2011. Dir: Kenneth Branagh. Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston and Stellan Skarsgaard. ●●●●○
The dominance of Marvel comics over the summer schedules for 2011 has got off to a good start with the fun and gorgeously designed Thor. Hopefully for them they can keep the ball in the air with the rest of the slate which now has a lot to live up to.
The film opens with a piece of Lord of the Rings style backstory with Sir Anthony Hopkins booming out the relationship between the Norse mythology, our Godlike heroes of the film and the villainous Frost Giants. It's a tale of bloody combat with the Frost Giants virtually totally annihilated and Odin's (the king of the Gods and father to Thor) appetite for war spent. So far so medieval monarchy, you could transplant Odin for any European king in the dark ages, any anti-hero from Jacobean theatrical tradition and his motivations would be a perfect fit, suddenly the decision to hire Kenneth Branagh as director makes perfect sense.
Flash forward many centuries (the Gods appear to age slower than men, although this leaves a small plot hole where a very young Thor would not have made an impact enough to be written about by ancient Scandinavian cultures) where Thor, all smirking self-confidence and irritatingly impatient, is about to attend his coronation. A small team of Frost Giants break into the Asgardian vaults so Thor mounts a war party to seek revenge for this infringement. For this thoughtless lack of diplomacy Odin banishes his firstborn to Earth with his mighty hammer and the hope that he'll learn some humility and the concept of self-sacrifice.
The film then breaks into two parallel storylines. In one, a delightful New Mexico set comedy, Thor is getting to grips with life on Earth and falling for Astro-physicist Natalie Portman, whilst in the other Odin's other son, Loki, is plotting and schemeing his way onto the throne of Asgard.
Chris Hemsworth gives a solid central performance, cocky and unlikeable in the first act, he shows great comic timing in his interactions with the mortals and even when he's given awful dialogue (there are some strange phrases that seem neither Asgardian in tone or like someone trying to fit in) he commits so much it works. When he goes into a pet shop it's a great comic scene that sells the character and his relationship with the world around him. Plus he is extraordinarily cut. Portman doesn't have much to do, sure she comes across much better than most Marvel heroines, clearly able to hold her own intellectually with the rest of the characters and doesn't have a scene where she needs to be rescued, however she mainly spouts unlikely scientific statements and builds up a desire for Thor. The other earthbound cast are fine, Stellan Skarsgaard and Kat Dennings as Portman's colleagues are great value, with the former particularly struggling to keep a straight face.
There are so many characters in Asgard few of them get enough of an opportunity to build character, only Tom Hiddleston's Loki with his multiple Machiavellian schemes (it's truly difficult to keep track on what he's actually doing) displays any conflicting emotion and whilst he did the job well here I think there's more and better work coming from the young Brit. Idris Elba, as gatekeeper Heimdall, was wasted in a role that promised much but I suspect was left partly on the cutting room floor. On that note at 114 minutes, including a pointless post credits extra scene with Samuel L. Jackson; just pointing the way to The Avengers heavyhanded given the few chucklesome mentions of other characters which had slipped in the script ("Is that Stark technology?", "I have a colleague working on Gamma Radiation" etc.), the time flew by and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a significant number of deleted scenes once the DVD roles around.
Branagh shows a sure hand with the comic and Asgard formal scenes, clearly using all his experience from adapting Shakespeare, and he is surprisingly adept with the action set-pieces I found I knew exactly what was going on during them, however there is a slight issue with the character, if you know Thor cannot be killed as he is a God then the tension is drained. Only the final battle in Asgard surprised me in it's conclusion, and it's clearly open for a sequel I just hope that possibility isn't just dusted over in The Avengers.
My major complaint about Thor is the totally unnecessary 3D filming. Not only does very little happen that justifies the additional expense, but the murkiness of watching through glasses totally ruins the spectacular design of Asgard. I can honestly say that watching the trailer on my cheap laptop was a superior experience because of the bright and crisp colours that watching the print at the cinema. Alexandra Byrne's costumes and Bo Welch's production design deserve so much more than showing the film in 3D.
Overall I'd say Thor is well worth the trip to the cinema. Sure it's no X2 but it's a fun comic book adaptation with some fine performances that will keep you entertained throughout. That said do your best to watch in 2D.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Thor
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Kenneth Branagh
Happy Birthday to
Kenneth Branagh
49 today
If you're still concerned about Branagh being able to handle a blockbuster like the forthcoming Thor then ask yourself which director working today has a better record of taking iambic pentameter and making it seem like natural speech patterns.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
Valkyrie
2008. Dir: Bryan Singer. Starring: Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Carice van Houten. ●●●●○
If you are going to watch Valkyrie I implore you to leave all your baggage at the door. Whatever preconceived notions you may have about the film they will not help your enjoyment in any way. Whatever your thoughts about Mr. Cruise or Mr. Singer or any other people involved in the making of this film they are irrelevant.
Instead you should go into the cinema with a clear mind and a fair capacity to enjoy this "b"-movie thriller and you will enjoy yourselves.
That is is a "b"-movie is perhaps open to interpretation. It's cast list may include the most famous man on the planet and a classy set of british vets but ultimately the film is about the most famous failed assassination attempt in history.
We begin by meeting Colonel Claus von Stauffenburg (Cruise) in North Africa, his battalion being slowly beaten back by the advancing brits. Von Stauffenburg writes in his diary - a fascinating segue from written and spoken German to english - of his lack of faith in the Nazi party and his attempts to recruit other senior officers to help him let high command know the party must be stopped. It's a ridiculous scene, because only a fool would write what he was saying, but it helps to introduce his high moral standards before he's shot to pieces (losing an eye, a hand and 2 other fingers).
We then move to Germany where Major-General Henning von Tresckow (Branagh) is stowing a bomb on the Fuhrer's plane. This fails to go off and some of the conspirators, though not the ones whose faces we know, are summarily rounded up.
Amazingly Satuffenburg is recruited to the staff of General Friedrich Olbricht (Nighy) a key member of the plot, and a new plan is put together.
The rest of the film follows the design, preparation and implementation of the assassination attempt. It's a utterly simple plan - blow up Hitler and use the reserve army to take Berlin and thus control the Reich. Then use the momentum to put a moderate in power and ultimately end the war. The fact that we know the plot failed does little to reduce the tension built up during the film.
That tension is mainly created by the sparse and pointed script from Christopher MacQuarrie and Nathan Alexander, and also aided by an energetic score from John Ottman. Although there is a downside to this; the mood was built up and up throughout the film with never any sense of levity. I know it's a serious topic but every line seemed to be written, or at least performed, as if it were life or death. Thus making it impossible to really get to grips with these brave men.
Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise - but at least he's not doing a bad Tom Cruise impression (see Mission Impossible III). Perhaps he might have appeared to be a better actor if he didn't surround himself by masters. Bill Nighy as his cowardly co-conspirator and Tom Wilkinson as the oily Fromm, waiting to see how the coin will land before calling it, both turn in superb performances which if the film had had an effective campaign may have got some award traction going.
Stylistically the film was nothing special, other than a nice shot of a record, and perhaps this represent a bit of a step back for Singer. That's a shame as I like his sensibilities. His next film on imdb looks to be You want me to Kill him about 2 boys who strike up a friendship on the internet that leads to murderous results. This may be an interesting mix between Heavenly Creatures and Elephant, and it's certainly the sort of film I'd like to See Singer concentrate on.
