Ooooo boy. How to review this one without spoilers eh? I guess it
depends if you read these to know if you should go see them, or to see
if you agree with my analysis...or if its just me pontificating to
myself.
I'll try no spoilers.
****Advice note: stay until the very end of the credits. I did not and I missed out on what was probably a lovely scene****
With
this second outing for the standalone Thor films we delve deeper into
the history of Asgard and get to know Thor's family a little better. We
also get to see Thor and Jane reunited, while the hunt for a dark energy
called the Aether brings Dark Elves into Asgard and a lot of death and
destruction for both Asgardians and Londoners.
Jane and Darcy have
come to the UK at the behest of Eric Selvig who has, well, suffered
since having Loki control him and there are some choice scenes and
almost constant lack of trousers. Jane has suffered in the two years
since Thor had to destroy the Bifrost to save Earth and has all but
given up on the science,
choosing instead to wallow. Darcy, still an
intern, has gotten herself an intern. Go Darcy.
Thor has spent his
time away from Jane saving the Earth against his brother (with the
Avengers) and repairing the Nine Realms, establishing peace across the
systems while keeping an eye on Jane through Haimdell.
Then the
worlds begin to, literally, collide and Jane inadvertently gets herself
mixed up with the Aether, this dark energy source, and Thor has to take
her to Asgard to keep her safe from the Christopher Eccleston led Dark
Elves.
What ensues is a lot of action, some dark and tragic moments, welcome humour and a rather brilliant film.
Director
Alan Taylor is said to have panicked about halfway through this film
because he was concerned he wasn't getting the tone right for the Marvel
Universe, I'm guessing because his background in Game of Thrones
(though epic) is dark and twisty without much lightness. In comes Joss
Whedon for a few choice rewrites and guidance and voila, what a film we
now have.
Taylor does a fantastic job directing this beast. His
background in epic television certainly has helped getting the battle
scenes and tense mood of the characters, whilst also lending an intimacy
to the proceedings much the same way Joss Whedon did with The Avengers.
Taylor had to balance two worlds of characters, Earth and Asgard, then
cross these over as Thor comes to Earth and Jane goes up-world to a
less-than-impressed Odin and a flirtacious and wonderful Loki.
It
was like seeing old friends going to see this movie. Jane and Thor back
together with their height difference, Darcy being Darcy, Eric being so
much more than he was allowed in the first movie. Loki being - well
Loki. Hiddleston has a riot for sure.
However what I really loved
was getting to see Frigga and Odin more, especially Frigga and her
interactions with both Loki and Jane. Rene Russo is a simply gorgeous
mother of Thor and adoptive mother of quite possibly a psychopath.
Anthony Hopkins got to be an angry King of Asgard, a worried father and
loving husband.
Zachary Levi makes a great replacement Fandral.
Funnily enough he was supposed to play the character in the first movie
but couldn't owing to television commitments (Chuck), and his
replacement Josh Dallas had to duck out of the sequel owing to his
commitment to Once Upon A Time. Personally I love consistency in films
and characters but when the replacement is good enough (see Don Cheadle
replacing Terrence Howard in Iron Man) then you can get over it. Zach
Levi is fabulous so no complaints from this fan.
Eccleston is a completely dead-eyed, evil Elf with a malevolent nature and the acting chops to be the face of the Enemy.
So
for fans of the genre, of Thor and his world this is a fantastic second
installment and third outing for the 'god'. It has action, humour,
darkness, tragedy and a real human element amoing the magic and space
ships. There is also a rather magnificent cameo from one of the
Avengers....
It is a definite recommend to see on the Big Screen.
***As
for the credits, though not as fabulous as Iron Man Three's, there are
two stings (one of which I missed and am now really sad) but the first
sting is a clue to the next film in Marvel Phase 2 - Guardians of the
Galaxy. So probably good to plan to stay until the screen goes black.***
Sunday 3 November 2013
I Give It A Year ☆☆
Hmmmmm. This one either needed work or to be watched under the
influence. Am thinking now that a glass of wine or two would not have
gone amiss.
I Give It A Year is a frankly depressing tale of a couple's first year of marriage. They get married after only being together for seven months and, for some, that can be enough for the rest of their lives. Not so much for these two.
The 'happy' couple spend the next nine months in various states of love, unrest and wanting to kill each other for their quirks. She sings the wrong words to every song, he is so laid back he's horizontal most of the time.
They each have potential love interests in the form of Americans, unsure whether this was deliberate or just happened to come out of casting for the roles.
Essentially, they should never have gotten married.
Try as they might the cast, which is full of decent actors and comedic talent, can't save this film.
The leads, Rafe Spall and Rose Byrne, have barely an ounce of chemistry between them. Their would-be-affair-havers-with have even less chemistry. Anna Faris needed to have words with whoever did her hair and make-up on this film as she lost her spark completely. Or perhaps it was the company she had that just sapped it from her. Simon Baker was just embarrassing. There is a scene with doves which, though Byrne is quite funny in her reactions, does nothing for Baker's character or acting.
Actually none of the characters were especially pleasant. I didn't root for anyone, not even Olivia Coleman's frankly bizarre turn as a man-hating marriage counsellor. Stephen Merchant was on top form as a completely embarrassing, cringe-inducing, idiot best friend of Spall. Usually I can cope with him, but I think perhaps there was too much for my taste.
Had the characters been less vile I would have enjoyed it. Undoubtedly I laughed but most of it was accompanied by "what are these people doing?!" Even for a rom-com it was totally implausible, utterly ridiculous and with an ending that just wouldn't happen. Ever.
Try it with a glass of wine, my mother found it funny so we suspect there may have been fermented grape juice involved. However she may simply have enjoyed the film so what I'd say is give it a go. Its not a complete waste of time and may start some interesting conversations about how much we put up with from our partners.
I Give It A Year is a frankly depressing tale of a couple's first year of marriage. They get married after only being together for seven months and, for some, that can be enough for the rest of their lives. Not so much for these two.
The 'happy' couple spend the next nine months in various states of love, unrest and wanting to kill each other for their quirks. She sings the wrong words to every song, he is so laid back he's horizontal most of the time.
They each have potential love interests in the form of Americans, unsure whether this was deliberate or just happened to come out of casting for the roles.
Essentially, they should never have gotten married.
Try as they might the cast, which is full of decent actors and comedic talent, can't save this film.
The leads, Rafe Spall and Rose Byrne, have barely an ounce of chemistry between them. Their would-be-affair-havers-with have even less chemistry. Anna Faris needed to have words with whoever did her hair and make-up on this film as she lost her spark completely. Or perhaps it was the company she had that just sapped it from her. Simon Baker was just embarrassing. There is a scene with doves which, though Byrne is quite funny in her reactions, does nothing for Baker's character or acting.
Actually none of the characters were especially pleasant. I didn't root for anyone, not even Olivia Coleman's frankly bizarre turn as a man-hating marriage counsellor. Stephen Merchant was on top form as a completely embarrassing, cringe-inducing, idiot best friend of Spall. Usually I can cope with him, but I think perhaps there was too much for my taste.
Had the characters been less vile I would have enjoyed it. Undoubtedly I laughed but most of it was accompanied by "what are these people doing?!" Even for a rom-com it was totally implausible, utterly ridiculous and with an ending that just wouldn't happen. Ever.
Try it with a glass of wine, my mother found it funny so we suspect there may have been fermented grape juice involved. However she may simply have enjoyed the film so what I'd say is give it a go. Its not a complete waste of time and may start some interesting conversations about how much we put up with from our partners.
Sunday 30 June 2013
Cosmopolis ☆☆☆☆
After seeing another Cronenberg film only recently – A Dangerous
Method – I had my expectations set quite low for this one. I wasn’t
blown away by ADM, but Cosmopolis is something else entirely.
This film truly captures Cronenberg’s filmmaking vision. It takes the quiet, characterisation of a single figure and juxtaposes that with shocking violence and graphic sex. Alongside these traits previously seen in A History of Violence, there was also commentary upon the changes to our technology and the arrogance of the super rich.
For this is what the film is about, Robert Pattinson riding around in limosine through New York while his company loses hundreds of millions of dollars and a threat is made against his life. But Pattinson? He just wants his hair cut.
The film is entirely focused on Pattinson, his whims, his desires, the sex he is having, the effect he has on others. It feels very staged and very ‘other’, but not so out of the box you can’t follow. Or at least it didn’t lose me despite how tired I was when I watched it. I’ll admit to almost falling asleep once or twice, but then some extreme violence would occur and I’d be snapped back to being fully engaged.
For an actor looking to shake off the chains of a teen saga Pattinson could not have done better than get this role, as Cronenberg could have gotten no one else to quite pull off the arrogance mixed with this strange aura of innocence. The supporting cast were a mix of sublime and truly odd, with Juliette Binoche and Samantha Morton taking up brief residence in the limo to advise the young billionaire, while Paul Giamatti turns up toward the end as what I can only describe as a true madman.
Personally I feel like I wouldn’t watch this film again, but like a lot of brilliant filmmaking it deserves a high rating. The acting was superb across the board, the idea completely odd, the setting and way it was filmed more art than traditional movie making. But then this isn’t your average Hollywood movie, it’s one that deserves some thought and attention.
I would say if you enjoyed A History of Violence, or even David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, you should give Cosmopolis a try. Chances are you may find it too much, but then again you may just engage with Pattinson enough to want to know why he is worth filming.
This film truly captures Cronenberg’s filmmaking vision. It takes the quiet, characterisation of a single figure and juxtaposes that with shocking violence and graphic sex. Alongside these traits previously seen in A History of Violence, there was also commentary upon the changes to our technology and the arrogance of the super rich.
For this is what the film is about, Robert Pattinson riding around in limosine through New York while his company loses hundreds of millions of dollars and a threat is made against his life. But Pattinson? He just wants his hair cut.
The film is entirely focused on Pattinson, his whims, his desires, the sex he is having, the effect he has on others. It feels very staged and very ‘other’, but not so out of the box you can’t follow. Or at least it didn’t lose me despite how tired I was when I watched it. I’ll admit to almost falling asleep once or twice, but then some extreme violence would occur and I’d be snapped back to being fully engaged.
For an actor looking to shake off the chains of a teen saga Pattinson could not have done better than get this role, as Cronenberg could have gotten no one else to quite pull off the arrogance mixed with this strange aura of innocence. The supporting cast were a mix of sublime and truly odd, with Juliette Binoche and Samantha Morton taking up brief residence in the limo to advise the young billionaire, while Paul Giamatti turns up toward the end as what I can only describe as a true madman.
Personally I feel like I wouldn’t watch this film again, but like a lot of brilliant filmmaking it deserves a high rating. The acting was superb across the board, the idea completely odd, the setting and way it was filmed more art than traditional movie making. But then this isn’t your average Hollywood movie, it’s one that deserves some thought and attention.
I would say if you enjoyed A History of Violence, or even David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive, you should give Cosmopolis a try. Chances are you may find it too much, but then again you may just engage with Pattinson enough to want to know why he is worth filming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)