Interstellar

If you would have told me three years ago a Matthew McConaughey performance would leave me in tears (multiple times) I would have laughed in your face...

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Released: 2014

Staring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Caine

Rated: PG-13

  Christopher Nolan once again reminds me why I love cinema. A director who understands both the visual and narrative elements, he transports to worlds unknown and warps our minds all while keeping the story grounded in human relationships. Interstellar builds to a crescendo of sight, sound and emotion. A thrill to watch, this film is nothing less than the perfect cinematic experience. Nails were bit, tears shed, and breath taken away. Nolan, his creative team, and extensive acting ensemble create nothing short of the most original film of the year and (arguably) Nolan's best work. Before viewing Interstellar I pegged The Dark Knight as Nolan's definitive masterpiece; now, that title seems up for debate.

Bold and devilishly clever, director Christopher Nolan
on set with star Matthew McConaughey

The Dark Knight posses a timeless quality I call the re-watch factor. No matter how many times you've seen The Dark Knight there's always something new to appreciate in it's near perfect construction and execution. Interstellar lacks none of The Dark Knight's prestige or re-watchable attributes; those attributes, are simply different. I refrain from comparing Interstellar with Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (primarily The Dark Knight) on the basis of adapted vs. original work. In the respects of an action movie I would rate The Dark Knight a better, overall movie; however, Interstellar isn't JUST an action movie. What Nolan does brilliantly, in all of his films, is implement personal drama onto large scale crisis. He takes an action movie, a mystery thriller, or in Interstellar's case, sci-fi and injects one of humanities' biggest struggles; relationships with other humans.

  Simple or complex, human relationships define us. The decisions we make and how we react to decisions made by others drive our lives, making interactions with fellow humans unique. Nolan applies the emotional human scale as a spring board for the plot and Interstellar's utilization of human relationships propel the film higher than any of his pervious work. A heightened emotional drama such as Interstellar needs a top notch cast to effectively communicate with it's audience. Once again, under Nolan's watchful eye and carefully written script, the best of the best shine their brightest. Known for bringing together large, talented ensembles, Nolan runs into the problem of having too much talent and not enough material. Not lamenting the length of Interstellar ,it's nearly 3 hours long, but I found myself wanting more from each character. Smaller parts such as Casey Affleck's, are fascinating and so well performed it's a let down when they're not important enough to warrant more screen time. A problem, but perhaps not the worst one to have.

Talented novice Mackenzie Foy & newly minted Oscar Winner Matthew MacConaughey 

  A surprise appearance alongside talent both young and old, Interstellar's cast carry the film in ways stunning visuals never could. McConaughey delves deeper into his emotional range, exploring a relationship most of his earlier selfish characters never touched upon. The father daughter relationship. Creating an honest relationship on screen is hard, creating an honest relationship between an adult and a child, harder still yet McConaughey's and the fresh faced Mackenzie Foy's performances meld seamlessly. Their connection is an essential force that dictates the tone of the film and audience's reactions to it's development. Jessica Chastain remains one of commercial film's most under-rated gems. She, like most of the supporting cast, lack the time to build a real character connection with the audience, most of it come from the fact that she is the older version of McConaughey's daughter. Chastain takes what she's given and amplifies her character's importance none the less. Anne Hathaway's role and performance felt somewhat forced during her crucial, text heavy scenes but over all her presence adds variety to the cast. This is a nice way of saying that the Nolan Brother's scripts lack WOMEN, an important and intricate topic I may touch on in a later post bu for now I'll leave it at that.

Jessica Chastain adds another knock out performance to her resume

 Interstellar, like Inception, offers a unique story producing more than it's far share of shocks. That being said, after several different viewings those shocks loose their value, no matter how brilliantly they play out. Deconstructing Interstellar reveals a formula nearly identical to Inception. Not the film itself, just it's formula. Tropes of time travel i.e. relativity direct Interstellar's mind-bending story and unravel it's plot akin to Inception. A fascinating comparison that will have film theorist/analysis dissecting Nolan's two films for years to come.

  Similar tropes and themes don't hold Instellar back from being the most original film of the year. Hans Zimmer returns with an hauntly gorgeous score reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey, without a doubt, his best work since Inception. Shout out to the Orchestra's organ soloist whose disturbing and impactful chords set the film's otherworldly sense of dangerous beauty. Visuals, on par with any Nolan film, transcend expectations. Space allows unnumbered possibilities and Nolan accompanied by his team of visual effects artist take advantage of everyone of those possibilities.  A feat of senses and emotions, this bold space epic can not be missed on the big screen. Interstellar masterfully entrances audiences, cementing them to their seats and leaving them speechless.

Getting the chance to watch a film on 35mm was a real treat
and reading "This film was shot and finished on film" icing on the cake.

A taste of Hans Zimmer's beautiful score

Summer 2014, Condensed

 Never, in recent memory, have the spoils of the Summer Cinema been so fruitful. Summer proves a complicated time for cinefiles such as myself. Awards season drew to a close many months ago and the half-rate collection of spring releases finally complete their run. What are we to look forward to? BLOCKBUSTERS. Big-budget, ill constructed, entertainment pieces. I love a quality action film as much as any movie goer, but too often summer releases choose quantity over quality; a decision in my book, which is nothing short of a sin. The question arises how am I, as an advocate for The Art of the Film, suppose to enjoy the summer season when I know deep down I'm watching complete garbage? Says you the reader, "maybe you should stop being such a pretentious movie snob" and I the writer would happily agree; however, that proves difficult when you're drowning in a sea of loud, rude & crude, sloppy messes year after year.

  Fault can be found in any film if the viewer looks hard enough, but it so happens that the series of movies released in the Summer of 2014 were constructed well enough and were entertaining enough to disguise any obvious faults that usually plague similar releases. Despite that fact that I've seen more movies this summer than any other summer, my reviews failed to follow. I'll feed you excuses of work, work, work, tired, work, tired but DON'T accept them for an instant. My lack of in-depth  reviews, especially when I have such substance to delve into, is shameful. So here I sit, middle of August {NOW SEPTEMBER}, up to my eyeballs in un-reviewed films...what will I do? What any other short-on-time, behind-in-work reviewer would do...a list.

  My 2014 Summer Countdown consists of movies that I HAVE SEEN, released from May-August 12th September 7th, in no particular order.

  The Amazing Spider-Man 2

  My full review of the second install of the 2000-teens reboot can be found HERE and while the film suffed from a bloated story, too many villains, and several conveniently coincidental plot devices, I can't deny that I enjoyed Marc Webb's take on Spidey. Was the The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a complete set-up for a Marvel (as owned by Disney) esque attempt at The Sinister Six? Absolutely...Did I enjoy the pretty lights, slightly disturbing dub-step and non-sensical action? Yes. It was pure summer entertainment.

Godzilla

  Sadly my last fully reviewed movie was GODZILLA, all the way back in May. Shame on me. A film that I thought was shoe in for Summer's biggest hit ended up being one of the bigger disappointments. I fully enjoyed Gareth Edward's suspenseful, entertaining...disaster movie. There's the rub, I didn't enter the theater wanting a disaster movie, I wanted GODZILLA! KING OF THE MONSTERS! We the audience instead received roughly 20 minutes of screen time from the big brute and even less of Brian Cranston, another of the film's big draws. "High quality graphics and bone-rattling sound" remain high points as I reflect upon the film, but it's these attributions that may lessen the effect once viewed at home.

Maleficent

  Painful yet not without it's merits...what those merits are I have yet to realize. I found this film thoroughly adequate for the time I was viewing it, a rainy Saturday afternoon. Comical special effects, a predictable plot, and the dullest Disney Princess' to have ever graced the big screen remove Maleficent from possible Alice in Wonderland status, yet I didn't find myself hating it. A plethora of ridiculous design and theatrical elements blend the bad together so successfully I walked away content with my movie-going experience. Perhaps Angelina Jolie's cheekbones possess a seductive magic of their own.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

  Bryan Singer, it's good to have you back.  There's no denying, before First Class and Days of Future Past, the series had seen better days. Despite a disastrous conclusion to the original X-Men trilogy, studios still saw fit to torture audiences with a painful slew of origins stories. My complaints regarding the films before were their claustrophobic scripts, too much in too short of time; too many back stories, too many exceptions, too many mutants. The X-Men universe is vast, I understand this; however, by ascribing to quantity over quality the favorite characters that audiences are treated to are poorly represented. First Class AND Days of Future Past improve, but are not exempt from this problem. 

  Days of Future Past continues to introduce more and more mutants, touching on their skills but never fully showing the audience their extent. I enjoyed many of the these new characters, especially Evan Peter's Quick Silver and wish he would have played a larger role in the film. 

DOFP, like many of it's predecessors, carries an overly complicated story but one can see Bryan Singer truly TRYING, and for the most part succeeding, in simplifying that story. The action, accompanied by the many mutants skills, is thoroughly entertaining and is never the same sequence twice. DOFP best feature, without a doubt, is it's cast. The two sets of Professor Xs & Magnetos are expertly cast and deliver the emotional punch to counter the physical entertainment. 

Side note...Hugh Jackman may finally be growing out of his claws; while his portrayal of Wolverine is consistently spot on and amusing, I'd be fine with him passing the torch. 

Lucy

  You can't beat a bad script...add Scarlett Johansson's lack luster performance and a collection of Special Effects that look like they were generated on a Windows 98 screensaver and what you have was one of the worst films of the year. The half-hearted attempts at creating a unique "art house" action film feel prove futile; Lucy is a non-sensical snooze-fest that had me laughing from beginning to end...and this, ladies and gentlemen, was not a comedy. A barren script turns Johansson's character into an emotionless computer, giving audiences absolutely nothing to feed off of. There was an idea and I'm quite sure that idea was stolen from both Limitless and Transcendence. Johansson, a talented actress, is box-office gold, I highly suggest if you want to see her in a film of interest, giving a quality performance check out Under the Skin.

The Fault in Our Stars

  I do believe my friend and I were the only members of the audience not wearing yoga pants, PINK t-shirts and top knots to The Fault in Our Stars but we enjoyed it just the same. It's one thing for a film to cater to it's audience and another to make a film that can be appreciated by the general audience; I feel The Fault in Our Stars did just that. A story that very easily could have turned into a sappy tween fest stayed quirky, cool, and true enough for audience members of all ages. A considerable amount of cheese was encompassed by a fair amount of heart that anyone could connect to at least once. If you missed it in theaters, The Fault in Our Stars makes a solid at home watch...where no one will judge you for NOT crying.

Boyhood

  A fascinating and successful concept derived by director Richard Linklater, Boyhood shows the commitment of a director and his actors in creating a truly unique piece of cinema. 12 consecutive summers of filming with the same cast give the audience an intimate look into the life on an average American boy. The film doesn't preach nor is it particularly exciting, but watching a cast literally grow in front of our eyes keeps audiences interested and engaged.  Perhaps a half-hour too long, Boyhood is relatively a one note, low note, kind of film. That being said, I appreciate Linklater's execution in so fully capturing the life of middle class America. 

Guardians of the Galaxy

  I hesitate in reviewing this film upon fear I may blurt out something along the lies of THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY WAS BETTER THAN THE AVENGERS.

All Marvel movies carry their far share of imperfections and Guardians of the Galaxy is no exception, but it's charm, characters, and soundtrack won me over. Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper's Rocket own this film and make it worth watching. Dave Bastia delivers a devastating performance and was the only questionable casting decision, the remaining supporting cast work their roles well, creating memorable characters. Fun, sexy, and beautifully designed, Guardians of the Galaxy surpasses Marvel's Avengers in more way that one. The movie's cast left me wanting more and it's costume designer, Alexandra Byrne, left me craving a red leather trench coat for fall.

The Dawn of the Planet of The Apes

  They kept it simple, they kept it dramatic, they kept it beautiful. Quality, very often is left by the wayside in Summer movie season however, The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes didn't sacrifice I single ounce and the result is the best movie of the summer. Visually alone, Dawn surpasses Rise of the Planet of the Apes released in 2011 and restores my faith in CGI centered films. The apes, not the humans are the central focus and had they looked anything other than perfect, the film would have failed. Thankfully, a stunning amount of time and effort were put into Dawn, creating over 15,000 jobs in the U.S. & Canada alone. The apes are not only believable, but indistinguishable...I had no idea if I was watching CGI, Make-up, real apes or possibly a combination of all three! Audience members who were impressed by James Cameron's Avatar should find Dawn vastly superior. Majority of the brilliant graphics are enhanced by Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar. Serkis' commitment and accuracy in portraying inhuman characters with such humanity is inspiring.  Visuals aside, screen writers kept the plot simple and director Matt Reeves demonstrated a unique eye for both emotional and action based scenes. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes plays well without relying on audiences knowledge of the previous film. A simple exposition presents the world and it's inhabitants to the audience and doesn't dwell on past events or characters. My expectations for Dawn were high and all were trumped. Seeing this film on the big screen was the cinematic treat of the Summer but because of its emotional nature, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will play just as nicely on DVD or Blu-Ray.

 

Godzilla (2014)

God of Blockbuster Action or King of the Tease?

Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Released: 2014
Staring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olson, Ken Watanabe, David Strathairn, Sally Hawkins, & Juliette Binoche
Rated: PG-13

  No doubt exists in my mind that the marketing team behind the newest reboot of cinema's most iconic, foreign fiend deserve an award. The art of the tease can make or break a film; with all the anticipation that can develop, if a film doesn't deliver you're going to have several unsatisfied customers. Godzilla has been teasing us since it's first trailer release and continued to throughout the actual film.

  Of all the big blockbuster movies to be released in the Summer of 2014, Godzilla was the one I was most excited to see. Not because I had an preexisting attachment to the Monster, or a particular fondness for any of the talented actors in the cast; it was because of the trailer. That FIRST trailer was (still is) brilliant. The bone chilling suspense created in the ambiguity until the very end didn't only leave me wanting more, it had me talking. How could you NOT want to see that movie after a trailer like THAT? Emotional Bryan Cranston, Phillip Glass-esque music, and that roar...that trailer had everything to make the skin crawl...Goosebumps from start to finish. I just want you all to take the time and appreciate a finely constructed trailer, and the response it can generate. My response, I need to see that movie as soon as possible. All subsequent trailers followed a similar design, showing audiences just enough of The King of The Monsters but never revealing what we were truly up against. Smart marketing; it gets people excited, it gets butts in the seats. So the all-important question of the teasing and hype, did it pay off?

This Monster is a little camera-shy
Godzilla (2014)

  Yes, yes it did....and...no...

 Despite top billing, Godzilla isn't the film's focus. Overall, Godzilla was a highly entertaining, action-packed disaster movie. I say disaster movie because the movie isn't so much about the monsters causing the destruction, but the people caught in the middle and how they deal with it. If you are expecting lengthy, Pacific-Rim style fights, you're going to be slightly disappointed. The monster-on-monster action is there, BUT I was left wanting MORE. Like the movie's trailer, the audience is constantly teased, but never reward with any solid, lasting battles. I was (and still am) thrilled with the alluring mystery the trailer created, but I'm here now, in the theater, I WANT TO SEE GODZILLA KICK SOME ASS. Any monster action that takes place occurs either on screens (TVs/surveillance cameras/computers) or in short, interrupted snippets. Those snippets we did get to see were amazing, awesome...cool animation and theater rattling sound that will have audiences cowering in their seats. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I know I'm not, in a Godzilla film I'd expect to see the King of Monsters for longer than 20 minutes and earlier than 45 minutes into the picture.

Finally, a good look at the big guy
Godzilla (2014)

  The sparse time in which Godzilla is on screen however, is so reminiscent of the original films one can't help but cheer in their seat. This Godzilla is certainly the largest we've ever seen therefore the destruction he causes is beyond devastating; it's awesome. The design of this Godzilla is also a return to the classic 50's Monster design, disassociating the Island Iguana disaster that appeared on screen in the 1998 bomb. Not only is Godzilla's classic silhouette back but also (hold for applause) THE ATOMIC FIRE BREATH! Godzilla, engages in several quick romps with some fierce nuclear powered monsters and the monster-on-monster, LED attacks are everything the audiences go to action movies for. Loud, intense and cheer-worthy...I just wish these nail-biting assaults would have lasted...The journey of a nuclear bomb from city to harbor is not important to me, what's important is the brawl going on down the street and 500 feet in the air.
 

Bryan Cranston hunts for the truth
Godzilla (2014)

In truth this is the movie's only substantial flaw and my only real complaint. In any action picture (specifically those released in the summer months) the story is complied of cliche, sappy characters and predictable outcomes; Godzilla is no exception. That being said I didn't mind these done and done characters because that's not what I'm going to the theater to see. I came to see intense action, a bad-ass Dino-Monster destroying the city, and the brilliant Bryan Cranston. I got about 2 1/2 of the 3.
Speaking of Bryan Cranston he, just like the movie's title monster, makes an appearance that is brilliant but limited. Cranston's influence in pop culture and with potential audience members is huge! What did I tell my Mom to convince her to come to Godzilla? "It has WALTER WHITE" All it takes in Cranston's name on a poster and an heart-wrentching excerpt in the trailer to draw in those Breaking Bad/Cranston addicts. Again, smart market but lacking a fulfilling payoff. Cranston is there; he's brilliant, he's engaging. His undisputed talent shines through in this role, but is snuffed out far too soon. Parallel to the movie's monster, I wanted to more of Cranston's quality performance. His character the potential to lead Godzilla or least get him into the second act. Cranston not only understands how to portray human emotion but also how to connect with audiences'.

Cranston & Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Godzilla (2014)

  This Godzilla boast more than a handful of compelling characters, any one of them could have been
the movie's focal point; sadly, writers chose to focus on the weakest of the bunch. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is an adequate leading man and his lesser known status works in his favor. Taylor-Johnson has had his fair-share of leading and supporting roles, but he has yet to become a house-hold name. Had the role gone to a more well known, young hunk {Channing Tatum for example} the character could have gone even more banal than written. Casting an unknown or lesser known gives action movie, dare I say, a more prestigious feel. Taylor-Johnson feels (like this reboot is meant to be) fresh and new. The same can be said for his on screen wife, Elizabeth Olsen. Godzilla's script doesn't offer it's actors much to work with, but the cast gets the job done without reducing their performances to cheese. As I wrote before, hardly ever to I enter a summer blockbuster expecting a groundbreaking plot and oscar worthy script. These films are meant to provide exciting entertainment, which in the end, Godzilla does!

  Equally fresh director Gareth Edwards truly understands quality action, building suspense, and delivering adrenaline pumping sequences...even if the majority of them don't feature the movie's main monster. He's more understated than the likes of Michael Bay (heaven knows that's not very hard) and I can't wait to see what this relatively young director has to offer the action-movie genre.

  Nit-picking and cliches aside, Godzilla offers American audiences a solid piece of entertainment reminiscent of the 1954 classic. It's leagues beyond the Ronald Emmerich 1998 flop; bigger, badder, and smarter. The movie's base plot is nothing special nor are the characters, but when audiences are treated with God-sized smack downs, they are oh-so sweet! This Godzilla is a MUST SEE on the big screen. The high quality graphics and bone-rattling sound can only be fully appreciated at the theater. 2014's Godzilla will have you simultaneously cheering and cringing in your seats; you'll leave the cinema wanting more, and by the way the box-office is turning over, we'll have a sequel confirmation before the year is out.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Despite the substantial amount of fluff, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 boast some impressive action sequences and beautifully unique special effects.

Directed by: Marc Webb

Released: 2013

Staring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHann, & Sally Field 

Rated: PG-13

  In a world of premature reboots developed solely for finical gain, non was more premature than that the Spider-Man franchise. Sam Rami's first adaptation of the popular comic book series was a fun time, but it's subsequent sequels too often repeated the first or, in the case of the third installment, became painfully laughable as a seriously action movie. A miscast Tobey Maguire managed to awkwards (as verb) his way through three films and Kristen Dunst gives what can only be described as her worst series of performances. For the series numerous faults, the first was a fun, exciting action movie; highly enjoyable until followed by a mopey second, and absurd third. One must ask was the utter failure of the third movie really enough to warrant a complete series reboot five short years later? The answer is an obvious no; however, money is money and money speaks louder than any small blogger's opinion. 

  While I didn't think the reboot SHOULD have happened I am happy it did. Marc Webb knows how create thrilling action sequences and although Andrew Garfield is about a decade too old for the role of high school/high school gradate Peter Parker, he plays the role very well. The Amazing Spider-Man did what it's predecessor couldn't, made Spider-Man cool. Rewatching Rami's adaption I realize how dull and uncompelling Maguire was in the role. Andrew Garfield, currently 30 years old, portrays a realistic, believable young teen. He has fun playing this character, in turn making it fun for the audience to watch.

Even I can't say this doesn't look cool.

  Following the 2012 reboot I had high hopes for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and despite a slightly misleading trailer the movie definitely delivers crowd pleasing action sequences and impressively unique special effects. I note the misleading trailer because it truly is...this is not Spiderman vs. Electro vs. Rhino vs. Green Goblin...the later two have a combined screen time of about 20 minutes.  Don't let the trailers deceive you, Paul Giomattee is hardly in the movie but when he is he's incomprehensible. Definitely the most disappointing performance in the movie. Is the majority of this film set up for The Sinister Six? Yes. Does that bother me? Slightly...

  Jamie Foxx's character had the potential to be such an emotionally complex character and I feel as if some of those character possibilities were sidelined to make room for the numerous subplots that clutter this movie. If there's one thing this movie has it's an abundance of subplots. Behind Peter Parker's parents death, girlfriend Gwen Stacey' problems, Harry Osborn's medical condition, the public's opinion of Spider-Man, Aunt May striving to make end's meet, and oh ya...ELECTRO, this is on pack plot and the reason the movie's running time almost exceeds 2 1/2 hours. To be honest, an absurdly huge portion of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is fluff; fluff with brilliant action and glimmers of interesting character's squeezed in-between. Discovering what happened to Peter Parker's parents is nice, but not necessary. What we learned from the closure of that mystery is something the audience is already being told throughout the last and current movie. Oscorp Bad. Got it. Had it since the last movie. Didn't need that extra 20-30 minutes of angsty, and teary-eyed Peter Parker to discover that. 

I wish I could have been MORE annoyed with their drawn out relationship
but it really does play well on screen.

  Andrew Garfield and his leading lady/real life girlfriend Emma Stone have brilliant chemistry and are seemly a perfect couple, but once again, their melodramatic subplot was one that took up far too much screen time. They are adorable and I understand why so much time was devoted to their relationship...building emotional connections...but their scenes went past "aww cute" and entered distracting in length. I loved seeing these two actors play off each other but this relationship and it's drama was frustratingly long...

 Back to the film's main villain, Jamie Foxx gives a slightly exaggerated performance to make up for the lack of screen time and as I said before I feel so much could have been done with his character (psychologically) before & after he's transformed...had Foxx been given more dialog and more screen time he could have stepped up and made this villain into something more than a cool FX opportunity. Special Effects in question, the look of Electro is reason enough to see this movie. Foxx's look was generated with a unique combination of make-up and CGI ingenuity. Watching Electro's face and energies surrounding his physical body is fascinating. The subtleties of the current colors and and sparks of light are entrancing to watch on the big screen.

Jamie Foxx on the set of The Amazing Spider-Man 2
On the left, Make-up before added special effects

Great collaboration of make-up and fx

   Including Electro, the CGI action sequences are AMAZING. The detail put into each action sequence is spectacular and as a long time activist against the inappropriate use of CGI I can honesty say not only was it's use appropriate, but it actually ENHANCED the film. This movie is a testament to the benefits of well done CGI. It's evident time and energy were put into this project and the results are truly thrilling. Usually I find myself distracted by the unrealistic qualities of CGI, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 doesn't have that flat, over or under saturated look; it feels alive, it feels real.

   I touched on villain Jamie Foxx, as well as leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, whose real life chemistry MAKE the relationship. Filling out the supporting cast is King Joffery look-a-like Dane Dehaan whose hair resembles Emo-Donald Trump combover. But honestly, despite being 28, Dehaan looks like an ice-eyed preteen. I shouldn't joke, like Garfield, Dane Dehaan was perfect in this role and knows exactly how to play the character. Harry Osborn, the product of a dysfunctional, wealthy family should act spoiled, have the occasional temper tantrum, and except to always receive what he asks for. Dehaan does all of this while also playing into some of the more sublet and emotional aspects of the character. Surprisingly I throughly enjoyed watching him on screen and wish, as with Jamie Foxx's Electro, his character could have found a more central place in the movie.

Again, that's where The Amazing Spider-Man 2 falls short. There are so many good things in this universe the writers attempted to feature all of them in one movie, resulting any extended run time and bloated plot.

Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborn isn't happy when Spidey won't give him what he wants...BLOOD!

  Adding to the electric atmosphere of the film was it's soundtrack, scored by the great Hanz Zimmer and The Magnificent Six...including Pharrell Williams? I guess now that he's taken over producing and performing music the logical next step would be to enter the movie business. The soundtrack is truly fascinating...it's blend of Zimmer's classical, dramatic motifs, paranoid chanting, and dub step

 ...I guess Zimmer's well known "BWAHS" (think Inception) are the perfect match for dub steps bass dropping...It works with the theme surrounding the film and Electro's character of course. Here's a track from the movie that really stood out to me...the underlying creepy chanting really got under my skin, as I'm sure it was intended to, and elicited a physical response from me. But BRAVO because I LOVE when music, especially in film, does this. Music is not something majority of movie-goers notice or react to. Most of the time music's purpose is to simply accompany the film; but in Spider-Man the music is as much apart of the design of the movie as the visual effects. The score was evidently written to sync with specific moments in the action sequences as well as be a part of Electro's subconscious. The result is a bizarre, yet strong piece that completes the film. *{Apologies for this appearance of this paragraph, we're experiences some technical difficulty}*

  All in all The Amazing Spider-Man 2, despite it's flaws and pack plot, is a good time. The movie is exactly what a Summer blockbuster should be. It's action, it's romance, it's fun. Easy to nit-pick and quite obvious in it's intentions (set up for the next film) it's best if audience members just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Performances, like the film itself were FUN...it's fun to see Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone playing off each other, Jamie Foxx's obsessive/before Electro character is over-acted but fun! Summer is a difficult season for critiquing film and movies...Summer Blockbuster criteria is completely different than Awards Season and each season's features are enjoyable for different reasons. For reasons of Summer Blockbuster, action-ness The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an excellent start and one you should check out IN THEATERS. 

Captain American: The Winter Soldier

 There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years...it's because a director finally stopped trying to imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing; producing a distinct quality action film.

Directed by: Anthony & Jo Russo

Rated: PG-13
Staring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford & Sebastian Stan
Released 2014

  The Avengers Syndrome {A serious illness infecting the leagues of superhero and comic book film directors. Symptoms: Vast supporting casts, unnecessary side plots and nonsensical plot lines, poorly composed action sequences, and an excess of bad, cheeky jokes. This is the virus sweeping our nation. Enjoyable at first, but if symptom are not treated they will increase and discomfort may be experienced.}

  I do not hate Joss Whedon my fellow movie goers, I simply feel a heighten sense of annoyance that the entire cinematic world feels the need to replicate his work in order to make a "successful" Marvel movie. I liked The Avengers, I lIKE The Avengers, but I do not like what The Avengers has done for the Marvel universe not the movie making industry.
  Iron Man 3 ranked near the top of biggest disappointments of 2013 and for good reason. It was a confused, bipolar film that was neither funny, nor serious, nor a pleasant blend of the two. It was a heavy mess from a studio not even trying to fill in any of the gaping plot wholes left by it's predecessor, The Avengers. It was not entreating, it was contrived and painful to watch.
  Thor: The Dark World, which I both praised and criticized was miles ahead of Iron Man 3 but that was thanks in most to the films charismatic anti-hero Loki-as portrayed by the brilliant Tom Hiddleston. The film was entertaining but far from perfect. I will admit my friends, with it's current track record, Marvel had me dreading the arrival of Captain America's sequel.

 

All doubts were quickly distinguished this weekend as I sat down to my own viewing of The Winter Soldier. Directing duo Anthony and Jo Russo produce an exciting, modern superhero movie with all the elements of a classic espionage thriller. The Winter Soldier is a well developed piece of cinema that doesn't require pre-Marvel obsession to appreciate. This film, while still in the Marvel Universe feel separate from its predecessors. It looks like the Marvel universe, feels like a Borne thriller, and has all the smarts of a classic Bond film. There's a certain sophistication and razor edge awareness that propels it beyond the last two Marvel sequels released as well as the Godfather of this mess, The Avengers. Now don't think that this is a film specifically for a more sophisticated audience void of any witty humor and one liners; it still has all of the elements that made The Avengers such a success with the general public, just toned down and revised for the appropriate moments. The furthest extend to the running gags are finding "Fossil" Steve Rodgers a date. They knew when to joke and when to hold back, The Winter Soldier was made with an editing conscious that many in action films lack.

  It wasn't only the story and overall film that improved drastically, the fight scenes and action sequences are freshly refined. Compare Thor: the Dark World's action/fight sequences to The Winter Solder. Thor's were there more for comical relief than having an actual purpose/need for the fighting and were never resolved. The thing Captain America did was add purpose to the action and with purpose comes more dynamic, exciting scenes! All the action sequences are top notch and evident that actors and stuntmen put a considerable amount of time and effort into constructing and performing them. An impressive variation of fighting styles, gymnastics, and (appropriate) CGI result in some truly gripping battles. Battles that were, for once, IN FRAME. I'm perpetually confounded by this idea that whenever two soldiers go to hand to hand combat we the audience must want a hand held camera close up of their faces, right? Wrong. If you're going to put the energy into choreographing a fight scenes I would like to see a long shot of what the performers are actually doing...not grunting, sweating, and bloody man face. To this aspect alone I tip my hat and say thank you, thank you because I don't think I've seen such riveting hand to hand combat since The Dark Knight Rises nearly two years ago...Good Lord, it's been two years.

  Chris Evans does a nice job, I feel as thought Captain America has become a bit of a joke in the scheme of The Avengers...we haven't seen him being taken seriously yet and I feel someone finally beefed up his character so he's not such an old man who doesn't get the joke. This Capt. is smart and has a solid attitude that isn't just "'Merica" This is a man on a mission, a mission with purpose because as any acting coach with tell you PURPOSE IS EVERYTHING! Someone who's lacking a bit of purpose in this film is Scarlett Johansson's character Black Widow. Perhaps not lacking purpose but a singular one. I feel she's occasionally used as a plot device and nothing mor. She gets things done so Capt. doesn't have to do them himself. There's so much mystery surrounding this character that each writing keeps building and building I just want her to have her own film already. The character is a fascinating one and Johansson kicks major ass, let's be honest she IS Black Widow, but I want to know more! Samuel L. Jackson is Samuel L Jackson, everyone knows, not much to add on his performance or characters.

New comers Robert Redford and Anthony Mackie were perfectly cast in their roles. Mackie is funny but without being in your face annoying as may "sidekicks" can become. He understands this character and doesn't try to steal scenes that aren't his. Given his own film, he'd excel and have room to spread is wings (har har) Redford hasn't been seen in a widely released commercial film for sometime and this role exactly what an actor of his prestige and experience should be doing; like Mackie he also doesn't over act, important in a role that other actors could have mishandled and gone off the deep end. Like the film itself, Redford plays with subtly, he quietly slithers through the film, never raising his voice or turing into a hand-wringing villain.

  The one thing this film lacked, The Winter Soldier...I mean, where was he? Sebastian Stan walks away from the film with perhaps 20 minutes of total screen time. This isn't bad, I feel his character and his story could have developed into something very melodramatic very quickly, so I guess it's best to leave it to the fanfic writers. I simply find it amusing that like many classic action thrillers the billed villain is never the real villain; more often the victim.

  There was one scene in the film regarding a character from Steve Rodger's past that I would have preferred to be omitted from the theatrical cut but I understand why it was left in...emotional appeal, nostalgia, closure whatever you want to call it, I call it melodrama. I didn't fit with the timing of the film and would have been more appropriate in the extended cut or deleted scenes portion of the DVD.  The additional after credits scene that was obvious set up for The Age of Ultron basically negated everything that was said and done in The Winter Soldier (literally) which annoyed me and proves that all sequels just place holders until 2015 and the release of the next Avengers. I am excited for the sequel yes but in a very hesitant way...Surprisingly I'm more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy, yet another comical, action extravaganza from Marvel Studio who's only purpose seems to be to expand the world for the next Avengers. Despite my doubts I'll keep an open mind and hope that any up and coming superhero action films will share Captain American: The Winter Soldier's clever filmmaking and clean delivery.

Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

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...