Skip to main content

How did you get inside that cloud? Also, how could you eat an entire box of Pop-Tarts and still be hungry?

Thor
(2011)

(SPOILERS) Thor gets several things very right, suggesting Marvel were shrewd to offset their nervousness over a magical/supernatural, cod-Shakespearean departure from their semi-realist pictures so far by casting Sir Kenneth Branagh as director. Being a luvvie, he's right at home with theatrical tones erupting from thespians hamming it up. Unfortunately, he's also a movie director of negligible pedigree, one who thinks moving the camera a lot represents style and that Dutch angles are evidence of auteurism. There’s not all that much hyperactivity in Thor, the less the pity – even the Dutch angles are more subdued than one’s accustomed to – as its biggest disappointment is that it fails to dig into its cosmic absurdity and really relish the material.


As it is, the movie's pretty much what you’d expect of a budget-conscious representation of a fantastical realm, big on not-very-interactive soundstage CGI and performers in slightly daft costumes (some of them more so for forgoing imitating the actual "ridiculous" costumes of the comics). I say budget-conscious, but at $150m Thor didn't come cheap, which rather underlines the importance of picking a director with more of a sensibility for such spectacle (the blame can’t all be laid at Ken's door; judging by the scene fighting the Destroyer, the effects team had peanuts left in the kitty by that point).  Pretty much everyone previously in the running as director would have been more interesting (Sam Raimi’s version would surely have been kinetic fun, and then there were Matthew Vaughn, Guillermo del Toro and DJ Caruso). 


Branagh's hyperreal world is rather vanilla, matching most of his for-hire big studio efforts are (CinderellaMurder on the Orient Express). Don’t get me wrong, he doesn’t do anything terribly wrong, and as noted he does more than right by his actors, but overall, he doesn’t do anything much righter than Joe Johnston did on Captain America: The First Avenger. This is the Marvel tradition after all; get a workman in who'll service the brand rather than imprint too much personality onto the finished product. Even when that trend has been bucked to some degree – James Gunn, Taika Waititi, Shane Black – it has been in a very economical fashion, as all three came cheap.


OdinYou are vain, greedy, cruel boy!
ThorAnd you are an old man and a fool!

If First Avenger entirely fails to serve up engaging characters, though, Thor largely succeeds. About the worst you can say is that Natalie Portman's Jane Foster is a non-starter; she occasionally gets to smile, but the movie mostly just swallows her up (she hasn’t had much luck with blockbusters). Also superfluous are Thor's merry band of comrades (Ray Stevenson, Josh Dallas, Jaimie Alexander and Tadanobu Asano) and Idris Elba’s gatekeeper. 


But Kat Dennings reels off some memorable lines ("How did you get inside that cloud? Also, how could you eat an entire box of Pop-Tarts and still be hungry?"; "You know, for a crazy homeless person, he’s pretty cut"), even if she has more presence in the sequel, while Stellan Skarsgård enjoys a drinking session with the Norse god as well as delivering forced references to Bruce Banner. Although, his best scene is directed by Joss Whedon (post-credits). Then there’s Ant, doing what needs to be done as Odin, which is to cash a cheque and lend cue-card gravitas.


One thing Thor more than proves is that the public will embrace a piggy-eyed superhero. We dodged a bullet when Daniel Craig passed on the part (unless he did it completely deadpan, à la the Stat, I doubt he'd have carried the humour any better than his Friends from the North co-star Chris Eccleston can), and Chris Hemsworth brings just the right combination of brio, vanity, egoism and genuineness. The problems he encounters are more in the nature of Thor's truncated arc, required to go from banished ("Run back home, little princess"), petulant youth to worthy of his hammer in double-quick time (the Excalibur shenanigans are nicely done, however). The picture is very precisely divided in these terms, Thor losing the hammer at the thirty-minute mark, trying and failing to raise it at the hour point and then finally succeeding at ninety minutes, serving to emphasise the schematic, playing-it-safe structuring. 


ThorYou think me strange?

Thor is built on such calculation, on how to integrate an unlikely and untested – to Marvel and Kevin Feige at that point, in hindsight underestimating an audience that had flocked to Tolkien less than a decade earlier – fantasy element into its "grounded" world of advance technology and mutants. The answer they came up with was two-fold, although they’ve since realised such trappings are rather superfluous and that people will just go with it. One was to emphasise that Asgard still abides by the rules of science – talk of wormholes, how the Bifrost Bridge is an Einstein-Rosen one – and even have Thor come out and say it (of science and magic, "I come from a place where they’re one and the same"). The other was to go the Masters of the Universe route and hedge bets with a Crocodile Dundee/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Thor-out-of-Asgard plotline that comprises the movie's sandwich filling. To be fair, that forms a crucial part of his Marvel heritage, but the light-heartedness of the approach is all culture-clash comedy.


ThorThis drink, I like it… ANOTHER!

And it works, for the most part. Thor smashes a coffee cup on the floor of a diner in celebration of a caffeine hit, enters Pet Palace with the exhortation "I need a horse!" only to be told they don’t have any (of the pets on offer he requires "One large enough to ride"). He gets pissed with Eric, or gets Eric pissed, at any rate ("He’s fine. We drank, we fought – he made his ancestors proud") and his antiquated speech is an effectively sustained source of mild amusement ("Know this, son of Coul"). If one were to criticise, the approach stresses how frivolous his learning arc is; both Tony Stark and Stephen Strange have had to become better people to earn the superhero mantle, and while Thor's fall and rise at least represents a different take, it comes too easy.


ThorThere'll never be a wiser king than you, or a better father. I have much to learn. I know that now. Someday, perhaps, I shall make you proud.
OdinYou've already made me proud.

If Thor is transferred to the screen surprisingly well (not giving him the helmet really is a cop-out, though), his brother, "the great manipulator" is the movie’s unqualified triumph. I don’t think Hiddleston would have cut it as Thor (which he was up for); I haven’t seen him anything where he isn’t smooth and refined, and as such, he's perfect for the silver tongued one. It’s amusing to see his manipulations of his blockhead brother, involving to witness his discovery of his true parentage, and more engaging than Thor's plotline to learn that all he really wants is to earn the respect of a father he believes favours his natural born son over him (and let’s face it, he does).


ThorWhy have you done this?
LokiTo prove to father that I am a worthy son! When he wakes, I will have saved his life, I will have destroyed that race of monsters, and I will be the true heir to the throne!
ThorYou can’t kill an entire race!
LokiWhy not? And what is this new-found love for the Frost Giants? You could have killed them all with your bare hands!
ThorI’ve changed.
LokiSo have I. Now fight me!


Thor has changed in rather forced fashion, but Loki really hasn't, except in as much as he’s no longer disguising his impulses from his nearest. On a basic level, there’s something more appealing about a character using his brains to best his opponents, be that through words or illusion. And his letting go of his brother's hand at the climax represents a more "heroic" gesture than many a climax, since it gives him the courage of his convictions. Still, like Eric, his best scene is the Whedon-directed teaser for Avengers ("Well, I guess that’s worth a look"). It’s for good reason that he’s considered the most successful of the MCU's villains, and more popular than a good number of their bona fide superheroes.


Agent CoulsonI'm sorry, Ms Foster, but we're the good guys.

Other aspects of the movie are less impressive. The Frost Giants never take on any kind of threat or menace, something that feels even more lacking in the wake of Game of Thrones’ aesthetically similar White Walkers (and Colm Feore is entirely underserved as King Laufey). SHIELD's also present and unnecessarily intrusive, naturally. Their requisition of Jane’s equipment at least sets them out as an establishment presence one should be suspicious of, but the "eyes up high" sequence devoted to the epic fail that is Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) means he is introduced as he means to go on – an irrelevance.


JaneI still don’t think you're the God of Thunder. But you ought to be!

Thor closes out the Phase One solo superhero efforts, and the takeaway is faintly underwhelming. Iron Man is the only genuine knock-it-out-of-the-park win among them, making Joss Whedon's achievement with Avengers all the more laudable (it's easy to regard it as a fait accompli in retrospect). It’s questionable how sustainable the series would have been had Avengers not inflated grosses for all subsequent outings (Ant-Man aside, arguably). Thor did respectably, much more so than The First Avenger, but neither came close to Iron Man, and Thor has arguably only come into his own through capitalising on the humorous potential of the first instalment in Ragnarok (whether that took it too far is another conversation).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

So, crank open that hatch. Breathe some fresh air. Go. Live your life.

Love and Monsters (2020) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, Michael Matthews goes some way towards rehabilitating a title that seemed forever doomed to horrific associations with one of the worst Russell T Davies Doctor Who stories (and labelling it one of his worst is really saying something). Love and Monsters delivers that rarity, an upbeat apocalypse, so going against the prevailing trend of not only the movie genre but also real life.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.