Thursday Movie Picks: Dolls

Thor: The Dark World

Directed by Alan Taylor.

2013. Rated PG-13, 112 minutes.

Cast:

Chris Hemsworth

Natalie Portman

Tom Hiddleston

Anthony Hopkins

Stellan Skarsgard

Idris Elba

Chris Eccleston

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Kat Dennings

Rene Russo

Ray Stevenson

Following the events of The Avengers, Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself back home on Asgard longing for Jane (Portman), the woman he left behind in the first movie. And since a superhero's work is never done, there's a new evil to deal with. This time, all the fuss is over something called the Aether, the evil force Malakith (Eccleston) was using way back when in his quest to rule everything. He and his top dawg Algrim (Akinnuoye-Agbaje) fled before being killed. The Aether was said to be destroyed, but was just hidden really well. Lo and behold, after however many years, Jane not only finds the stuff here on Earth, but it uses her body as a host. Now that the Aether is out in the open, Malakith will stop at nothing to get it back and once again try to conquer evertything. He makes things so bad for Thor that our hero has to turn to his arch-nemesis/half-brother Loki (Hiddleston) for help.

Like the previous Thor and even The Avengers, this is a movie about the relationship between Thor and Loki more than anything else. It is a formula that repeatedly pays dividends. First of all, Chris Hemsworth continues to be the perfect Thor while Thor himself continues to show growth. His maturation process from overgrown child to a man worthy of his father's crown has been wonderfully handled across three movies. Still, a perfect Thor is almost no comparison to Loki as far as intrigue goes. The writing of the character and the performance of him by Tom Hiddleston is pure magic. Without question, he is a guy we simply love to hate. The trick is we still have a trace of sympathy for him. At his core, he is a guy rebelling against his parents because he doesn't feel wanted, particularly by his father. The hurt that feeds his hatred always shines through. Those parents, Odin (Hopkins) and Frigga (Russo) are played excellently, as well. Hopkins shows us Odin's thorough disappointment in and disdain of his son while Russo lets Frigga's motherly approach work wonders even though we can see that she's being very cautious with him.

Secondary characters, especially the human ones, don't really add much. As the damsel in distress, Portman does nothing to prove that she is the only one who should play that role. In other words, while having someone other than Gwyneth Paltrow play Pepper Potts would be a major blow to the Iron Man franchise, swapping out Portman for someone else would hardly make a difference. Don't get me wrong, she's a wonderful actress, just not given much to do. Others are there almost purely for comic relief with varying degrees of success. The relationship between the two interns played by Kat Dennings and Jonathan Howard is hit or miss. The hijinks surrounding Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) is much more successful. It helps that he actually matters to the plot. Our uber-villain Malakith and top henchman Algrim give us pretty standard bad guys and aren't particularly memorable.

No matter how the rest of the movie comes together, or doesn't, it would all be for naught if the superhero stuff doesn't work. It does. When pulled into battle, Thor mightily wields his hammer. Just as importantly, the visuals back him up. Asgard looks beautiful and parts of it get destroyed quite nicely. The action involves lots of fisticuffs and spaceships and looks great. The best part is that while Algrim isn't the most memorable henchman, he is a formidable one and poses a real threat to our hero. Later, even Rene Russo impresses us in a fight scene, making us recall her days as part of the Lethal Weapon franchise.

Marvel Studios continues to bring us comic book flicks that strike a nice balance between taking their heroes seriously and providing a fun experience. It pushes the saga of their shared universe forward without relying as much on what happened in The Avengers as Iron Man 3. It's mentioned, but not the crutch upon which the entire movie leans. the ending feels like a cheat, but I'm sure we'll get some explanation of this later. Therefore, I'm willing to let it slide until a later film sheds some light on things. If viewing this as a stand alone, I can see how it would be a pretty big knock on the movie. As part of a series, as it is, it gives us something to anticipate.

RED 2

Directed by Dean Parisot.

2013. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.

Cast:

Bruce Willis

Mary-Louise Parker

John Malkovich

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Byung-hun Lee

Helen Mirren

Anthony Hopkins

Neal McDonough

Brian Cox

After the events of the first RED, secret agent Frank (Willis) and his then damsel-in-distress Sarah (Parker) have settled down to a nice quiet life. While out shopping for power tools, they run into Marvin (Malkovich) who informs them that people are still after him and he needs Frank to join him in catching some bad guys. Thinking Marvin is crazy, Frank declines, despite Sarah's protestations. She's become bored with the quiet life. Marvin approaches them again in the store parking lot. Frank turns him down again. Next thing you know, Marvin's car blows up with him in it. This sets in motion a chain of events that leads our heroes around the world, picking up Victoria (Mirren) and Ivan (Cox) along the way. Eventually, things lead to a thingamajig that could blow up everything. Meanwhile, the number of people after them grows and contracts at various points.

RED 2 does the same thing as its predecessor in terms of how it handles its characters. It takes a bunch of stars and lets them all kind of do their thing. They form a totally charming ensemble and appear to be having loads of fun. Regardless of what's going on, it's a blast watching them. Most enjoyable is John Malkovich. No, Marvin doesn't die in the explosion. Spoiler alert not needed. He plays the paranoid, slightly crazed, but ultimately wise agent to perfection. Bruce Willis seems to be stifling laughter much of the time which is always amusing. Helen Mirren once again kicks ass as the cold-blooded assassin whose really a romantic at heart, but gets less screen time this go round. Still, her exchanges with Brian Cox are very funny. This core group is joined by Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Byung-hun Lee, and Neal McDonough all taking glorious turns chewing chunks of scenery. Zeta-Jones is particularly good in her role as "Frank Moses kryptonite."

Unfortunately, the story our heroes and villains tell fails them. Individually, the various elements of the tale could all make their own fun little movie. Thrown together haphazardly, as they are, it's a convoluted mess. Our focus has to jump around the numerous strands, all of which are pulled together in the most contrived ways imaginable. It attempts to be a roller coaster of epic proportions. Instead of gliding through the loops and being pulled joyously from the heights by gravity, we're jerked about the tracks as the frame creaks and sent plunging toward the earth, uncertain the ride will hold up under our weight.

The difference between our feelings about the performers and their material is vast. As viewers, we're left in a weird spot. We enjoy watching them employ their craft. They make us laugh. So the movie functions fairly well as a comedy. However, we're rolling our eyes at the actual events taking place. There are too many of them and they don't quite work with each other. The chefs in this particular kitchen have thrown a bunch of ingredients together without any rhyme or reason and created a dish that has some great elements, but doesn't quite work.

Noah

Directed by Darren Aronofsky.

2014. Rated PG-13, 138 minutes.

Cast:

Russell Crowe

Jennifer Connelly

Ray Winstone

Emma Watson

Anthony Hopkins

Logan Lerman

Douglas Booth

Nick Nolte

Kevin Durand

Mark Margolis

Frank Langella

Leo McHugh Carroll

Even if you're not religious, you're probably familiar with the story of Noah's Ark. The Good Lord was so fed up with mankind that he sent a great flood to wipe us all out. Before He did, though, He let Noah in on the plan and told him to build a great ark and all the animals, two by two, will join him and his family. That way, when the waters recede all of the various species can continue. Noah did precisely this and the world was repopulated entirely by the occupants of the most famous boat of all time. With Russell Crowe in the titular role, Noah fleshes out this saga in more detail than has ever been attempted.

Noah is presented to us as a simple man. He is wholly devoted to The Creator first, his family second, and has the courage of his convictions on all fronts. Crowe plays him as a man with a quiet, yet unwavering, authority. It is also unquestioned within his own family. When he says 'we're building an ark and all the animals are coming,' his wife Naameh (Connelly) doesn't even blink. It's evident that she is as committed as he to carrying out The Creator's wishes. If either of them, or anyone in the movie for that matter, isn't quite sure what He is saying to them, or what should be done next, they go pay a visit to Noah's cave-dwelling grandfather Methusaleh. All is then made clear and we drive on. Also involved are Noah's sons Shem (Booth), Ham (Lerman), and Jahpeth (Carroll). This makes for some pretty interesting family dynamics when things don't seem to be going quite as planned, or at least to everyone's liking. This provides the movie with its biggest dilemma and a controversial outcome. It opens the door for the interpretation that Noah was ultimately a failure in God's eyes. Noah himself seems to feel this way. It goes against the prevailing idea that he was an unmitigated success. Well, unless I missed something. That's entirely possible given I'm not a religious guy. If so, feel free to let me know.

Then again, letting me know what I missed isn't really necessary because this movie really only uses the biblical story of Noah as an outline for the rest of the movie. Basically, that he built an ark, all the animals came, and The Creator flooded the world destroying all life outside of that ark is all that's taken from scripture. However, this isn't a complaint. I fully understand why so much was added to the story. It would have been really boring watching Noah and his family chop down trees, swing hammers, and sing spirituals while they work for a hundred years to get it done. Likewise, it would not have been exciting watching them sail along for forty days and forty nights unless the animals started getting unruly. By the way, the movie very neatly skirts this possibility. Things were needed to give us human conflicts the viewer could relate to. To that end, we get the family drama, including a very tough situation that weighs heavily on the movie's final act. We also get a villain in the form of Tubal-cain (Winstone). He believes Noah really has been told by God to build the ark and that a great flood is coming. Well, Tubal-cain has an army and he wants on that boat! These things work pretty well to create tension where the source material has none. There is also an additional layer of mysticism applied to a tale that already starts with a supernatural conversation. This comes in the form of "The Watchers," fallen angels made of light but encased in rock ages ago when they betrayed The Creator by helping mankind. They seem to have leapt from Peter Jackson's imagination as possible Middle Earth inhabitants. Their presence gives our heroes some much-needed allies and they really spring to life during movie's largest battle scene.

On the technical side, director Darren Aronofsky has created a visually pleasing film. There are lots of wide shots of our heroes either traversing lush landscapes or hard at work on the ark. These and the depiction of the battles again bring Peter Jackson to mind. In battle, The Watchers take on humans in spectacular fashion. Bodies and rocks fly about the screen as swords, axes, and all sorts of ancient weaponry is put to use. By the time we get quite that far, however, we have already seen the most amazing shot of the movie: a forest instantly springing up around Noah and family from a singular seed. Another wonderful sequence has our hero audibly recite the story of Creation, but visually melds it with The Big Bang Theory and evolution. During our scenes aboard the famed vessel, we get lots of shots of people coming out of and going into the shadows symbolizing the less than altruistic intentions of several characters. We are also shown more close ups mimicking the claustrophobic nature of their situation. It's a clear case of the director and his cinematographer using the camera to influence the viewer.

Like lots of films, how much we enjoy Noah might depend on the expectations we bring to it. If you are a devout Christian and/or looking for something that sticks closely to the story you know and love, you may be sorely disappointed. I venture to say so many liberties are taken wish the source material it's possible you'll be offended. Of course, there's that whole bit about just what happened at the beginning of time. If you go into it dreading having to sit through a religious flick, you might just roll your eyes all the way through. Fallen angels and God delivering ultimatums in a voice only heard by one person is not going to change your mind. However, if you enter without clinging to your thoughts on what it should be, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is told well and a good deal of tension is created. It also looks very good, as mentioned. It can drag a bit in spots, but things perk up whenever Ray Winstone or Anthony Hopkins is on the screen. It's a decent watch, but won't inspire you to start building an ark anytime soon.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Hitchcock

Thor

The Elephant Man

Directed by David Lynch.
1980. Rated PG, 124 minutes.
Cast:
John Hurt
Anthony Hopkins
Anne Bancroft
John Gielgud
Wendy Hiller
Freddie Jones
Michael Elphick
Hannah Gordon
Dexter Fletcher

John Merrick (Hurt) has been massively deformed all his life. He has been dubbed “The Elephant Man” and is forced to put himself on display as a freak at a carnival sideshow. He is such the draw, the carnival’s owner Mr. Bytes (Jones) calls him “my treasure”. Dr. Treves (Hopkins) is a well respected surgeon who wishes to study “the creature”. After John suffers a beating at the hands of Bytes the doctor takes him in, giving him a room in an isolated part of the hospital where the doc works. As word spreads about the institution’s newest resident, curiosity rises. Once again, people are flocking to see “The Elephant Man. Is Dr. Treves really any better than a sideshow proprietor? The good doctor eventually questions his own motives. The agendas of most others is painfully obvious. They either fear John’s grotesqueness or seek to profit from it by exploiting him. Those who do neither brazenly point and stare. Thus, the movie becomes an exploration of bigotry and the courage some will show in the face of it. We think the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn. However, we’re made to wonder if even the good guys are causing harm. Based on a true story.

Director David Lynch never lets us off the hook by skimming portions of the story. He paces his movie very deliberately, painstakingly so, at some points. This lets us know John intimately. We learn that despite his deformities and the way he’s been treated there is no bitterness in him. There is only his need to be accepted as a man. This makes him a completely sympathetic character.

There are no subplots to speak of. The movie focuses solely on the plight of Mr. Merrick. This tunnel-vision approach gives the film something I find lacking in other work by Lynch: coherence. It is not some cryptic mass of celluloid you have to wade through seventeen times before deciding you finally get it. It’s easily accessible without being easily formulated. Within its rather normal frame many of the director’s nuances and idiosyncracies are contained. However, he never lets them overwhelm the movie. Instead, they flesh it out.

The duty of fleshing out John only falls partly on the man who plays him, John Hurt. To his credit, Hurt plays the role with a perfect naivete and timidness. He wears the latter as a shield. It often fails him, but nonetheless comforts him by its presence. Like Frankenstein’s monster would eventually come to be played for laughs, it would’ve been easy to have Merrick be a bumbling fool, gaining our affections through laughter. Hurt plays him as a man keenly aware that his life is no laughing matter. The rest of the responsibility for making John whole belongs to Dr. Treves. Through an excellent performance by Anthony Hopkins, he draws the man out of the freak.

When its all said and done, we’ve gone on a tumultuous journey with a man that took no easy steps. We root for him not just because we want him to do well, but because we need him to. If he does, it reaffirms our belief that enough of us human beings are decent people. If he doesn’t he will not have failed, we will. In either case, it begs us to reevaluate how we treat those who are different from ourselves.

The Wolfman (2010)

Directed by Joe Johnston.
2010. Rated R, 119 minutes (unrated director’s cut).
Cast:
Benicio del Toro
Anthony Hopkins
Emily Blunt
Art Malik
Geraldine Chaplin
Nicholas Day
Simon Merrells
Michael Cronin

“Pop, since I’m the bigger man I’m willing to let bygones be bygones so that we can find my brother.” Essentially, this is what Lawrence Talbot (del Toro) says to his father upon his return home. Since this is the late 1800s Lawrence doesn’t have a cell phone or a car. He’s been traveling for days and isn’t quite ready for dad’s response. Basically, dad (Hopkins) says “Oh, didn’t ya hear? We found your brother’s body this morning.” A simple text reading “R.I.P. Simon” (Merrells) might’ve changed things dramatically.

Then again, that might not have changed things at all. You see, big bro decides to pay his respects and discovers what we knew all along, a werewolf has torn him to shreds. Going into a rather tame version of ‘I will avenge my brother’s death’ mode, he still visits all the old haunts where his younger sibling hung out. Despite being rich, little bro apparently was into gypsy chicks so Larry makes a beeline for there spot in the woods. Anyhoo, one thing leads to another and wouldn’t ya know it? Ol’ Lawrence almost gets separated from life by a werewolf, too.

If you’ve seen the 1941 original, then you’ll realize that to this point it is pretty much the same movie. However, there a few drastic difference which change it enough to make it stand, or fall, on its own. First, this one amps up Lawrence’s depression and tries to be real atmospheric. It uses a look and tone that’s far too dreary to come off as anything other than faux angst. I call this “the Twilight factor.” Next, we witness a greater number of transformations and werewolf attacks. Both are in terrifically graphic detail. This was expected but still works very much in its favor. Finally, instead of the self torment that put himself through in the older movie, we get kind of a Vader/Skywalker thing going on. It works okay but not as good as what we had.

Out of all this we get a decent, though not completely unexpected twist. That’s not completely unexpected as in we can see it coming a mile away. Still, it’s well played, dramatically speaking. Aesthetically, it comes off kind of hokey, mostly because of who’s involved. That said, this film is not the bane of society some have claimed it to be. It’s actually not that bad of an update.

Even though I thought it was okay I can’t help but think that it would’ve so much more goofy fun if it were set in the present. I can just imagine his public transformation taking place in Target or Wal-Mart and some teenage girl hiding behind the jewelry counter texting “sum freeks 5 oclock shad gone wild lol!” TTYL.

The Opposite View: Annlee Ellingson, Moving Pictures Magazine

What the Internet Says: 6.1/10 on imdb.com (7/21/10), 33% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10