Showing posts with label Natalie Portman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natalie Portman. Show all posts

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Movies 2013, Superhero, pt3, Thor

Yesterday I went into the other weird alien in a red cape.  Today I walk about the Space Viking.

Thor the Dark World, or "What if 'Man of Steel' hadn't taken itself so damn seriously."
Overall: 8/10
He's adopted.
            In some ways this was the best movie I saw last year.  It has grand stakes (the fate of the universe), it has numerous environments (alien worlds, cities of the gods), cool costuming, and it is funny.
            Thor as a hero has grown in the movies he has been in, from headstrong naive warrior to a much more deliberate and capable leader.  Stand this in contrast to Tony Stark in "Iron Man 3" which failed to confront his underlying insecurities almost entirely until the last few minutes of the third movie, symbolically removing the broken shards of metal in his heart that were killing him and discarding the thick metal skin that he used to protect himself from the world.  Thor completed that character arc by the end of his first movie, softening and becoming more about self sacrifice rather than personal glory, and by the end of "The Avengers" Thor was on a crusade to bring order to his kingdom.  By the end of this film he has become such a knight errant romantic that he decides not to take the throne of his homeland, Asgard, instead going to Earth for love (people claim that this love plot happens too fast and won't last.... To which I answer, all gods in all mythologies have the exact same attitudes toward love: fast and fleeting).
            Thor's numerous Space Viking sidekicks also each get their moments, though really they could have gotten more, doing all their heavy lifting in acts one and two then disappearing... In many ways the third act is both the most exciting because of the action, and the most boring because the character interactions are all about fighting the bad guys and not about any sort of interpersonal dynamic (though two of Jane Foster's sidekicks kind of get together in a comedic romantic development).
            That brings me to my next point, Malekith the Accursed is a boring villain, he is a very standard evil doer wanting to take the magical item from the non-warrior protagonist, and use it to cloak the world in darkness for his people and way of life.  He is a step down from the Mandarin, which is a parody of Malekith's type, and is an elevator trip away from Loki, who is a far more interesting character.  I actually think you could have given even less time to the elves and more time to Loki and the movie would still not have suffered.
            THE DOUBLE BEAT.  Much like "Man of Steel" this movie has a real problem with a scene in the second act and the opener.  The opening is a full blown war between Space Vikings and Space Elves for control of the universe (HOLY CRAP "LORD OF THE RINGS") with narration by Odin, explanations of the threats posed by the bad guys and clear explanations of their motivations.  Then in the second act Odin tells the protagonist Thor and Jane what was already shown to the audience in the opening scene.  Again, much like "Man of Steel" the presentation is very pretty with magical books with moving stylized illustrations.  Gorgeous really, and a total waste of time.  They could have fixed this too, don't have the battle opening, the heroes confronting weird aliens, and then having giant black ships that can turn invisible mysteriously appear and attack, then have hulking monsters, and magical swirling blood all without an upfront explanation... it would add a lot of mystery.  Then in the second act after the initial attack have the magic books open with all of their cool illustrations on display and then transition to show the battle in narrated historical reenactment.  That way for the first half of the movie the heroes are under threat from an unknown and powerful force that they don't understand, and the audience is on that journey with them.  But whatever.
            Another problem is with yet another case of hack job writing just like in "Man of Steel", maybe even more so.  "Star Trek" 2009 had a pointy eared villain in a big black powerful spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for an multi-world empire, this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose father was killed by the villain) and his dark haired emotionally damaged second in command (because the bad guy killed his Mom) using black holes to kill the bad guy.  "Thor the Dark World" has a pointy eared bad guy in a big black sometimes invisible spaceship, with a red weapon capable of causing the apocalypse for a multi-world empire (and the universe), this culminates with the blonde head strong hero (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) and his dark haired emotionally erratic reluctant ally (whose mother was killed by the bad guy) to use portals to other worlds to try and stop the villain.  Soon all action movies will have this or a similar dynamic, because if it can make the boring old Star Trek franchise into profitable action schlock it can work for any damn thing.

Their ear mutilation is even the same.
Who needs emotional stability to be in charge?
            Regardless, this movie has a very light tone to it, mostly good pacing, lots of distinct characters with a variety of design and flourish, a complex brother and father dynamic at the core, with a romantic science vs magic theme surrounding it.  It is fun and does not diminish its characters, it tries (and for the most part is successful) in elevating the various characters, adding to the script rather than detracting.  And as a small final compliment, I like how in the climax Jane foster does not just get saved, she uses her scientific knowledge to make weapons and contribute to the action, ultimately providing Thor the means to beat the bad guy (SPOILERS: the bad guy loses), she has her own side kicks, it is cool to see her as a sort of hero in her own right.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Movie Review: "No Strings Attached"


            In an effort to keep myself funny I am going to try to write a movie review a day for the next 30 days.  This will be exhausting but I have done it before, so when I fail this time I really won't have the excuse of going beyond my means.  For the sake of simplicity I will just review all of the movies that came out in 2011 that I saw.

            Since it is hard to be funny with movies that are good, I will start things off with the worst movie I watched all the way through, "No Strings Attached".

See how they are laughing?  It is a lie.
             Contrary to what you, or most people who have met me might believe I am not a vindictive person, I don't wish ill on anyone, and I do not want anyone to fail, what I want is for people to do good works, succeed at doing those good works, and then have the fame, wealth, and clout to constitute making more good stuff.  This is why I look at "No Strings Attached" as only slightly better than being trapped in an elevator... and really I'm not entirely certain it is better.

I am fairly certain I could entertain myself more than this movie entertained me.
             This movie is slow, dumb, uneventful, spectacularly cast, and unfunny.  There are maybe four or five funny lines in this entire film, all but one of which I have forgotten, because the others depended entirely on the situation they are presented.

            How much money could they have possibly paid all of these people to appear in this movie?  To waste their time and talents on it?  I looked it up $25,000,000.  And considering how there are no space ships, aliens, anything remotely interesting to look at, or even a criminally large amount of hair gel, I must assume all of this money was spent getting Kevin Kline to come on to set and be the best thing about this movie; which as far as accomplishments go, is kind of like not choking while eating yogurt.

            What is weird is how this movie came out twice, a star actress from the "Black Swan" does a movie where she casually has sex with an attractive guy and then falls in love.  It's like when those two "Capote" movies came out within a year of each other, except "Strings" and "Friends with Benefits" came out 5 months apart.  This might be unfair criticism as I have not watched, nor will I ever watch "Friends", but doesn't this piss off anyone else?

Wait.  What?... What?
             What is more "Strings" is really mean spirited.  A lot of characters who are really just out for their own interests and have their own perspectives and needs are seen as douche bags or jerks, but aren't even given enough screen time to be real villains.  Like the rival love interest for Natalie Portman, there is one scene were he calls Ashton Kutcher a dildo with legs (essentially) and how Portman will eventually tire of Ashton in favor of a real relationship with him, in the epilogue he is seen having a gay fling, and that may just be the second instance he is in the movie at all, like this guys comeuppance was to find out he was gay, which is insulting to both gay people and the character's position (speaking as a guy, if you have a crush on a woman who is banging what appears to be a functional retard like Ashton appears to be, I can't really see an issue with telling him off).  It is cheap and dumb and everything goes nowhere, there is no philosophical question to this movie, it is just a tangled mess of anti-jokes.

You know what, I take that back, anti-jokes are funny in an ironic sense.
            Lastly, and this will be my most juvenile complaint, for a movie about fucking, there is a shockingly small amount of nudity.  This film is incredibly tame on that front, and if you switched over fuck, to hell or bitch this movie could have been a PG-13 (or not, it is a movie about a woman enjoying sex, that might default to an R rating because such thoughts corrupt the young).  This movie even lacks the sting of the occasional tit shot.  That is how timid it is, a movie about casual sex, doesn't show a titty.  LAME.

Considering how much she shows off in this it is pretty clear that Portman did not think "Strings" was worth her nudity, and I imagine the other actresses followed her lead.
 Final Rating: 1 out of 5 (yes, I have seen worse; yes, in 2011; but I turned them off before finishing them, I will do a two pack on those at some point)

Some other Reviewers:

Thursday, May 26, 2011

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 11

            I decided to do the 30 day movie challenge as a blog series as it ties into my blog activities rather easily and I am once again not blogging my usual series with regularity in spite of saying that I would.
            Today is "A Movie that has my favorite Actress".  Here is a big surprise for you, my actress is Natalie Portman.  The movie is "Black Swan" but that is sort of a header rather than what this is all about.
Yes, this will also be mentioned.  Incidentally, this is the only cool outfit she had in all three of those over produced movies.
            "Black Swan" is a pretty good movie, it has a lot of slow build that, instead of seeming gratuitous like in "Let the Right One In" instead is used correctly in conjunction with sound and characters to make the audience feel filled with dread and ill comfort.  This movie had me covering my eyes at various points because of the very identifiable and stinging displays of pain.  All that being said, the movie could be shorter.

            What does push this movie up from mediocre to good though is the acting of Natalie Portman.  Much like the movie "There Will be Blood" pivoted entirely on the acting of Daniel Day Lewis, "Black Swan" is entirely about Portman.  She experiences every emotion a person can experience, from excitement and joy, to confusion and embarrassment, and then rage and fear, with a quick stop in sexual and drug experimentation land to show her character going around and around the bend.

Oh no.  Lesbianism!  What foul sin has brought her... I don't care.  Sex is not evil.
I find it strange when movies play it as such.
            Natalie Portman came to my attention through "Star Wars" where her acting was as flat and pointless as the scripts in those movies, turns out though, she had been acting for a while, playing a very strange and corrupted little girl in "Leon: the Professional", which was an alright movie, but isn't an all time classic oh-my-god-this-movie-is-so-amazing tour de force.

Nat, relax.  You'll do other things than just "Star Wars" after this.  now put the gun down.
            So between being a nerd icon for the ultimate bland role of Ms. Darth Vader, and being the best thing about movies I only think are all right, why do I like her so much?  Answer: cause she is fun.  She is willing to do movies about anything.  Dungeons and dragons with weed ("Your Highness"), Marvel super hero love interest ("Thor"), Horny modern professional woman ("No StringsAttached"), and terrorist ("V for Vendetta").  Its not just that she is the best thing about these movies, it's that she has the range and talent to have been in all of them and do something as daring as "Black Swan".  She is the omni-actress, and she isn't afraid to take her best actress golden statue and continue doing movies in which she helps fight aliens.  She is awesome.

A lesson from "V For Vendetta", anyone could be a terrorist, even the prostitute you got by mistake.