Along with IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2, THE INCREDIBLE HULK and the upcoming CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, THOR is part of Marvel's ongoing build up to next summer's AVENGERS film. Of the three that have been released, THOR might be favorite thus far.
Marvel has been fairly successful in creating their universe on film. What once appeared to be a pipe-dream in combining these profitable properties in one film now is a reality. One of the major complaints about last summer's IRON MAN sequel was how it appeared to serve this purpose more than it's own. You'll get some of this in THOR, but essentially it's its own film. Much of what happens on Earth in the film hints at an AVENGERS tie-in, especially a Jeremy Renner/Hawkeye cameo, but Thor can carry his own film.
Plot-wise, THOR isn't terribly complex. His hubris leads to his downfall and life in exile on Earth teaches him to be the hero he needs to be. Nothing we haven't seen before. Where THOR excels is in it's character development and visual style.
Chris Hemsworth is equally humorous and intense as the title character. Portman is believable in her role as the nerdy love-interest. Hopkins brings a great deal to his performance as the king of the Norse pantheon, Odin, and newcomer Tom Hiddleson is slimy yet complex in his turn as Thor's jealous brother Loki. The Thor, Loki, Odin triangle is very well done. The emotions are all believable and not without proper motivations. Odin loves both his sons and his banishment of Thor is hard on him. Despite his bravado, Thor is completely crushed and brought down to Earth, so to speak, by his exile and inability to reclaim his mighty hammer.
I'm, perhaps, most impressed with the development of the Loki character, who is not mindlessly sinister. He is envious of Odin's love for Thor, yet still a seemingly loving brother and son. The scene when he comes to Earth to visit Thor in custody is another great one, which emphasizes their fraternity despite the fact that Loki is deceiving Thor.
Even smaller characters receive some pretty impressive development, especially considering the brevity of their appearances/importance. Idris Elba ("The Wire"), puts in a great, godly performance as the guard of the rainbow-bridge, Heimdall. Even Stellan Skarsgard, whose character I can't even recall the name of, inserts himself into the film nicely and even gets the AVENGERS treatment after the credits.
The look of the film, especially while in Asgard, is stunning. We are treated to a unique, fantastical realm with lots of color and star-filled backgrounds. At times, I didn't feel as though I was watching the clearest, most realistic CGI, but instead something more abstract, with some elements appearing almost like throwbacks to 70's or 80's fantasy films. I've never been a proponent of CG and modern films' increasing dependence on them, but it seems that we've finally come to a point where films can create these CG environments without being distractingly bad. I appreciate the look of THOR because I feel like there was a lot of work put into making the environments look good, but probably an equal amount of time put into making them look interesting and unique.
One last thing that I appreciated about THOR is its combination of sci-fi and fantasy elements. Thematically, this is mentioned a couple times by main characters, reminding us that science and magic are one in the same, but this is never really delved into, which I appreciate because it keeps the films fantasy elements from being tarnished. Instead, sci-fi and fantasy both show through in the way the film plays out. The opening, where Portman and company are investigating a possible wormhole ends with the appearance of Thor and a "where did this guy come from moment?" before cutting to the title, which I thought was a very effective sci-fi opening. The involvement of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the form of black van/helicopter government spooks who work to cover up the wormhole incident also struck me as very science fiction.
With THOR, director Kenneth Branagh has answered a few questions; most importantly - can he handle such a high-profile property? The answer is undoubtedly 'yes' and not only 'yes', but better than your average big-budget auteur might. I only hope that, after the AVENGERS has come and gone, he returns to make another THOR film, a prospect in which I see a lot of potential.
Some upcoming films of interest have released trailers in the last week or so. If you haven't caught them, here they are.
SLEEPING BEAUTY (Julia Leigh) -
SLEEPING BEAUTY is a film written and helmed by Australian writer and first-time director, Julia Leigh. Essentially, the film, in case you didn't gather from the trailer, is about a young woman who (played by Emily Browning) starts work as a prostitute. Her gimmick? Men carry out their fantasies with her while she's asleep. Sound disturbing? It sure looks disturbing. The film played at Cannes recently to some somewhat mixed reviews, as one might expect with such a film.
IMMORTALS (Tarsem Singh, 11/11) -
This sort of visual sword and sandals epic will undoubtedly elicit comparisons to 300 (which the trailer already does) and therefore catch a lot of flack. I like 300, so I won't sweat the comparisons, but I bet a lot of people will. I can see this being a bit different though with Singh (THE CELL, THE FALL) at the helm. Some elements of the trailer are a bit lame, but I was impressed with the look of it.
THE RETREAT (Carl Tibbetts) -
This film is about a couple in self-imposed island seclusion who receive a visit from a man claiming that a disaster has gripped Europe. The main draw of this film, and what sets it apart from any other low-budget thriller, is the presence of performers of the caliber of Cillian Murphy and Jamie Bell.
BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW - (Panos Cosmatos) -
This film has earned a fair amount of recognition lately, having played the Tribeca Film Fest. Many viewers are offering up comparisons in feel/aesthetic to Kubrickian science fiction, which I guess was the director's intention. Speaking of the director, BLACK RAINBOW is his first film with his only other film credit coming as a second-unit video assistant operator on TOMBSTONE. Apparently, the plot details are a bit debatable, but it takes place in some scientific facility where a young girl is being held against her will.
THE BLEEDING HOUSE (Philip Gelatt) -
Yet another film by a first-time director that's making some noise, THE BLEEDING HOUSE looks to be an unconventional horror film. The official synopsis is as follows: "A stranger with mysterious intentions comes to stay the night at a secluded country home, but what he finds inside is a family torn apart by a violent past and a secret more deadly than he expected." I can't tell who we are supposed to be afraid of, this peculiar man in white, or this family with a past. Either way, it looks good.
FRIGHT NIGHT (Craig Gillespie, 8/19) -
Can't say as though I'm a huge fan of the original FRIGHT NIGHT as I've only seen it once, so I definitely don't mind this rehash. The cast is solid, with Yelchin and David Tennant going up against a scary Colin Farrell. I can see this film being good for a couple reasons; one being my faith in Farrell and my belief that he could play a decent villain and another is the director. I'm not going to say that I loved his first film LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, but it wasn't bad. A horror remake such as this seems more like something they'd give to some crumb-bum music video director, so I feel that Gillespie's involvement could be a good sign.
STRAW DOGS (Lurie 9/16) -
Speaking of remakes, here's one that probably won't work. For one, this trailer looks terrible. I can't imagine why, forty years later, they decided to remake STRAW DOGS. I mean, sure, it could turn out okay, but it almost certainly will not have the same effect as the original. Without the insanity of Sam Peckinpah behind the camera and the quiet intensity of the diminutive Dustin Hoffman in front of it, I just don't see the point. Also, I can't imagine this remake going to the controversial lengths of the original, which was banned in England after its release. I don't know, this one just confounds me. It's not like that many people have even heard of STRAW DOGS.
There's too much violence everywhere these days! People have become desensitized to it! Somebody please think of the children! Yes, I know it's a sick world, blah blah blah. I'm not going to go into too much depth about why I think film/television violence is relatively harmless - especially when considering all the real-life violence that's on the news everyday - but, essentially, the entertainment industry can't be blamed for why we're such monsters.
I actually find a little bloodshed to be quite cathartic. Entertainment violence can be many things. It can be gruesome, perverse, torturous, highly-stylized and even beautiful, any of which is fine by my book as long as it's done with reason and within the confines of a quality film. However, there are some cases of film violence that are just a cut above the rest in terms of the level of satisfaction that can be gleaned from their carnage. These are the films that you come away from smiling, despite the fact that you just saw someone get torn apart. These are the films that stimulate that reptilian brain. These are the Masters of Violence.
1. ROBOCOP - (1987, Verhoeven):
I'm a fan of ROBOCOP, but I haven't seen it that many times, so I turned it on the other day, and man was it satisfying. I actually credit the film with inspiring me to write this feature. The theme music is persistent throughout the film as this man-machine (manchine) drives around, looking for bad guys and messing them up. The revenge aspect of story is made more enjoyable than standard fare by the fact that Murphy, the good cop who became the robot, was literally torn apart by bad guys' bullets.
Peter Weller is outstanding as the man within the suit who gradually begins to regain his memories and his restrained performance makes his motivations more interesting. As viewers, we are without remorse for any of the antagonists. You're either the biggest jerk in the world - Clarence J. Boddicker, one of his psychopathic cronies, or corrupt OCP scumbag Dick Jones. Jones puts controls on Robocop so he can't arrest an OCP employee, so him getting gruesomely put down at the conclusion is very enjoyable.
2. TAKEN - (2008, Morel):
If ROBOCOP is the inspiration for this article, TAKEN is the inspiration for this idea. It is the poster-boy for satisfyingly violent films. A lot of revenge or desperate-man action films will invoke the cliche "whatever it takes". So does TAKEN, but boy does it mean it. Liam Neeson's character is hunting down sex-traffickers who abducted his daughter. Him, being a former spy, has the know-how to retrieve her, but only within a certain period of time before she likely disappears for ever.
What makes TAKEN so satisfying is that he's killing people involved in the sex-trade, the most reprehensible criminals on Earth. Neeson's character doesn't stop to ask questions or question himself and he doesn't need to because there is no one that he comes across in this film that doesn't deserve a horrible death. His time-crunch is also imperative, so as viewers we just want him to keep going. Not only does he run the risk of losing his daughter, but the clock is counting down to her inevitable rape.
His carnage is not without its detractors though as French government officials pursue him in an attempt to curtail his violence. The ways in which he gives them the slip, coupled with his almost unchecked violence against the scum of the Earth villains, create a very satisfying experience indeed.
3. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE - (2005, Cronenberg):
"How come you're so good at killing people" - Carl Fogarty
Tom Stall just wants to live a quiet life, but an act of violence against would-be robbers in his sleepy town calls his former life and sins to him. Viggo Mortensen is the lead and what's so effective about his performance is that he just seems like a regular guy. Even when it comes out that he's not, he still at least seems like a guy who wants to be a regular guy. He isn't seeking out revenge, he's not looking into inflicting violence, instead he's forced into it and forced into protecting the life he's chosen to live.
But for a man who appears so normal, his acts of violence are downright vicious: smashing coffee pots across a man's face, breaking bones, shoving noses into brains and fucking up pretty much everyone in his way. There's just something very appealing about a character who has a mastery of violence, but takes little enjoyment in using it.
4. DEAD MAN'S SHOES - (2004, Meadows):
This is another revenge film and another that is made more satisfying by the protagonist's mastery of violence. Paddy Considine plays a soldier who returns to his hometown where local thugs brutalized his mentally-challenged brother. So naturally, his actions don't need justification. He's basically a force of nature and his targets are absolutely no match for him. The events of the film play out a bit like a horror film, with Considine's character carefully and methodically taking out the thugs.
5. HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER - (1973, Eastwood):
This Eastwood revenge Western makes my list for the manner of violence and revelry expressed by his possibly-otherworldly character, The Stranger. There's never really any conclusive proof about who his character is supposed to be. Is he possessed by the ghost of a dead sheriff? Is he the sheriff's brother? Death himself? The open-endedness of that subject does not detract at all from the level of satisfaction caused by his often-amusing actions.
Throughout the film, besides handily defeating people in combat, The Stranger renames the town Hell, paints it red, and makes a little person the mayor and sheriff. All the while, he indulges himself in the goods of the townspeople, which adds another level to his revenge. Sure, he's waiting for the murderers of the late sheriff so he can inevitably gun them down, but he's also punishing the townsfolk in a way for their cowardice and inaction.
6. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS - (2009, Tarantino):
This film's inclusion is simple enough to explain - who doesn't hate Nazis? INGLOURIOUS works as a revenge film, yes, but that payoff (as satisfying as it is) doesn't occur until near the end. The rest of the violence is left up to the titular band of soldiers led by Brad Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine. Their particular brand of justice is pretty gruesome, with most of the bad guys getting scalped, but one great scene, culminating in the introduction of the "Bear Jew", displays a strange willingness to bargain.
The soldier who reveals information about the location of his comrades doesn't receive a death sentence, but is instead given the mark of the swastika to bear forever, a highly-satisfying compromise.
7. STRAW DOGS - (1971, Peckinpah):
STRAW DOGS makes the list despite being relatively low on violence throughout the first two-thirds of the film. It does so because its payoff is pretty outstanding. David Sumner, played by Dustin Hoffman, is a physically small, non-confrontational intellectual, who spends much of the movie being emasculated by his beautiful wife and a group of local toughs, one of which is his wife's former boyfriend. They relocated to her hometown in rural England so that he could work in peace, but they are without such luck.
After a good portion of subtle intimidation, the local gang make their move after abandoning David on the moors during a hunting trip. Two of them make their way back to the Sumner's and rape his wife. This even goes undetected by David. Only at the conclusion, with the gang converging on their home, is David moved to do something.
His break is pretty drastic and made all the more satisfying after watching him quietly seethe for two hours. He's catching guys in bear traps and hurling hot oil with reckless abandon, something I'll wager you'll only see out of the typically-friendly Hoffman in this particular performance.
Awesome trailer! I have to quote it: "Sam Peckinpah, the man who uncaged The Wild Bunch, now unleashes Dustin Hoffman in STRAW DOGS".
8. FALLING DOWN (1993, Schumacher):
Michael Douglas' character in this film, William Foster, is our protagonist, but he's not a good guy. He's a man with nothing to lose who, after a messy divorce, losing his job and a particularly bad day in traffic decides that he's had enough. Foster takes to the streets, gradually acquiring increasingly lethal weapons (from wooden bat to rocket launcher), and lashing out against what he sees as a flawed society.
Part of what makes Foster so great is that he's never really looking for trouble, it always seems to find him, as though L.A. is just one huge minefield of confrontation. I'm not saying his actions aren't overboard because that's what makes this film so amusing. Pulling out an automatic weapon in a fast food joint after being refused breakfast and then given an unappetizing burger isn't something you or I would do, so, in some ways, we get to live through Foster vicariously.
9. THE HILLS HAVE EYES (2006, Aja):
It's not CITIZEN CANE, but boy is it violent! Much of the film's first half is unwatchable. A helpless family of travelers take a short-cut through the desert at the behest of a trustworthy-looking gas station attendant and are happened upon by some horrific freaks. If the acts of rape and murder inflicted upon the family aren't bad enough, they kill one of their German Shepards.
So, it's up to the weak, liberal son in law and the remaining German Shepard to take out the trash, the freak-trash that is. Who doesn't hate deviant freaks? And who isn't happy to see the dog get a little revenge for once?
10. GET CARTER (1971, Hodges):
This makes the list simply because it's a classic, classy revenge flick starring Michael Caine at the top of his game. Carter's (Caine) unrelenting and brutal revenge is marked by the character's machine-like drive to resolve the matter of his brother's death. Carter is also a gangster and enforcer, so he's not the typical, out-of-his depths retribution hunter, he's adept at killing, a master of violence, which adds to the film's enjoyment.
11. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007, Coens):
This is sort of an 'honorable-mention' entry to this list, but it definitely deserves to be here. It's unlike most of the films on my list because most of the violence is being perpetrated by the bad guy. Sure, not many masters of violence are good guys, but Anton Chigurh is a full-on villain. During the film, Woody Harrelson's character likens him to the bubonic plague. Part of the satisfaction that comes with this film is Chigurh living up to that reputation. He is a force of nature throughout the film, up to the credits.
The manner of his violence is also satisfying for its originality and level of badassery. He utilizes some sort of monstrous cannon with a silencer, as well as a compressed-air butcher's gun and some makeshift explosions.
