THE UPS & DOWNS OF THOR: THE DARK WORLD

Note: I’m a fan of the movie but I’ll try my best to be objective with this review. Just don’t show me a picture of the lovebirds. ;p

Photo by miracles-oflove.blogspot.com 

As much as I adore the movie, I’m finding it difficult to push past my laziness to write a very detailed review of it. However, I still would like to do the film justice so I’m doing an 'Ups & Downs' review. I do hope it will still cover everything that I want and need to say about the movie.

Let’s start with the positive.

UPs

The threat is more believable and felt.

·        IMO with the first Thor, the Destroyer’s attack in the town did not pose enough danger. I didn’t really feel the intensity of it; it felt isolated perhaps because it was in a single town, and a small one at that. Hence, that was one thing I was hoping to be addressed in the second movie considering that teasers and interviews have mentioned that all the realms will become involved. More realms, bigger threat.

Well, I get what I hoped for in this movie. There is more threat presented with the nine realms being in danger of extinction because of the awakening of the Aether and Malekith and his army’s reclamation of power. The attack of Malekith’s huge spaceship in London is a great manifestation of the threat .

The grandiosity of Asgard is well-displayed.     

Photo by marvel-movies.wikia.com

We were introduced to the magnificence and beauty of Asgard in Thor and the sequel does not fail to take us in a tour of the realm’s beauty. This the film does in the most interesting way. It is interesting because we see more of Asgard during Malekith’s attack and Thor’s escape.

There is much more humor.

Photo by marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

This movie does not fail to provide much more humor. Taking after its prequel, I did expect such from the film but it incorporates the element more than I thought possible.

There are two highlights for me. First is the exchange of the brothers during their escape from Asgard which stars with Loki’s perception of himself as Thor’s wingman at the grand hall until Thor pushes him out of the ship. The second is a quick one – the moment when Thor & Jane go to her place and he hangs his hammer on the coat rack. I know it doesn't cause the audience to burst into laughter but it is a funny scene knowing that as heavy and powerful as the hammer is, the coat rack should have given.

Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) appearance has improved.

Photo by http://www.eonline.com/

Thor as embodied by Chris is an undeniable eye candy. (Grins) However, I know I’m not the only one who can say that he looks better in the sequel. There is just an air of raw elegance and humanity in him. Perhaps, it is the product of not having to use an entire wig for your hair. Even Chris mentioned in an interview that one thing he loves about the movie is that his hair is mostly his this time unlike in Thor and The Avengers. Another reason for such improvement is perhaps because the arrogant and ill-tempered god has been replaced by a humble and wise one. As they say, the inside beauty exudes to the outside.

Frigga (Rene Russo) is given justice.

Photo by www.tbreak.ae

I pitied Rene Russo in the prequel because her acting prowess was not displayed. Most of her scenes were cut. So it is refreshing that she has more scenes and lines in this one. However, I pity her because she has to die at the first part of the movie. Unfortunately, it is necessary to add to the conflict of the story. Nonetheless, I like that Frigga is given the chance to display her fighting skills before her demise.

I also liked that she displays her motherly affection toward Loki throughout her time.

Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) is shown to be a stern but fragile being.     

   

Photo by www.movieweb.com

Seen as the stern and disciplinarian king, it is nice to see Odin become fragile. Well, what would you expect of a man who lost his wife? He is somehow lost after Frigga dies as evident on his decision after the Dark Elves’ attack. As powerful as Gungnir and Mjolnir are along with the strength of what remains of Asgard’s military, deciding to stand ground and wait for the next attack is not really a wise decision. Since the defenses of the realm have been challenged and evidently defeated, waiting for the enemy’s return and taking the fight into Asgard will only risk the lives of its inhabitants further.

Loki’s (Tom Hiddleston) moment of grief is believable.

Photo from tumblr.com

Same as Odin, Loki is never shown to be fragile because of another’s trial/demise until Frigga’s death. It is the first time you actually feel for him, knowing he lost his mother. Loki could not have done anything about it since he is in jail and the thought of his mother’s death escapes him as his hatred of Odin and Thor consumes him.

The new relationship of the brothers Thor & Loki is presented well.

Photo by geektyrant.com 

This is something I didn't expect would develop in the film. Since they were first introduced to us, they are more contrasting now than they ever were that a believable team-up has been dimmed impossible. However, as circumstances demand it, Thor needs Loki’s help to save Jane and the nine realms. With this, their alliance has a reasonable premise and is not forced and awkward.

Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) plays a vital role.

Photo by www.wallpapervortex.com

Because of her curiosity, she comes across the Aether which possesses her. Then this is how the conflict starts to take shape. Yes, she’s still the typical ‘damsel in distress’ but she also does her part in saving Earth by inventing a device to help Thor fight Malekith in the end.

Heimdall (Idris Elba) continues to be a fascinating and remarkable character.

Photo by www.comicbookmovie.com

He may only be a supporting character but with all the realms concerned and him being the all-seeing guardian of the Bifrost Bridge that allows travel in the nine realms, Heimdall cannot just be ignored. His abilities greatly help defend Asgard from Malekith’s attack even though the Asgardians end up losing.

The love triangle between Thor, Jane, and Sif is presented just right.

Photo by movies.yahoo.com

Many may say that the hype created around this subject is not justified in the movie; at first thought, I would say so too. However, thinking it over again made me see that the love triangle is presented just right. How? The scenes wherein Thor turns down Sif’s offer of a drink and Sif’s meaningful glance at Jane during their first encounter in Asgard say it all. You can sense the unrequited love Sif has and her envy of Jane. The considerably minor attention on this subject ensures that the focus is not taken away from the main conflict of the story.

SPOILER: Unexpected cameo ignites audiences.

Photo by www.contactmusic.com

Captain America! Yes, he makes a special appearance in the movie in the least expected or rather unexpected way. Loki transforms into Steve Rogers in his patriotic suit while the brothers walk in the grand hall of the palace. It is a really nice surprise. I bet everyone gets shocked and amazed when he appears.

However, I already expected Capt. America to appear in the movie. Why? During interviews and as read in write-ups, people behind The Avengers were thinking how to include the other superheroes in each spin-off movie specifically Thor and Captain America. Since then, I have been wondering how this could be done and I’m amazed how they are able to think of the manner of his appearance. Bravo!

SPOILER: Odin’s condition is a cliffhanger. Thanks to Loki.

Photo by www.screenrush.com

I think this is the biggest question in people’s minds: ‘What happened to Odin?’ ‘What did Loki do to him?’ I have the same question. As some of my friends and colleagues have said, death is a possibility. Knowing Loki and his ways, it could be but Odin is still his father and I don’t think he can and will do that. We will just have to see what has happened to Allfather in the next installment of Thor.

Now, let us proceed to the negative.

DOWNs

The solution for the threat could have been written better.

Photo by www.comicbookmovie.com

Dr. Selvig and Jane creates a set of devices that becomes a great help to end Malekith and Thor takes the devices with him to the Dark World because he is the only one who can get close to the Dark Elf. While indeed, Thor should be the one to save the Earth, the manner by which he did it was awkward. The god of thunder and those devices do not really fit together. It would have been better if Malekith died by being sucked into a ‘black hole stone’.

Or if the reason behind the inclusion of the devices is to emphasize the necessity of Jane, perhaps Thor could have jumped near Malekith as he threw the devices or stabbed him with it.

Thor is shown to lack the sense of shock & grief expected in a son upon finding his mother dead.

Photo by www.comicbookmovie.com

This is one thing I don’t understand. Yes, it can be said that he may just be putting on a tough face since he is the eldest and is expected to be strong. However, he could have knelt beside his mother and shed a tear. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall him crying.

In the prequel, I remember that he cried over the news of Odin’s death. Hence, it is only expected that he shed tears for his mother.

The Aether’s location is not suitable for the threat it poses.

The darkness of the place is appropriate but the Aether should have been enclosed in a container just like the Jotuns’ Casket of A Thousand Winters in the prequel or the Tesseract in The Avengers.

 Jane Foster’s entry to the location of the Aether and how she absorbed it is not convincing.

Photo by cinapse.co

Perhaps this will not be a con if the setup of the Aether’s location is different.

The scene of Algrim’s (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) transformation into Kurse could have been more threatening.

Photo by ontheflix.com

If only Algrim and Malekith are in this scene and some shots are in silhouette and few extreme close-ups, it would far suit the mood of this part of the film.

Kurse’s entry to Asgard has no visible believable premise.

Photo by marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

Kurse’s entry to Asgard is off. Perhaps if he is shown landing in a realm where their spaceship is nearby and where a battle is being fought between the Warriors and some of the realm’s inhabitants, it could have made a good premise for his entry. He could have camouflaged as one of the hostile inhabitants and got arrested, landing himself in Asgard.

Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) was a miss.

Photo by comicbook.com 

Selvig is not utilized that much in this movie and does not have an impact in the story unlike in his two previous films. Yes, he is funny and he helps create the devices that Thor uses to aid in Malekith’s defeat but I miss the father figure that he was in the prequel.

Fandral’s (Zachary Levi) character soured.

Photo by screencrush.com 

It is always difficult to play a role that has been initially portrayed by another actor especially if he was great in doing it. I like Zachary Levi as an actor but it was awkward watching him as Fandral. For me, Josh Dallas made his mark as Fandral in Thor; he brought the character to life. So Zachary didn't really fit quite well with the other Warriors even though I could see him do his part.

CORY MONTEITH, GONE TOO SOON

Let me take this time off from reviewing movies and offer a post for the passing away of a young and very talented actor. He had gone too soon. He could have been so much more. Still, what God has given, God can take away. He has a reason for doing everything. I guess Cory has fulfilled his purpose and needed to finally come back home to our Father and experience eternal joy and peace.

Let us pray for his soul, for his family, friends, and his girlfriend, Lea Michele. I do not know them but it doesn't have to take a scholar to know how they feel right now especially Lea who, I'm sure, looked forward to a life with him.

MAN OF STEEL ALTERNATE ENDING

THIS ARTICLE IS A MAJOR SPOILER. IF YOU STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE, WATCH IT FIRST.


I've given a fair warning. I'll proceed now.

What if Superman didn’t kill General Zod?

A few nights ago, my brother and I talked about Man of Steel specifically its fun facts and issues. One major issue we talked about was General Zod’s demise at the hands of Kal-El (literally). People are very concerned that the image of Superman as an anti-killing superhero has been tarnished.

As I’ve said in my review (see below), I’m not a fan so I had to track back on the Superman flicks I’ve watched. People are right; Superman has not killed any foe in the movies. The same goes for the series Smallville, according to my brother who is a fan.

On trying to enlighten myself on the matter, I read an article (found here) about Zack Snyder and David Goyer’s answer to the issue. An excerpt can be read below.

Snyder: "In the original version of the script Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone. David [Goyer] and I had long talks about it, and Chris [Nolan] and I talked a lot about it. I was saying, ‘I really feel we should kill Zod and I feel that Superman should kill him.’ For me, the why of it was: if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. I thought if we put him in an impossible situation, forced him into it, it would work. I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again.’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture, and he is responsible for it and he is just like… ‘How could I kill ever again?’ Even though Zod says there’s no way this ends without it. ‘What are you going to do? Put me in jail? I don’t know what you’re going to do with me but I’m gonna just keep doing this until you stop me. I’m just a killing machine, especially now. I had a task before but you’ve robbed me of that too.’"

David S. Goyer: "So yes, originally Zod got sucked into The Phantom Zone with the others but I just felt it was unsatisfying and so did Zack. So we started talking to some of the people at DC Comics and asked, ‘Do you think there is ever a way that Superman would kill someone?’ And at first they said, ‘No way.’ ‘But what if he didn’t have a choice…?’ Originally Chris didn’t even want to let us try to write it but Zack and I said, ‘We think we can figure out a way that you’ll buy it.’ So I came up with this idea of the heat vision and these people about to die and I wrote the scene and gave it to Chris… and he said, ‘Okay, you convinced me.’ I’ve seen the film about four times now and everyone always gasps when it happens – they don’t see it coming – and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, whereas other people say ‘Right on!’ but that was the point. Hopefully what we have done with the end of this film is we’ve got the mainstream audience, not the geek audience, to question it all. Hopefully we’ve redefined Superman." 


As I told this to my brother, he was not entirely convinced for he was one of those people who didn’t like the changes in the movie specifically Zod’s death. He didn’t like Superman directly killing someone. He argued that the general could have died in the same manner as Thor’s Loki. (Although Loki didn’t really die as he became the villain in Avengers.) My brother’s point is that the writers could and should have gone traditional with Superman sending Zod to the Phantom Zone or flying him into a black hole. 

Then, the idea of Superman blasting to the air with Zod at the nick of time (before he could kill the innocent Metropolis citizens) came to mind. At that moment, my brother and I agreed that that could have been a better choice. However, as I think of it now, what will happen then? More fighting, flying to the Phantom Zone, and Zod coming back after some time?

We all have different opinions on the matter. Some agree to the scene; others don’t. Personally, I think if the scene happened in another way, it would not feel real. One of the aims of Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer was to make MoS relatable (in its own way). They put Superman in such a critical position to show that the reality that there are times you are forced to make the most difficult choice no matter how painful it could be, can also happen to him. Superman flying with Zod out of the building would depart or veer away from the theme of the movie. And if you read the article of Snyder and Goyer’s statement, you would know the main reason why Superman killed Zod. The film features an origin story meaning it has to explain why something is the way it is. It has to give a premise as to why Superman made it his principle not to kill anyone. Of course, no one in the right mind would really want to kill another but there has to be a deeper and personal reason ‘why’ for Kal-El. As Snyder said, Zod’s death could be seen as the reason. Superman thought he was alone before he knew of Zod and his forces; perhaps (and most probably) it made him feel better somehow to know that some of his own people still exist. With that in mind, combine the act of killing with the reality that you had to kill the other remaining member of your race was very difficult for Superman to bear. This is the ‘why’ he made an oath not to kill anyone ever again. And that is the ‘why’ Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan did the scene.

NOTE: Photo used is borrowed and belongs to its owner.

MAGNIFICENTLY DARK AND DIFFERENT: A NEW LIGHT ON SUPERMAN

How Man of Steel touched ground and gave enlightenment through darkness

It’s pretty ironic that Man of Steel is the subject of my first movie review given that I’m not a Superman fan. Still, I feel pressed (and inspired) to write about it. It just really left an impression on me.

NOTE: Spoilers ahead.

NARRATION STYLE

As many have said, MoS is really different from the Superman movie and TV series we all have watched. Perhaps, it is because Nolan and Goyer wrote it and Snyder took the chair.

My family and I came to the theater expecting a movie that starts from Kal-El’s birth up to his maturity as Superman. We got that but in a different manner. Yes, it began with his birth but once he left Krypton, everything was fast-paced, actually skipping. I was starting to get disappointed because after the scenes in Krypton, Kal-El already became greenhorn –a moniker he got while working on a fishing ship here on Earth. ‘Work’ meaning he was already around his 30s. Then he went on to save a handful of men while at sea– his first rescue mission as the movie rolled. However, when he fainted and dropped into the sea and had a flashback of his childhood, that’s when I understood the style of the film and the strategy to separate it from the Superman movies of the past. The movie decided to show Kal-El as a mature Clark Kent and only flashed back to childhood memories that were of great significance: childhood scenes which would explain why he became ‘Superman’ in the literal and metaphorical meaning of the word. The flashbacks were triggered by scenes or dialogs familiar to the characters like the school bus that passed by when Clark was at the sidewalk after regaining consciousness from his fall after his first rescue mission, or the dialog where Martha Kent told our superhero that his adoptive father Jonathan Kent foresaw his great future.

DIFFERENT TAKE

As this piece will repeatedly say, MoS is really different from the Superman flicks we have been used to.

Krypton

Starting with Krypton which we know as a foreign Iceland, the movie showed the planet as the opposite. It was like a planet of fire though not literally (except for its final moments). It came across to me as a hot and exhausted planet waiting to be consumed, making its expiry logical. It mixed technology with fantasy with the presence of aircrafts and strange airborne animals. The dark take on the planet was unique but admittedly, I wanted to see the old Krypton because I liked its coldness and purity.

S logo

It was refreshing that MoS gave the logo meaning except for the obvious. Plus, it’s interesting that they chose it to represent hope.

Characters’ Changes

Superman/Clark Kent 

          As Clark Kent, our superhero donned a beard. The past actors who played the role were all clean looking. It can be taken as a symbolization of his years wandering trying to find out who he really was or it could just simply be a disguise or still, it could be both.

As Superman, his suit was altered. No more trunks. For me, that change gave a more masculine look to our superhero. The change of color did the same. It made Superman look more serious and human. Having the similar suit as General Zod and the others made his costume make sense. It didn’t just happen to be designed that way; it (blue suit) was the inner suit for Kryptonian soldiers as seen in the general during his final scenes with Superman. They also had the cape. Going to the hair, the signature ‘kiss-curl’ was also dropped. That was also a great change, for me.

Another thing I really liked was that the movie gave a logical explanation why his weakness was his weakness. His body had been exposed for too long to Earth’s atmosphere that it cannot readapt to Kryptonian atmosphere of any kind thus making him weak to it.

With his relationship with Lois Lane, he was not instantly drawn to her. During their first encounter, he was focused on discovering his origins and didn’t want to be sidetracked. He also tried to resist knowing her perhaps because of possible dangers to both of them and he didn’t know if he could trust her.

Lois Lane

        She’s not a brunette and has a role other than being a damsel in distress and Superman’s love interest. She was ‘put to use’ when Jor-El taught her how Zod and his forces could be stopped from destroying Earth as it was. It was also refreshing that she was given her own fight scenes though they were few.

Moreover, she became a confidant of Superman before becoming his ladylove. She provided him the comfort and trust he needed and didn’t think possible. She knew the personality and mystery of Clark before Superman – one major positive change in the plot. Plus, I saw Lois as a reporter when she tracked down Clark Kent; I saw the ‘nose for news’, curiosity, and fearlessness of a reporter in her in this movie.

Jonathan Kent 

           The only change I saw with this character was the nature of his death. As I said, I’m not a fan of Superman and thus, haven’t read the comics. I’m not sure if Mr. Kent’s death was in line with what has been stated in the comics. Nonetheless, he still played a key role in honing the man Clark came to be.

Jor-El

           He had more scenes here compared to the previous films. He was more than just a voice-over. The movie allowed viewers to know much more of his great intellect and courage. It was also interesting that he had a meaningful interaction with Lois Lane that was the key in stopping Zod and his men from destroying Earth.

General Zod and his forces

       They had armors unlike the previous characters making them look stronger and more threatening. Plus, they had a clear motive other than vengeance for conquering Earth; they were honed to be soldiers and protectors of Krypton and were obliged to live up to their role.

Relationships

Lois/Superman 

        Their relationship really saw great improvement. Both of them weren’t just head over heels for each other from the start. They built their relationship from acquaintances to friends with trust then obviously, to lovers (as shown by the short-but-passionate kiss at the end). The scene after Zod died wherein Superman was in grief for killing him and Lois comforted him with a hug, showed genuine concern on Lois’s part.

The nature of their meeting and how their relationship grew from acquaintances to lovers was laid well.

Jor-El/Kal-El 

         The biological father and son had more interaction in this movie. Jor-El wasn’t just a father who died early and came back through his consciousness. They had key conversations that influenced Superman’s decision of who he should be to humans.

Jonathan Kent/Clark Kent 

        This is where I was a bit disappointed because they were the opposite of Jor-El and Kal-El. They had few interactions. However, even though their scenes together were only few, they were all significant. The tornado scene was the most touching scene for me. It showed self-sacrifice and love in the actions of Jonathan; and helplessness, agony, and regret in the actions of Clark. Jonathan was willing to die to protect Clark’s identity; Clark was willing to reveal himself to save his adoptive father but out of love and respect, he followed his father’s last instruction to allow death to happen.

DOWNSIDE

Fight Scenes

For me, the only two unbiased downsides in the movie are first, the fight scenes which, I believe, were cut short. Perhaps, they were teasers to Zod and Superman’s final battle that really went on and on and gave the audience the complete package of a superhero fight scene they’ve been longing for as the movie played.

Futhermore, I was not convinced with Zod’s death. Although it can be justified that someone can be killed in such a way, I was expecting a ‘grander and darker’ way of his death. I’m not sure if anyone else has the same opinion given the traditional image of Superman; perhaps, I’m just used to watching movies with villains dying in that way.

Flashbacks

Second, the flashback style may not sit well with some viewers who are used to a single flow of scenes in a movie.

CONCLUSION

For an analytical person, I liked MoS because it enlightened viewers as to why the things in the movie were the way they were like the S logo, Superman’s suit, his weakness, General Zod’s plan to conquer the world, etc. It made the realities of the movie more grounded and logical. It gave justification to the details. Overall, I give it an A- rating for its boldness, darkness, and humanness.

Furthermore, their choice to not literally show the step-by-step transformation of Kal-El to Clark Kent to Superman was obviously a strategy to separate the movie from the previous ones. It was effective; although I for one wanted to see the crash landing of Kal-El’s spaceship and he lifting the truck while still a toddler.

It is still quite unbelievable that I made a review for Man of Steel but as I mentioned earlier, I felt pressed to write one. The movie earned it. I commend the cast and crew of MoS for their boldness in portraying the all-American hero and his story in a light very different from what generations of moviegoers are used to without losing the essence of Superman’s identity and story. Personally, I think the darkness and sadness of the movie made it more relatable.

My advice for those who are knowledgeable of previous Superman movies, is to try to be unbiased as you watch MoS. If you do, you’ll just feel more dismay than appreciation for the film. Try to watch the film only for what it is without the obvious expectations. Superman’s suit alone should give you a hint that it is a different film from the previous ones. Still, whether you have expectations or not, it is inevitable that you will leave the cinema house impressed. ;)

NOTE: All images used are borrowed and belong to their respective owners.