Thor (2011)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Released: May 6, 2011


My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)





A bit bland and formulaic, and could have used a better story, but it has enjoyable characters, humor, and action, and is not bad overall.  It's a bit meh, but it's a bit entertaining, although it's not something I'd want to watch more than once.

Thor is one of the "prequels" to The Avengers - the "prequels" are Iron Man, Iron Man 2,
Thor, Captain America, and The Incredible Hulk.  I still have yet to see The Incredible Hulk, but I have seen the other four films.  I personally think that Thor is the worst of them.  However, despite it's ultimate shortcomings, it does have its positive aspects.

The story is about Thor of Asgard.  This arrogant Thor recklessly travels to another world called Jotunheim with Loki and some other Asgardian warriors and attacks the Frost Giants there, stirring up tension and possible war between Jotunheim and Asgard.  As a result, Odin, Thor's father, strips Thor of his powers, and his mighty hammer, and banishes him to Earth.

On earth, in New Mexico, astrophysicist Jane Foster is researching a phenomenon in the desert (which turns out to be associated with Asgard-related activity, in this case Thor's banishment).  Thor arrives and is discovered by Jane and her partners, and pretty soon he begins to learn the error of his arrogant ways, and he even falls in love with Jane.  Meanwhile, Loki has taken over the Throne of Asgard, and he plans to send the Destroyer to earth to kill Thor, and Thor must retrieve his hammer and his powers to save both earth and Asgard.

The film has both its ups and downs.  I'll start out by talking about the effects.  The visual effects are pretty good.  The mythical words are pretty well designed, and the actions scenes are good.  As for the script, it does have its flaws, but it's an acceptable script.  The story isn't the best, and it's a bit bland and formulaic, but again, it's acceptable.  It even has some creativity in it.  Unfortunately, however, despite its creativity, it's a bit bland and formulaic.  The first act of the film (the first half hour) is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the film, and it felt to me that the movie was relying a bit too much on effects, but it does establish the characters and basis necessary for the story.  It's also where most of the film's creativity is.

Weak as the first act is, I did find some things a bit interesting, and some things were introduced that had a lot of potential to get even better and more interesting and creative.  But unfortunately, at the end of the first act, right after Thor arrives on earth, the movie abandons a lot of its creativity and resorts to a formula.  Some of the things in the first act (which had a lot of creative and interesting potential) are even abandoned and not brought up again in the film.  This, and the film's bland-ness, and a few other flaws, are the main reason why I only gave this film two and a half stars instead of three or higher (it almost got three, but it just missed it).  Also, I felt that the Thor/Jane romance was a bit rushed.

However, despite this, the film does get going a little bit more after Thor's banishment.  This is where the heart and characters begin to shine.  That brings up what I liked most about the film: the characters.  I found them somewhat likable and interesting.  The film even has a surprisingly good sense of humor; there are a lot of good comedy moments.  These things are not strong enough to bring the film up to a higher rating, but they are still somewhat enjoyable.  I especially liked Loki, even though he's the villain, and I was glad to see him and Thor return for The Avengers.

So, overall, I think Thor is a so-so movie.  It is a bit bland and formulaic, and could have used a better story, but it has enjoyable characters, humor, and action, and is not bad overall.  It's a bit meh, but it's a bit entertaining, although it's not something I'd want to watch more than once.




Cast and Credits:
Thor: Chris Hemsworth
Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Jane Foster: Natalie Portman
Odin: Anthony Hopkins
Erik Selvig: Stellan Skarsgard

Paramount Pictures presents
a film directed by Kenneth Branagh

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence

Rear Window (1954)

Genre: Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 1, 1954

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)




Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.



As of right now, I have only seen three of Alfred Hitchcock's films: Psycho, Vertigo, and now Rear Window.  I have to say, I already like the way Hitchcok creates suspense, and also his methods of storytelling and tampering with narrative elements.  A number of people, including film critic James Berardinelli, consider Rear Window to be Hitchcock's best film.  As of right now, I personally agree; I've only seen three of his films, but Rear Window is my favorite of the three.

Rear Window is appropriately named.  The protagonist, L. B. Jefferies (James Stewart), is a professional photographer with a broken leg, and is therefore confined to his apartment in New York.  He spends the time watching his neighbors from his rear window (see, I told you the film was appropriately named).  Soon, however, he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors might have murdered his wife, and he becomes obsessed with this mystery, and eventually he even gets his girlfriend to help him investigate.

What I loved most about the film was the way the story is told.  Just like Vertigo and Psycho, Rear Window has a strong and unmatched uniqueness and, even though elements of the film have almost certainly been used in films between then and now.  What I really found interesting is the "restriction" of the film; except for a brief spot near the end, the film is entirely restricted to inside Jefferies's apartment and his view from his rear window.  The events of the story that happen outside of the apartment are either only mentioned in the dialogue or seen from the window.

However, despite this restriction to voyeurism, it's actually somewhat interesting watching going-ons outside in the courtyard and through the windows of other people's apartments, even though we are watching these things from a distance instead of having the scenes be set in those actual areas.  Even in real life, a lot can often be learned even just by watching, and it can be quite interesting.  Also, the suspense in the film handled very well.  And I should also point out that, like in Psycho and Vertigo, the the story is not entirely predictable; Hitchcock cleverly throws in some things that flout the audience's expectations.

In addition to all of this, the actors, especially James Stewart, put on good performances.  They are likable and believeable.  Jefferies is a semi-interesting character, and his relationship with his girlfriend, Lisa, is handled pretty well.  The other performances are good too.  Overall, the performances in this movie are another factor that make the film great, and they are especially useful given the "containment" of the film's story.

Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, and overall good moral messages, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.






Cast and Credits:
L. B. Jefferies: James Stewart
Lisa Fremont: Grace Kelly
Det. Lt. Doyle: Wendell Corey
Lars Thorwald: Raymond Burr
Stella: Thelma Ritter

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Rated PG

King Kong (2005)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Romance

Released: December 14, 2005

 

My Rating: 
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.

A number of people complain that James Cameron's Avatar was a huge show-off of CGI with flaws, a weak, thin story, and very little substance.  I disagree with this, but I do think that this statement would be somewhat accurate in describing Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, which I saw on Sunday (October 7, just four days ago).  I wouldn't describe this film using that statement word-for-word, but the "massive amount of CGI and lots of flaws" part is pretty accurate for this film, if you ask me.

I've seen a clip of original 1933 King Kong film, but I've never seen the entire film, so I won't be able to compare and contrast the films.  So I will just talk about this film.  The story is set in 1933.  Film director Carl Denham (Jack Black) wants to travel to a mysterious island called Skull Island to finish his film.  He finds a lead lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts).  After a while, during which Ann falls in love with Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), they reach the island, but soon the natives there capture Ann and give her up to Kong, a giant gorilla.  Kong takes Ann and retreats into the jungle, and Carl, Jack, and the crew go in after her, along the way encountering many creatures and other dangers.

The visual effects in this film are very good and convincing.  Everything is designed with great detail, especially Kong.  James Newton Howard composed a good score for the film.  And I liked Kong himself.  He's not just a one-dimensional figure; he actually has some personality and depth, and I did feel the emotional impact of his death at the end of the film.  And I liked the scenes involving Ann and Kong, and I liked the bond that developed between them (although it should have been stronger).

Now for the criticisms...where you you like me to begin?    In my opinion, the film is way too long.  It also has some serious pacing and structure issues.  The exposition is too long; over an hour passes before Kong appears.  I was hoping for the movie to get better after Kong's initial appearance.  This is where Ann is taken by Kong, and Carl, Jack, and the crew follow them deeper into the island.  But, unfortunately, (at least for me) it actually got worse after Kong's appearance.  The film basically discards most of its substance, and many other things established in the hour-long first act (and the natives on the island who give Ann to Kong), and goes into over-the-top and overly-long CGI sequences.  I felt to me almost as if the film couldn't make up its mind as to what is important and what is pointless.  The storyline is somewhat cluttered, and, again, not properly paced.  Things are not paid off properly, etc., and don't have the bones to support them.

The film had so much potential, and, in my opinion it ended up blowing most of it.  Again, I haven't seen the original 1933 film, but even so, this film (2005) could have been great.  Like I said before, the effects are interesting, and a lot of the design is good, but the film even had trouble here.  The creatures that the characters encounter on the island seemed more as if they were designed mainly to look cool or scary rather than anything else.  Also, the "world" (Skull Island) doesn't really work with the narrative like it should.  It, and the CGI, felt more like it was there to just look cool and distract the viewer from the flaws, which of course does not work on me.  Also, good as the effects are, some of the creatures and sequences were pretty stupid; I almost rolled my eyes in a few areas.

I felt that Skull Island was begging for a firm establishment in the film, even as a character in itself.  I felt that it was begging to have the film go somewhat into its history, biology, etc, and that the film should have maybe gone into Kong's background, and stuff like that (and more about the natives).  Unfortunately, the film does not do this.  Maybe if it did, it would somewhat justify the three-hour running time.  But it doesn't, and it ends up being too thin and too long.  Also, the Kong/Ann and Kong's death scenes, effective as they are, could have been much better.

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.  It has some redeeming values, but it has to many flaws, in my opinion.  It felt almost like a great movie trapped in a lame one.

Note: Avatar, like King Kong, has some script flaws and could have used more depth, but in my opinion it's actually an okay movie.  It's solid, coherent, and has a much better world.  Also, in my opinion, the world Pandora actually felt alive to me, and I felt that it was actually a character in the film (not to mention carefully crafted with actual thoughts towards science, biology, ecosystems, etc., rather than just things to look cool).  Also, in my opinion, Avatar has more meaning (it's not meaningless at all), more emotion, more relatability, much stronger romance, and a much more coherent story.

Cast and Credits:

Ann Darrow: Naomi Watts

Carl Denham: Jack Black

Jack Driscoll: Adrian Brody

Universal Pictures presents

A film directed by Peter Jackson

Running time: 187 min.

Rated PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images