Thor (2011)

Film: Thor
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Next in the series: Thor: The Dark World
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When the arrogant prince of the asgardians nearly starts a war with Jotunheim, Odin strips him of his powers and sends him and the magical hammer Mjolnir to Earth as penance. Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of THOR.

Hans' thoughts:

Based on the Marvel comics interpretation of Norse mythology, Thor brings us a tale of a man who has to learn from the consequences of his actions. 

There's a sharp contrast

"Thor" in this movie is played by Chris Hemsworth, while he certainly looks like the Marvel version of Thor and does a very good job of playing the part (albeit I remember even the Marvel comics version of Thor as being a bit less serious) as a scandinavian I grew up on the Peter Madsen Valhalla comic books and seeing Thor as a big, ribbed, aryan man is just a bizarre contrast to the muscled-yet-potbellied redhead Thor that I grew up with. Okay granted, the two characters were designed with very different purposes in mind and interpreted by two very different artists. It's fun to see an international interpretation of something that's been a pretty big part of my life since I was a kid - norse mythology. Just like in the Marvel comics, all the Asgardian residents speaks in old english, this is why it's only fitting that the movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh who's traditionally known for adapting Shakespearian plays. His biggest project being a 4 hour adaptation of the entirety of Hamlet's original screenplay. That's quite the achievement and having someone who's known for such serious work is a neat contribution to the Marvel movie line-up. 

I don't think the comparison can be more blatant than this

It's also fitting in another regard as well, the Marvel comic book Thor is certainly named after and heavily based on norse mythology but some elements of his origin story are based on Arthurian legend. The hammer Mjolnir traditionally belongs only to Thor, however in the Marvel universe the mighty grinder can be wielded by anyone who's considered worthy enough - this is pretty much the same concept as the sword in the stone. Only the true king of Camelot could pull out the sword and be dubbed true lord of all England. We also have some Shakespearean dramatic elements in that while the story has superpowers and monsters such the story is ultimately a tale of neglect and betrayal - "a house divided cannot stand" as one would could put it. The design of Asgard in the movie are very outlandish, this is because the original Marvel design of Thor was done by Jack Kirby. Kirby was known for being able to create some very outlandish character designs, being responsible for co-creating most of the big-name Marvel comic creations such as Doctor Strange, Fantastic Four,  you can certainly see his special touch in this movie. He wasn't involved in making the film, having died several years previously but the creators decided to keep the character designs and set-pieces as true to the comic book version as possible, albeit adapted a tad to make it more approachable to modern audiences.

The throneroom of Odin as it appears in the movie

As for the actors, they all do a very good job. I'm actually thrown off by how convincingly these people can make the setting seem kinda plausible - given the circumstances of the costumes. Were anyone to nickname the Asgard segments of the movie, it would probably be "Shakespeare in silly hats". This is largely due to the talent of the Asgardian actors. While you cannot deny that the Earth based actors were certainly good (I especially liked Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig) the asgardian cast just had two very good actors aboard. I'm of course talking of the star power of Anthony Hopkins combined with, the MVP of the movie, Tom Hiddleston. Tom Hiddleston portrays Loki, and really runs away with his performance. The character like the original mythic Loki in some regard but given the extra character depth of being the black sheep of his family, living in the shadow of his boastful favorited brother Thor. It's very similar to the Shakespearean character of Claudius. This comparison is obviously not lost on Kenneth Branagh and the confrontations between him and the other characters of the movie are just so well done. You can also tell that Hiddleston had a lot of fun with the character, the grin on his face when something finally goes his way is just priceless - it spells certain doom. While not as present, I also like the performance from Idris Elba as Heimdall, the guardian of Bifrost. He oozes authority and self-confidence, and really seems almost in-human in how stoic he is. This sounds like a hidden jab, but playing an almost completely emotionless character - intentionally. That is VERY hard to pull off, regardless of what anyone would tell you.

"Frost giants".

That aside, I was actually able to take the costumes seriously and I'm loving the updated look of especially Loki. Keeping it true to the original but still a bit more streamlined. I also dig that they actually decided to make the movie have colors, just like the rest of the in-house Marvel movie adaptations the movie didn't attempt to make itself more serious than it is by removing most of the colors from the character designs. Compare this to the X-Men movies that removed the individual costumes from the characters and instead gave them covert-ops type uniforms to walk around in. The earth sections of the movie takes place in a small desert town in New Mexico, the setting is a stark contrast to the colorful look of Asgard and really enforces the magic of the other world. You can instantly tell at any point in the movie when it is taking place on earth and when it is taking place in Asgard, this is helped by the earth sections being color-graded gray while the Asgard sections are color-graded orange/yellow. There is a third setting of the movie called Jotunheim, again contrasted to the others by being color-graded blue. However that entire setting is only present for about 15 minutes of the film combined, and is mostly set in shadows and at dusk. Frost giants, on a side note, is a horrible translation of "Jotun". Jotuns are nothing like giants. Though there are giant jotuns.. no wait, I'm getting off on a tangent here - Jotuns are not giants end of story.

I Thor, You Jane

As far as adaptations of mythology goes, this is a very inaccurate version. However, as far as comic book adaptations go this is pretty darn accurate. It sticks to the original looks of the characters, it doesn't add unnecessary extra drama to make itself more mature and on top of all that it manages to be fun to watch while still having some pretty serious elements to it. Thor is part of the Marvel cinematic universe and would be the first one to add a mystical element to the setting. Prior movies in the continuity having been mostly based on science fiction. Tom Hiddleston would also go on to be the best Marvel movie villain thus far, a man driven to desperate measures by a neglectful family is something anyone can relate to. However much you love your family, being a family can be hard and sometimes it just drives some people over an edge they cannot come back from. The lovestory present in the movie is, while very sweet a bit out of place given the rest of the movie. It falls into typical Disney romance territory when it comes to how short it is. For the purposes of establishing it as part of the Marvel lore however, I glad they kept it in, if anything to get a heartwarming break from all the drama of the Asgardian setting. While not the greatest superhero movie ever, it certainly deserves recognition as being a good movie. A fantasy adventure with a great hero and a greater villain.

Real Steel (2011)

Film: Real Steel
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo, Karl Yune
Directed by: Shawn Levy
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A former boxer and failing robot-boxing promoter is about to lose everything when he suddenly has to spend the summer with his estranged 11-year old son after the death of his mother.

Hans' thoughts:

Putting a new spin on a tried and true formula, Real Steel combines 3 well-known plot-types with some of the best CGI special effects in years. It is both an Underdog movie, with the newcomer reaching the big leagues, a family drama, with our two main characters trying to reconnect and a movie about companionship, with the boy and his robot angle, it's likeness seen before in movies such as E.T, The Iron Giant and even to some extent Studio Ghibli's Ponyo. Set in the near future of the 2020's, human boxers has long since been outsourced in favor of the potential for carnage in having machines fight each other. 

There is drama here, not that the movie ever gets particularly dark, mind you. It was definitely made with a kid and teenage demographic in mind but the roots of the drama of the story isn't exactly roses and daffodils. The drama of course, stems from the relationship between our two main characters. Hugh Jackman plays the failing boxing promoter Charlie Kenton that gets by in life by running from loan sharks and being overzealous, apparently repeating the same mistakes constantly as his downward spiral just continues. This is interrupted when he is contacted to sign over the rights to a son he barely remembers he had, his ex has just passed away and he now has to deal with the responsibility of trying to connect with his 11-year old son, a boy in whose life he's never played even a minor part. As far as child actors go, Dakota Goyo manages to get the job done without making it painfully obvious that he's not had to carry a movie to this extent before, having mostly appeared in minor and supporting roles to that point. This movie was not made for an adult audience, and thankfully so as these types of niche movies tend to rely far too much on the nature of so-called nerd demographic to try and unnecessarily "dignify" their choice of movie with it being as dark and gritty as possible, almost childishly so as a result.

The movie at heart is a fun little father-son adventure, set in a robot boxing universe. But while the main plot is simple, the execution is stellar and the audiences curiosity for the universe surrounding our main characters will make for a fun, if simple experience. There is nothing deep here, and you should not expect to be enthralled by a dramatic moment or a message. What you should expect, is fun to-the-point robot fighting action with some of the best CGI effects in the genre. Robots really take the center stage in this movie and some of the designs of these things are pretty imaginative, and while not as great a movie I would wager that they're better than those of more recent robot movie Pacific Rim. I should elaborate, while the design of our main robot is pretty basic (basically a big metal person) a few of the designs of the minor robots are pretty stellar and I highly support the decision to make every robot almost have it's own little signature, minor things like having the robot with a cowboy design raise it fists in a rhythm that would suggest shooting two revolvers into the air in true western fashion are just neat little touches to brighten up the atmosphere of the movie. Thankfully, the action scenes are also shot in a manner to try and show off the designs of the characters, meaning that unlike movies like Transformers you will never have trouble recognizing who's who in the ring. Honestly, at some points I felt that the robots really were there if only for a brief moment.

Bringing the underdog sports movie into the new millenia, Real Steel is the kind of movie you would expect to have been made in the eighties and nineties - I could probably have found myself playing with toys of these characters alongside those of Ghostbusters figures. As it is though, I consider it some of the best live action children's entertainment in recent years. I recommend it to kids and childish adults everywhere.

Drive (2011)

Film: Drive
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring:  Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
IMDB Page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A young man works as a stunt driver and a mechanic. On the side he makes extra money as a getaway driver for criminals.

Hans' thoughts:

This is one of those movies that I had to force myself to sit through, Not because it's bad but because this is a very slow movie. You get the atmosphere of driving home in the dark, the radio only playing low beat music and everyone in the car being way too tired to tired to strike a conversation. Or if you're on your way home alone from a night out with friends, sitting in a mostly empty bus. That kind of feeling. I really couldn't explain it better than that. 

Explanations are actually something this movie doesn't spend a lot of time on. If you don't pay attention, you might miss out on vital information. It takes the notion of show don't tell way too far in my opinion. It is indeed, not a movie for the masses. Relying heavily on it's soundtrack, on the lighting and the expressions on the characters. In that regard, this is actually a great movie. But alas, it is an art piece and not something I would recommend for the sake of mere entertainment. It would go well in a media classroom, or in front of someone who already has a vested interest in film.

There is something to be said for the plot though, it tries it best to go against conventions and be it's own thing. What at first seems like an artsy remake of Transporter turns out to have so much going for it. Again, if you're actually into movies as a vested interest instead of just idle entertainment. This I imagine, is a movie that's divided critics and the wide audience pretty clean cut. Of course, being more artsy than for general audiences isn't a failure. There a plenty of great movies that 'normal' people wouldn't give 5 minutes of their time. However, I feel that explaining away lack of entertainment value with "this is not for these certain types of people" would be me failing as a critic. Is it a good movie? Yes! It's great! Actually I would call it a modern masterpiece. But there is not much enjoyment to be found here, and that is a fault - intended audience be damned.

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Film: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by: David Yates
Previous in the series: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 1
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After narrowly escaping captivity, Harry begins the search for the final Horcrux so he can finally confront Voldemort.

Hans' thoughts:

Here we are, the end of one of biggest franchises in books. As well as one of the most ambitious movie projects ever. Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 gives us all the final details, as well as the final fight scene between several of the characters. Harry fighting Voldemort, Neville cementing his status as a bad ass, Dumbledore finally explaining what the hell we've been looking at for the last 8 movies. So how is it? Does it do the absolutely awesome series roots justice?

Well, yes and no. While we certainly get all the action we could want, as well as a dearly needed statements of intent from some of the more ominous characters, this movie falls just flat of being great. Yes, Voldemort get's what he deserves, yes the special effects are absolutely gorgeous but honestly I feel kind of cheated out of something truly spectacular. Some of the characters that die are just sort of panned over, their deaths only mentioned in the passing (get it?). I also feel that as an adaptation, the movie could've fixed some of the problems of the source material. The most obvious being the pointless deaths of characters we barely know the names of. Tonks and Remus had a kid? When did that happen? Who's Tonks by the way? Of course, this is all something you would know better if you had read the books but this is also a flaw: These movies should be able to stand on their own, rather than simply cater to the readers. 

There's also the matter of the final scene of the movie. This is something everyone points out when talking about the movie so I'll make it brief: After the death of Voldemort, the movie jumps ahead 19 years to Harry as an adult taking his children to King's Cross to send them on their way to Hogwarts. This is a flaw grounded in the book, and I really feel it ruins most of the movie. Instead of getting a large celebration at the destruction of the dark lord, we're cheated out of the satisfaction.

While a satisfying end on the "villain gets what's been coming to him" part, one can't help but feel a bit disappointed after all these movies. 

50/50 (2011)

Film: 50/50
Release: 2011, theatrical
Starring: Joseph Gordon Lewitt, Seth Rogen, Bryce Dallas Howard
Directed by: Jonathan Levine
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The young radio-editor Adam finds out he has a rare form of genetic spinal cancer. The movie follows his experiences with trying to cope with it.

Hans' thoughts:

So when I heard that this movie was a comedy about cancer starring Seth Rogen, I didn't exactly jump for joy. Cancer is a touchy subject to say the least, and Rogen is a very silly actor.

Suffice to say I was pleasantly surprised, this movie not only manages to be touching, it manages to capture the pressure that everyone is under when someone in the family is going through something awful. I really like that, I feel that a lot of fiction dealing with something like this, medical tv-shows in particular, only focus on what the person dealing with the decease have to go through. They tend to forget that the rest of the family and friends is dealing with the potential loss of someone close to them. This movie addresses that part pretty well, without over-simplifying the problems of the main character.

I also feel that the comedy of this movie was pretty good. The problem with reviewing comedy is of course that everyone has their own sense of humor. But I think the jokes were general enough that anyone could "get" them. They manage to keep the funny parts funny, and the serious parts.. well, serious. It's actually a pretty big compliment from my side as not many movies get that balance right. Either they make it completely comedic or they just wallow in tragedy, making the movie watching experience almost unbearable.

I'll recommend this movie to couples especially, it sits close to what many would call "chick flicks" but without being overly dramatic or romantic. The men in the couples will actually manage to keep awake for this one, mostly due to the presence of Seth Rogen as the main characters best friend. Does this movie have failed jokes? Well. Yes. There are some of the jokes related to his job that kinda fall flat - mostly because we don't actually see that much of his day-to-day life. What we see is mostly circumstantial.

All in all, this ended up not being a comedy with a dramatic centerpiece, but rather a pretty touching drama with a couple of jokes thrown in to lighten the mood. Are the actors good? Well, while Seth Rogen does his job pretty well, I have to say that Lewitt himself felt kind of - wooden. There wasn't very much of an expression on his face most of the time and sometimes his delivery just felt read aloud. He was better than some of the minor bi-roles but not by much. Especially the two female leads in the movie were very two-dimensionally written. But I guess that's the terms of writing romance as a sub-plot. It makes it feel kinda forced if it isn't done well.

How Beer Saved The World (2011)

Film: How Beer Saved The World
Release: 2011, Television
Starring: Henry Strozier, George Armelagos, Charlie Bamforth
Directed by: Martyn Ives
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In acient times, beer caused the agricultural revolution and has followed humanity in it's scientific evolution ever since. This documentary gives us the whole story.

Hans' thoughts:

This was a very comedic documentary. Throughout the thing it seemed almost as though they had pulled the narrator directly from movies like George of the Jungle or Monty Python and The Holy Grail. This is a good thing, because one cannot deny the jokey nature of what they're trying to convey. However, the facts are for most part actually there. We're actually shown how bacteria act at times, we're giving real technical explanations and everything is not just told through funny little animations. Albeit some of it is. I do have a minor gripe with it and that is lack of clarification of the experts. The narrator mentions their names and jobs but it would have been nice with the traditional info-bars at the bottom of the screen when they were on. The movie is called "How Beer saved the World" because I guess "How beer was randomly present at some major historical discoveries" didn't sound quite as good. While some of the arguments do make sense, in that yes, Pasteur using Beer to discover microorganisms is a cool connection some these things are a bit of a stretch. A good example is them jokingly saying Beer built the pyramids because it was a major source of nourishment in ancient egypt. They're also saying that beer invented writing simply because the worlds oldest language have 160 words for it. However, it is a funny little show and there is a lot of fun trivia to share across the pool table in it. So it's good to kill time.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Film: X-Men: First Class
Release: 2011, Theatrical
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, James McAvoy
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Next in the series: The Wolverine
Previous in the series: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 1962, a powerful mutant is fanning the flames of war between America and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, a young Erik Lensherr is looking for revenge on the man who murdered his mother.

Hans' thoughts:

After the sub-par X-Men: The Last Stand and the devastatingly awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 20th Century Fox redeems the X-men movie franchise with yet another prequel. This movie is what I feel the series should have been from the start - A period piece. One of the core struggles of the characters are the fight against bigotry and I really feel that works better in a historic setting. The characters are also mutants, a concept that was much more prevalent around this time, also called the "Atomic age". The actors in the movie all do a decent job, it has a lot of nods to the fans and they all seem to have something to do. However, some of the characters kinda just springs into the movie and leaves shortly after, mostly through death. You could argue that this makes the characters completely pointless, but actually they serve to make the stakes high and the characters that actually do end up dying all do so after introducing something important or doing something equally so.All in all, as I mentioned earlier, this movie served to redeem the X-Men movie franchise for me and I shall look forward to the next movie.

Paranoia (2011)

Movie: Paranoia
Release: 2011, Video
Starring: Brad Jones, Brian Irving
Directed By: Ryan Mitchelle
IMDB page: link opens a new window
Description: The newly divorced Mark Bishop defends himself from what he believes is a robber - suddenly he is pulled into a mystery that he has no interest in being a part of.

Hans' thoughts:

This is a pretty by-the-book thriller. Not that it's unoriginal, but picture the genre "thriller" in your mind and this is somewhat close to what you'd probably come up with. Don't take that as a bad criticism, because while this IS very by-the-book it is also really well made. While the acting from our main actor is kinda wavy at first, it quickly picks up the pace as Brad Jones as "Mark Bishop" apparently settles into his character as the movie goes along and the movie quickly gets good. Unfortunately, at some points the sound can be a bit low, fortunately that's what volume buttons are for, so just turn up the sound when you feel you need to. Now it may seem that I'm bashing this movie, but it really is good and with a nice ending I won't give away here, give it a watch. I at least found it very worth it.