"Thor"

Thor - Directed by Kenneth Branaugh, written by Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, and Don Payne, starring Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, and Stellan Skarsgard - Rated PG-13

"How dare you threaten the son of Odin with such a puny weapon?" (Cue taser sound.)

The deluge of comic book movies has begun with Thor, a surprisingly entertaining film from director Kenneth Branaugh. Branaugh, known for his work with Shakespearean material, may seem like an odd choice for a “summer” action movie. But it turns out that a serious director can really elevate the lighter fare of the comic book world.

Thor is definitely lighter; it has to be. In the world of outlandish characters Thor stands alone as the only superhero who is also a bona fide god. Thor, son of Odin, lives in Asgard, one of nine “realms” in the universe and home of the Norse gods. Not to spoil anything, but Thor causes Odin one problem too many in Asgard and is banished to Earth. Of course, the problems in Asgard lead to problems on Earth, so this film operates almost evenly between two very different worlds. On one hand you have Asgard, shiny and futuristic yet still stuck in Viking lore as the characters still wield swords and ride horses (it’s an amusing contradiction). Then there is Earth, where scientists, played by Stellan Skarsgaard and Natalie Portman, are just scratching the surface of travelling between realms.

As much as Asgard is a contradiction of itself, Thor is still a stranger fit for Earth and that leads to the majority of the comedy of the film. Fish out of water jokes are always slightly amusing, but this gimmick is funnier than usual because Thor is such a loud, arrogant character…even for a god. He shows disdain for every human he comes across and shows complete disgust when they attempt to give him medical attention. But it’s all relatively harmless behavior and he becomes easier for everyone to deal with soon enough. Also, if you’ve been watching “Conan” lately, you’ll have to stop yourself from imagining the parody of Thor that’s been on the show the past week. That’s not part of the filmmakers’ plan or anything, but it still provides a few laughs for those in the know.

Thor mainly works because of its characters and the actors portraying them. Chris Hemsworth is impressive as Thor and should be a bigger name in the coming years. Anthony Hopkins gets to ham it up and growl his lines at people in an amusing way as Odin. Tom Hiddleston does a fine, angst-filled job in a Commodus-type role as Loki. Idris Elba looks freakish and has one of the film’s awesome moments as Heimdall. And Rene Russo shows up which is notable only because she hasn’t been in a movie for years. You may have noticed I haven’t written a word about any of the actors portraying human characters. They all do a fine job; it’s just that their characters pale in comparison to the gods, which is the way it should be.

Decent acting and a bit of comedy are fine, but Thor is still part action movie. The action is handled quite well and at times it can even be borderline jaw-dropping. Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir, is a pretty amazing cinematic weapon. He has to do without it for most of the film, but when Thor has the hammer, you know you’re going to see some great action. The 3-D isn’t bad, either. If the film had taken place completely on Earth, the 3-D might have seemed pointless. But during action scenes in other worlds, it added quite a bit. Also, the extra dimension adds a taste of realism to the CG-heavy realms.

The story of Thor is a bit busy, but the themes of becoming an adult and the bond between father and son still resonate. There’s nothing overly special about the script, but it is certainly a step above many comic book movies. The script attempts to create an emotional attachment to the characters rather than just give reasons for stuff to blow up. Stuff still blows up (The Destroyer causes plenty of glorious mayhem), but it’s all tied together nicely.

Finally, Director Branaugh keeps it all intact and with a sense of style. The action scenes are easy to follow and the camera seems to always be moving, but not in a busy, over-the-top way. His choice to frame most scenes in a skewed angle is odd, but that element did give the film its own look and that’s always important when dealing with the Marvel universe since it’s all the Marvel films are connected in some way.

Thor may not end up being the biggest comic book movie this year, but it will most likely go down as one of the best. If this film is any indication, we’re in for a very entertaining summer.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

The Avengers connections are getting tough to keep track of. Of course there's a scene after the credits. If you didn't check it out, it ties Captain America to a few characters and Nick Fury shows up. It also shows that Loki is alive and on Earth. But still, it seems like at the end of all of this everyone will need notes to understand everything.

I liked the nod to Tony Stark when the Destroyer showed up.

How badass was it when Thor basically used himself as a bullet shoot that giant frost creature through the head?

I dug the running gag of Thor getting hit by a car.

The Stan Lee cameo (as the redneck who tears off the bed of his truck trying to pry out Mjolnir) was my favorite yet.

Seriously, Conan O’Brien almost ruined the movie for me. I kept hearing that high-pitched voice during every action scene...

This film marks one of the few times in movie history where it makes sense for a character to scream at the sky because we know someone is actually listening. Still hard to take scenes like that too seriously, though.

"The Rite"

The Rite - Directed by Mikael Håfström, written by Michael Petroni, suggested by the book by Matt Baglio, starring Colin O'Donoghue, Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, and Rutger Hauer - Rated PG-13

Why do I have electrical powers? Why are demons so desperate to recruit this boring dude? Why do I care? Oh wait, I don't.



Movies about exorcisms always arouse a bit of interest with their claims of being “based on a true story.” Hopefully, the majority of today’s audience realizes that the “true story” gimmick is just that: a gimmick. That doesn’t mean an exorcism film can’t be effective, though. Unfortunately, an exorcism movie, like The Rite, can be ineffective, boring, and pointless.

The Rite looks like an Anthony Hopkins film if you’ve seen any of the marketing material, but it is not. Hopkins is at most a supporting player behind the vastly weaker Colin O’Donoghue. O’Donoghue plays Michael Kovak, a shell of a young man (and character, for that matter), who decides to enter seminary school just to get out of the family mortuary business. Why is priest or mortician his only two options? The film never really gives a reason why; a character just states it, so it’s accepted…which is kind of ludicrous. Anyway, just as Michael is about to become a priest he decides to come clean and admit it’s not for him. But his father superior (Toby Jones, classing the film up in a couple scenes) blackmails him into going to Rome for exorcism training…once again, for almost no reason at all. The mantra of the film consists of characters telling Michael they “see something in him,” even though it’s highly unlikely that the audience is seeing any of this. We can be told a million times that Michael is special; that doesn’t make it true.

Thankfully, Michael’s Rome field trip leads him to the only redeemable aspect of the film: Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins plays Father Lucas, a veteran of the war on demonic possession. The Rite is only enjoyable when Hopkins is onscreen. He gets to have a bit of fun with the role, playing with stereotypes (“What did you expect? Spinning heads? Pea soup?”) and acting crazy here and there. It’s an enjoyable performance and it’s unfortunate that he’s relegated to a supporting role.

The Rite actually could’ve have been a very campy and/or interesting film if the filmmakers had tried to be a bit more daring. There are snippets of whacky fun: the exorcism of a pillow, a cell phone call mid-exorcism, etc., but they are only short moments. Instead, the filmmakers went with clichéd horror ploys like the violin shriek/jump scare. But there is a possibly interesting movie buried here. For instance, take the idea that an exorcism is a drawn out affair rather than a single, crazy night. There’s something there, but the film doesn’t really explore it.

More interesting is the psychological subplot. Michael spends the majority of the movie as a non-believer who thinks that exorcists are witch-doctors who abuse their patients by not giving them proper psychiatric care. That idea in itself is not terribly fresh or interesting (last year’s The Last Exorcism looked into that very issue to good effect), but this film could’ve used that doubt in its narrative. This film could’ve been all about Michael’s obsession with psychiatric care. His character’s journey could have been a journey into the mind of an insane man. In fact, at times the film actually appears to be just that, but it ends up going back into plain old scary exorcism mode…so to speak.

The problem with the story is that the main conflict is whether or not Michael will start to believe in the devil. But there is no mystery as to whether or not the devil exists in this film because there is irrefutable evidence onscreen that proves Satan exists. So what’s the point? Well, the point could be that since we know the devil is real and Michael won’t accept it, this film is really taking place inside Michael’s mind as he fights himself psychologically. The climax of the film could’ve been his realization that he has believed the whole time. Then he returns to the real world, letting the viewer know that all that had passed was in Michael’s head. Sure, that kind of thing has been done before, but it still would’ve been much more interesting than what was attempted here.

The reason why the filmmakers went with the normal exorcism story is that they have to stick with that idiotic “true story” tagline. Sure, all of this really happened; that’s why there’s a “suggested by the book” credit. Really? “Suggested?” What does that even mean? Even if it the book was nonfiction how could any truth possibly remain when the story is taken by suggestion alone? Maybe someone can write a version of this film in which it all takes place in Michael’s mind and this film’s screenwriter can get a “suggested by” credit. What a joke.

All in all, The Rite is a missed opportunity. Aside from O’Donoghue, the cast is stellar: Hopkins, Jones, Ciarán Hinds, and Rutger Hauer. There are some ideas at play, but the film abandons them for the same old song and dance we see nearly every year it seems. This movie is fine as far as disposable entertainment goes, but for a film that sticks its tongue out at The Exorcist, shouldn’t it strive to at least be different? Don’t bother watching this to answer that question, just go watch The Exorcist again.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I think Hopkins only took this role so he could channel Hannibal Lecter when he became possessed. When he's breaking down Alice Braga it feels like a deleted scene from The Silence of the Lambs.

Really, a demon puts a lengthy plan into play to get this one loser to believe in God? And how is getting a guy to believe in God the job of a demon? Demons must be really stupid. Plus, what the hell (no pun intended) is so great about this Michael character anyway? Does Hell really need that boring of a soul? Maybe he could be used in some torture scenarios or something...

Anthony Hopkins backhands a little girl in this movie. It is a redundant scene since it is painfully clear that he is possessed at this point, but it certainly got my attention. A few more crazy moments like that and I might have liked this one.

The ending just didn’t add up. The film kind of stops with no real resolution to Hopkins’s character. There's an odd reference to a dirtbike, then an awkward goodbye. It seemed like a bad improv scene.

That scene in which Michael notices a McDonald's seemed like a blatant commercial. "Feel lost in a foreign country? Don't worry, a little bit of home is just a block away. I'm lovin' it." I usually don't mind product placement, but that was a bit too obvious.

"The Wolfman"

The Wolfman - Directed by Joe Johnston, starring Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving - Rated R

Looks great, but it's hollow inside.



I am not a fan of the new trend of whiny vampires and wolf boys. I prefer my vampires to be menacing, and I think that a wolfman should be a mindless, bloodthirsty beast, not a teen heartthrob whose only acting “trait” is his ability to not wear a shirt. If you’re in the same boat as me, then The Wolfman will at least satisfy you in the monster department. If you’re expecting much more than a savage monster movie, though, you may leave the theater disappointed.

My expectations for this film were very high. The preview for the film is great and leads you to believe you might be in for something different, or possibly something great. I knew all about the delays of the film and the reports of editing up until days before the release, but the preview made me forget all of that. So, because of that preview, I thought this version of The Wolfman would be very similar to Francis Ford Coppola’s version of Dracula (one of my favorite films). Sadly, aside from the atmosphere created here, The Wolfman pales in comparison.

That’s not to say this film doesn’t have something to offer. It looks great. Late 19th century England has a gloomy and realistic look. The sets were particularly well done. The creature effects are fine, for the most part. The transformation sequences were by far the best, but some of the action scenes had a few flaws and looked a bit fake. I know I comment on special effects and cg quite a bit, but for a film like this, the effects are absolutely vital. If the wolfman effects looked even slightly goofy, the film would be ruined. Thankfully, I never had to fight back laughter when I saw the creature.

The film has a look to it, but it’s missing a mood. I never got a sense of foreboding or evil while I was watching this film. It was all just happening and I didn’t really care all that much about any of it. That might be the fault of the storyline, but I think it has more to do with pacing. The film starts off at a crawl, with stage actor Lawrence Talbot arriving at his father’s old, creepy mansion. His brother Ben has been killed and he intends to find out what happened. His off-balance father (Anthony Hopkins) and widowed sister-in-law (the beautiful Emily Blunt) are still there to help out. But there is no mystery. We know what killed Ben: a crazy wolf creature. We don’t need multiple scenes with villagers talking about what might be happening.

It’s not just the first mystery that is weak, either; it’s the entire film. At no point did I wonder what was really happening. It is painfully obvious what is going on from the get go. This isn’t all that terrible, but when the filmmaking is so-so, it makes the story issues much more blatant. These problems are nearly overshadowed by the visuals, but good set design and cg can’t fix everything.

The film does pick up in the middle, though. The asylum sequence was great and it made me wish that the majority of the film took place there. This is the problem. There’s this great, interesting sequence in the middle of the film, bookended by a bland, obvious plot. I probably shouldn’t use the word “bookend,” though, because that implies that this movie has an ending. It doesn’t, not really. It just stops. I don’t know what they were going for, maybe some kind of sequel set up, but there is a key issue that really should’ve been resolved at the end and it was just left open, pointlessly open.

The actors do their best to overcome these plot issues. Del Toro does a fine job. He has a presence that seems to fit with the time period. Blunt makes things a bit interesting here and there. It was nice to see Hugo Weaving as the Scotland Yard detective. He is a master of the intense stare, which is all he really gets to do with the role. It’s Anthony Hopkins who steals the show. You can tell he really enjoyed making this film and it makes for a very fun performance. I enjoyed every minute that he was onscreen.

The Wolfman looks great, features some good performances, has bloody, brutal action, but lacks the story and substance of a great film. There are a few great moments in the film, but they are too few and far between. This film garners a rental at best.