Thor (2011)

Thor Review
Review # 150

3/5 stars

Director – Kenneth Branagh

Cast - Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard

——————–

- followed by The Avengers

——————–

Thor continues Marvel’s journey to the intensely awaited The Avengers. Directed by Kenneth Branaugh (of all people), the movie follows the titular arrogant supernatural being/god as he finds himself banished on Earth after a brash attack on a similarly supernatural group of beings called Jötunn (or “Frost Giants”). To regain his superhuman abilities and the respect of his father, Odin, Thor must find humility and lose his arrogance. Or something like that.

Anthony Hopkins appears as Odin, Colm Feore plays the Frost Giant King, and Stellan Skarsgard mentors Natalie Portman’s young and ambitious scientist. I get the feeling that a cast like this would not have been possible without Kenneth Branaugh’s involvement as director. And seriously, how the hell did they get Mr. Shakespeare to do a superhero movie? In interviews Hopkins and Branaugh constantly mention the “Shakespearean themes” in the story. Well, there is a squabbling royal family, I guess that counts.

Released just months before Captain America, there was a lot riding on the success of the two films. Imagine if they both tanked and hadn’t found an audience, especially as The Avengers had already been started. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have been lost. But it wasn’t that likely, was it. The question remains though, could they find a way to make the films work?

They did, for the most part. Thor finds himself mingling with already introduced characters such as Agent Coulson, numerous references are made to Iron Man and other future Avengers, and the tone (on Earth anyway) is kept as realistic as we have come to expect. There may not be a huge amount of chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, and the script gives them even less to work with, but it does get by, and in a fairly pleasant fashion.

Thor is best looked at as a part of a whole, that whole being the Avengers franchise. It serves to introduce both the character of Thor and his villainous brother Loki, and also the concept of supernatural beings as superheroes. Up to this point in the Marvel-verse superheroes are the result of serums (The Incredible Hulk and then Captain America), or super-suits (Iron Man), so to introduce gods into the equation seems a little off. All in all the movie meshes itself in well to the established continuity, and that is really all it wants to do. A more unique story would have been welcome, but what we have here is done well.

OVERALL

Thor is fairly unremarkable, though the special effects and most of the visual design is great. The script holds back the movie, which, while solid and workmanlike, likes to dips its toes in the pool of cliché once or twice too often. It is best seen as a build up to The Avengers, and as such it does what it is expected to.

——————–

TRAILER

“Thor” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

120 – Hulk (2003)

Hulk REVIEW

2.5/5 stars

Director - Ang Lee

Cast - Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliot, Nick Nolte, Josh Lucas

——————–

Hulk is one of those shiny superhero movies. It fits in right along with Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, Catwoman, Elektra, etc., in that it is colourful, over-lit, and mainly devoid of anything new to offer. Hulk tries to give us something new, I will give it that. It is a pity (and maybe a shock, considering the quality of many of those involved) that it rarely succeeds.

Ang Lee was in the director’s chair. He is most recognized for the excellent Sense and Sensibility, the award-winning Brokeback Mountain, and the exciting Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. He tries here to replicate the look and feel of comic books, from the cinematography (which is colourful and fairly vibrant), to the (in)famous split screen process which attempted to replicate the frames of comic books. I disagree with the majority, and think the latter technique is fairly succesful. The former is disastrous however. I hate the “plastic-ness” of it all.

All in all what sinks the movie is its insistence on trying to create a deep dramatic weight to Banner/Hulk. This is what sank Fantastic Four, and even though Hulk isn’t as bad as that movie, the same effects are felt here. The flashy mis en scene doesn’t allow for any serious character development, and to add to all that, the writing here is underdone.

This is where the sequel/reboot The Incredible Hulk did slightly better. It skipped the origin story (we all know it anyway), and got right to the movie. It added more (and better) action, improved the CGI (so much so that looks like a ten-year difference instead of 5), and just took more care in general.

The acting is quite good here though, but I’ve never been a huge fan of Eric Bana. He always seems stiff, and either expressionless or over-dramatic. Nick Nolte is his wacky self, and Jennifer Connelly does her “wife to a crazy guy” bit. I really enjoyed Sam Elliot, he brings a surprising amount of depth to an underwritten role. I didn’t actually expect that.

OVERALL

Hulk is a movie that tries but, despite the quality of those involved, pretty much fails in almost every regard. It is too flashy to support the dramatic weight that they want, but not exciting enough to hold interest. The Incredible Hulk is a better effort, even with its flaws.

——————–

TRAILER

“Hulk” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

118 – The Green Hornet (2011)

The Green Hornet REVIEW

3/5 stars

Director - Michel Gondry

Cast - Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christopher Waltz, Cameron Diaz, Edward James Olmos, Tom Wilkinson, David Harbour

——————–

Acclaimed French director Michel Gondry, whose work spans from the ethereal Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to the decidedly more mainstream Be Kind Rewind, once again has tried his hand at pop filmmaking. The director, known for his stylish visuals, may seem at first glance to be a good match for a fun superhero flick. What we get is actually more in common with Rogen’s movies and sense of humor. What is perhaps more surprising is that these elements are the strongest part of the movie. In an interview Gondry said he approached The Green Hornet as an action film with comedic elements, not as a comedy. Unfortunately the action and most of the superhero elements, when played straight, are quite weak. It’s a shame, too, because Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, and especially Christopher Waltz are very funny.

In general this movie doesn’t try hard enough to be different from the myriad of superhero movies and even basic action movies, that surround it. It never tries to be a parody, and for that I applaud it, but by the last third the movie it forgets its comedic roots (I maintain the movie is a comedy at heart, despite what Gondry says) and gives us one long, generic action scene that at the end is shown to have no plot value whatsoever, as the Macguffin of the scene turns out to be worthless. Pointless…

Christopher Waltz as the villian is excellent here, and does more to “de-construct” the superhero genre than Kick-Ass ever will. His remarks about “branding” himself and becoming more scary were bang on the money, and funny as well.

I guess all in all The Green Hornet could have used a sense of what it was. Is it a comedy based around an action movie or an action movie with some funny bits? Personally I think the former is where it succeeds best, but a bit more focus would have been nice. That, or at least make the action interesting…

OVERALL

The Green Hornet certainly gets an A for effort, but it loses grasp of what could have made it a good movie in the first place. Gondry shows surprisingly little directorial flair here, and phones int he action sequences. It’s a pity, cuz we could have had an excellent little movie here, instead of just a passable one.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Green Hornet” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

100 – The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The Incredible Hulk REVIEW

3.5/5 stars

Director – Louis Leterier

Cast - Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson

——————–

The Incredible Hulk, directed by French action director Louis Leterrier, continues the slew of superhero movies we’ve been getting recently. It is set in the same Marvel Universe as Iron Man, and the upcoming movies The Avengers, Thor, and Captain America, but we do not know that until the end. This is not a sequel to Ang Lee’s 2003 movie Hulk, but is a reboot of the series.

Edward Norton takes the role of Bruce Banner, a scientist who accidentally exposes himself to massive amounts of radiation while undergoing an experiment. Unable to control the beast that he can periodically become when angry as a result of the accident, he flees the country. The father of his fiance, General Ross (played admirably by William Hurt) chases him, wishing to find a way to make a weapon out of the Hulk.

Edward Norton is effective as always, but I have never been as huge a fan of Norton as others seem to be. William Hurt is excellent as the General hunting Banner down, but the true standout in the movie is Tim Roth as Blonsky, a soldier working under the General. He eventually injects himself with a serum, attempting to recreate the effects of the Hulk, and he becomes a beast known as the Abomination. Roth retains his British accent for the role, and is natural, menacing, and entirely believable.

The movie itself is gritty and tough. The new Hulk is a darker shade of green, and a little oily looking. (This may be a reflection on the slightly “off” CGI used with the Hulk though.) The movie in general seems to have been tinted slightly green, as a recognition of its main character, and that look works very well.

The Incredible Hulk really tries to get to the heart of its main character, to display some feeling and create empathy. It tries but ultimately fails to do this, or at least in as lofty a manner as it wants to, mainly because it sticks to the tried and true formula of this type of movie. There is not much here that we could not have guessed beforehand that we would see. Banner doesn’t like being this uncontrollable, check. His girlfriend has moved on and he doesn’t like it, check. He forces himself to fight the Abomination at the end, check. I sometimes think that when you can’t get the level of emotional intensity needed by focusing on the characters (Fantastic 4 is a perfect example), you shouldn’t try. Directors should remember that these characters already come with a certain level of emotional investment, and shouldn’t push for too much of it in their films if it doesn’t come naturally.

The action in the film is good however, it is quick, clean, and often brutal. Once or twice it may get a bit fanciful, mainly after Blonsky gets a low dose of “super soldier” serum (or something). I think the main problem with the movie is that whenever there is not an action scene the dialogue often feels draggy, unfocused, and repetitive. I don’t want to speak of what I do not know, but after hearing of Norton’s constant script meddling I can’t help but wonder if this comes from him? Maybe?

OVERALL

The Incredible Hulk is strong when it comes to action, but the whole thing comes off as tired, mainly due to its meandering non-action scenes. A little less of the repetition and less cliché would have produced a lean, mean little movie. This one is fat and mean, and could have done with some trimming. However the effective action and the superhero universe references let me recommend this, but mainly to superhero fans. And hey, it’s better than Ang Lee’s Hulk.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Incredible Hulk” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

 

89 – Iron Man 2 (2010)

Iron Man 2 REVIEW

3.5/5 stars

Director - Jon Favreau

Cast - Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansen, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L. Jackson

——————–

- follows Iron Man

——————–

Iron Man 2, directed by Jon Favreau, has hit theatres with quite a bit of expectation. The first movie in the franchise, Iron Man, was a surprise hit both with audiences and critics alike. Robert Downey Jr. returns to the role that got his career and respect back, and is joined by Mickey Rourke (another star who recently experienced a comeback), Sam Rockwell, and Scarlett Johansen.

The plot concerns a Russian, Ivan Vanko, a mechanical genius who tries to get back at Tony Stark (Iron Man) for perceived injustices perpetrated against his father by Tony’s father, Howard Stark. Meanwhile, Tony discovers that his high-tech “artificial heart” is contaminating his blood stream, and must find a new element to stop the contamination. (I’m not sure what he needs a new element for; something to do with “soaking up” the toxins, something like that.)

While Iron Man 2 is a fairly decent movie, as is too often the case it cannot live up to its predecessor (which was over-hyped in the first place, in my opinion). Superhero sequels are often hurt by adding more villains, but this is not the case here. Mickey Rourke is quite good as Ivan Vanko. One look at him and you know he’s a bad SOB. Sam Rockwell is also good as the smarmy, in-over-his head weapons developer Justin Hammer. What almost ruins this movie though is predictable plotting, and resulting from that, an almost total lack of urgency.

To invent the new element needed to save his artificial heart, Tony Stark must decipher his fathers words and figure out why he was left a large-scale model of an exposition park. Unfortunately this portion of the movie takes about two seconds, and any potential suspense-wise that such an idea may have had is totally lost.

Throughout the movie we never feel that Tony may die due to his problems, so the movie is left with nothing to take you through than its action and witty quips. Now there are quite a few funny bits throughout, and the movie has a nice breezy tone, but the action sequences are fairly toned down for a super hero movie. This was a surprise, certainly, but I have yet to decide whether or not it was a pleasant one. On the one hand we aren’t bludgeoned over the head with pointless action, yet on the other hand the movie felt slow and a bit draggy. Either way, it left me a bit… unsatisfied. All in all, I think that’s a good way to describe the movie. Passable, but lacking what wit or spark the original may have had.

 OVERALL

Iron Man 2 is a fair enough movie, with some of the same ingredients of the (slightly over-rated) original. The villains are good, and some of the action is decent. But unfortunately the pace is off and the sense of fun isn’t quite up to par. It is better than many superhero movies however, and Robert Downey Jr. has created a quite likable character, so I do recommend it. Mainly to superhero lovers though…

——————–

TRAILER

“Iron Man 2″ on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

66 – Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Begins REVIEW

4/5 stars

Director - Christopher Nolan

Cast – Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neesom, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer

—————————————-

- followed by The Dark Knight

—————————————-

Batman Begins came along in 2005  to reboot the Batman franchise, and there is no denying it certainly did so. It went from the Gothic fun of Burton(Batman and Batman Returns) and campy  adventure with Schumacher (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) to more gritty fun. The series would later skip styles with Nolan’s own The Dark Knight, which essentially ripped off Heat.

Despite all this I think Batman Begins has recieved too much credit for reinventing the superhero genre as a whole. There were certainly dark superhero movies before this. Take Daredevil for example (the Director’s Cut preferably).

Batman Begins is still a fun adventure movie, for all its grittiness. It has fast paced action, and a couple good one liners. However its succes is in its balance of the fun and serious sides of the movie. There is one sort-of-running-gag involving a coat that is quite funny. Chrsitian Bale as Batman himself is quite decent. He embodies well both the angst-pretending-to-be-playboy Bruce Wayne and the pure kick ass fury of Batman. His fellow cast members also hold up well. I just wish Nolan was a bit better at directing action scenes. He cuts so fast that there are many fight scenes where we just can not really see what is happening. This is a recent (and, in my opinion, worrying) trend, best encapsulated by Quantum of Solace, where an excellent movie was ruined by bad action scenes.

In some ways this Batman is not as clean cut as the “Batmen” of the past. He is actually concerned about what it means to be a killer, and is concerned with making sure he not only does the right thing , but that he does it in the right way. He is no longer about being the ultimate righter of evil, the ass-kicker of bad guys. He is smarter than that. He is emotionally mature. He is “post-9/11″ (whatever the heck that means anymore), and he is self aware.

Just like Batman was a classic product of the 1980′s, Batman Begins is a perfect representation of the 2000′s. This is our Batman. I wonder what the version of the next 20 years will be like…

OVERALL

Batman Begins is a good action movie, and even though it’s dramatic center may seem to head off into pop psychology once in a while, it still maintains interest with its fast pacing, introspective mood and sense of fun. It is certainly up around the top when it comes to superhero movies. It is also one of those rare movies (especially rare among action movies) that is quite re-watchable. Recommended.

——————–

TRAILER

“Batman Begins” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

65 – The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight REVIEW

4.5/5 stars

Director - Christopher Nolan

Cast – Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhall, Morgan Freeman, Chin Han

—————————————-

– follows Batman Begins

—————————————-

After the success of The Dark Knight (it brought in over a billion dollars, one of only four movies ever to do that) it looks like Nolan will be getting free reign in Hollywood, for a while at least. I guess it depends on how well Inception does. As it is now, though, The Dark Knight and Chrisopher Nolan are Warner Brothers pride and joy.

The Dark Knight is the sequel to 2005′s Batman Begins, which set a new standard for moody and atmospheric superhero movies. While Batman Begins was visually dark and muddy, Nolan looked to Heat for the visual tone of The Dark Knight, precise blues and high contrast blacks. This concept goes somewhat to the plot as well. The plot takes place over not too long a time, and is focused more or less on a single crime spree, while Batman Begins focuses on the genesis of Batman and involved more characters. This is both a saving grace and a curse, but more on that later.

Heath Ledger (RIP) has of course recieved much praise for his performance as The Joker. Suffice it to say that he would deserve any and all praise possible. He has created one of the most original, creepy, and wonderful characters ever put on film. Enough about that.

The movie certainly suceeds in its attempt to make a more realistic superhero movie. Nolan shot the movie in Chicago, and as a stand-in for Gotham it works wonderfully in this context. However if you are looking for the Gothic mood and dark lines of the traditional Gotham City arhitecture, then you are in for a disappointment. Indeed, The Dark Knight breaks quite a few of the more traditional Batman rules in its attempt to be more realistic. This is pretty much fine, however I couldn’t help feeling that the realism of the setting clashed (or at least didn’t quite mesh) with the rather fantastic characters of The Joker and especially Two-Face. I really only noticed this on second or third viewing though, and if I watched it that many times it can’t be that bad.

The acting in the movie is uniformly good. I (and the rest of the world) have already mentioned Ledger’s beyond excellent portrayal of The Joker, but Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Christian Bale, etc. all deserve praise. Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhal can be a bit over the top at times, reminding me of the type of acting one can get on the afternoon soaps, but they are solid enough that any real complaint is just nitpicking.

Any real problem I have with the movie is toward the style. Batman Begins was essentially an adventure movie, had fairly quick and sporadic editing, muddy tones, etc., all of which are hallmarks of Nolan to some degree. Here he copied Heat, a movie that was methodical, cold, and (I think) almost boring and over rated. So in some parts I found The Dark Knight to be almost going through the motions, doing its best to keep the story going as it builds up to a very impressing climax. A prime example of this is a sequence set in Tokyo. It was a cool sequence, but felt like filler.

OVERALL

The Dark Knight is a good movie. Too many people have been treating it like the Second Coming, so in that sense it is over-rated. It has flaws, to be sure, but it also Heath Ledger in one of films best performances ever. The idea of a realistic superhero movie is great, and the execution of that idea is good here. Definitely recommended.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Dark Knight” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

62 – Fantastic Four (2005)

Fantastic Four: Extended Cut REVIEW

2 /5 stars

Director - Tim Story

Cast - Ioan Gruffund, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis, Julian McMahon

——————–

Fantastic Four starts out well. That’s pretty much the best I can say about it.

The beginning had me interested; it was snappy, fun, and was all about the fun and awe that a superhero comic book may have given. Chris Evans perfectly embodied the brash hot shot who becomes the Human Torch, and Michael Chiklis was deserving of our sympathy as The Thing. After that… if you’ve ever wondered what a superhero soap opera would look like, this is it.

The movie focuses on the characters, not action, which in theory is admirable. Too many movies, especially superhero movies, focus on action over content.

However while this movie does have some interesting points, it treats its emotions with cliche and all the subtelty of a sledgehammer. And it’s BORING. This is coming from a guy who puts 2001: A Space Odyssey ( an extremely slow-paced 2 hr 20 min) and Lawrence of Arabia (3.5 hours) as being two of the best movies ever made. How does a movie about a stretchy man, a human flying fireball, an invisible woman, and a troll-like rock of a man end up boring? By helming a superhero movie with the same director as Taxi (Tomatometer of 11%), that’s how.

To put it simply, throughout the whole movie I was dying for an action scene. But when we are served up an action scene or two it is either over too fast, full of bad CG (as in whenever Mr. Fantastic stretches), or just, again, boring.

OVERALL

Fantastic Four tried to do a good thing by focusing on its characters, but in the end its heavy handed treatment of such drags the whole thing down. While its opening is snappy and fun, all energy is quickly lost. Add in a cookie cutter visual design and villian, and this movie is sunk.

——————–

TRAILER

“Fantastic Four” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

24 – Batman Returns (1992)

Batman Returns REVIEW

4/5 stars

Director - Tim Burton

Cast - Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfieffer, Danny DeVito, Christopher Walken

—————————————-

– follows Batman

– followed by Batman Forever

——————-——————-

It is rare that a sequel be better than its predecessor. It has certainly happened before, with The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and, some say, Godfather II. With Batman Returns we have another example.

Now I didn’t really like the previous movie, Batman, but this movie is one of my guilty pleasures. It has a great balance between zaniness and adventure, with great performances by Danny DeVito (The Penguin) and Michelle Pfieffer (Catwoman). Michael Keaton’s Batman takes a back seat to the villains, which works better than I would have thought it would. There is a surprising amount of humor in the movie,with Michelle Pfieffer showing amazing comic timing. Danny DeVito has quite a few jokes as well, although much of it involves sexual wordplay and innuendo. Many parents took offense to this, as Batman Returns was advertised as a family friendly movie; and I must admit I see their point. However, for adults obviously it poses no problem.

The pacing of the movie is great as well, with (thank the powers that be) no Prince music. Those were mainly what I took issue with in the first movie, but here there are no such snags. The movie clips along, taking us along for a thrilling and macabre ride. One shot in particular shows off Tim Burton’s fondness for model work; the camera skims along the snow covered ground at night, passes through the Gotham Zoo gates, and flies around the area, passing sinister ice covered structures before diving into the sewers. With Danny Elfman’s wonderful music accompanying it, that shot alone is worth the price of admission.

OVERALL

This movie is quite good, having a great sense of fun and adventure, but still delving into the bizarre once in a while for some great sequences. The comedy is great also. Batman Returns is without a doubt the best of the pre-Christopher Nolan Batman movies. However, you might want to leave the kids home for this one; many scenes would be quite scary for them, and the sexual references are a bit much for their age.

——————–

TRAILER

“Batman Returns” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

21 – Batman (1989)

Batman REVIEW

3/5 stars

Director – Tim Burton

Cast - Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger

—————————————-

– followed by Batman Returns

——————–——————–

Tim Burton’s Batman is often cited as the start of the “comic book era” in recent years. Yes, nowadays we can’t turn around without getting a new comic book movie shoved in our face (most of dubious quality, i.e. The Fantastic Four and sequel, Catwoman, any Punisher movie ever made, and millions more.) Thanks Tim…

Before Batman there weren’t really any superhero movies of note except the Superman franchise, also a Warner Bros. property. Batman, as a movie and a character, is much different than Superman. He’s darker, lonelier, and in my opinion, a better, more rounded character; and Tim Burton sure brings us that. Michael Keaton as Batman is pretty much an inspired choice, he brings a strange loneliness vibe to him that is well, refreshing. Jack Nicholson as the Joker is a bit “on the nose” so to say, he doesn’t act in the role so much as play-act. He’s playing himself and he knows it. Nonetheless he still fits in the character. The supporting cast are good as well.

The problem with this movie however, is that for everything that Burton and crew does well (the casting, the atmosphere, the production design, Danny Elfman’s music), he does another thing poorly or even awfully. Examples of this would be the pace of the movie (extremely draggy and unfocused, by the climax I just didn’t care anymore), and the music by Prince (when the Joker and henchman start dancing it almost turns into a ridiculous musical number, awful stuff). Also, the last third of the movie is pretty formulaic, so while it brings the story to a close, it doesn’t do anything with the potential accumulated in the first two-thirds. The tension builds up and up and then… just action. And poorly done action at that.

OVERALL

The production design is great (except for the Joker’s awfully dated goons), the music is “note-perfect”, and the characters are done well. However, the movie is dragged down by the pace, the general unfocused feel of the script, and Burton’s inexperience with directing action scenes. Worth a watch if you like Batman, but probably not otherwise.

——————–

TRAILER

“Batman” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-