The End of the Page

Thor: Branagh Brings Out the Human in the God

By kissing this hand, I hearby make you Queen of Comic-Con.

Rating: 7 out of 10

With comic book movies sweeping across the cinematic landscape like a dust storm across the Sahara, there was bound to be a point where the phenomenon was going to hit a gorge, somewhere the storm would falter and fizzle out. During the last golden age of comic book flicks, that Hindenburg failure was The Phantom (although personally I think most of the audience missed the tongue-in-cheek humor of it). This time around, we haven’t quite picked the rotten apple out of the planned line up yet, but there were many early on who cast their votes against this tale of a Norse god with magical roofing equipment. I was even on the fence myself until they attracted legendary Shakespearean Kenneth Branagh to the helm, which lent a sense of credibility really unseen in this recent comic crop. Did it work? Read on and see…

Thor is the fairy tale of a tempestuous prince (Thor) and his brother (Loki), both waiting for the day when one will become the new king of Asgard and protector of the Nine Realms. Thor is a fierce and bloodthirsty warrior longing for the days of battles gone by, where his father staked his claim in the legends of yore. Loki, on the other hand, is more mischievous and plays the games using his trickster magic instead of his fists. After once again rushing headlong into battle without thinking, Thor angers his father to the point of being banished to Earth with none of his godlike powers, where he meets Jane and her crew of storm chasers. Odin (Thor’s father) then collapses under the stress and anguish into a deep sleep, leaving Loki to run the realm. Now the tables are turned and Loki unfurls his true plan for Asgard and all the Nine Realms, including Earth, where Thor must stand up and reclaim his birthright.

Now that description has one major flaw, which really was part of the reason many were so skeptical before about how this film would turn out. A good deal of the story takes place in a magical kingdom far out in the universe above sparkling star clouds. All the comic book films were are used to in this go around have been about people with extraordinary powers, but all living here on our world, basing everything in our reality.  Thor is the first in recent history to yank the audience back out to the realm of Superman and mythology. Some film critics were worried audiences wouldn’t follow the trend into the magical wonderland and lose connection with the characters. Well, that was a valid fear, but once the project fell into the more than capable hands of Kenneth Branagh, he did exactly what was needed and found a way to ground pieces of the film in more relatable themes; family discord, paternal acceptance and of course, true love. Sounds simple on paper, but I think it was an impressive effort to balance those themes with scenes of shiny kingdoms, multi-colored armor and big blue Frost Giants (who reminded me of angry background actors from Avatar). Bringing the movie together from that vantage point, the writers and Branagh were able to save Thor from becoming the first real stumbling block for the comic book genre this time around.

But Branagh’s success was not only in finding those relatable themes, but his casting of Chris Hemsworth as the legendary Norse god worked better than I could have expected. Stepping into those shiny boots and grabbing the magical hammer would be terrifying for any actor because it would be incredibly easy to be written off as a joke, but Hemsworth really brought something human out of the myth and played a tender balance between over-confident warrior and gracious visitor. For much of his screen time I felt Hemsworth pulled heavily from old films about King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, their valor, chivalry and bravery. By giving glimpses of those well-known archetypes, he helped overshadow the magic and spectacle of Asgard and its myths. Riding high in the clouds with Hemsworth were Anthony Hopkins (as Odin), Idris Elba (as Heimdall, the gatekeeper) and Tom Hiddleston (as Loki), among others.  Hopkins again helped to lend some dramatic weight to the film and shined a little brighter than he has in his past few projects. He admitted in an interview to phoning it in recently, giving Branagh credit for forcing him back into pushing his limits. Elba was a controversial choice early on because some die-hard comic fans felt the changing of the original character’s race was kowtowing to political correctness or unneeded diversity, but whatever the original reasoning was, Elba brought a real stoutness and stoic resolve in each scene, proving his casting as worthy. Tom Hiddleston also did a commendable job as the mischievous Loki, balancing his devious nature with the true pain of someone who felt they had been betrayed as well, but the writing of his character left many holes and setups which never truly paid off.

Helping to keep things grounded back on Earth were Natalie Portman (as Jane), Kat Dennings (as Darcy, Jane’s sister) and Stellan Skarsgard (as Erik, Jane’s teacher and physics partner). Portman has shown once again she will not be typecast as the indie darling and consider herself above the big budget blockbusters. She is adorable and relatable with an real ease on screen, but this was also not a big stretch for her talent. Dennings chimed in mostly  as the comic relief and delivered line after line in her classic sarcastic style, helping to set a less serious tone for the rest of the film. As for Skarsgard, good stuff, but he wasn’t really given a whole lot to work with.

The true success here is that on the walk out of the theatre I mentioned to friends the numerous plot holes and unresolved questions, but when they asked, “So what did you think?” I was still able to respond, “I liked it.” The fun was there and the balance of comedy, action and drama was handled well, to which I give much of that credit to Branagh. In a lesser man’s hands, this film could have easily fallen into Fantastic Four territory, and let’s be honest, we all know how that came out.

The End of the Page recommendation: Thor is worthy of a good matinee viewing for big screen afternoon enjoyment. Don’t worry about the story too much, because it’s seems they didn’t either.

What did you think of the winged god of thunder? Let me know.

RocknRolla: Ritchie Gives Tarantino the Ole’ One-Two

[ Click above to buy the poster]

2 out of 3 people in the poster are looking off to the left. The girl would be looking there too, but she’s playing coy.

Are you looking to step into a bit of the ole’ underground? Yearning for a taste of the underbelly of London? Maybe you’re just missing the sounds of those thick British accents as the words stumble into your ears and confuse more than inform you. Whatever the case may be, there is only one man who truly provides the cure for those ills…Guy Ritchie.

The man behind Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch is back once again with another chapter is his series of old school mob movies. RocknRolla follows along a certain tradition for Ritchie, fast talking and fast reacting characters keep the audience tense, because they have absolutely no clue what will happen next. Keep the characters unpredictable and keep the audience involved, that’s the key. Now, if you noticed the title of this review, you might be wondering where the connection to Quentin Tarantino comes in (and that is a most perceptive and valid question. Well done, reader). After the movie ended I turned to my friend and said, “One sentence review: The British Pulp Fiction.” He sat back, processed the comparison and smiled. “Yep, you’re totally right.” I’ll show you what I mean while giving a brief overview of the story.

RocknRolla follows a small gang of low level criminals known as The Wild Bunch, who get hired by a sexy accountant to rip off some big money from an even bigger mobster. What she didn’t know is our little hooligans were already in debt to the local crime lord, who was doing business with the “bigger mobster”. So money is stolen, circulated, recycled and everyone ends up chasing each others tails. Also, there is a painting that gets stolen and becomes the MacGuffin of the film, which is a cinematic term for an object that is central to the plot, but no one ever really sees it. People philosophize, people die and people are nearly sodomized.

If the specifics of the comparison aren’t gelling for you yet, here’s a breakdown:

- MacGuffins: Pulp Fiction has the briefcase which we never see inside. RocknRolla has the painting which we never see the front of.

- Crooks in way over their head: Gerard Butler and Idris Elba play the heads of The Wild Bunch and are constantly trying to keep one step ahead of being killed by the very person they are working for, just like John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson (more Travolta though, in this case).

- The Girl is the Problem: Thandie Newton is the instigator of the troubles which put Gerard into play, just like Uma Thurman goes after Travolta, thereby putting him in a situation of life or death.

- Multiple storylines: RocknRolla is not set up in the vignette fashion of Pulp Fiction, but both deal with a number of plot lines that all converge in the end to tie things up.

- Sodomy Interruption: Both films have a scene where a guy is about to be raped by a pair of leather clothed dudes, when someone comes in and makes the snap judgment on who to kill.

It can be argued that some of these things are common to all movies of the crime/mob genre, but so many together in one film makes the case a little stronger. I’m not saying RocknRolla is bad, not in the least, but I left feeling like I’d seen it before.

RocknRolla is not going to be remembered in history for iconic performances, like Travolta and Jackson, but there was some good work being done. Butler hams it up nicely as a crook-cum-swashbuckler with no dancing feet. His inherent suaveness comes to bear in his scenes with Thandie, but he also gets to show his willingness to play that in the direction of a different gender. Which brings up one big difference between this and Pulp Fiction, and this could be easily attributed to the time periods, but RocknRolla was doused in homoerotic overtones. From the sodomy to the gay side characters to the subplot of Butler and his best friend in the gang, it never gets too far away from it. This provided for some really amusing humor and grinningly awkward scenes. Idris gets to play the straight man, no pun intended, to Butler’s machismo and he achieves it well. There is a certain calm to Idris on screen which makes me certain he’s going to be around for a long time to come. Tom Wilkinson also gets to walk a little on the more wacky side as the crime boss of London, trying to prove he’s still the big fish in town and time isn’t passing him by. Thandie, who I’ve enjoyed on screen in the past, doesn’t travel much farther beyond eye candy on this occasion. Jeremy Piven and Ludacris drop by as music producers, but get paltry little screen time. The one person who will leave the biggest visual impression is Toby Kebbell, as Johnny Quid. He spends most of the film shirtless and brings back frighteningly skinny images of Chistian Bale from The Machinist. Bale still wins the freakish battle, but Kebbell kept enough muscle tone to still look dangerous as well, which gives him an edge. Lastly, blink and you’ll miss Gemma Arterton, who will be seeing much more of in the upcoming Bond film, Quantum of Solace.

Ritchie on the other hand delivers once again in more traditional style. As I mentioned before, fans of those two early films of his will certainly enjoy this. The attitude is there, the raw edge is there and the camerawork is rife with quick cuts and whip pans, just like we’re used to from him. He also wrote the film again, which helps even more keep the style intact. I think many people will be glad to see the old Guy Ritchie back on the silver screen. Yet, all his past successes could be wiped out by the possibility of greatness with his upcoming film, Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr. as the questioning crusader, Jude Law as the encyclopedic Dr. Watson and Rachel McAdams as lady love interest. I’m containing my excitement for this, but just barely.

Recommendation: A good flick, bordering on great, far from amazing. If you’re a fan of Ritchie from the past, you won’t be disappointed. If you’ve never seen a film of his before, feel free to check this out, but don’t stop here, see Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels as well. As for the theater experience, after the initial whip panning frenzy in the first ten minutes, it settles down and becomes quite enjoyable. I also recommend Rasinettes over Goobers (take that, peanut lovers!).

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::