Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I remember when they announced the first Thor movie and wondered how in the hell they were going to get it to work on-screen.  Combing cool fantasy elements, and funny fish-out-of-water moments, Thor was a hit.  Just two years later, we're already on our third film featuring the character.  Sometimes it pays to just keep doing what you're doing.

In a very Lord of the Rings-ish prologue, we learn that long ago Odin's father fought with the Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston).  Malekith sought to control the Aether, a weapon of unlimited power, to destroy the Nine Realms and return the universe to darkness.  After being beaten back, the Aether was hidden where nobody would find it, which only means that some puny human is going to accidentally find it one day.

In the present day, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is busy at work trying to bring peace to the Nine Realms after the events of both the first film and The Avengers.  He's regained the respect of his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), who wants him to take over his throne, but it's clear to all that he longs to reunite with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  Personally, I would been all over Sif (Jaimie Alexander), but to each their own.  Jane is investigating weird physical anomalies in London, where she comes in contact with the Aether.  This awakens Malekith and he sets his sights on Asgard to reclaim it.  Thor is forced to turn to the one person he cannot trust for help: his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

Unlike the first Thor, much more time is spent in Asgard and you get a longer look at this realm, along with a few others.  It all looks great, and the effects across the board are very good.  There was a nice blend of sci-fi with the fantasy elements, and at times I was reminded of Krull.  I had a problem with the 3D in Thor, so I skipped that this time.  I didn't see anything about the visuals in The Dark World that screamed a need to see this in 3D anyway.

Many of the side characters get extended screen time and their moments to stand out, but I was left wanting much more of them, particularly Sif, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), and Fandral (Zachary Levi, replacing Josh Dallas).  Heimdall's role was also expanded, but I think you can attribute much of that to the star power of Idris Elba.  Even Thor's Mom, Frigga (Rene Russo) gets in on the action, and she shares some time with Loki giving you a little more insight into their relationship.

The Dark World's story is a little messy and takes a little too long to really get moving.  If you take a look at the IMDB page, you'll see a lot of names involved with the story and screenplay, which is usually a bad sign.  It's not so messy that it's hard to follow or a complete wreck, but it seemed to lack focus and the tone was a little inconsistent.  You could see elements that were borrowed from other films, and I was also a little irritated with the consistent use of illusions to get a character out of danger.

Another weakness is that while there's a distinct villain and we understand what he's after, he wasn't all that interesting or menacing.  Christopher Eccleston as Malekith was completely unrecognizable and spoke in a made up language for most of the film, making his casting a bit of waste.  Much of Malekith's scenes felt really disconnected from the rest of the film.

Where Thor: The Dark World really shines are with any of the action scenes.  Director Alan Taylor's experience with shows like Rome and Game of Thrones served him well.  You're treated to several of these Lord of the Rings-esque fights, complete with illuminating swords, but with lasers and other technology thrown in.  When we get to the final battle, it's very creative and manages to stand apart from the rest.  It finished on a high note and fans should leave feeling satisfied.

The performances are great as well.  Chris Hemsworth has really settled into the role and has ramped up his Thor-iness.  In the first film, it felt like a guy playing dress up a bit, but now he truly feels like Thor.  Thor's relationship with Jane was much more natural, and I think that's due in large part to the improved chemistry between Hemsworth and Natalie Portman.  Finally, Tom Hiddleston knocks it out of the park as Loki.  I've said for a while now that Hiddleston really seems to love playing the role and just chews it up any chance he gets.  If anything, he makes a case for the first Marvel spin-off starring a bad guy.  Come on, Marvel, make it happen.  Loki: God of Mischief should be part of Phase 3.

Much like the first film, there's a good amount of humor sprinkled throughout the film.  Much of this is provided by the puny Earthlings played by Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard and Chris O'Dowd.  Sometimes their antics bordered on being silly, but the film benefit from these moments overall.  There are also a few great Easter eggs, and you'll definitely want to stick until the end of the credits.

Thor: The Dark World isn't likely to win any new fans, but there's enough of the humor and action that made the first work to please existing ones.  While the story is a little messy, the performances and action are a distinct improvement over Thor.  Overall, it's a highly entertaining film, so don't hesitate to check it out this weekend.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Hitchcock (2012) - Movie Review

A movie based on a book about the making of a movie.  If this loops on itself more, it'll create a singularity that will destroy us all.

Hitchcock is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Psycho, a movie that starred Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn.  I'm kidding, of course.  That remake sure was a misfire, wasn't it?  I actually knew very little about the movie Hitchock going in, but I'm always up for a good biopic, especially when it's about such a fascinating person and iconic film.

We begin as Alfred Hitchcock is looking for an idea for his next film.  He wants to do something a little different, and thinks he's found it when he reads the book Psycho by Robert Bloch.  The studio, however, isn't too thrilled with his choice of project, so Hitchcock decides to take a risk and finance the film himself.  He's believes so strongly in the film, that he even has all copies of the book bought up, so that nobody would have the twists spoiled.  Even back then Hitchcock understood the value of no spoilers.  These days any asshat with a blog can spoil a movie for you.  Wait a second...

It's funny to me that a well respected director like Hitchcock didn't have full confidence from the studio when wanting to do a different project.  When you consider the crap that gets made these days, it blows my mind that he'd have difficulty getting a film made.  It also goes to show you how different the business is now.

Hitchcock is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. From what I hear, it's a fantastic and extremely well researched book that I'm going to have to pick up after watching the film.  Despite being based off such a well respected book, the movie version of it felt a little thin.  I think the problem director Sacha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), and writer John J. McLaughlin had was that they couldn't decide on what to cut from the film.  There's a lot going on, so you have a mix of the film being a little tonally inconsistent and lacking depth in a few key areas.  For example, you learn about his relationship with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and their difficulties.  This was an area I wish the film would have gone a little more in depth into.

There are some funny moments, but you never feel like they were making a comedy, and there isn't enough about his personality to come away thinking it's a character study. Throughout the film you see these exchanges between Hitchcock and Ed Gein, an actual serial killer that the character of Norman Bates was based on.  I wasn't clear what these scenes were meant to represent, so they felt odd and seemed like they could have been removed in favor of focusing more on the making of Psychoand Hitchcock's personality and relationships.

I find it a little ironic that a movie about "The Master of Suspense" contained very little actual suspense.  We all know how this is going to turn out.  It's not like we're getting an alternate universe were he's never able to complete the film, or it's a bomb.  It's still fun to watch it all play out though.

As you'd guess, the strength of the film are the performances. Anytime you get Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as your leads, you know you're going to get a well-acted film.  Mirren is wonderful and you see how Alma was 'the woman behind the man'.  She would have carried the movie by herself were it not for the performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.  It seems like kind of an odd choice to get someone so well known to play Hitchcock, but the makeup job is so good, that it actually took me a bit before I realized it was him.  I thought Hopkins was playful and it made me like Hitchcock all the more.  Scarlett Johansson plays Anne Heche...I mean Janet Leigh and I found her to be very pleasant.  Jessica Biel and James D'Arcy have very small roles as Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins.  You'll recognize much of the supporting cast and I was surprised to see people of their caliber play such small roles.  Even The Karate Kid shows up.

Lastly, I wanted to give a small shout out to my favorite theater The Vine (www.vinecinema.com) in Livermore.  They upgraded their screens and projectors just this past week, and boy what an upgrade! The film looked fantastic.  It was bright and clear, with HD quality that rivaled my 3D TV.

Whether you're a fan of Hitchcock, the movie Psycho, or just like a good behind-the-scenes biopic, there's a lot to like about Hitchcock.  I had fun with the film and enjoyed it, but couldn't help thinking there needed to be more.  You have great performances from the cast, but it only scratches the surface.  This isn't something you need to rush out and see, but I do think it's worth seeing.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars