It's always nice when I can get three cinematic reviews of the same movie spread over three calendar months; if only because it shows that it's enjoying a good run*1. So tonight was the last showing of the The Dark World at my local, and as I was there for the first, I figured I'd see it off in brighter-than-I'm-used-to 2D, to shorten the gap until I can start devouring the extras on the BluRay. I also managed to drag along my brother-in-law tonight, who hadn't gotten round to watching it, so that I can compare his first reactions with my seasoned ones. This is why I'm a geek.
Watching the movie now, it actually holds up slightly better than it did when it had my fresh expectations burdening its shoulders. My gripes about the chief-villain aside, it's a very entertaining offshoot movie, showing us 'the stuff which happens between Avengers films'. I'm still of the feeling that the story itself lends itself more to a comic arc or novel, but there's no doubt that I'm getting more out of it on repeat viewings than I did for its predecessor. Maybe its because Thor spent most of its time introducing characters, whereas with TDW its welcome-reel is inserted (okay, clumsily) into the first twenty minutes. I don't think it's a better film, but in many ways it is more watchable; although I'm still hoping Kenneth Brannagh will return for a future Marvelverse installment.
Considering how outside-the-box The Dark World is compared to the rest of the Avengers canon, I can't wait to see audience reaction to Guardians of the Galaxy, next August…
For the record, bro-in-law thoroughly enjoyed it. More than I thought he would, actually. Although he was a bit put off by Greenwich being turned into a smoking pile of rubble. Which is fair enough.
I'd say so.
Mostly.
Not as much as I'd have liked..?
You're pretty much stuck with DVD/BRD now, which isn't the worst thing in the world.
No.
Yes.
Three times now, and I have to concede that I can't hear one. Bugger..
*1 Or just that it was released strategically towards the end of a month. Well okay, that.
Oh, and apparently I can (one for the people who saw the 'search description' field under the link on the way in).
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Thor: The Dark World (3D) (second-pass) (SPOILERS. LOTS.)
Cert: 12A / 112 mins / Dir. Alan Taylor
It almost pains me to use the word spoilers, because there really isn't that much to spoil. Other than the demise of the one character that Marvel could bear to let go of, of course (who, let's face it, can easily return in dreams, flashbacks and visitations anyway). The biggest problem (for me, at least) is that by the end of the film, not much has actually changed outside of the number of presents Thor has to buy at Christmas, and the addition of a new line on the London Underground network, whereby Charing Cross is three stops away from Greenwich*1. Any shakeups in Asgard and other adjacent realms are largely meaningless to the casual viewer as they were barely explored in the previous installment, and only fleetingly visited here. A villainous sect (with two named characters) is introduced and disposed of with clockwork efficiency, and Loki is once again prowling and scheming away (which comes as no great surprise, let's face it; that's what everyone wants him to do).
When it comes to the new additions of The Dark World, they leave much to be desired. Christopher Eccleston is given very little to do except walk around in a bad mood, and his character Malekith's aim seems too broad. He wants to destroy the universe. All of it. Why? …Plot Reasons™. There's no personal conviction or vendetta driving him, just an instinct to bring about destruction that he will presumably survive (even though it's not explained how. The Dark Elves were borne from the darkness remember, they can't exist if all the matter in the universe is destroyed).
And for the underwritten villains to prosper, they're going to need an underwritten method of destruction. Cue The Aether, which is essentially a wobbly, slightly more malevolent version of The Tesseract from Captain America. It's origin, intent and limitations are so shrouded in mystery that Anthony Hopkins can barely bring himself to explain it in his introductory voiceover; it just is. It's a capable enough plot device, albeit a little transparent.
Now, if you're still reading this and I haven't put you off completely, I should point out that this isn't what I was thinking during the film (even the second time around), these are just the thoughts I was left with afterwards. Thor: The Dark World is bloody good fun, and a must-see for fans of the Avengers series. Unfortunately, the preceding films have set the bar so high for me that this was bound to happen sooner or later. A bland macguffin and a directionless antagonist mean that while the film is a rollercoaster of destruction, there's never any sense of actual threat; evident in Marvel's apparent reluctance to kill off any of its named characters, which also removes any sense of consequence, too...
Outside of my moaning, I have some questions:
• If The Aether empowers Jane to the point where it defends her against the Asgardian guardsmen, why doesn't it use Jane malevolently as a vessel and start destroying everything around her before Malekith gets there?
• Moreover, if The Aether is 'conscious' within Jane, why can't she harness its powers to defend herself against Malekith? She'd knock him into a cocked hat, surely?
• We're told that the Aether's power is draining Jane's life-force, but other than her being a bit sleepy on the Asgardian gunboat, we get no indication of this. It doesn't even seem to affect her behaviour or attitude, other than her getting dark-eyes every so often and seeing visions of The Aether which impart no particular message to her. After The Aether is stolen back by Malekith, she tells Thor 'I saw him on Earth', so presumably she's been getting farsight glimpses that the haven't been shared with the audience? Why not, please?
• Why doesn't Malekith's extraction of The Aether kill Jane?
• Will someone just explain the point of The Aether to me, please?
Oh, and I had wondered about the significance of the Norman Emerson & Sons branded-truck used in the warehouse scene, but apparently there isn't any, it just looked good. So another Flight 5434 right there, then.
And outside of my questions, I spotted an easter-egg:
• I'd previously compared the final scenes of Thor to Revenge of the Sith. The SW references appear to continue in The Dark World with a lot of the ground-level shots of Asgard looking suspiciously like the prequel-era's Naboo (especially with Natalie gliding around in her wrap with a waterfall in the background), and with Thor losing his hand in battle (well, kinda, but we do see it). The best one though has got to be Jane's flat in London. When she's sitting moving her Shreddies around the bowl, there's a Star Wars calendar on the wall in the background, bearing this image of the Millennium Falcon in Hyperspace:
…I'm not sure if it's from a published calendar or just a one that the set designers knocked together as a joke. If you know for sure, give me a shout in the comments box, there...
Yeah.
I laughed and gasped.
Financially, undoubtedly. Artistically..?
Cinema. Big things getting smashed and looking big = good.
I shouldn't imagine so.
I will.
Didn't hear it, no, BUT let me know if you spotted one.
When Thor hangs Mjölnir on Jane's coat-rack, shouldn't it pull the peg/rack right off and then go plummeting through the floor? Wouldn't Thor's absent-mindedness and subsequent surprise/realisation be a better punchline to the comic moment than just casually hanging up the hammer in a domesticated manner?
*1 No, I'm not going to let that one go. To the point where I'm going to start a superhero-themed rock/metal band called 'Three Stops To Greenwich'. For reals.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Thor: The Dark World (3D) (first-pass*1) (SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 112 mins / Dir. Alan Taylor
So, big expectations after the God of Thunder's first outing, and does the caped hammer-thrower live up to them? Well, yes and no. The Dark World is huge fun in a 'smash the crap out of things with hammers' kind of a way, but it still feels like the whole thing is of little consequence. That's not to say that there aren't events in the film which will have repercussions later in the timeline, but there are more which feel like they won't.
Hemsworth's Thor has developed nicely from his Avengers appearance, and he displays the ongoing maturing of his character well. But of course it's Hiddleston's Loki who steals the best lines and deepest chuckles, brining a sarcasm which almost seems lost on those around him (although thankfully not on the audience). In addition to this, one of his scenes features a brief appearance by another Avenger which also tickled the auditorium this evening*2. Natalie Portman has a great chemistry with Hemsworth this time around (read: better than last time), and the now London-based scientist team of Dennings, Skarsgård and Howard provide exposition and comic relief second only to Hiddleston. Everyone in Asgard wears armour and frowns a lot. Again. Which is fine.
The 3D is there, and does the job well enough most of the time, but really isn't a deal-breaker. The same can be said of Brian Tyler's score; well grounded, but a little too reminiscent of his excellent work on Iron Man 3 for my liking (which, y'know, was only six months ago).
The biggest drawback for me has to be the antagonists, in the form of the Dark Elves. I know that Paramount are busily shoehorning in as much Marvel property as they can get the rights to, but after the inclusion of the Chitauri and Thanos in Avengers Assemble, it seems a little unnecessary to introduce a new set of villains which only fill a token role anyway. To cap it all off, Christopher Ecclestone's turn as their leader Malekith seems particularly weak, given what a capable actor he can be. He grunts and fumes his way through the role, aided by Darth Krayt and The Robots Of Death, but it doesn't really feel like the Dark Elves will maintain much of a presence in this cinematic timeline. Much like the Iron Man movies, we seem to be missing a really decent villain; but unlike those, we don't have a witty, charming hero to paper over the cracks.
• Stan Lee cameo? Yes, there is.
• After-initial-credits-scene? Yes, there is.
• After-all-of-the-credits scene? Yes, there is. Although it's not as significant as the one before the names start rolling.
The Dark World is a solid addition to the canon, but a fairly weak film in its own right, even as a Thor sequel. As much as I love Paramount's Marvelverse, even I've got to admit this has a sniff of filler about it. Pretty great filler, but even so…
Pretty much, although the trailers are careful not to go too far into mechanics.
As much as I could with what was there.
I think it does, but only because it doesn't want to achieve too much.
It does look lovely on a massive screen…
Probably not.
I will.
I didn't hear one this time around...
Since when has Greenwich been three stops away from Charing Cross on the tube?
For a scene that's essentially a joke anyway, a lengthier, more accurate answer would have made it far funnier ;)
*1 Let's just clear this up now; we all know I'll be seeing this more than once. This was the first time.
*2 Well okay, morning. It was a midnight showing, after all.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
