Hammer Time.
Going into Thor, I admit all I knew about the character was he was kind of a Viking, had a big hammer and would often get into fights with the Hulk because they both had anger issues. He also was one of the worst dressed superheroes. If you thought the fuss over changing the X-Men’s costumes was overblown, Branagh deserves credit for pulling off a futuristic Viking look that isn’t totally embarrassing or makes you giggle. The armor in this is actually very cool but the film still allows the audience to poke fun when Thor’s companions land on Earth and a watching Fed wonders whether a Renaissance Festival is in town. It will be interesting to see how the film does, on the one hand IMDB are posting great figures with some people(whisper it), saying it’s better than Iron Man(2008) or Spiderman(2002). It isn’t, but it is better than Iron Man 2(2010) and possibly Spiderman 3(2007), on the other hand, the character is a lot less known by the mainstream. Kenneth Branagh, who ten years ago might have made a pretty good Thor himself, directs a very solid if not totally exceptional comic book adaptation. It’s like a slightly dotty mix of the first Superman movie( especially the scenes on Krypton), Flash Gordon(1980)(everyone has very silly costumes and take themselves dreadfully seriously) and of course Shakespeare. It’s actually a great tone to adopt and it the cause of much comedy when Thor is relegated to Earth. The acting and indeed actors chosen are all very good too. Chris Hemsworth makes a great Thor, his bravado and arrogance giving way to thoughtful contemplation and regret as the film proceeds, but still always up for a punch-up. Hopkins carries on breaking off big chunks of the scenery and chewing it as he’s been doing since The Wolf Man(2009), or even as far back as Dracula(1992) if we want to be honest, but sadly spends most of the film in a coma. Rene Russo hangs around in the background and wins the‘Danny Huston in the Remake of Clash of the Titans’ award for ‘I was in this film honest, but they cut all my parts out.’ Portman makes a good love interest although this feels a bit sketched compared to the ones in Superman and Spiderman, and indeed, Portman has now officially become a big money maker because since Black Swan and noticeably in this, like so many other actresses, the higher her box office, the thinner she gets, and she is very thin in this. In the deficit corner, the film suffers from the usual first part need to set things up, the action scenes lack real ‘wow’ factor and I felt no real sense of menace or jeopardy. Partly, I think this was due to there being no real villain, but in a similar weakness to the Superman movies, once Thor has his hammer(which is most of the film), he’s invincible, which is why we really need a General Zod equal to give him a proper run for his money. Also, compared to the vicious fight at the end of Spiderman(much complained about by parents) , Thor also seemed a little too kid friendly, no blood, no on camera deaths which didn’t help. There is also, probably the least effective so far, teaser for The Avengers at the end of the film( if for some reason they don’t make this now, audiences could sue under the trade descriptions act). Thor then was very good in every department, but was never great. 8/10
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Arthur(2010)
ReBranded
The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10
The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
