Thor: The Dark World by Alan Taylor

Thor: The Dark World by Alan Taylor

Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save the universe.

The Avengers aside, the first Thor was my favorite single hero film out of Marvel Phase One. Before Thor, all the Marvel superheroes established were all real world and based in scientific reality. There was a lot of uncertainty to whether Thor would work cinematically. It carried the most risk and was Marvel’s quintessential make-or-break point of expanding its cinematic universe into the realm of magic and aliens. Thankfully director Kenneth Branagh delivered. He balanced the ridiculousness of the Norse Gods with light comedy, done fantastic world creation with Asgard and provided the most interesting villain out of the Marvel cinematic universe.

Thor: The Dark World properly continues the story after The Avengers (sorry, Iron Man 3) and Thor. It retains the things that I liked about the first installment without repeating them. The plot moves fast and it’s intense. Things never gets too grim and has a genuine sense of adventure and awe. Dry witty humor is used again effectively to balance out the ridiculousness of Norse gods walking amongst humans. The fights look tough and grueling, more so than in The Avengers. Partly because everybody’s physically melee fighting and the Dark Elves are actually physically challenging to Thor and the Asgardians.

The Nine Realms are explored more thoroughly and the audience gets to spend more time on Asgard, which is a much more interesting place to be than Earth. The designs and world creation are impressive, particularly in the disaster sequences. It shows how brilliant an idea it was in the first film to imply that magic is unexplainable science, thereby combining and justifying both.

Chris Hemsworth owns the role of Thor with his presence. Thor is a character whose depths are only shown when interacting with other characters, which served as a disadvantage in The Avengers. In his own movie, there’s an immense cast to give him that depth. I liked his arc in this story. Natalie Portman gets to be the fish out of water this time around and it’s an entertaining reversal.

Tom Hiddleston again oozes charm as Loki. It’s a great actor relishing a great part.  He plays the audience like an instrument as we intermittently love and hate him. The writers put a lot of work in designing the twists and turns in Loki’s infinite mind games, truly earning the character the title of “God of Mischief”. Loki fooled me again and again throughout and I kept wanting to trust him.

The Warriors Three gets wrecked a bit. It seemed like there was some scheduling problem in which Tabanobu Asano’s Hogun had to be reduced. Also, I prefer the Joshua Dallas as Fandral, who had to be replaced by Zachary Levi from Chuck. Levi by comparison seems to struggle channeling Errol Flynn. Both cases are unfortunate.

The new villain Malekith played by Christopher Eccleston is buried under a lot of Dark Elf make-up and speaking an alien language in his own scenes, which removes any chance of proper scenery chewing. His presence as a villain is ultimately functional on par with Hugo Weaving’s Red Skull. Malekith exists for the main characters to grow and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is noteworthy. Marvel seems to be ensuring that their villains never are more interesting than their heroes. The heart of the story is still the central relationship between Thor and Loki. In fact, it’s probably the most interesting relationship in the current Marvel cinematic universe. Director Alan Taylor knows this and competently moves their story forward.

The numerous Stan Lee cameos is starting to get creepy because it means there are a growing amount of Stan Lee lookalike clones in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And is it me or has Anthony Hopkins been playing the majority of his roles like a Norse god all this time? I am just kidding.

Depending where Captain America: Winter Soldier goes with Captain America’s story, I wonder how many more solo movies Marvel actually needs to plan out. It doesn’t look like they’re planning any solo Hulk films and Iron Man seems to be up in the air right now. Who knows how Guardians of the Galaxy is going to turn out. But they can really just start doing more Avengers movies at this point. That said, I do want to see what happens with Thor and Loki in a third installment. Actually, a third Thor is very necessary.

Related Links
Iron Man 3 by Shane Black
The Avengers by Joss Whedon

Hitchcock by Sacha Gervasi and The Girl by Julian Jarrold

Foreword: a solution to reviewing two similarly-themed films

On my “Common film review clichés to be avoided” page, I have previously stated that I will critique every film as a standalone piece of work. Recently, a special case has surfaced that now has me reconsidering a possible exception to my previously established rule.

Two films about Alfred Hitchcock released this year: Hitchcock and The Girl.

There is an element of timing for when a movie is released that affects one’s experience of how someone views the subject matter afterwards. Theoretically from a film critic’s mentality, two films sharing the same subject matter should not matter and on principle every piece of work should be critiqued as a standalone piece. However, I am too aware that The Girl will be overlooked because Hitchcock has bigger stars in it, a stronger promotional campaign and a theatrical release.

Funny enough, Toby Jones, who plays Alfred Hitchcock in The Girl, has gone through a similar “double case” with playing Truman Capote. I am no expert on Truman Capote, but from what I have read, Toby Jones’ performance seems like a more accurate depiction. Jones’ version showed more colors of emotions; particularly presenting the playful socialite side of Capote in Infamous, an aspect that seemed muted in Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s take in Bennett Miller’s Capote. Toby Jones’ performance was overlooked after Phillip Seymour Hoffman won the Oscar, it is as if as a social group we have exhausted the amount we can possibly care for a subject in its first interpretation and cannot give the same amount of care or attention to the second.

So as a film critique experiment and also to satisfy my lifelong yen to serve justice for the underdog, I have decided to watch Hitchcock and The Girl back-to-back. I chose Hitchcock first because it chronologically takes place before the events of The Girl. Let’s see what happens.

On with the review of Hitchcock

Hitchcock by Sacha Gervasi

Hitchcock centers on the relationship between director Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville during the making of Psycho, a controversial horror film that became one of the most acclaimed and influential works in the filmmaker’s career.

Anthony Hopkins’ performance is more pantomime than a result of inhabiting a role. There’s a lot of emphasis on Hitchcock’s physicality and his droopy face and it comes off as a very good impression played for comedic effect. It’s possible that it is not Hopkin’s fault as director Sacha Gervasi and writer John J. McLaughlin do not have a particular perspective on how we should view Alfred Hitchcock as a person. The film’s not interested in delving too deeply into who he was but aims for laughs with its comedic self-referential tone and many witty remarks from Hitchcock himself.

Helen Mirren as Alma Reville is a good straight man to Hopkins. The interplay between Hopkins and Helen Mirren is the heart of the film. I wish there was more things for these actors to do, to explore their parts with more insight. It forces me to think that they only casted Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh to sell tickets based on the tease of how they filmed her famous shower scene.

The first third of the film starts off decently plot wise, the central question being “How is Hitchcock going to get Psycho made?” However, once the production of Psycho goes underway, there is no more tension in that storyline. It’s as if there was a checklist of events and the film goes on autopilot and checks them off as we move along for the rest of that storyline. I am sure there was more drama to the production and if there wasn’t, the film should take narrative liberties to dramatize it. For example, we all know the security cars missing the airplane taking off by an inch in Argo did not really happen in real life, but it’s more dramatic depicting it that way than just having the crew sigh relief after passing the three security checks as the film’s climax. No, the film shifts focus onto the relationship between Hitchcock and his wife Alma.

The use of humor gets in the way as well. There is a device where Alfred Hitchcock has imaginary conversations with Ed Gein (played by Michael Wincott), the real-life serial killer that inspired Psycho. It’s a great idea for a device as the manifestation of Ed Gein represents Hitchcock’s drive to complete his controversial vision. In essence, Hitchcock is having a supportive conversation with himself. However, the film chooses to score these conversations with a thriller type score that suggests that the imaginary non-existent Gein is going to stab Hitchcock at any second as if we were suddenly watching a Hitchcock film. This tonally defuses the original goal of the device, all in the place for a self-referential laugh.

Did I learn anything insightful about Alfred Hitchcock? Not too much other than I would really like a supportive wife like Alma. It works as a light dramatic comedy about an aging odd couple.

The checklist nature in which Hitchcock glosses over the events of the making of Psycho ultimately makes for more of a televisual experience as opposed to a cinematic one.

Now on with the review for The Girl

The Girl by Julian Jarrold

The Girl depicts the turbulent relationship between filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock and actress Tippi Hedren. Hitchcock becomes infatuated with his leading actress, and ends up subjecting her to a series of traumatic and gruelling experiences over the making of The Birds and Marnie after she rebuffs his advances.

The Girl is as far away tonally as one could go after watching the light and funny Hitchcock. Aesthetically it’s a much more cinematic experience, it’s a much darker film and it has a very firm perspective of how it depicts its characters. In fact, the most interesting thing about The Girl is it pretty much decides that Alfred Hitchcock was a sexual predator, and fully depicts him that way one hundred percent. This is where The Girl may distance audiences.

Sienna Miller gives a great performance as Tippi Hedren. Even as a victim, Tippi Hedren is not a weak helpless inactive character. Miller manages to find a lot of things to play dramatically which makes this dark subject matter very watchable. I was scared for her in her scenes with Jones and even have a feeling of how beauty can be a problem for a woman if you are constantly gazed at all day by your boss. Something I probably would not think of if not for the film. As naive as it sounds, I would love to hear what women have to say about this film.

Toby Jones delivers. This is a more natural, deeper performance but the ultimate result doesn’t feel like the humorous facetious Hitchcock we know from his onscreen persona. It’s as if Jones had to inhabit the role of Alfred Hitchcock deeper to shift his image to suit the film’s thesis. For example, Jones nails Hitchcock’s voice to a tee, but at times he would shift Hitchcock’s voice to a more sinister place, and at times it was like he was part Alfred Hitchcock, part Cockney gangster. He plays him like an old pervert and through his stare we can see the fantasies that Hitchcock is superimposing onto this woman and experience the emotionally violence. Never has a dirty limerick felt so scary.

I am of two minds about The Girl. If only it was a complete work of fiction with imaginary characters, I could tell you that it was a great film about abuse, harassment and power dynamics against women in the workplace. It’s a story worth telling, it’s a more cinematic film than Hitchcock and I am glad I saw this movie, but I cannot simply dismiss somebody as a sexual predator simply from watching a film.

Not to dispel anybody who has been a victim of emotional or physical abuse, but I cannot verify whether the events in this film really happened or not. As a viewer, I can go as far as viewing it as an interesting speculation at best. I simply cannot answer the film’s plea for justice the way it demanded.

That’s the choice everybody will have to make when watching The Girl: do you believe it for fact or does it stop as an interesting speculation?

Verdict: 
It’s hard to access if this was successful because I cannot rewind and experience this in another way, but I do this works as a solution. Mainly because I had to digest both films together in their individual goals and this is as fair an assessment I could have given for both films individually. It was an ironic experience because the two films have completely opposite depictions of Alfred Hitchcock.

Let me know what you think! =)