a buffoon who is impossible to empathize with who hardly seems up to the task of fighting for his homeland. And given that Thor has lost his hammer and been granted super lightning powers by the time he has to take on Hela, the character the viewer has seen for four prior films is virtually unrecognizable.

For other Marvel Cinematic Universe works, please check out my reviews of:
"Havoc In The Hidden Land" - Inhumans
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Season 4
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase 1 - Avengers Assemble

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

About As Bad As The Rest Of The Franchise: Transformers: The Last Knight

The Good: Great cast, Most of the special effects
The Bad: Banal plot, Lack of real character development, Terrible lines delivered unconvincingly by great actors.
The Basics: Transformers: The Last Knight is not great, but it is more par for the course than being truly terrible.


Transformers: The Last Knight is out and the press for it has been pretty bad in general. I'm feeling like bucking that trend to argue that the cinematic Transformers has been pretty lousy in general and Transformers: The Last Knight is pretty much what one expects as opposed to being an all-out terrible film. Transformers: The Last Knight is bad, but lately I've seen far worse films.

Michael Bay has not been recreating Casablanca for the past ten years with the Transformers franchise. He makes films for Summer Blockbuster Season filled with explosions, computer-generated special effects, and direction that lasciviously passes the camera slowly over whatever female lead the film possesses. To be fair to Transformers: The Last Knight, there is far less of the camera exploiting women than in the four prior installments of the franchise. Unfortunately, there are more retcons that place Transformers and alien technology on Earth in the past and make the movie fit very poorly into any continuity with the others, despite the fact that more of the cast from the first three movies recurs in Transformers: The Last Knight.

Opening in Briton during Camelot, Merlin and Arthur enlist Transformers to thwart their enemies. Flashing forward to the present, some Transformers have taken refuge in other countries, while in America the teenager Izabella uncovers a downed Transformer in the ruins of a baseball stadium. Izabella is a homeless girl who is rescued by Cade Yeager. The pair are hunted back to Cade's junkyard by the American military. Colonel Lennox has become aware that the Decepticons under the newly resurfaced Megatron are hunting something that they believe Cade has.

Off Earth, Optimus Prime crashes into Cybertron, which is headed toward Earth with the planet's creator, Quintessa. Quintessa reprograms Optimus Prime to wipe out humanity and remake Earth into a new homeworld for the Transformers. The chase of Cade Yeager takes him to England where Sir Edmund Burton has been part of the line of humans working with Transformers to protect the Earth. Burton brings in Vivian Wembley, the last surviving descendant of Merlin, who has access to technology and information that sends her and Cade under the sea to recover an artifact that will allow them to thwart the Decepticons, Quintessa, and the ensorceled Optimus Prime.

Transformers: The Last Knight is exactly what one expects of a Transformers movie. The human characters are mundane, poorly characterized and deliver far more expository dialogue than anything that is clever and defines the characters in unique and interesting ways. Transformers: The Last Knight picks up after Transformers: The Age Of Extinction (reviewed here!), so it begins with the Transformers abandoned by Optimus Prime who flew off Earth at the end of that film.

Blending the main characters from the early Transformers films - Lennox, General Morshower, and Agent Simmons - with Cade Yeager and newer Transformers like Hound, Transformers: The Last Knight just continues the banal franchise with more explosions, more robot on robot fights and an absurd predicament that absolutely defies rational physics. Transformers: The Last Knight asks viewers to accept as credible that there is a scientist who denies the existence of magic and fantasy in a world with Transformers who fails to point out that a planet-sized object rushing toward Earth would completely destroy the Earth long before that object starts ripping apart the surface and extracting massive chunks of technology. Only the least-sophisticated viewer could believe that the Earth could survive in any recognizable way after the events of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Arguably the most disappointing aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight is that Jeff Bridges does not appear in the movie in any form. Astute fans will note that in Transformers: The Age Of Extinction one of the sound clips used as Bumblebee's dialogue was from The Big Lebowski. Transformers: The Last Knight is like a mini-reunion for The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) with the return of John Turturro and John Goodman (albeit as a voice-only actor in the film) and the introduction of Steve Buscemi as the Autobot Daytrader. And that was the most exciting aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is wasted as Sir Edmund Burton and it seems like the only reason he is in the film to get the venerable actor to call someone a dick and make other remarks that are well-below his usual level of diction. Stanley Tucci's cameo in the film is virtually unrecognizable and newcomers Laura Haddock and Isabela Moner add nothing significant to the mix. Marc Wahlberg is fine as Cade, but it seems like outside his physical performance, the main reason to have him in Transformers: The Last Knight is to pull off a scene where characters act amazed that Cade has been celibate for years.

The Transformers themselves are hapless robots in Transformers: The Last Knight with no clear sense of boundaries or sensibility. Optimus Prime is reprogrammed by his creator . . . but Bumblebee being willing to sacrifice himself and deliver lines in his own voice is enough to change his programming?! And Prime leaps back up to Cybertron with other Transformers not worrying that he'll simply be reprogrammed again and come back murderous again?!

So, Transformers: The Last Knight is just a pretty bad action adventure film that does the usual Summer Blockbuster Season thing that has been done by the franchise four other times and by far better movies many, many more times.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Rough Night
The Mummy
Wonder Woman
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Baywatch
Alien: Covenant
Guardians Of The Galaxy, Volume 2

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Unremarkable Sequel: Mission: Impossible 2 Is Entirely Unimpressive

The Good: Adequately performed, Moments of concept/character
The Bad: Absolutely dull protagonists, Painfully predictable, Horrible dialogue, Ridiculous action sequences
The Basics: Playing one trick over and over and over and over again, Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a cheap sequel.


As a movie reviewer, there are any number of films that I watch based on its newness, potential popularity and the likely interest of my readers. There are, as an unfortunate offshoot of that, movies that I watch then somewhat out of rote; to complete the gaps in a film series I once began or saw later sequels to. When I sat down to Mission: Impossible 2, it was certainly one of those movies; I saw the two most recent sequels and a few months ago, I saw the first film in the series with Tom Cruise. I saw Mission: Impossible 2 as a nice break from going through the James Bond films (I only have the Dalton and Brosnon years left!), but honestly, I did not “miss” the movie when I did not go see it in theaters fourteen years ago.

My initial antipathy toward Mission: Impossible 2 was certainly appropriate; I cannot think of a sequel in recent memory that was less exciting or interesting than Mission: Impossible 2. Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a blasé sequel that is more designed for the spectacle of Summer Blockbuster Season than a viewing that evaluates substance. From heavily-choreographed car chases to the opening rock climbing scene to generic long-shots of Ethan Hunt standing on an Australian prairie, everything about Mission: Impossible 2 screams “look, don’t think!”

A plane carrying a Russian scientist, Dr. Nekhorvich, and his bag with a deadly genetically-engineered disease (Chimera) and its cure (Bellerophon) crashes after Nekhorvich believes he has met with agent Ethan Hunt (using the alias Dmitri). The real Ethan Hunt’s vacation is interrupted when he is tasked with recruiting the brilliant thief, Nyah Nordoff-Hall for the mission to recover the Chimera virus. Hunt tracks Hall to a swanky villa where she is attempting to steal a necklace that is going to come up for auction days later. Hunt tests Hall and offers her immunity from international prosecution for her many past crimes in exchange for helping him on his mission. After a protracted race, Hall reluctantly agrees and Ethan Hunt gets his mission: Hunt is tasked with getting Hall close to Sean Ambrose, the man who impersonated Hunt on the plane, so they may recover Chimera.

When the Impossible Missions Forces put out a bulletin that Hunt has been imprisoned in Seville, Nyah is rescued by her old beau, Ambrose. Nyah and Hunt’s Impossible Missions team converge on Sydney, Australia, where Ambrose and his team have taken up residence. But Ambrose is not stupid; his deputy, Hugh Stamp, is suspicious of the timing of her return and performs surveillance on her. Using Nyah, Ethan and his team learn just how lethal the Chimera virus is. They track the CEO of Biocyte, who is trying to buy back the virus and its cure. Ambrose has the cure, but not the virus; so Ethan Hunt ends up in the Biocyte facility at the same time as Ambrose, with both attempting to get the virus. In a game of cat and mouse, Hunt works to destroy all of the virus, while Ambrose tries to get the final sample to sell on the black market.

Mission: Impossible 2 lacks iconic scenes and moments that make it into widespread pop culture. The bungey jumping scene in Mission: Impossible 2 has the feeling of being a cheap retread of the scene from Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt does acrobatics that prevent him from touching a pressure-sensitive floor after rappelling into an otherwise secure room. While there are plenty of movies that do not have big moments that make it into the collective consciousness, the fact that Mission: Impossible 2 has nothing that comes close when the first film in the franchise only accents how mundane the movie is.

Fans of spy thrillers will be utterly unsurprised by Mission: Impossible 2. The reversals are telegraphed so far ahead that it is astonishing the writers even bothered with the direction they went. In the Mission: Impossible world, latex masks may be made so precisely that they completely fool intimate inspection. In Mission: Impossible 2, that is established in the first scene and so many characters use that same technology, so when director John Woo continues to use that conceit to “surprise” viewers, it is anything but surprising.

The writing in Mission: Impossible 2 is disappointing in that it attempts to disguise characterization and themes as dialogue in such a clunky way that it makes the viewer wince. When Nyah is rescued by Hunt within the Biocyte facility, there is a particularly horrible line that tries to nail home how the first impression of Nyah is not accurate (or the character has evolved) and it is so inorganic that it feels utterly contrived. Ironically, the character of Nyah is one of the few worthwhile ones in Mission: Impossible 2. I like characters who do not shy away from acts of sacrifice and Nyah rises to the occasion at a key moment, making a somewhat droll film watchable at the very least.

The villains in Mission: Impossible 2 are unfortunately generic. John McCloy is a greedy CEO whose business is built on creating viruses and cures, Hugh Stamp is the ultimate generic psychopath sidekick to the villain. Sean Ambrose is basically a thug who has exceptional knowledge of his adversary, which makes him interesting for about five minutes out of his entire time on screen. The most impressive aspect of Ambrose is his ultimate plan; instead of a diabolical plan to rule to world or kill a lot of people, he wants to make money the way rich people do: executing stock options. He just needs the seed money to buy Biocyte before the Chimera virus makes the stock price skyrocket.

The generic quality of the adversaries mirrors the blandness of the heroes. Ethan Hunt is granted no distinguishing characteristics in Mission: Impossible 2. He is a standard super spy the likes of which has been seen in every James Bond film ever and virtually every other spy film that prioritizes spectacle over reality in its storytelling. Tom Cruise does an adequate job of running, jumping and shooting guns in Mission: Impossible 2, but he and his co-stars are playing archetypes as opposed to actual characters.

Mission: Impossible 2 is a dull way to waste two hours, but it is not a movie that is in any way painful to watch (wincing from the bad dialogue aside). But when the biggest moment of the film is recognizing that Ethan Hunt’s boss is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins (who is not credited as one of the film’s big stars), as opposed to any of the action sequences, it is hard to say one has a spy film that is successful in any way.

For other Mission: Impossible movies, check out my reviews of:
Mission: Impossible
Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

3/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are rated from best to worst!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Rare Sequel Better Than The Original: How Thor: The Dark World Became THE Superhero Movie Of 2013!

The Good: Special effects, Performances, Moments of characters.
The Bad: Malekith comes across as monolithic, Romance plot is underdeveloped.
The Basics: Thor: The Dark World surpasses Thor as an engaging journey with enough character and deeper themes to remain compelling throughout.


Sequels, admittedly, have a tough time of it, especially the longer a franchise goes on. In a year where Marvel is trying to flesh out its universe with the television show Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and surpass the spectacle of The Avengers (reviewed here!) with Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!), the second Marvel blockbuster attempt for the year hits theaters at a time when it is hard not to be pre-disappointed. With Ender’s Game promising to blow the roof off of special-effects driven action movies only a week before Thor: The Dark World hits screens, Marvel had to sell a compelling story in order to truly land the Thor sequel as a success.

Fortunately, it does (for the most part).

I was not a huge fan of Thor (reviewed here!), though I will openly admit that it has aged better in hindsight than many of the Marvel Universe films, so if anything my expectations were lowered for Thor: The Dark World. But Thor: The Dark World has what Thor lacked: an appreciation for the unique setting of Thor within the Marvel Universe and a villain who was more than just an empty suit. Despite being somewhat underdeveloped and underused, Thor: The Dark World includes a villain who raises the stakes admirably in a way that Iron Man 3 was not able to do credibly. If the stakes in The Avengers were New York City and Earth, Thor: The Dark World ratchets the potential catastrophe up in a way that it seems hard for Guardians Of The Galaxy to follow: the nine realms of the universe are all poised to fall in Thor: The Dark World!

Having returned to the magical realm of Asgard, with Loki as his prisoner, Thor is once more bound by family and mystical barriers that keep him away from Earth and physicist Jane Foster. While Thor adapts to life back on Asgard by bringing peace to all the realms, on Earth, Jane is trying to get on with her life. When Darcy pops back up with information on mysterious readings in the atmosphere, Jane is enticed and they find a gravitational anomaly in an abandoned warehouse. There, Jane is teleported to the Dark World where she touches the Aether. The Aether possesses her and she is returned to Earth, which draws Thor back to Earth. Thor takes Jane back to Asgard to try to save her life from the Aether. Soon after, the Dark Elf Malekith leads an attack on Asgard. As the remaining enemy of the Asgardians – the Frost Giants were not the only ones! – the Dark Elves make an attack of Thor’s homeland that illustrates the power their leader, Malekith can bring to bear, Thor and his friends find themselves in a struggle that threatens all nine realms. To that end, Thor breaks Loki out of his Asgard prison.

After reconciling for their time apart, Thor, Loki and Jane continue their work and relationship together. Malekith’s plan soon becomes painfully clear; a celestial event, the Convergence is soon to occur and that will allow Malekith to lay waste to all nine realms at once. To stop Malekith and the creatures he employs and sets free through the rifts caused by the Convergence. Journeying to the Dark World, Thor, Loki, and Jane try to lure Malekith away from Asgard and Earth, but when Malekith takes the Aether for his own, at a tragic cost, Earth becomes the focal point for Malekith's vengeance and Thor must save the world again.

Given that Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. just began (and was already given a full-season order) and there are plenty more Marvel film sequels with release dates announced, the fate of Malekith’s plan is pretty well telegraphed. Whenever I look at a villain, especially one who wants to either rule the world (which always seems much more of a hassle than it is worth) or destroy the world/existence, the key question for credibility is “why?” Malekith is given a glossed-over revenge story that takes a back seat to the Loki/Thor buddy action movie that Thor: The Dark World turns into. In fact, even more than the hints of a love story – Marvel apparently does not want to tread anywhere near a Twilight-esque love story that would actually develop genuine emotions between their superheroes and a love interest - Thor: The Dark World cries out for a Director’s Cut that might restore scenes to the film (not just as deleted scenes on the inevitable Blu-Ray, but actually integrated as a true director’s cut) that make Malekith seem more well-rounded and truly compelling instead of clinging to an old wound with a perverse sense of overreaction for his revenge.

One of the fundamental problems with Thor was that the romantic subplot between Thor and Jane Foster was largely under-developed. The basis of Jane’s relationship with Thor was, largely, that he was The Other, the proof she rationally needed to believe in the fantastic. As anyone who has ever been in a romantic relationship knows, that wears off. In fact, it is a poor excuse for starting a relationship (even Darcy’s obsession with Thor’s physique has more long-term lasting power than the sense of wonder one might have to explore a finite space). To that end, Thor: The Dark World does what it absolutely has to in order to keep the relationship between Thor and Jane plausible, if not sustainable: Thor shows Jane Asgard and that rekindles what little they (substantively) had between them before Jane becomes a plot point to motivate Thor. Jane Foster rapidly becomes as ineffectual as Natalie Portman’s Padme Amidala (though, to be fair to Portman, the scenes in Revenge Of The Sith that made Amidala into a compelling leader were cut from the film! Whether such scenes for Thor: The Dark World exist is unclear) and Jane becomes an unfortunate damsel in distress character that Portman seems bored with portraying.

Christopher Eccleston, who is usually magnificent in good as Malekith, but the downgrade in my esteem for him comes not from anything he does, but from how Malekith is written and presented on screen. Eccleston presents great vocal emotional range, which is pretty much all he can do behind the make-up and CG effects for Malekith. Only a hint of his true acting range is presented in a single scene where he is able to infuse genuine emotion behind his eyes and hint at the depths of Malekith’s loss and anger.

With most of the main cast either appearing in seriously small roles amounting to little more than cameos (Kat Dennings, for example, appears as Darcy for a decent chunk delivering her lines exactly as one would expect from the Two Broke Girls star), the brunt of Thor: The Dark World falls on the performances of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Hiddleston is able to play Loki with more depth than in The Avengers where Loki was a facilitator and tool for much of the film, albeit with some wonderful lines. In Thor: The Dark World, Loki is a beaten man (demigod) who is rebuilding his presence and Hiddleston makes the process as convincing as possible without ever having the sense that Loki is either lost entirely or becoming confident too soon after his imprisonment. It’s a tough balance, but Hiddleston nails it.

There is a tough balance for Chris Hemsworth to play as well. Thor is a fantastic character and having such a larger-than-life godlike character, especially in moments in our real world, can come across as cheesy or invincible in a way that obstacles he faces are ridiculous. Hemsworth finds a way – usually with his eyes and smile – to deliver lines that allow him to play Thor as a credible and realized character who is not taking himself entirely too seriously. That is a tightrope that Hemsworth navigates well.

Director Alan Taylor balances the character moments and quips between Thor and Loki fairly well with the dramatic fantasy setting of Asgard and the other realms. While the final chase through the nine realms between Thor and Malekith once again illustrates how directors today try to equate special effects with speed (the settings are hardly as developed as Asgard or Earth and the way they are bounced between is sometimes more frustrating than satisfying), what is shown is immaculate.

Ultimately, Thor: The Dark World has the character elements needed to rival Ender’s Game to keep the science fiction piece from stealing a second weekend at the top of the box office and to leave viewers glad Marvel has once again overcome expectations.
For other works with Christopher Eccleston, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Unfinished Song
Amelia
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Heroes - Season 1
28 Days Later . . .
Elizabeth

7.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Bobby: Another Big Cast Movie I Wanted To Like More

The Good: Awesome cast, Some decent acting, Some interesting characters, DVD extras
The Bad: Most of the characters are not developed enough, Use of archival footage/direction
The Basics: Awkwardly combining archived footage and newly directed material, the fateful day of RFK's primary victory in California is recreated in a painstaking and painful way.


Sometimes movies that have huge casts know how to use those big casts. They wow the audience with their performances with sheer force of numbers. So, for example, critics often overlook the magnificent Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) because the caliber of the actors in it is so high as to overwhelm the audience and for as hard as I was on Mystic River (reviewed here!), the main reason was because all of the actors were so extraordinary that their performances only lived up to the high expectations of greatness from such a group. In fact, the last movie I saw with a massive, well-known cast that truly disappointed me was A Prairie Home Companion (reviewed here!). And then there was Bobby, a film I was excited about and just caught on DVD.

On June 6th, 1968 in Los Angeles California, the California primary is heating up as a contest between Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator McCarthy and the victory speech for RFK is set for that night at the Ambassador Hotel. As the day progresses, workers, performers and patrons of the Ambassador Hotel prepare for the arrival of Kennedy and there are numerous conflicts and collisions that occur, prompting actions and reactions. The people spending the day going about their lives include kitchen help, notably Jose and Miguel - Latino workers compelled to work a double shift - and black chef Edward Robinson. When Timmons fails to allow the workers to go vote, his boss Paul fires him. Paul is not having the best day as this is the day he and his mistress, Angela, part ways and his wife Miriam finds out about his indiscretion. Retired doorman John Casey sits in the lounge playing chess with those who will play with him, like Nelson. In the hotel's lounge, Virginia Fallon is set to give her final performance and leave town after introducing RFK.

Outside the immediate politics of the hotel, though still encompassed within the walls of the structure, there are a number of personal and political machinations at work. Fallon's husband Tim has chosen this day to leave Virginia. The establishment is overrun with campaign workers for Robert F. Kennedy, like Jimmy and Cooper who spend the day getting high instead of working. They get LSD from Fisher and spend the day tripping. This is unlike Wade and Dwayne, who have spent the day working to create a victory for RFK in the primary. This is the day that Diane is marrying William so he will be sent to Germany instead of Vietnam. It is also the day RFK supporters Jack and Samantha arrive to see the future president.

The recent success of such movies as Crash (reviewed here!) that employ large casts with characters involved in intertwining storylines have encouraged other writers and directors to explore the same with their own ideas. Bobby is written and directed by Emilio Estevez, who also appears in the movie as Tim Fallon. The problem here is that while Estevez certainly captures the chaos and scope of the Ambassador Hotel on that June day, the character elements are sacrificed to fit all of the stories in.

In short, because there are essentially twenty one integral characters (none of whom are Bobby Kennedy) with at least three other recurring characters that try to squeeze in for time, none of them have the chance to fully develop and be explored. Instead, they are almost all given the short run of screentime.

Which leads me to one of the biggest criticisms of Bobby; the title. Titles, any writer will tell you, are incredibly important and Bobby is a misnomer. This is not a film about Robert F. Kennedy. While it certainly does tell the story of one of the most fateful days in American history, it almost completely neglects the real stories of Robert F. Kennedy's day. This is a story about the Ambassador Hotel, building up to RFK's arrival, it's not about Bobby Kennedy. Certainly everyone in the hotel is there directly or indirectly because of Kennedy, but he is an ancillary character in the story.

Moreover, Kennedy appears in the film through use of historical clips, many from news reports using archive footage. Kennedy, Mike Wallace and another news anchor appear in grainy clips that illustrate the reality of the day. Unfortunately, Estevez combines these clips with the main footage of the movie, pulling the viewer out of narrative as he tells it. Instead of relegating the quotes and clips with RFK to a prologue and epilogue, Bobby uses footage throughout that integrates poorly with the actual movie.

Nowhere is this more problematic than near the climax of the film. While Kennedy is on stage in clips that are wonderfully restored for the film, he is flanked by historical figures who the viewer have been watching for the past hour and a half. Yes, Estevez clumsily integrates footage that includes the real Wade - for example - and for those looking at the continuity, this is a terrible attempt to reconcile the movie with itself. To make clear, Estevez uses footage from reality and tries to put it into the movie, usually when RFK is involved and the footage does not match in terms of quality nor composition, making the movie very poorly assembled in the end.

Estevez should have used his RFK stand in Dave Fraunces - or found another actor - to recreate RFK footage for the movie as opposed to sloppily sticking in old clips.

That said, what we do see about the various characters is enough to make this film work at least one viewing. The dialogue between Jose, Miguel and Edward is phenomenal. Rarely in American cinema is there discussion of interethnic dynamics that calls it as it sees it, documenting the tensions between blacks and latinos. Edward's conversation about how he lost his anger is amazing and very compelling. Despite how little screentime he has, he resonates as a worthwhile and intriguing character.

Similarly, the weird relationship between soon-to-be-spouses Diane and William is awkward, stilted and in every way wonderful. When Diane quietly declares that she would have married the two people from her high school that recently were killed in Vietnam if it would have saved their lives is telling and sad. William's understanding that Diane's willingness to marry him is not necessarily based on love is sad and touching.

The character that is most developed and least overstated is John Casey, the former doorman. He is quite simply lonely and retired, occupying a couch in the lobby playing chess in order to stave off utter loneliness and lethargy. His mind is sharp and he has wonderful memories of the Ambassador Hotel, but he is a man who had nowhere to go in retirement and ends up desperate for any interaction with people.

Casey is played with wonderful simplicity by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins has one of his most understated roles here and he creates a character with both quiet dignity and desperation as he waits for the day to end. I've never seen Hopkins played bewildered as well as he does in the climax of this film.

Sadly, most of the other actors do not have the chance to shine as much as they deserve. Almost completely neglected is Martin Sheen whose bit part in Bobby makes the viewer wonder why he took it (though supporting his son is a good enough reason for me!). And while Laurence Fishburne is wonderfully cast as Edward Robinson, his performance is nothing we have not seen from him in, say, The Matrix. He plays the sage quite well, but here he does nothing to impress the viewer with his range.

Neglected even more is one of my favorites, William H. Macy, who wowed me in Magnolia (reviewed here!). Macy plays the hotel's manager, Paul and his role is little more than a cameo at key moments, a clear underuse of his talents. Also appearing with minimal screentime are Elijah Wood, Lindsay Lohan, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Emilio Estevez. And while it's wonderful to see Freddy Rodriguez in a film, his part is nothing terribly challenging or different from his signature role in Six Feet Under.

I will note that Joshua Jackson stood out as Wade. Jackson has a seriousness to him that allows him to perfectly embody a young aide to a politician. He seems like a manager and he has a dignity that I would not have anticipated from him.

On the DVD presentation, one of the coolest features is a panel discussion with people who were actually at the Ambassador Hotel the night in question. Their conversation is insightful and it has a strength to it that wonderfully tells the story of reality from a different perspective after Estevez's production is over.

It is only the strength of what is revealed by characters in what little time they are given, combined with the strength of the acting when the actors are permitted to present their talents and the decent DVD bonuses that save this otherwise mediocre film. Sadly, while I watched, I continued to wait for it to become extraordinary and was a little let down when the best it achieved was adequate. Recommended for a viewing, as opposed to purchasing for a permanent collection.

For other works with Freddy Rodriguez, check out my takes on:
Six Feet Under
Havoc
Payback

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Wooden Acting Almost Kills A Political Marvel With All The King’s Men

The Good: Generally good acting, story and character
The Bad: Dilution of main story by focus on Jack Burden, pacing
The Basics: When Jude Law's acting and his character's story begin to dominate All The King’s Men, the film goes from a promising political drama to a murky romantic mystery.


Whenever I write a movie review, I load up the IMDB to be sure I'm getting character and actor names correct. I was somewhat surprised - mostly from not having paid enough attention to the opening credits, I suppose - to see that Kate Winslet and Mark Ruffalo were portraying Anne and Adam Stanton for the latest movie I was watching. Winslet only recently appeared on my radar and my first movie with Mark Ruffalo did not impress me with him. All The King’s Men, which opens to a powerful soundtrack by James Horner, continues my rut where actor Jude Law fails to impress me. Here it is his portrayal of Jack Burden along with writer and director Steven Zaillian and novelist Robert Penn Warren's emphasis on Burden that almost sinks this movie.

Willie Stark is a populist advocate working in county politics in Louisiana when he is opposed by the powers that be in the political world. A government contract is given to a company that makes a schoolhouse that has inadequate fire escapes, leading to the death of three children. This inspires mobster Tiny Duffy to use Stark as a chance to effectively take the Governor's mansion of Louisiana, which in the late 40s, early 50s, is quite a big deal. Stark begins a campaign based on winning over the poor of the state and wins in a landslide. Once in power as Louisiana's governor, he finds himself blocked by the state senate and threatened with impeachment.

Mirroring Stark's rise to power is Jack Burden's journey as a reporter to a spin doctor for the governor. Burden's journey becomes a loop between his past and present as one of the advocates for impeachment is an incredibly powerful judge who happens to be Burden's (non-biological) father. As well, Stark becomes closely involved with the Stanton family, peers of Jack's who have integrity and social standing and who could potentially elevate Stark's political populism and activism to a respectable level.

The problem here is from the beginning the viewer wants this to be Willie Stark's story. Stark is intriguing as a character. The moment he casts off the mob influence and becomes a charismatic politician combining the progressive activism with the evangelical salesmanship by simply telling the truth as he sees it, Stark is a powerful character to watch. Whenever the movie is focused on his quest against the powers that be, All The King’s Men is engaging, intriguing and worthwhile.

The problem is that the film too infrequently focuses on Stark. While the first hour is all about Stark coming to power and his views and ambitions, the last hour plus of All The King’s Men degenerates into a convoluted tale of Jack Burden's trials as he seeks to aid Stark and resolve long unresolved romantic feelings.

As a political story, All The King’s Men succeeds. The problem is, Jack Burden's story is barely political. Burden becomes a detective, digging into the life of Judge Irwin to find any dirt he can to bring Irwin down to alleviate the impeachment pressure on Stark. As this is going on, Stark is busy fighting to get a hospital built for poor people in Louisiana, which needs the appearance of legitimacy. That comes from Dr. Adam Stanton who Stark - via Burden - influences to become a part of the project. The proximity of Adam, a childhood friend of Burden's, and the reappearance of his sister Anne, perhaps his great lost love, cause Burden to relive his past.

And Burden's past is not terribly interesting. Or perhaps it is, but this is not the venue for it. I don't care about Burden's lost love, it's a distraction from the Willie Stark story. Arguably, Burden's story could be all about what a man will do to maintain political power, but it's not nearly as compelling as watching Stark do his thing.

Willie Stark is played with electrifying precision by Sean Penn, one of those actors who suddenly came into legitimacy a few years back and has been a dramatic powerhouse since. Penn is surprisingly charismatic as Stark, manipulating his voice and body language with persuasive movement that make it convincing that Stark could work the crowds we see in the movie. This is one of Penn's best works and he steals every scene he is in.

Conversely, Jude Law is wooden as Jack Burden. "Wooden" describes Law's acting in almost every role and here it is not appropriate for Burden to be so . . . listless, stiff. Law's performance puts Burden at a distance to the viewer, making one care less about his journey and personality and instead causing the viewer to beg for the return of Penn's Stark to the screen.

All The King’s Men is supported by a decent cast including Sir Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, and James Gandolfini. Gandolfini seems typecast into the role of Tiny, but otherwise the supporting players are fine and they perform well with what they are given to do in this film.

Who will like All The King's Men? Certainly those frustrated with today's current political state. But they are less likely to enjoy this than The American President (reviewed here!) or reruns of The West Wing (reviewed here!). This movie is more suited to those who like murky romantic mysteries with a political edge. All of the important plot aspects turn on love and that's a fine motivation and makes for a decent story. Unfortunately, this story is not that one, not the way it is set up from the beginning and established in the opening parts of the film.

At least Mark Ruffalo and Kate Winslet did well.

For other works with James Gandolfini, check out my reviews of:
Where The Wild Things Are
In The Loop

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Play For The Big Screen: The Lion In Winter Leads To Another Razor Decision.

The Good: Great acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Plot sacrificed for mood, Disturbing nature of the characters, Theatrical nature
The Basics: Despite mostly fine acting, a preponderance of despicable characters and lack of use of the film medium make The Lion In Winter a close call.


I happen to be a big fan of various media (books, television, music) and I think one of the things I enjoy about each medium is the strengths of it. I like how books use language to turn my mind over and over, allowing me to develop images and to learn, I like how great music resonates through my ears and into my bones and makes me feel. And I love how movies may make use of the visual medium to tell a story. Probably the reason I am not a fan of more old movies is because they are visually limited and present plays on film. I love theater, but theater is theater, movies are movies. The Lion In Winter is one of those old movies that illustrates well the problematic aspect of old films simply translating a play into a motion picture.

During the reign of Henry II, Christmastime comes to England and Henry and his estranged wife Eleanor are reunited for holiday festivities. Throughout the evening, their children, Geoffrey, Richard and John vie for political control of the country by scheming with one another and alone for their father's love and blessing. Henry has handpicked the loathsome youngest son, John, while Richard is blessed by Eleanor.

The Lion In Winter is that simple to describe because it does not have a lot in the way of plot. Not much happens. The movie is more about the machinations of royalty than about anything that actually happens. As a result, the intrigues are talked about in great depth, but the location is singularly defined as a castle in England on a single day and night. There is a lot to talk about, for these are cunning people, but little to see.

In fact, that works greatly to the film's detriment. Take, for example, a pivotal scene wherein all three sons end up in Richard's room. Richard and Henry talk - when Henry arrives - and he tries to convince the king that he is a worthy successor. As the conversation shifts and Richard exposes his brothers and he finds himself being exposed, there is an inorganic quality to the scene, much like what happens in a poor theatrical production. That is to say that the characters stop moving around the room with any sense or purpose or natural movement and instead stay still, as one does in a play when one hopes to keep the audiences' eyes on a single person and their attention on that person's monologue. People failing to move in normal, realistic ways, is always a problem.

Furthermore, some of the acting seems tenuous. Anthony Hopkins has a strange, reserved quality about him in the scenes he shares with Peter O'Toole. This comes across as less of a character flaw and more an acting inconsistency. Hopkins, as well as John Castle, seem quite deferential in the presence of O'Toole, a flaw they do not seem to possess with any other actor in the piece.

The real problem with the piece is there is not a single likable character in the bunch. Henry is having an affair and keeps his wife locked up in a distant castle, Eleanor is a ruthless extortionist, John is an annoying whelp, and Geoffrey uses his lack of parental love to justify conniving against everyone for power. This seems to be a study in characters of flaws, without any truly redeeming traits to any of them.

While it is perfectly possible to do a film wherein all of the characters have negative traits or are flat out evil (the brilliant criminal-laden mystery The Usual Suspects comes immediately to mind), there must be at least one character that the viewer is rooting for, someone we are interested in and are invested emotionally in. The Lion In Winter offers not a single empathetic character, making it very difficult to care. Indeed, with all of the plotting and scheming, this movie comes across as a two hour chess match where none of the players grab our hearts or our attention.

On the other hand, a real plus of The Lion In Winter is the acting. Peter O'Toole is amazing as Henry II (Peter O'Toole). His performance is loud and boisterous through much of the movie, which give Katharine Hepburn a lot to play off as Eleanor. Indeed, Hepburn masterfully contrasts O'Toole's forceful performance with a quieter, more sinister portrayal of Eleanor that works well. John Castle does an excellent job portraying Geoffrey as conflicted through his body language, while Anthony Hopkins uses subtle eye movement and very minor facial ticks to keep Richard a reserved, masked character.

Nigel Terry, who plays John, is the real winner of this movie. There is not a single scene in The Lion In Winter where John is present that the viewer does not completely hate him. While he is Henry's preference, he is whiny, annoying, petty and in every way a spoiled child. Terry plays him masterfully, infusing every line with a pathetic whimper and a disgusting air of loathsome sniveling. Terry, being nothing like that, proves himself to be a great actor through the performance.

Ultimately, the quality of the acting is not enough to save this movie, though it does come close. This was one of my few razor decisions, choices that could truly have gone either way. Being labeled a "classic" is not enough to push me over the edge. In the end, I could not recommend a film with such a lack of empathizable characters and had the look and feel like a theatrical play caught on film. For a better historical story of intrigue and passion, try Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. If you like senseless plotting and conniving, though, maybe you should give this film a chance.

For other classic dramas, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Best Years Of Our Life
Hamlet
How Green Was My Valley

5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Blockbuster Season Starts Lukewarm With Thor!

The Good: Effects, Much of the acting
The Bad: Utterly contrived plot elements, Disconnected preview moments, Hemsworth doesn’t pop.
The Basics: In a very, very weak “recommend,” I find Thor to be a pretty pathetic Marvel film outing to open a highly competitive Summer Blockbuster Season.


It is here at last! Yes, every year Summer Blockbuster Season comes to us with the big special-effects driven movies that seek to get the 11 – 19 year old reckless consumer dollars, despite jacked up movie prices and declining film quality. Summer Blockbuster Season is a time when the quality films that get noticed for awards are almost entirely absent and spectacle rules. That does not mean that great films cannot be released during Summer Blockbuster Season, as The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) and Inception (reviewed here!) have amply proven. Even among the usual super hero and sequel schlock, Summer Blockbuster Season sometimes produces some cool films with great replayability, like last year’s Iron Man 2 (reviewed here!). For 2011, Summer Blockbuster Season looks to be mostly filled with sequels, from Transformers, Pirates Of The Caribbean and X-Men. This summer there are surprisingly few original flicks to look forward to, so one has to assume that the rollout of the new franchises is supposed to prey upon the hopes of fans looking for the appearance of new. Sadly, Thor is not that.

This past weekend was Free Comic Book Day and I spent the day working at the comic book store I manage and hearing many people praise the film Thor, its acting and the way the movie fit into the larger Marvel Universe. My reward to myself for a well-executed event on Free Comic Book Day was to go to a late showing of Thor in 3-D with a person who seems to have a lot of the same interests as me and with whom I am beginning to forge a friendship. When the movie was done, we shared thoughts and while he liked the film, I was much, much more neutral to it. This, I feel, has a lot to do with what some call “ridiculously high standards” on my part and which I just call having standards.

Thor is not a bad movie, but it is riddled with problems and the fundamental one was that the movie never seemed to pop on its own. Allow me to explain: the best aspects of Thor seemed to be with the tie-ins with other Marvel Universe films and the sense that this is a weaker chapter in a larger story comes through whenever the film is not being painfully dull on its own. This is, in many ways, a big, special-effects driven movie which suffers as so many other special effects films do: it doesn’t develop the story as much as it ought to and it hopes the viewer won’t notice because there are so many shiny lights and bright objects on the screen. The other aspect of not popping on its own I will address more in a moment, but it has to do with the way the film was promoted. I saw the preview trailer for Thor exactly once. One time, no more. When the moments that were in the preview trailer came up, I recognized them instantly. While some might call that great memory, I recognize it as what it is: the moments from the film’s trailer were mostly incongruent moments which pull the viewer outside the narrative. In other words, those moments do what they are supposed to do, SELL the film, not tell the story. So, when they came up in the movie, I was pulled out of the story for these moments where characters were essentially saying, “Hey, look at this cool thing we created!”

While Jane Foster is out in the New Mexico desert chasing storms of a celestial nature, she and her team run into a man. That man is Thor and how he came to be in the middle of the desert is then explained. As one of the two sons of Odin, on the plane of existence known as Asgard, Thor is raised with the responsibility of protecting the realms of the universe from the Frost Giants. For decades, Odin has kept King Laufey and the Frost Giants bottled up in their own, desolate world. But as Odin prepares to pass the mantle of leadership on to Thor, Frost Giants invade the weapon’s vault of Asgard. Stopped immediately, the Frost Giant invasion inspires Thor to defy his father and lead his friends on an invasion of the Frost Giant realm. Rescued from the overwhelming odds by the power of his hammer and then Odin himself, Thor is then banished to Earth.

On the higher realms, Loki takes up the mantle of leadership as Odin falls into a mystical sleep and on Earth, Thor finds himself both mortal and powerless. Discovered by Jane, Thor breaks out of his hospital room and goes in search of his mystical hammer, which has arrived on Earth as well. S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, led by Coulson, have discovered the hammer and when Thor is unable to dislodge it, all involved feel dismayed. So when Thor’s friends decide to defy Loki and bring Thor out of exile, it falls to the comparatively powerless hero to stop the Destroyer that Loki sends after them.

While I know I am in the minority with feeling more neutral to Thor, writing up the plot summary only helps to illustrate my point. Thor strings along viewers with a series of fairly weak events and it fails to pop. There is never a moment that defines the hero or the villain in such a way that the viewer feels like the movie is building to something. The result is a string of events which meander toward an eventual end which is neither unpredictable nor spectacular. As my viewing companion noted, when one of the battles occurred, it seemed like it was the climax, but then there was another hour to the movie.

Put another way, Thor both tries to be too many things and it follows such a disappointing formula that it is utterly unsurprising. The two are deeply intertwined, but they add up to a largely unsatisfying cinematic experience on every level but in terms of spectacle. Thor is split between the higher planes and Earth and this might be the first big mistake that writers Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne, J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich make. I might focus my sense of blame a bit more on Straczynski for one reason: Stracyznski is an accomplished writer whose works like Babylon 5 have proven that viewers can become completely invested in a place that is not Earth and has little to do with Earth. Works like The Lord Of The Rings (reviewed here) have illustrated that viewers today can handle menace to a completely fictional realm and become entirely transfixed by the situation. So, why then, does Thor insist on spreading the story between the higher realms and Earth? We could have handled a story of a war between the Asgard people and the Frost Giants without any interaction on Earth. In fact, that might have worked even better as the film leaps from Thor and Loki as children together to the day Thor is prepared to ascend to his father’s throne and as he struts through the hall of people, my thought instantly was “what has he done in the years in between to make him so beloved among his people?” Sure, he twirls his hammer, gets cheers from the crowd, but who is the man and why do we care? My answer to the latter question was “I don’t.” And that cripples the movie right out of the gate.

Moreover, when one is dealing with archetypes and mythology, the story ought to do something that challenges or interests the viewer. After meandering from the political machinations of Asgard driven to the brink of war to Thor being banished, there is no real surprise that the jealous Loki is somehow involved. In fact, the acting of the child playing the young Loki ruins any sense of surprise as his reaction to Odin saying that only one of his two sons will be king informs the viewer instantly that Loki wants that for himself and knows he will not get it. But without having read any Thor comic books, viewers with minimal mythological education are set up for disappointment. Loki is the trickster god in Norse mythology. So, we expect Loki to be a trickster in Thor and lo and behold, the machinations that affect Asgard are deeply related to Loki and his ambition. This is the exact type of disappointment that comes from writers naming characters Brutus or Judas and then expecting viewers to feel some sense of surprise when they betray the hero of the story. It’s built in to the premise; you name a character something like Loki or Brutus and there are expectations. Thor rather stupidly seems to expect that viewers will be surprised by Loki doing mischief.

But more than that, and I harp on this because Thor is very much Loki’s story (as evidenced by the post-closing credits scene), Loki becomes such a disappointing villain because his ambitions are never adequately explored. I’m sick to death of villains where they want power for no particular reason. What is Loki’s reason for wanting to be king, what does he want to accomplish? This might seem like a stupid question, but all of the great writers who have great villains address this question and Thor’s do not do this. Director Kenneth Branagh deserves a real poke in the eye for failing so spectacularly in this regard. Branagh is well-known for his movies based on Shakespeare works and one need look no further than The Tragedy Of Othello to see what makes a truly convincing villain. In Othello, Iago is not blindly ambitious; he and Othello do the same work and only Othello gets the credit. Iago is a great villain because he has been slighted, his talents have been overlooked. In Thor Loki is just a pissed off guy because he’s a whiny brat.

To be fair to Loki, it’s not like Thor has done anything demonstrably great, so the weakness of Thor is that the hero isn’t all that great and the villain isn’t all that notable, so neither truly deserves to take over for Odin (who is seen doing more for the realm of Asgard than either of his sons). So, to reiterate, a whole film spent with Asgard and the Frost Giant realm might have set up an Earth-bound sequel that made the viewer care about the protagonist and the antagonist.

Which leads us to Jane, Dr. Selvig, Darcy and the plot of Thor on Earth. I can barely muster up enough interest to write about them because when the hammer of Thor falls to Earth, Agent Coulson becomes an antagonist and for those who have seen the Iron Man movies, it is hard to consider him a compelling villain. And by the time Thor’s friends arrive and the big bad, the Destroyer, is dispatched, the viewer does not care.

Why is that? That comes back to what I mentioned before. Thor is busy telling its story when the main narrative is cut out of for bits that have no particular relevance to the tale and were, coincidentally enough, used in almost all of the promos. So, bits like Thor shirtless being commented on by Darcy, Thor having coffee and smashing his mug and Jane hoping desperately that Thor is not just crazy are incongruent with the tone and pace of the rest of the film. Thor topless and being commented on as “cut” pops up in the movie like, “Hey, look at how hot Chris Hemsworth is! Okay, now that you’ve seen it, let’s get back to the story!” While I’ve loved Kat Dennings in everything else I’ve seen her in (and to Branagh’s credit, this is the first movie I’ve seen her in where she is not wearing excessive lipstick), her character is so utterly unnecessary in Thor as to be unenjoyable to watch. All of the worst lines that don’t fit the movie – and were in the trailers – are delivered by Dennings and it pains me to write that. The only thing worse is the contrived kiss that pops up late in the movie and Branagh and the writers ought to feel some sense of shame over putting together one of the least compelling, least believable pseudo-romantic sequences of modern cinema. Honestly, there is not a kiss on screen I’ve seen ever that didn’t feel like “we need to have this in because it is That Kind Of Movie” than the eventual kiss in Thor. Forget actor chemistry, there is so little character chemistry built into the moment that when Thor and Jane mack, it feels cheap.

On the character front, in addition to Loki not being painted as a particularly compelling villain, Thor does not rise to the occasion as a hero, at least not in a meaningful way. Separated from his mystical hammer, Odin’s purpose is clearly to teach Thor the benefit of humility and some measure of judgment whereby pacifism may be realistically considered. The ridiculous notion of Thor is that he gets his taste of humility long before anything cinematically spectacular actually happens. When Thor awakens in the hospital bound to his bed, his helplessness and frustration are palatable and for a god to be so trapped teaches Thor the lesson he was supposed to learn. Only, it doesn’t because it’s not cinematic enough and more contrived events happen that lead Thor to the understanding of compassion and a protective instinct that leads him not to value life much more, but does allow him to go kick some ass with his hammer again. I’m sorry, what was the character journey in Thor?

As for the acting, there are some great performances in Thor but they come where they are expected. Sir Anthony Hopkins delivers as Odin and Colm Feore rocks his few scenes as King Laufey and when the two are on screen together, they have the movie’s most powerful dramatic moments. Chris Hemsworth, who made the most of his ten minutes in Star Trek (reviewed here!) lacks the substance to actually make the viewer care about Thor. I’m not sure that the problem here was writing, but I don’t think it has to do with physicality. Hemsworth is convincing enough with the strength of Thor, but he doesn’t sell much else from him. Natalie Portman, as Jane, is likely to shock viewers by how she took such an unremarkable role. Jane might have potential as a character, but her parts are mashed in between so many fantastical elements and being talked down to that she never truly develops. That Portman goes along with it is disappointing after a string of strong and interesting characters that she has played. It would not surprise me if Portman refused to return for the inevitable Thor sequel.

Finally, the spectacle front (worth only one point in my ten-point rating scale). Thor is appropriately trippy and spectacular, especially on the celestial realms of Asgard and the Frost Giant realm. Even so, there were noticeable moments during the spectacular battles where character movement was off and it was obvious what was done with CG technology. The 3-D effects were all right, but I’d recommend sticking with the 2-D version as nothing is so incredible in the 3-D (I’m seeing Thor again with my wife this week and we’re not paying for the 3-D, so if that impression changes, I’ll revise). The settings, make-up and costumes are actually more impressive than the battle sequences in Thor.

Ultimately, Thor opens Summer Blockbuster Season and it does so with a movie that only works if one truly disconnects their brains or enters with no expectations that the journey will be as meaningful as the destination, for the movie wanders about until it eventually ends without actually doing much in between. I would recommend staying through the final credits, as the scene there actually was interesting. But, it’s a lot of set-up for yet another Marvel movie and it’s hard to get excited about that one after this one was so mediocre.

For other Marvel universe films, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men
Blade: Trinity
Daredevil
Iron Man

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Timeless And Tense, The Silence Of The Lambs Is A Great Thriller.

The Good: Acting, Tension, Pacing, DVD bonus features, Plot development
The Bad: One too many reversals, Moments where plot/character does not make real sense.
The Basics: Frightening and creepy, The Silence Of The Lambs is a consistently intense film which puts an FBI trainee in a match of wits with a serial killer!


Believe it or not, but the most I've known Jodie Foster as (until I saw The Silence Of The Lambs) was a voice talent. In all of my moviegoing experiences, I've actually never seen a movie that had Jodie Foster in it. Before this film, it was voice-over works in The X-Files and The Simpsons as well as the general pop culture knowledge of Jodie Foster which was the extent of my experience with her and her work. All that changed when my wife enthusiastically sat me down for a viewing of The Silence Of The Lambs. As a fan of The X-Files (reviewed here!) I now have to wonder if Gillian Anderson was ever considered for the role of Clarice Starling as they seem to occupy similar cinematic niches.

As for The Silence Of The Lambs, I can see why it is so very popular as it has a consistent level of tension throughout and an amazing performance by Sir Anthony Hopkins, but it is not the flawless film some sold it to me as, though it did manage to surprise me in points. As always for movies based upon books, this is a review of the 1991 film The Silence Of The Lambs and not the novel by Thomas Harris by the same name. I have not read the book, so this was actually a very pure viewing of the film.

Clarice Starling is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia when she is called to the office of the Behavioral Sciences unit and its director, Jack Crawford. As a serial killer nicknamed Buffalo Bill continues to kidnap and skin his victims, Crawford sends Clarice into a maximum security mental institution to interview the deranged serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter, a cannibalistic psychotherapist who has been in custody for eight years. Polite and charming, the utterly creepy Lecter begins to play a game with Clarice where they exchange information and Lecter actually begins to aid Clarice in the hunt for Buffalo Bill.

But when a Senator's daughter is captured by Buffalo Bill, heat is put on Crawford, who has Clarice deliver an offer to Lecter that offers the psychopath the chance at relocation. When Crawford and Clarice's betrayal is revealed, Lecter leaps on an opportunity from the Senator and the corrupt, egotistical operator of the facility, Dr. Chilton, to get turned over to the police. As the FBI moves in on Buffalo Bill, Lecter masterminds his own escape.

The Silence Of The Lambs is a thriller which is surprisingly low in gore, especially by today's standards. Still, it is remarkably tense and frightening, and the rumors about the greatness of Anthony Hopkins' performance are true. In fact, the only real problems with The Silence Of The Lambs are in the setup and how rewatchable the film is. While The Silence Of The Lambs might be wonderful to watch for the appreciation of the nuances (how many truly great movies include a scene where a man throws semen on a woman?!) the reversals must quickly get old (by the final one in the film, I was tired of them the first time) and because so much of the tension is based on surprise, when one knows what is coming next, it is hard to imagine this is terribly entertaining.

That said, the only real problem with The Silence Of The Lambs is in the suspension of disbelief needed to make the basic premise work. For sure, it is easy to believe that the FBI would employ serial killers to help with their profiling, that makes perfect sense. What doesn't work nearly as well is Crawford's use of a trainee for such an important assignment as contacting Hannibal Lecter or the continued use of her after she begins breaking the rules as to what type of contact she may have with Lecter. The movie is especially heavy-handed about the lack of respect women get in law enforcement, but then Crawford becomes more lax with Clarice about the rules, which doesn't "read" right either.

Largely what The Silence Of The Lambs is is a psychological chess match and a chase. The chess match occurs in creepy scenes where Clarice and Hannibal Lecter square off and trade information on killers and Clarice's past. Lecter constantly pushes for more information and Clarice uses key moments to redirect the psychopath to try to get closer to what she truly wants from him. The scenes play out like careful chess moves and they do enhance the overall creepy feel of the movie.

Moreover, director Jonathan Demme cleverly uses the film medium to keep the film interesting. For example, when leaving Hannibal Lecter, Clarice sees a car the same color as the sky in a memory that unsettles her and the blending of the traumas makes Clarice much more interesting. Similarly, when a new fact is revealed in the FBI investigation, its context is shown with Buffalo Bill. This is refreshing in that the movie does not suddenly overload the viewer with all of the story's revelations at once. Instead, the film plays out with a sense that it is building and while there is a lot of tension in it, The Silence Of The Lambs is not built on quick, jumpy reversals.

Instead, this is a surprisingly bleak character study of a deranged scientist - Clarice is always quite careful to call Hannibal Lecter "doctor" - and a woman running from her past through trying to stop evil in the world. Clarice is naive, but clever, and she is well-played by Jodie Foster. Foster is deliberate and intense with her eyes boring into the viewer in virtually every one of her scenes. She plays off both Anthony Heald (Chilton) and Scott (Crawford) flawlessly. Despite how obvious and sanctimonious the line is, Foster makes Clarice calling Crawford out on the example he sets in front of other law enforcement work.

But this is Anthony Hopkins' tour de force. Hopkins - far more known for quiet, dignified roles like his part in The Remains Of The Day - swaps his British accent for a Southern dialect and he is flawless. Hopkins is uniformly dark and he plays Lecter as a determined man with a coldness that is calculating and brutal. There is not a single scene that Hopkins is in where he does not draw the eye or the attention of the viewer.

On DVD, The Silence Of The Lambs comes in a two-disc Special Edition loaded with bonus features. The film has a commentary track which is informative as well as a second disc loaded with featurettes. The featurettes mostly explore the making of the film, both the psychology, the translation from the novel and the acting. They are well done and intriguing. There is also a gag reel, a series of creepy deleted scenes, and the original featurette for television of the movie. As well as photo galleries, trailers and a phone message from Anthony Hopkins, the second disc gives fans of The Silence Of The Lambs all they could hope for.

For fans of psychologically-driven horror movies, The Silence Of The Lambs has all that one could hope for. It is dark, well-acted and has a constant ramping up of the tension that makes it harrowing to watch. But make no mistake; this is both terrifying for adults and the beginning of a cinematic franchise. But what a start it is!

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, please check it out by clicking here!]

For other horror movies, please check out my reviews of:
The Blair Witch Project
Let The Right One In
The Alien Quadrilogy

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page. That may be accessed by clicking here and it contains the most thorough listing of my reviews!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |