Warning: this review contains some spoilers, read on at your discretion
OK, I'll'll say it up front, I apologise if any of you have never heard of this flick. I mean it is exclusively centred around the nature of British criticality and the simplicity of Irish Catholicism set against the backdrop of a real-life story that occurred between the 1950s and the early 2000s. Now before you think "Oh come on Ted, a small-time British niche film based upon a real-life story? That sounds boring as shit!". Now before you put down your mince pie and cup of coffee let me just correct you there. Real-life-based films can indeed be a right pile of steaming shit (see the likes of The Blind Side (2009)), some can turn into what I like to call unappreciated unsuccessful (E.g. Glory (1989), The Last Samurai (2003) and Valkyrie (2008)). And while I sadly feel that Philomena will fall under that category, I do still think it is a damn touching and well-done film that deserves success and respect for pointing out issues that some people are uncomfortable talking about and a story about determination, perseverance and sadness.
Basically the story of this film is as of such. Based on the real story behind the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee (2009) written by former BBC television and radio presenter Martin Sixsmith (although since the mid-2000s he has had a fortunate resurgence in career), the film follows Martin (played adeptly by Steve Coogan) helping an elderly Irish lady named Philomena (again played adeptly this time by Judi Dench) find her long-lost son Anthony who was born out of wedlock while Philomena was working at a nunnery in the 1950s. While Martin and Philomena go along their journey across Catholic Ireland and then the United States of America where her son was taken after he was separated from her by the nuns in a cruel money-making scheme where they sell Irish children to rich American travellers for large amounts of money, Martin helps Philomena see a bit more depth into her deep connection to Irish Catholicism and the events at the nunnery that seemingly scared her for much of her life until she was fortunately able to find out what happened to her son (who was renamed Michael when he arrived in the USA). Sadly as the film progresses we find out that Michael died in 1995 from AIDS after a long an prosperous career as a lawyer to the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations and a happy relationship with his partner Pete Olsson. This then prompts Philomena and Martin to go on a two-person crusade across a large part of the rest of the USA before finally returning to the nunnery in Ireland where this all started for a final clarification of the end of the story and potent criticism of the social injustices that can come about as a result of the misuse of religious authority and hegemony in a deeply religious society.
Now taking that into account, you have probably guessed that this film is not as action-packed as the last few films that I have reviewed on this blog, but really? I think that works in Philomena's favour. Not only is it a sad film with an important social message but its a stead-paced and largely peaceful film that while serving this social commentary up to you as bluntly as possible, also shows what a life of cynicism in the industry of journalism can do to a person's happiness and outlook on their own lives as well as the world indeed in general. The film achieves this latter point mainly by expressing the changes in character and the emotional mixtures within the characters via the marvellous portrayal of the real-life characters in the film such as Sixsmith by Coogan and Philomena herself by Dench. Probably the only other roles you might remember at all after this film is over is the surprisingly heart-warming and yet wordless portrayal of Michael/Anthony through a mixture of home-videos from decades ago juxtaposed against performances by Sean Mahon and the very young Harrison D'Ampney. The role of nun Hildegarde who is given the role of focal point of the criticisms aimed at the social impact of Irish Catholicism and in turn religion in general in this film is brilliantly portrayed as a cold, heartless and callous old witch both as a young nun in the 1950s by Kate Fleetwood and then as the aforementioned bitter, old nun in the early 2000s by Barbara Jefford.
This last role in the film in particular is given particular depth simply through her screen presence, the direction of Stephen Fears and the portrayal, of course, of the evil nun by Fleetwood and Jefford in turn. In all honesty, the scene showing the young Anthony being taken away to America, the eventual discovery that he died of AIDS and in turn the discovery about the administrative corruption of the nuns running the nunnery provides a solid background for the film's strong portrayal of the negative impacts of religion. But really, this is all given the focal point and true face of mean old sister Hildegarde who I can without hesitation, say is one of the most hateful movie villains that I have ever seen. Not that it isn't a pleasure to see such an interesting performance by both Fleetwood and Jefford in portraying the mean old lady and how cheer-worthily-entertaining it is to see the confrontation between the elderly nun and an incensed and sweary Martin at the end of the film over the injustices done against Philomena. Now while this will most definitely cause some raised eyebrows amongst supporters of or believers in Christianity, I believe that some criticism of the social impact of religion in intimate films such as Philomena is just what the doctor ordered.
To give a personal edge and spin onto this issue (which lets face it, is something I don't really do much of anyway), I used to be religious myself when I was younger as I used to believe in Judaism. However, some time after I had my Bar-Mitzvah when I was 13 I became disillusioned about believing in religion in general as I never felt as strong a connection to the religion as some of my more Jewish relatives might do so. I still go round my Grandmother's house now and again to celebrate events like passover, Jewish new-year and Channucka (I might have spelt that wrong) but I do so purely out of respect for my roots and to spend some quality time with the relatives on my mother's side of the family. So when I saw the extent to which Philomena followed Irish Catholicism to the extent that it actually emotionally distraught her for many years, I felt a strange and compelling emotional connection and kinship of sorts to the character both in terms of the real Philomena that the film was talking about and the character that Dench portrays through her excellent acting skills despite my current and stern belief in atheism. Therefore, while there isn't much heart-pounding action in this film whatsoever, the emotional and well-done acting and direction, fabulous storytelling and great social commentary was enough to keep me hooked.
The other main factor that helped to keep me hooked on this film throughout its running time however had to be the comedy which features not a great deal of laughs but laughs that nonetheless show how likeable the person Dench portrays is and the humorous clashes that occur when cynical atheism clashes with simple and conservative, semi-religious values in not so much an angry but more so accidental and innocent manner in the dialogue between Sixsmith and Philomena. Some of you who are not so familiar to British social comedy might want to brush up on the genre a little bit before watching the film so that you can truly appreciate these golden nuggets of laughter. But thank the lord! Uh...I mean thank goodness. Thank goodness that the comedy is there nonetheless as it adds even further depth to the film on top of the social commentary and the gloriously brilliant acting. Particularly, these comedic moments happen during Martin and Philomena's spats over the validity of basing your ethics on a religion, when Philomena shows how old-fashioned she is in her attitudes and sensibilities and when the two discuss books and what happened to them in the past. Now admittedly, that might initially seem a little bit boring in terms of the basis needed for good comedy but I assure you, in the same way that peanut butter and chocolate are a surprisingly good combination on toast, these comedic moments really shine out as being both funny and highlighting the emotional connection between Philomena and Martin as they make their, in turn, emotional journey to find truth.
In conclusion I would say that this film is a must-see if you like a good laugh while learning an important ethical and/or philosophical lesson (and don't contradict me, there is a difference between those two subjects). The direction is simple but well-done, the acting too is simple in showing relatively plain characters in modern British society with a paintwork of excellent acting skills by Judi Dench and good old Steve Coogan. As mentioned before, the social commentary about the social impact and power of religion might strike an uncomfortable chord with some viewers but I would still recommend the film as its message needs to be heard. As of now the film has won 11 awards and was nominated for 6 others so I don't really think that does anything less than speak of how much you should give this film the chance if you ever have the chance to do so in turn. Seriously, go watch this film.
Also before I give the rating I would like to give a shout-out to a fellow blogger I knew in college before I started my Gap year and she went off to study at Duhram university. Her name is Eliza and she offers a humorous and honest perception of student life starting off at university and raises some interesting points (so far the best one has been about living with the opposite gender and smoking) so I'd strongly recommend that you check her blog out: http://howtodoolittle.blogspot.co.uk/
Camera-work: 7.5/10
Characters/Acting: 10/10
Storyline/Plot/action: 8.75/10
Direction: 7.5/10
OVERALL RATING: 33.75/40
Monday, 25 November 2013
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Ted's news reviews #2: The 2013 Philippines typhoon Haiyan disaster
Oh man. Last time I did a review on the news it was of the social, economic and administrative causes and results of the (as I see it) largely pointless London riots in 2011 which started off as a outcry of rage and then descended into a week-long chaos of looting and burning as London was temporarily torn up by the mobs of rioters (Basmati rice theifs included). Whereas this event however was more difficult to analyse in terms of its running course, causes and the resulting effects it would eventually have on British urban social welfare and society in general, the recent and terrible destruction that has been wrought in the islands-nation of the Philippines is arguably easier to analyse.
this does not mean however by any stretch of the word or meaning thereof that the events in the Philippines recently are more easy to stomach than the rage and fury of the London riots nearly more than 2 years ago. Whereas the last news review on this blog was on a crisis of social issues, this new crisis is one of natural, nationwide and far more devastating consequences. After all, what has more of an impact on the way the world sees itself and how we see the plight of others; the burning of parts of a city and the incarnation of frustration or the manifestation of nature's fury being unleashed on a developing and geographically divided nation?
To put this quickly into factual perspective, last week a typhoon of colossal proportions was coming across the Leyte gulf off the Eastern coasts of the Philippines with a house crushing force of up to 270 kilometres per hour as it carved a path of destruction across the central Filipino islands particularly hitting the islands of Cebu, Bohol and Leyte the hardest. In just a couple of days of destruction and death, approximately 670,000 people were displaced and many more left without access to clean water while the electricity to remaining houses in these areas were knocked out by the storm's apocalyptic fury. While tens of thousands to the Northern islands of the country were hit notably hard by the storm, the real epicentre of typhoon Haiyan's fury was unleashed on the central islands of the country where communication and transportation is as hard as anywhere else in the scattered collection of islands that make up the state of the Philippines.
This in turn means that as the huge aid programme that has gotten under-way is finally reaching the Philippines, it is still hard for aid organisations and the Filipino government to transport supplies effectively and efficiently. This means that not only are people in the epicentres of destruction being left without basic provisions, but because of the slowness with which it has finally taken aid to be distributed and transported, many people in the affected areas last week were forced into thieving food banks out of a sad and unfortunate state of necessity and desperation. This was probably the most terrible fact that saddened me about this recent crisis. While the complete and terrifying destruction of whole towns and the majority of many cities in the central islands is scary as hell and the 10,000 dead in Tacloban is a highly sorrowful and sobering thought, I was most saddened by the desperation I saw in the faces of the food-looters on the BBC world-news broadcast as I saw soaked Filipino fathers and mothers carrying weighty sacks of rice over their shoulders.
It might be because I was given a largely left-wing upbringing in large part by my mother when I was growing up that I believe there should be an efficient and equally capable ability to react to disasters anywhere in the Philippines and not just the provinces around the capital. More importantly than this however, when I saw the food-looters struggling though the wreckage of their once-proud city in Tacloban surrounded by dead bodies lined up in body-bags by the road and beleaguered Filipino soldiers at the checkpoints unwilling or unseeing to the food-theft happening on my television screen, I felt an instinctive sadness that the Filipino people could be reduced to so bad a state of poverty and desperation through what is simply the movement of local weather.
Many will argue that global warming is to blame in some part for the disaster that has recently befell the Filipino people, but I think that is an examination that should wait until a few years hence from now. for the immediate future, I think and believe strongly that the main focus of the efforts in the Philippines should not be researching where the typhoon came from or discussing what should've been done as looking at such a retrospective factor now will just be a waste of time. Instead what must be done in the immediate future is that we help the Filipino people from across the world by donating money towards the maintenance of electricity and clean water, supply of food and medicine and the provision of security and re-building and clearing up of the worst effected areas hit by typhoon Haiyan.
I'm not saying that the clear-up and recovery that faces the Philippines will be easy however, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and more have been left without electricity, water and medicine as well as shelter which for many more is now gone. The Philippines is not a naturally prosperous country and is still developing after it left the fold of American colonisation decades ago, so the fact that the country was hit by a typhoon of such ferocity as Haiyan makes the circumstances all the more terrible, saddening and desperate.
therefore, I am asking you all this time round to act with impunity, generosity and alacrity. The Philippines have received many millions of pounds and/or dollars in aid but if the Philippines, a developing nation as it is, is to recover fully in the coming years then it requires more aid and quickly. even if you were to donate a couple of week's worth of pocket money or a few hundred from your bank, I have no doubt in my mind that it would make a difference to the lives of the still-living victims of the typhoon Haiyan.
Remember this and take heart, after all, there isn't enough mutual helping around the world already as it is, but this is a start. Take care people, and spread the kindness and generosity that the people of the Philippines deserve.
this does not mean however by any stretch of the word or meaning thereof that the events in the Philippines recently are more easy to stomach than the rage and fury of the London riots nearly more than 2 years ago. Whereas the last news review on this blog was on a crisis of social issues, this new crisis is one of natural, nationwide and far more devastating consequences. After all, what has more of an impact on the way the world sees itself and how we see the plight of others; the burning of parts of a city and the incarnation of frustration or the manifestation of nature's fury being unleashed on a developing and geographically divided nation?
To put this quickly into factual perspective, last week a typhoon of colossal proportions was coming across the Leyte gulf off the Eastern coasts of the Philippines with a house crushing force of up to 270 kilometres per hour as it carved a path of destruction across the central Filipino islands particularly hitting the islands of Cebu, Bohol and Leyte the hardest. In just a couple of days of destruction and death, approximately 670,000 people were displaced and many more left without access to clean water while the electricity to remaining houses in these areas were knocked out by the storm's apocalyptic fury. While tens of thousands to the Northern islands of the country were hit notably hard by the storm, the real epicentre of typhoon Haiyan's fury was unleashed on the central islands of the country where communication and transportation is as hard as anywhere else in the scattered collection of islands that make up the state of the Philippines.
This in turn means that as the huge aid programme that has gotten under-way is finally reaching the Philippines, it is still hard for aid organisations and the Filipino government to transport supplies effectively and efficiently. This means that not only are people in the epicentres of destruction being left without basic provisions, but because of the slowness with which it has finally taken aid to be distributed and transported, many people in the affected areas last week were forced into thieving food banks out of a sad and unfortunate state of necessity and desperation. This was probably the most terrible fact that saddened me about this recent crisis. While the complete and terrifying destruction of whole towns and the majority of many cities in the central islands is scary as hell and the 10,000 dead in Tacloban is a highly sorrowful and sobering thought, I was most saddened by the desperation I saw in the faces of the food-looters on the BBC world-news broadcast as I saw soaked Filipino fathers and mothers carrying weighty sacks of rice over their shoulders.
It might be because I was given a largely left-wing upbringing in large part by my mother when I was growing up that I believe there should be an efficient and equally capable ability to react to disasters anywhere in the Philippines and not just the provinces around the capital. More importantly than this however, when I saw the food-looters struggling though the wreckage of their once-proud city in Tacloban surrounded by dead bodies lined up in body-bags by the road and beleaguered Filipino soldiers at the checkpoints unwilling or unseeing to the food-theft happening on my television screen, I felt an instinctive sadness that the Filipino people could be reduced to so bad a state of poverty and desperation through what is simply the movement of local weather.
Many will argue that global warming is to blame in some part for the disaster that has recently befell the Filipino people, but I think that is an examination that should wait until a few years hence from now. for the immediate future, I think and believe strongly that the main focus of the efforts in the Philippines should not be researching where the typhoon came from or discussing what should've been done as looking at such a retrospective factor now will just be a waste of time. Instead what must be done in the immediate future is that we help the Filipino people from across the world by donating money towards the maintenance of electricity and clean water, supply of food and medicine and the provision of security and re-building and clearing up of the worst effected areas hit by typhoon Haiyan.
I'm not saying that the clear-up and recovery that faces the Philippines will be easy however, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and more have been left without electricity, water and medicine as well as shelter which for many more is now gone. The Philippines is not a naturally prosperous country and is still developing after it left the fold of American colonisation decades ago, so the fact that the country was hit by a typhoon of such ferocity as Haiyan makes the circumstances all the more terrible, saddening and desperate.
therefore, I am asking you all this time round to act with impunity, generosity and alacrity. The Philippines have received many millions of pounds and/or dollars in aid but if the Philippines, a developing nation as it is, is to recover fully in the coming years then it requires more aid and quickly. even if you were to donate a couple of week's worth of pocket money or a few hundred from your bank, I have no doubt in my mind that it would make a difference to the lives of the still-living victims of the typhoon Haiyan.
Remember this and take heart, after all, there isn't enough mutual helping around the world already as it is, but this is a start. Take care people, and spread the kindness and generosity that the people of the Philippines deserve.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
New film review #11: Thor: The Dark World
What is it with sequels? They seem so fickle about how good or bad they may be. At the very least there is a common consensus amongst film fans that remakes usually suck rat-poison-pellets, historical dramas are sentimental and formulaic but still moving and that some reboots such as The Amazing Spider Man (2012) are made far too soon to have either any real success or ground-breaking impact on the world of film and cinema. In contrast to these kinds of films and in much similarity to a former-child-star's moods and career prospects, sequels to films can either be improving on the first film in some way (E.g. Bad Boys II (2003) or Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)) or (arguably in most cases) being nowhere near the greatness of the first film that the sequel was based off of (E.g. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999) or The Neverending Story III (1994)). Yet sometimes, and by 'sometimes' I mean 'A-reality-show-off-of-MTV-being-good' rare, there pops up a sequel to its original film that is just about as good. No doubt this should put some emphasis on how surprised I was that when I went to see the new Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: The Dark World I was surprised to find that it was neither better or worse than the first film but just about the same, I know right?
The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits. Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons. On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.
Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description. Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).
There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though. Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor. In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen. This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime. On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon. These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.
This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof. In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement. But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy. Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards. It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.
Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story. In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes. In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether. This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle. All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships. Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.
As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film. In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP. In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.
So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film. There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them. Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters. This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).
Camera-work still is excellent as well. Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard. Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes. In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.
One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film. Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)). But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor. With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.
In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW. The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor. Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much. I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest. The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly. On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time. Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.
Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10
OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30
The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits. Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons. On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.
Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description. Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).
There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though. Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor. In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen. This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime. On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon. These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.
This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof. In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement. But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy. Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards. It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.
Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story. In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes. In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether. This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle. All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships. Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.
As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film. In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP. In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.
So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film. There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them. Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters. This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).
Camera-work still is excellent as well. Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard. Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes. In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.
One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film. Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)). But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor. With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.
In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW. The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor. Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much. I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest. The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly. On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time. Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.
Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10
OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)