Skip to main content

This is so unlike you, brother. So... clandestine. Are you sure you wouldn't rather punch your way out?

Thor: The Dark World
(2013)

(SPOILERS) Thor came in for a few brickbats from devout Marvelites, most of whom seem much happier with this grunged-up sequel. I enjoyed both movies, but I have a feeling (not being particularly au fait with the comic book character) that this one might be the best the studio can come up with in making a success of a not-particularly-interesting character with a not-particularly-interesting backstory and a not-particularly-interesting setting. In theory, Thor should be very different; the Norse legends lend themselves to myth and murk and majesty and mystery, but there’s very little of that in this Marvelised incarnation.


Maybe it was just the compromised take on the source material that fans weren’t on board with in the first Thor. Marvel (understandably, although perhaps they should have been less concerned in the wake of the success of Lord of the Rings) thought Thor would be a tough sell to even superhero-prone audiences; A Norse god living on an alien world? That’s a far thing from the Earth bound familiarity of 90% of superhero movies. The solution? Bring Thor to Earth for much of the action. The lack of Asgard, and its plastic depiction, didn’t go down all that well, but the Masters of the Universe fish-out-of-water approach actually worked. The character they were most concerned about became a hit movie (although nothing of the order of Iron Man). The same year saw the release of the inferior, rather dull really, Captain America: The First Avenger; I don’t think Thor made $80m worldwide more than Cap because of anti-American sentiments (we wouldn’t voraciously consume their movies if that were true); it was simply because Thor was more accessible, and had a much-needed sense of humour that was absent from the largely flaccid and earnest First Avenger. The Dark World has already out-grossed its predecessor, although it looks to be another case of international appeal far exceeding homegrown success (something also seen earlier this year with The Wolverine).


So is The Dark World more accomplished than its predecessor? Most certainly, although it’s probably also true that Sir Ken’s movie has a more distinct personality. If The Dark World mostly ditches Earth (and mostly returns to it to the detriment of satisfactory plotting) it carries over the sense of humour that was the original’s best feature. In Thor, I was most surprised how well Branagh rose to the challenge of blockbuster spectacle. This was a guy who reduced me to helpless mirth when I witnessed his diarrhoetic camerawork in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Dead Again is similarly over-directed). He’s calmed down a little since then. His version of Asgard may be strewn with Dutch angles but the action is staged tolerably; it gives me hope for the Jack Ryan reboot (I’m still sceptical that one will stack up in story terms, however).  


The Dark World has Alan Taylor calling the shots, and he might be the most technically assured pair of hands to helm a Marvel movie yet. The studio doesn’t really seem to want directors who draw attention to themselves stylistically; it’s the superhero who is the star, not the helmer. In that sense, Joss Whedon is probably the ideal “showrunner”; he can punch up the dialogue, clarify the plotting, but as a director he is serviceably workmanlike. He has little in the way of flair, and even now his vision comes by way of a TV studio. Shane Black may be gifted writer, and has proven himself to be a more than competent director, but he is still most definitely a director second. And Taylor comes from a long spell in TV (with a couple of inconspicuous big screen credits). He is malleable, and his work for HBO, and Game of Thrones in particular, marked him out as someone who could handle big budgets and action spectacle. His staging here is impeccable, but he’s not a showy director. When he pulls off a tour de force shot, it’s very much calculated to stand out. That’s to distinguish him from, say, Zach Snyder, who treats every scene or composition as if it’s the movie’s climax. Time will tell if Taylor turns out to be another Rob Bowman, whose striking work on The X-Files bought him a ticket to the features. Unfortunately, a couple of duds later and he’s back on a Castle diet (unlike his star Nathan Fillion).


And unlike Shane Black, who steered both the script and directed his Marvel movie this year, Taylor is subject to a screenplay with no less than five credited writers (and that’s excluding the obligatory Whedon polish). Maybe it’s a too many cooks thing, but the movie’s MacGuffin is its least interesting part. Well, the MacGuffin and the villain. The Dark Elf Malekith (Chris Eccleston, who barely fookin’ nuts anyone; certainly not in a tasty manner) rises from his slumber to gain control of the Aether (unfortunately not a pint of the raw stuff favoured by Raoul Duke; on the Hunter S Thompson scale, this is closer to the definition favoured by Nikola Tesla). It’s one of those all-powerful magical devices/substances that can be used to gain dominion over/destruction of the whole universe, and with an appropriated name to give it a bit of heft (this isn’t something they just came up with on the spur of the moment, you know).


There’s also an alignment of the Nine Realms going on, the Convergence (another familiar-sounding term), helpfully ensuring that portals between worlds suddenly start popping up all over the place. This would be grist to the mill if there was a compelling villain behind it all, but Malekith is completely uninteresting. And Eccleston is no more commanding than in his previous flirtation with Hollywood villainy (the first G.I. Joe). The formulaic nature of the plot is in sharp contrast to the delightful inventiveness of Iron Man Three. Natalie Portman’s Jane is shoehorned in, discovering and being infected by the Aether, and the writers make heavy weather of the reintroductions and continuity required to integrate her last encounter with loverman Thor and the events of Avengers. Worse are the attempts to explain the scientific gobbledegook (nonsense science? Non-science?) underpinning the plot; you can practically hear the audience zoning out during those scenes. Unlike the first movie, where most of the best stuff happens on Earth, here the cuts back are ham-fisted and unnecessary; they have to be there because the recurring characters need to come back, rather than because it serves the story.


I’d seen comments that Jane is well used in The Dark World, but I wouldn’t go that far. Portman gets a few humourous moments (“I’m… not a goat”) and I briefly thought Jane might not just be dangerously infected by the Aether but also get properly possessed and evil (maybe even start getting a bit sexy with it?) No such luck, and her romance with Thor continues to be somewhat tepid. It isn’t objectionable or anything, but there isn’t any real spark there.


Kat Dennings returns as Jane’s kooky friend Darcy, and she’s as delicious as she was first time out. But her character really has very little business being in the movie, and her relationship with “intern’s intern” Ian (Jonathan Howard) results in some rather laboured comedy. Most of the laughs in the movie are good ones but with Ian and Darcy, theirs is purely a comedy subplot struggling to justify itself (I was a bit miffed at the developing romance too, truth be told). The other intentionally whacky scenarios are more successful; Chris O’Dowd’s would-be suitor of Jane goes for obvious chuckles, but O’Dowd (despite recent over-exposure) makes Richard appealing and personable and if nothing else sets up an amusing “jealous Thor” routine (it might have been even more fun if the writers could have manoeuvred the god to intrude on a date between Richard and Jane, but this picture hasn’t the time to stop still). Then there’s Stellan Skarsgård, now in full-on mad comedy scientist mode as Erik Selvig following Avengers; his scenes are entertaining, be it running naked around Stonehenge or postulating scientific theories to fellow inmates at a loony bin (including Stan Lee). If much of the attention to continuity seems a bit wanky, and will likely become even more acute as the Marvel Universe expands, The Dark World is mercifully SHIELD-lite. A particular relief, since their TV series is so shitty.


Much has happened in the careers of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston in the two years since Thor came out (it seems like much longer) and this is the third movie in as many years where they essay these characters. They’re accordingly accomplished, and their repartee and chemistry is one of The Dark World’s prize assets. Both relish the chance to extract every ounce of humour from Thor and Loki. Loki is a gift in that regard, but it’s still the smooth confidence of Hiddleston that makes the character sing. There’s a point, following his release, where the succession of one-liners he’s adorned with become almost an embarrassment as it’s so clear he’s a better character than Thor in every respect. Such is the fate of great villains and anti-heroes.


And it says something that Hemsworth is able to make appealing a character that Loki rightly regards as a muscle-bound dolt. It can’t be coincidental that the best gags, as with the first film, see Thor interacting with the 21st Century Earth; taking a trip on the tube, or hanging his hammer politely on a coat hook (I know, I said the Earth scenes were redundant, but they do include many of the lbest laughs). Talking of hulking loons, there's a great little Captain America cameo (reportedly written by Whedon) that reminds you Chris Evans is a funny charismatic guy away from the bland clean cut Steve Austin.


Thor also receives some proper character development, even if it’s largely in the form of pronouncements; he has come to terms with his place in the world and he’s much better off not being king. This might not be earth shattering but, stood alongside the Star Trek Into Darkness reset, it comes across as positively deep. Arguably, making Loki a “good guy” is the kind of predictable decision that confirms this as nuts-and-bolts rather than inspirational storytelling. But at least they provide some believable stakes and don’t pussy out with him. The illusion stuff may end up being telegraphed, but it managed to deceive me during the most important moments (Thor losing his hand). Nevertheless, there are so many switcheroos that you begin to expect them after a while; they need to be used judiciously or they lose their power. The climax virtually guarantees a Loki-Thor showdown for Thor 3, whenever that may be (and if Odin’s not there, it won’t really be such a loss).


Lessened impact is also a problem with the picture’s climax in London (I was only surprised the scene-setting subtitle didn’t include “England”). Like the Star Trek Into Darkness finale, this is one climax too many; they really should have sorted out Malekith on Svartalfheim. The fight through portals between Thor and the Elf surely looked good on paper, and it’s a neat visual idea, but it doesn’t translate dramatically. It isn’t narratively sustained or suitably creative, so it loses steam (just get on with it). And because Malekith is such a non-entity we’re only invested because we’re told we should be. By this point Loki has left the picture, and with him its drive. I can’t really blame Eccleston for Malekith; he’s not got much to work with, and being asked to speak in an invented language isn’t going to do much for your screen presence (it’s all very Klingon). Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is similarly afflicted as Algrim.


As for the designs of elves and Kursed, and the planets and Asgard in general, the visuals are accomplished effects-wise but also unmemorable. This is software house world building as a routine, and no number of actual settings (Iceland) to suggest substance can banish (indeed it just encourages) the feeling that we’ve seen this all before. The unfortunate truth of employing someone to give that Game of Thrones sensibility to Thor is that it ends up mimicking Game of Thrones, just in more extravagant and spectacular fashion (and with less gore and tits). None of it is bad, and conceptually the science fiction element married to mythology is appealing. But it invites déjà vu, right down to the spaceships raiding George Lucas’ sound effects department. Taylor has dirtied Asgard up as instructed, but the palette is generally unimpressive – this could be any post-LOTR fantasy domain.


Perhaps the director would have been more experimental if he weren’t working to instruction. I doubt it, though. As noted, Taylor’s approach is precise and methodical. The slow motion sequence where Thor takes a chunk out of Malekith dazzles, and shows that Taylor knows just how to achieve that kind of thing if he wants to, but I suspect he just wants to be a good storyteller. Which makes it a shame The Dark World’s is merely so-so. Taylor received a bit of attention a while back for voicing his disappointment that Carter Burwell was pushed off the picture, to be replaced by a more generic Brian Tyler score. I really liked Tyler’s score on Iron Man Three, so I can understand why Marvel thought he was a safe bet, but I’m hard-pressed to recall anything about this one and couldn’t 10 minutes after leaving the cinema. Marvel need to watch themselves with this fixation on seeing something that works and then shamelessly repeating it. The natty end titles showing stylised images from the film was a nice touch in IM3, so why risk too much of a good thing by repeating it here?


There’s been a fair amount of talk regarding a potential Director’s Cut in the weeks since the picture’s release, not least from Taylor itself. I suspect pigs might fly (we never saw the much-discussed Ed Norton-approved version of The Incredible Hulk, nor the longer Whedon cut of Avengers). It’s very obvious why this is getting attention, though. Tonally the picture is almost abrasive in its ethos of charging ahead regardless of whether it is narratively or emotionally coherent. My concern was first piqued by the suddenness with which Algrim arrives in Asgard, as if a whole exchange or sequence had been lopped out. But this is as nothing to the undercut moments of pathos. I think we can safely assume Marvel, rather than Taylor, don’t want to allow the picture time to breathe during all-important moments. The result is that it occasionally comes across as slightly obnoxious.


Something is off in the speed with which the funeral of Frigga (Rene Russo, and a most unfortunate name) is accomplished (the very next scene after she dies). The same thing happens later, when Loki “snuffs it” and suddenly it’s gag city as Thor arrives back on Earth. This is why the hammer-on-a-hook moment isn’t quite effective as it should be; it’s jarring. One might also argue the tonal shift telegraphs that Loki isn’t dead by brushing over it so lightly (but Thor doesn’t know that, so what’s his excuse). There are other aspects that may or may not have been clarified in a less truncated version, such as the powers of these dudes. Why does Frigga die but Loki survive (he was faking it? If so it needs clarification)? Aside from these areas, I’m not wholly persuaded by Taylor’s argument for extension. I’m very doubtful that more screen time for Malekith would suddenly make him a “fantastic” character. Or that the kids exploring the portal properties would be compelling (what, were the producers seduced by Attack the Block?)


Most of the supporting players get short shrift. Unfortunately there’s more than enough of (Sir) Anthony Hopkins, who can be even less arsed than he was first time out. Idris Elba’s increased profile sees him rewarded with a neat action scene where he leaps on a spaceship. But Jaimie Alexander and Ray Stevenson barely register. I’d completely forgotten Russo was in the first movie, so at least she’s memorably written out of this one.


I dutifully stayed for the double bill of credits scenes. During the final one, with Thor visiting Jane on Earth, I was willing a reveal of Loki masquerading as the hammer-wielder, but no such luck. The Guardians of the Galaxy “teaser” left zero impression narratively (something about blah blah stones) but I love Benicio Del Toro’s preening, fright-wigged performance. Whatever the hell it is he’s doing; he comes across like a fantasy movie version of Tommy Lee Jones’ Clay Shaw in JFK.


I really wasn't too fussed about The Dark World from the trailers (I wasn’t sold by those for Iron Man Three either), but the picture dares you not to have a good time. On one level my response was accurate, as this is one of those movies that satisfies without truly wowing. Taylor was definitely the right man for the job, but he is servicing a script so pre-packaged that even its many great moments fail to leave you elated or enervated in the manner Iron Man Three does.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.