Thor: The Dark World

While Thor: The Dark World has just as many (if not more) plot holes than it's predecessor, The Avengers, I found it equally irresistible and thrilling.

Directed by: Alan Taylor
Released: 2013
Staring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Eccelston, Kat Dennings, & Stellan Skarsgård

I swear I don't hate Marvel sequels, I just wish everyone get their directorial butts off of the Joss Wheaton bandwagon and start creating again instead of copying. 

  2011 was a hype year for Marvel Comics, releasing Thor and Captain America within two months of each other. The hype was all building to the biggest film success of 2012, The Avengers, which beat out Christopher Nolan's Batman finale The Dark Knight Rises by more than 220 million dollars. First glances didn't do much for me, thinking both Thor and Captain America were nothing more than the dumbed down superhero movies that climb to the top of every summer box office, I didn't make an effort to see either in theaters. A year later, both films were released to Netflix and I thought I should see what all the fuss was about, surprisingly I thoroughly enjoyed both!

Sir Kenneth Branagh filming on the set of Thor (2011)

  Kenneth Branagh, the Lawrence Oliver of our generation, is the best Shakespearian Actor/Director working in film today. His adaptions of Hamlet and Much To Do About Nothing are two of my personal favorite films; however, there was a point in his career when his success had clearly gone to his head. Branagh is good, in fact he's great as both an actor and director, but his knowing that lead him to make some serious professional mistakes. Time has matured Branagh from a head strong star, into a mature, highly respectable talent.

  For many, an Oscar winning, Shakespearian trained actor would be the last to take on a comic book -action film. This is what's great about Branagh, he surprises, and his take on Thor was one brilliant surprise. The thing about Thor is the story itself is deeply Shakespearian...rival brothers, buying for their barbaric father's throne...and THAT'S why Branagh was a perfect choice to direct it. His over theatricality in acting HELPS him while directing, creating top notch productions that are visually stunning. The story is there without sub-plots or distractions. The clear cut, classic story line of Thor is perhaps why I didn't react as positively to it's sequel. 

  Now before any Marvel fans break out the pitchforks and torches, let me say this. I LIKE THE AVENGERS. I REALLY LIKE THOR: THE DARK WORLD. I enjoyed them all immensely, they're fun, action packed, and charismatic...that being said, both films are riddled with poor film making decisions and plot holes. If you want a break down of a "good" movie verses an "enjoyable" movie check out my review of The Avengers. The first installment of Thor was a magical combination of both quality and entertaining filmmaking but then came The Avengers and every Marvel film to follow has been an attempt to mirror Joss Wheaton's cheeky humor and over the top action, Thor: The Dark World is no exception.  

 Thor: The Dark World is occasionally confused and jumpy, trying desperately to make many of the same jokes that made The Avengers a success. Don't get me wrong, I was laughing the whole way through. Gags and laughs are great to break the tension, but when they're injected every 10 minutes the build to the climax is rough and almost nonexistent. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat, concerned for Thor in his battle with Malekith but I couldn't when the film was pulling jokes every other shot. The disruption of continuity honestly gets a bit annoying at times...JUST LET THEM DUKE IT OUT! It's NOT Joss Wheaton directing and we the audience KNOW this...and yet it's his STYLE...it seems like a bit of directorial plagiarism...but I don't want to get into that.  

  

  Another reason for The Dark World's confused state is due to it's plot line...there's simply too much and not enough time spent addressing it all. I'm just going to call bogus on this plot line right now because IT IS. Honestly, who wrote this film because I'm positive they just threw darts at a board to see what should happen next in the movie and to what character. But just like The Avengers, I end up not really giving a crap. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would watch it again in a heartbeat! 

...is this a good thing? This is serious question that should be asked...there is so much going on in this film, so many sub-plots, so many inside Avengers jokes, so much MUCHNESS that it should have turn the movie into a failure right? Right, but it DOESN'T...I don't know how Marvel does it, but with all the continuity problems this film has and the contrived plot line, I can't bring myself to say The Dark World is a BAD film. I can, however, say this of Iron Man 3...sorry World, I have to get this off of my chest, Iron Man 3 was ridiculous...ugh, but still mostly enjoyable...damn it...this is turing into the most contradictory review of my career...

  The  problems in The Dark World could have been solved has the filmmakers taken a bit more time...The Dark World is NOT a long film; had it been, many of the holes could have been filled, the pacing smoothed and overall quality of the film improved.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki is dealt some serious time out in Thor: The Dark World

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth as quarreling adopted brothers Loki and Thor.

  Thor, you know, hangs around being Thor, swinging his Hammer and stuff...beating up on the baddies, check. Honestly it's not the character development people pay to see. They pay to see Thor, his hammer, and his muscles do some serious damage to other worldly villians...and Loki.

  Oh Loki, you are such a little maniacal trickster...Tom Hiddleston again knocks it out of the park in his portrayal of The God of Mischief. In The Dark World, Hiddleston lets loose all that crazy, "I do what I want"attitude and schemes Loki has been harboring while imprisoned. It may be called "Thor", but there is no doubt that this series and The Avengers  owes much of it's popularity to Hiddleston and his devilishly handsome and infuriating Loki. Is he GOOD? Is he BAD? Who's team is he on? The answer to that is team Loki, but he never fails to drive fans and audiences crazy with guessing. Marvel has obviously recognized and monopolized on Hiddleston, having him return to set and shoot extra scenes later added to the film.

As a Doctor Who fanatic, I was ecstatic when I heard Ninth Doctor, Christopher Eccelston was cast as the main villian. Eccelston delivers with some AWESOME prosthetics in tow, but again, I desperately wish he would have been given more screen time. Malekith's battle with Thor is action packed but interrupted by so many slap stick jokes I found it difficult to become truly invested.
The design of Malekith and his army of Dark Elves is exceptionally creepy without being hokey, I was pleasantly surprised and satisfied.

  Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård return as the blunt and lovable Darcy, and Doctor Erik Selvig...who may or may not be lacking pants in several scenes. These two are hilarious and Dennings especially is a scenes stealer, I would have loved to see her and Loki share some screen time. Natalie Portman is back as itty bitty Jane Foster, hottest scientist to walk the earth. She and Hemsworth have a couple nice scenes but again, much of the time needed to build a serious relationship that the audience can become invested in is lost. Performances around the board are strong included Anthony Hopkins who's Odin still resorts to growling like a bear and refusing to show Loki any love; and Rene Russo plays a Julie Christie-esque Frigga who has a nice, Bad {Ass}gardian moment half way through the film.  

  In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World is not without it's faults but the same can be said for any action film; especially one from Marvel. The company is a cash cow and audience will never be in short supply of Superheroes and Villains to watch on the big screen. The Dark World is leagues better than the slap in the face sequel that was Iron Man 3, and I hope Captain America: The Winter Soldier to be just as enjoyable...although I'm sure I'll have a bone or two to pick  concerning the Cap as well. There comes a genre of film where, as outlandish as it's story may be, I as a reviewer must sit back and enjoy the spectacle; Marvel films, and their subsequent sequels, have proved to be that genre of film.  

It's just too cool to not like...

12 Years a Slave

Steve McQueen's brutally honest film depicts both the best and (mostly) the worst of man kind. 

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Released: 2013

Staring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lupita Nyong'o, & Brad Pitt

Rated: R 

Times Viewed: 1

  Every fall as the weather transforms from glowing warmth to chilling cold, a new film season emerges to draw audiences to theaters. The first budding blooms include previously reviewed films Gravity & Captain Phillips; each release seemingly better than the next. Awards Season may only be in it's early, yet essential months of release, but Steve McQueen's bio-pic 12 Years A Slave may possess what it takes to persist the cold winter winds all the way to March 2nd. 

  12 Years A Slave tells the true tale of Solomon Northup; a free black man, making a living as a violinist in upstate New York before being tricked and sold into slavery.  Frame by frame, director Steve McQueen paints an unrelenting portrait of the human soul in both it's brightest and darkest colors.

Cinematgrapher Sean Bobbitt & Director Steve McQueen

  12 Years a Slave is meticulously crafted, each individual shot looks as though it could be a masterpiece painting. The angles at which cinematographer Sean Bobbitt and McQueen shoot are unique, fresh, and fascinating. Wether it be Benedict Cumberbatch standing in a door frame with Chiwetel Ejiofor at his feet; or Ejiofor hanging from a tree, the source of his punishment and suffering, an unfinished cabin looming in the background, the imagery and iconicism are breathtaking. No frame was shot without the closest consideration, and every shot is intentional and for that reason, powerful.

  From the beginning scenes of the film McQueen uses camera angles, light and sound to establish the right from the wrong, the natural from the unnatural. The film begins with Solomon cutting sugar cane but moves quickly into another scene later that night in which he and a fellow female slave become intimate. The scene was shot from a tight, overhead, horizontal view, the characters only visible from the chest down. The abruptness of the scene is somewhat jarring in not only it's placement in the film but also the angle at which it was shot, with both actors heads situated far screen right. The lighting is cold and harsh. Another rapid cut to atheistically contrasted shot; Solomon and his wife sit in bed in upright vertical positions. A warm light is cast around them and both actors are centered screen, a comfortable distance from the audience. The transition from one intimate scene to another create a vivid image to emotionally influence the audience as to what feels warm and safe, verses cold and uncomfortable. 

  "Uncomfortable" is a word many would use to describe any number of scenes in 12 Years A Slave but eliciting an emotion from an audience is the sign of a true director. McQueen utilizes not only camera angles/light but also manipulates sounds and ABSENCE of sound. A score by Hans Zimmer feeds the desolate undercurrent of the film but rises when called upon to become a tool of heightened drama. Sound builds and builds in moments of strife; however, once action has been taken, the audience is left with nothing but the bodily sounds of the characters, accompanied by silence. It's this silence that delivers the true impact of suffering better than any motif ever could. 

Our main character left hanging by a rope, his toes sloppily grace the mudded ground below last for an "uncomfortable" amount of time. No synthetic sound is heard, and with nothing but staggered breathes and the call of birds, this is the most powerful scene in the whole film. Prolonged silences and takes are what drive 12 Years a Slave and turn a possible generic period film into Oscar GOLD.

The beautiful Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey along side Michael Fassbender & Chiwetel Ejiofor. 

12 Years A Slave has quite the list of Hollywood names, those names however are reputable, respected names. 

  Adds are selling this as a Brad Pitt film when in reality his total screen time can't equal more than 15 minutes; that being said, he gives a well acted performance. Pitt's hand is more in producing than acting which, I have no complaints about. It takes a strong and humble actor to have so much invested in a production and yet take such a small role. Pitt's eye and and status in film making have matured immensely over the past 10+ years and I can't help but feel my sense of respect for him, as both actor and person, grown.  

Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch & Paul Dano 

Benedict Cumberbatch's role as plantation owner Ford plays as the contrasting figure to Michael Fassbender's maniacally cruel and unhinged Edwin Epps. Ford, while a slaver non the less, displays acts of kindness, generosity, and humanity. Cumberbatch was a perfect choice for the role, not only a goodnatured face but he also emits a disposition to match. His range of work in 2013 alone must be noted and applauded. I find it hard to believe that this man on screen is the same who plays the cheeky Sherlock Holmes and intimated nerds world round as the ruthless Khan. Benedict Cumberbatch is a rising star who shows no signs of slowing down...and I hope he doesn't.

  Our leading man Chiwetel Ejiofor, a relative unknown to both me and most likely the average movie goer, gives a performance that is nothing short of superior. To pull the truth and raw emotion from a story and script such as this is a feat daunting to any actor, no matter what their status. Ejiofor demonstrates a fearlessness and force that radiates through the screen. As I wrote before, 12 Years A Slave features numerous prolonged scenes of silence with nothing but the actor and perhaps a breath of wind. These scenes could have become dull and lifeless but Chiwetel Ejiofor emotes pain, trepidation, and hope all through his eyes. He knows how to utilize his face without seeming overdramatic and mime-esque. When he does speak, his delivery is believable and powerful.

 

Closely tied with Ejiofor for best performance in this film is unsurprisingly Michael Fassbender. The audience isn't sure whether he's a racist or a sadist, or just plain insane, but what Michael Fassbender creates is nearly beyond words. He demonstrates a calmness that makes his character all the more dangerous and terrifying; a burning and intense gaze accompanies words that had many an audience member shaking their head and murmuring in disgust. Edwin Epps is an unforgiving man, holding true to the belief that these people are his property and he many do with his property as he chooses. In the same fashion, Fassbender's method and performance are just as unforgiving. He could have gone complete passion and emotion, yelling and gesturing about, but he saves it for when it counts...a silent attack that explodes at the slightest push. Michael Fassbender has proved time and time again to be one of the best performers working in cinema today in for his role in 12 Years A Slave I'd be shocked if he didn't receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

  Paul Geomati makes a brief but note worthy appearance and I've never heard an audience applaud so loudly as they did when Paul Dano's character was beaten by Solomon. THAT is a true testate to the power of acting and the influence it can have on an audience. Where Fassbender's character had a quiet  yet deranged force behind it, Dano was it's counterpart. His performance as the overseer Tibeats on Ford's plantation is a boiling pot of superiority and temperament, quick to jump on any slave that shoots him a definite eye and acting rashly with no concern for law and order.

  The performances in 12 Years a Slave were the strongest to have graced in screen in all of 2013 and I will be shocked if there's not one or more cast member who's nominated for an Academy Award. For all of it's successes, the film does get heavy. With very few, if any light moments, the film may prove hard for some to sit through. It's an intense emotional roller coaster from start to finish, but the quality of the production and performances make it well worth the strife. Moving in more ways than one and important in the fact this is not an African American movie, it's an AMERICAN movie. One of the greatest countries in the world, America is also one who's held a blood-soaked ledger.  Steve McQueen reminds us how important our history is, he shows us the good, the bad, and the worst of ALL Americans.

  The only other obstacle I see 12 Years facing is what I've come to call the "Lincoln Bug." This time last year, everyone had Steven Spielberg's presidential bio-pic to be front runner for the Academy's highest award; however, following it's release, interest in the film dissipated and soon it lost to thriller Argo. The problem with Lincoln was it was all talk no action....what everyone thought would be a stirring drama turned out to be a Daniel Day-Lewis performance piece filled with the President telling lengthy stories and jokes...while all performances were excellent (I did cry) as a whole, Lincoln was one of my biggest disappointments of last year. Honestly I don't think 12 Years will suffer the same fate...it's equal parts performance drama and cinematic beauty along with severe depictions of plantation life.

  12 Years a slave received a rousing reception at The Uptown Theater with both the 7:00 and 10:00 shows selling out, the 7:00 showing by 3:00pm! There was not a dry eye in the house during the final scene and credits. Goosebumps, cheers, and tears were a plenty throughout the film; this is one film that MUST not be missed for both it's cinematic achievements  and outstanding cast.