Avengers: Age of Ultron

By all accounts, 2015 at the movie box office is the year of BIG MOVIES. Released in early April, Furious 7 zoomed past the $1 billion dollar mark already and was joined this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron, the next big thing in the Marvel franchise. The scary part for my nerdy self is there's still Mad Max, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Terminator, and of course, Star Wars to come in theaters. I loved Furious 7 and wouldn't you know it? I loved Avengers too.

In the Eastern European country of Sokovia, the Avengers -- Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) -- are able to fight their way into a Hydra outpost to recover Loki's all-powerful scepter. Back at the Avengers base, Tony Stark wants to use this power for good, using the scepter's power to create a brand of artificial intelligence that could shield the world, to protect it from all threats. Nothing goes quite to plan though as the artificial intelligence uses its ridiculous amount of pressure, calling itself Ultron (voice of James Spader), and escapes across the world's technology intent on destroying the Avengers and ultimately ruling the world. Can this ultra-powerful tool and weapon be stopped? At what cost? Once again, it comes down to the Avengers putting their differences aside to pull off a seemingly impossible mission.

It's been three years since the first Avengers movie hit theaters and tore apart the box office, earning $1.5 billion worldwide. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise that continues to pile up the money, and typically, positive reviews. Fans love them -- for the most part -- and I include myself in that list. These Avengers movies have become the perfect blockbuster, huge, sprawling action adventures with a crazy cast and crazier action. Director Joss Whedon returns to helm this sequel, and even he admits the work that goes into making these movies (Read...the intense, soul-crushing PRESSURE) is brutally tough. Whedon even wrote this daunting screenplay. Potential world-ending villains, double-digit MAIN characters, countless quick, cameo appearances, and the high expectations of the franchise's countless fans, man, that is a TON of pressure.

So yeah, reviews were a little more mixed here than with the first flick. Sure, there are some flaws and hiccups along the way. None of those flaw/hiccups proves to be too big a problem simply because these movies are so damn fun. Like all the franchise entries, there is a certain formula to follow, but 'Ultron' is able to tweak that formula a bit. All the characters are there, the witty banter, the great villains, the world-shattering action. The F-U-N. The story doesn't always make a ton of sense, but it becomes an issue of...well, does it really matter? You sit back, eat some popcorn and go for the ride. It's a relatively long movie at 141 minutes, but it never feels long. Things are moving too fast and there's too many moving pieces for this money-raking sequel to actually slow down.

The biggest appeal for me with the Avengers flicks above the action or the villains or all the craziness is the ridiculous cast. These casts, my goodness, they're epic. With so many characters, we don't always get the depth/development/background you might want, but Whedon's script certainly goes for it. We continue to see the budding rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America, the budding lovey-dovey relationship between Bruce Banner and Black Widow, and I thought the coolest part, getting to know the most-human members of the Avengers, Hawkeye and a secret he's been holding onto and Black Widow and her past as an assassin trained by the KGB. There's so much to cover, a movie clocking in at 141 simply can't give too much character development. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own -- and many of them have -- so when you combine them, it comes together pretty perfectly. There's almost too much talent for it NOT to work.

That cast, that ridiculous list of stars though, it simply isn't enough. Right? Right?!? We need more characters!!! James Spader is perfectly voice-cast as Ultron, the artificial intelligence hell-bent on destroying the world. Spader's voice is silky and smooth and droll and dripping with intimidation. Without ever appearing on-screen, Spader is a scene-stealer. Also joining him in the villains department are Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as the Twins, a Russian brother and sister with special powers, Pietro with super speed and Wanda with mental manipulation. Quite the interesting trio. Also appearing in smaller parts -- but necessary ones -- are Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Because of the behemoth that is the Marvel universe, there's also Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell, Stellan Skarsgard, Thomas Kretschmann, and because that wasn't enough, more characters including Linda Cardellini, Claudia Kim, Andy Serkis, and an expanded role -- a very cool one -- for Paul Bettany as Jarvis.

This may come as a bit of sacrilege, but I thought the weakest part of this money-raking sequel is actually the action itself. Look, here's my thoughts. It looks great. It looks polished. It looks CRAZY at times, but you just know none of it is real. It is all CGI to the point you get lost in it. There's not as much emotional punch. Action movies have become so reliant on this stuff that is becomes a crippling crutch. I haven't seen it yet but Mad Max: Fury Road is getting ridiculously positive reviews because the action is real. They went out and filmed it and did the stunts. To a certain extent, the same for Furious 7. The action is great and shown on a huge, world-shattering scale, but it's almost too polished. The exception is the destruction-riddled finale, an incredibly put-together extended action sequence that is able to blend the CGI with the characters and their bonds (and some twists along the way) in an extravaganza of fights and stunts and destruction.

Yeah, there are issues. With this much going on, it would be near impossible for there not to be issues. But by the time you get to the scene where the Avengers -- and some surprising reinforcements -- dig their heels in for a last stand against Ultron's minions, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, and it's all in slow motion...........oh man, fan boy moment! It's hard not to go along for the ride. It isn't perfect, and I liked the first Avengers more, but this is about as entertaining as anything you could ask for. Quite the daunting task taken on by Whedon and his script, but I'll call it booming, flawed gem of a success. Now onto other Marvel films....and there will be tons! The ending especially sets things up nicely for the next Captain America movie, set for release in 2016. Bring it on!

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Good Will Hunting

Just a few weeks ago, I reviewed 1989’s Dead Poets Society, a film featuring one of Robin Williams’ best dramatic roles. It even picked him up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance. For me, it’s a push though when you stop and consider Williams’ overall acting parts. That conversation includes both Dead Poets and 1997’s Good Will Hunting.

Working as a janitor at M.I.T., Will Hunting (Matt Damon) has a pretty simple life. He works, reads, and enjoys hanging out with his friends in south Boston. There’s something special about Will though, something he only lets out in small doses. Will is an absolute genius, able to understand complex mathematical equations at will, an almost photographic memory aiding the cause. It’s more than that though. He gets in trouble with the law though, but when a professor (Stellan Skarsgard) at M.I.T. finds out what this janitor is capable of, he cuts a deal with the court to earn Will’s release. One of the requirements of the release is simple; Will must go to a psychiatrist and talk about his past, his anger, his life. He chases one away after another until he finally meets Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), a psychiatrist who finally challenges him.

Like ‘Dead Poets,’ I sought out ‘Hunting’ after the tragic passing of Robin Williams a few weeks ago. His death is still settling in weeks later, the tributes still revealing themselves as fans continue to realize what a true talent he was. Both for William’s performance and the entire cast, ‘Hunting is a gem, director Gus Van Sant helming a film that picked up nine Oscar nominations, ultimately winning two; Best Supporting Actor for Williams, Best Original Screenplay for Damon and Ben Affleck. It is the best kind of drama, a story interested in the people, the relationships, the real life drama. There are some true BIG dramatic moments, but they never feel forced. They feel very real. This was the movie that put Matt Damon and Ben Affleck on the map in a big way, a huge window into the talents they were and would become. The reason for revisiting the movie was unfortunate, but the movie itself is a gem.

The script from Damon and Affleck is a pretty perfect jumping off point. It paints a great picture of the characters and a true variety of characters. We’re talking full-fledged, red-blooded, 3-D characters that act and talk like real people. That starts with Damon’s Will Hunting. We learn as the story develops what makes Will the way he is, his checkered past littered with violence, his life growing up in foster homes. Rocking an epic Boston accent, Damon kills the part. Will isn’t an easy character to like because he does such a good job pushing people away, but you’re rooting for him just the same. You want him to figure things out, to open up, to trust some. Damon is one of the best actors currently working in Hollywood, a true talent, and this is definitely one of his best.

Damon’s performance is uniformly strong, but the scenes that resonate the most are those in which he interacts with Williams’ Sean. These scenes take place in Sean’s cluttered, homey office, a lived-in feel for sure as Sean, a psychiatrist and professor at a junior college, gets to know the troubled Will. These scenes develop like a chess match, two professionals duking it out, looking for strengths and weaknesses. Why does it work? It plays effortlessly. This isn’t acting but two guys having a conversation. It isn’t always easy to watch, but it’s always fascinating. Will’s early “analysis” of Sean, Sean’s shot back at his brilliant mind, Sean’s explaining about his own past, including a great scene about the 1975 World Series and Carlton Fisk’s famous home run, they all ring true. A true talent in Robin Williams, bringing out the best in all his scenes.

Who else to look for? This isn’t a huge cast, but what’s there is prime. Helping give a window into Will, again, is the script as we see his day-to-day life, meeting his friends as they go bar-hopping, hang out on the weekends. Affleck is a scene-stealer as Chuckie, Will’s longtime best friend, loyal to a fault but also wanting his friend to reach out and take what he can with his gift, his mind. Also look for Casey Affleck and Cole Hauser as two other close friends. Minnie Driver is a gem too as Skylar, an incredibly smart med student who clicks instantly with Will but struggles to get to know him as he puts his walls up. As well, Skarsgard is excellent as a professor with a similarly brilliant mind but not one on the same level as Will. An incredibly talented cast, not a weakness in the bunch.

As I mentioned, this is a movie about the personal drama. If I delve into the story anymore, it’s going to involve giving away some great scenes that should come naturally in the process of watching the film. Me talking about it would be one spoiler after another. Great story, great characters, cool locations in and around Boston, and a pretty cool ending on so many levels. Well worth catching up with. Highly recommended, and again, R.I.P. Robin Williams.

Good Will Hunting (1997): *** ½ /****

Thor: The Dark World

There are certain irrefutable things in life like death, taxes and the fact that all Avengers franchise movies will make a boatload of money. The Avengers was the top-earning film of 2012, becoming the third-highest grossing film of all-time. I've liked all of the movies to varying degrees with one major exception, 2011's Thor. I really didn't like this one, but come on, I've got to keep up with the franchise, right? Right?!? Here we go with 2013's Thor: The Dark World.

Following the adventures/misadventures in New York (in The Avengers), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has returned to Asgard with his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), in tow, set to waste away for his crimes. With the universe threatening to tear itself apart, Thor has gone about bringing about the Nine Realms back together. His quest though is halted when his love back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), accidentally comes into the possession of the Aether, an ancient powerful weapon that dates back eons and has remained hidden and buried all that time. The Dark Elf who previously possessed it, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), wants nothing more than to reacquire the Aether, hopefully to tear Asgard, Earth and the entire universe to pieces with his new-found power. Hoping to save the universe, Asgard and Jane, Thor is left with few options, forcing him to turn to an unlikely ally, Loki himself. Can his brother be trusted?

I don't know what it is. I can't peg it down exactly what doesn't work for me about these Thor movies. I can say that I liked this second movie more than the original. Director Alan Taylor's superhero flick still isn't perfect, but something just seems more self-assured. It's still heavily flawed, but it isn't the deal-killer that I found the original Thor to be. There's a lot of issues I have I guess. One, I'm being hypocritical. I've watched the Lord of the Ring series, the Star Wars movies and countless other science fiction and fantasy movies so that in itself isn't a deal-breaker, but I struggle to go along with all the Asgard history and lore. Writing that plot synopsis, I felt like I should be reading it in MOVIE TRAILER voice. All the mythology and history and Aethers, it's all very cartoonish and comic book. I can't say that for the other Avengers movies. Based in comic books but rising above it...except for Thor.

One thing above all else is not in question, AT ALL. That would be star Chris Hemsworth who has become an international movie star courtesy of these movies. Talk about epically perfect casting. From the visual look with his long blonde hair to his commandeering physique to his booming voice that deadpans his way through his scenes, Hemsworth is the best thing going for these movies by far. I won't go as far as saying he's the only good thing, but it's closer than you'd think unfortunately. He commits to the part completely but it never seems jokey or forced. It's serious with some laughs. Hemsworth handles the action effortlessly from beginning to end -- his Thor hammer is one of the best cinema weapons ever -- and adds a touch of humor too. Some quick, little scenes work perfectly, including Thor hanging up his hammer like a coat as he enters an apartment. Hemsworth's performance is the heart of the movie, a great lead.

Now the unfortunate thing is that as many big names and potentially cool characters as this movie has, very few leave a positive impression. The biggest exception to that statement is of course, Hiddleston as Loki, Thor's treacherous brother who is obsessed with power and taking over Asgard. The chemistry between the brothers is great, their scenes together in the last hour my personal high points for the movie. As for the rest? Meh. I like Natalie Portman a lot, but she still seems out of place in the Thor movies. Anthony Hopkins is cool but given little to do as Thor's father, Odin, while Rene Russo returns as Thor's mother, Frigga. Idris Elba is as cool as ever as Heimdall, all-seeing Asgardian sentry who watches over the entry point to Asgard. In the annoying comic relief department, the usually reliable Kat Dennings is shrill and annoying as Jane's assistant, Darcy, Stellan Skarsgard is relegated to crazy scientist in background duty, and Darcy even gets a goofy British intern (Jonathan Howard).

But wait, there's more! Eccleston is pretty decent as the villainous Malekith, obsessed with destruction, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje his freakishly strong enforcer, Algrim. In the wasted department are Thor's Warriors Three from the original, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi (a new arrival) and Tadanobu Asano, mostly given cameo-like appearances, Jaimie Alexander also returning as Asgardian love interest (of sorts), Sif. And because the Avengers franchise is interested in coverage across all their movies, Chris Evans makes a quick appearance as Captain America while Benicio Del Toro makes an appearance in the credits scene as a hint of where the Thor series will go.Also look for Chris O'Dowd in a small part.

And here we sit. I know what I want to say, but it's going to sound harsh. My biggest complaint of the Thor movies is that they seem almost generic without a whole lot of heart. They're fun and flashy, blending action and comedy, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "interesting." Thor is a really cool character, but what else is there to offer? 'Dark' clocks in at 112 minutes, but once you take away an incredibly long credits sequence (even taking away the minute scene added on) we're still looking at a movie that's now 101 minutes. Too much going on, too many ideas and characters, a story that bounces liberally among its countless options, and a coldness in general that the other Avengers movies manage to avoid in a big way. It's better than the first movie, but it's still not that good.

Thor: The Dark World (2013): **/****

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Having died in 2004 from a heart attack at age 50, author Stieg Larsson never saw his trilogy of novels and the success they've had unfortunately. Originally published in Swedish, the 'Girl' trilogy has become a worldwide hit, and has even been turned into a Swedish movie trilogy, and hopefully an American one. For now though, we start with the series opener, 2011's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Having been found guilty of libel, Swedish business journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is at a bit of a career crossroad. An opportunity presents itself when aging businessman Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) approaches him with a proposition. Henrik would like Mikael to write his biography, but that's really just a cover. He wants Mikael to investigate the 40-plus year mystery of the disappearance and possible death of his great-niece that's gone unsolved all these years. There's a twist to Henrik's offer, but the damaged journalist agrees to help. At the same time, an anti-social and uniquely odd investigator, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), is investigating her own case, one that will eventually hit a crossroad with that of Mikael's.

I'll get this out of the way early for fans of the book, the first of Larsson's trilogy. I read the book, loved it, and went into the American film with high expectations. They were very much met. Fans of the book will no doubt enjoy the movie. The transition from novel to film must have been a daunting one, but for the most part, all the changes that were made work out. Unnecessary supporting characters have been dropped. Some subplots among characters has been cut too. The only significant change comes in the finale, but for the sake of the movie it works in a more stream-lined fashion. Moral of the story is simple. In a time when so many adaptations struggle to channel a source novel's power and enjoyment, this one very much lives up to expectations. Now, onto the movie.

From accomplished director David Fincher, 'Dragon' is a true movie. With movies like Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Social Network to his name, Fincher doesn't attach himself to just any movie. He doesn't just tell stories, he tries to make his films viewing experiences. In a story focusing on sexual/physical violence against women, corruption in business, cowardice in journalism, and a general disgust with human beings, that's quite a task. Filmed in Sweden, Switzerland and Norway, the visual look is dark and muted, especially gloomy in reflecting the darkness of the story. Fincher's ability with a camera is impressive; quick cuts without being frenetic in its movement. The soundtrack from Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is a gem, even getting an Oscar nomination. It's acoustic and loopy, almost an updated sound of a Vangelis or Tangerine Dream in an electronic way. Lots of style points, and all for the better.

Heading into my reading of the book, I knew who would play certain characters which isn't always a good thing, but it works here. Showing again that he's not just James Bond, Craig is an ideal choice to play beaten down but crusading journalist Mikael. He really makes the character come alive. It's the little touches. He's confident but not cocky, just aware of his abilities. When interviewing or investigating, his glasses hang from one ear, rocking below his chin. Questioning at first, Mikael too becomes obsessed with the case. Casting Mara as Lisbeth took some heat (and some changes from the book have been made), but the then-25 year old actress does a phenomenal job. I didn't always like Lisbeth in the novel, but I was always interested in her. A survivor of physical, sexual and mental abuse, she is a ward of the state in Sweden, but she in reality is a brilliant individual in her way. The two characters together -- vastly different but eerily similar in others -- is an Odd Couple match made in heaven.

The most important characters -- obviously -- make the jump from print to film, starting with Plummer as Henrik. It's just a quick appearance (Henrik is kept in the background more here), but a professional like Plummer makes it worthwhile. Steven Berkoff is a scene-stealer as Frode, Henrik's lawyer who sets up the job and investigation with Mikael. Stellan Skarsgard and Joely Richardson play members of the Vanger family, both actors memorable in smaller parts. Robin Wright plays Erika, Mikael's long-time lover and fellow publisher/editor at the magazine they own. Also look for Yorick van Wageningen, Goran Visnjic and Donald Sumpter to round out the cast.

At its heart, 'Dragon' is a murder mystery, and a really good one at that. The premise and background of Harriet's disappearance is laid out early, and Fincher allows the story to develop as at first Mikael but then Lisbeth too becomes more involved in the case. In an investigation long since trapped in a dead end, the clues and pieces start to come together. It's a mystery at its best, and enjoyable to watch from beginning to heartbreaking end. Craig and Mara are perfect, Fincher a talent behind the camera, and I'm looking forward to seeing where the trilogy hopefully goes...and the novels too.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo <---trailer (2011): ***/****   

The Avengers

Since 2008's Iron Man, the Marvel Comics universe has been introduced to a worldwide audience via a series of films featuring an infamous list of heroes. With each passing movie, the audience would see little snippets of something bigger being hinted at, something else coming along down the road. We saw quick scenes of characters, usually post-credits, and the rumors drifted. Would all these superhero characters team up as they did in the Marvel comics, forming The Avengers (<---the comic)? You bet, and that's where 2012's The Avengers rides into town to open the summer blockbusters.

For those not familiar with the Avengers' lineup, here goes, a refresher course in badass superheroes. The plot synopsis is next, but I wanted to start with a listing of these characters. The biggest and baddest? Well, I guess that's a personal choice, but I'm starting with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Tony Stark in real life, a rich, eccentric playboy philanthropist. Joining him are Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero come back to fight in 2012, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), an other-worldly Norse god, and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), scientist Bruce Banner post-gamma ray accident. Rounding out the group are two assassins and special agents, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a brutally efficient expert in hand-to-hand combat, and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a pilot and marksman with bow and arrow. Good enough? That's just the start.

Director of espionage and intelligence agency S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) arrives at a remote secure facility in the desert as a time portal opens up and brings an unwelcome visitor. It is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), half-brother of Norse god, Thor, and he intends to wreak havoc on Earth. Loki steals the all-powerful Tesseract -- a pure, clean and unmeasurable source of energy -- and intends to use it to take over the planet. With nowhere to turn and no mortal, normal solution, Fury turns to the only individuals he can in a plan dubbed the Avengers Initiative, a collection of "freaks" all with unique, bizarre powers. With these different personalities and talents, can the group put their differences aside long enough to save the planet?

This is a summer blockbuster, definition of basically, director Joss Whedon's film raking in over $200 million its opening weekend alone, and that's just the United States. It is a big, big movie, but a good big movie, and that means everything. It clocks in at 143 minutes total and even without the most pointed of stories manages to be entertaining from start to finish. 'Avengers' is in no rush to get anywhere. It is a great popcorn movie. The action is great to watch, shot on a huge scale and using CGI but never that ridiculous-looking 'Oh, look, it's CGI' type reaction. Genuinely funny with a handful of legitimate laughs, full of action and great characters, this will not disappoint fans of the Iron Man movies, Hulk, or Thor. The Avengers very much so lives up to its admittedly rather high expectations.

A good script is one thing, and having the talent to execute it another thing entirely. The cast here are movie stars who can act, not just movie stars. The obvious star is Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man/Tony Stark, bringing this character to life perfectly the same way he did in Iron Man 1 and 2. Amidst a sea of solid actors, he manages to stand out, delivering countless smarmy, smart-ass one-liners. I'm also a fan of Evans too, and he's in close second as Captain America in terms of memorable superheroes. None of that is to say the rest are disappointing. Ruffalo and Hemsworth are excellent in smaller parts, pieces of an ensemble. Johansson seems a little out of place, but watching her in a leather catsuit puts any of those questions to bed. Renner too doesn't have a ton to do, but as one of the rising stars in Hollywood, it's one more solid, worthwhile part.

Not enough? Along with the always reliable, always worth watching Samuel L. Jackson, Hiddleston is a great maniacal villain you love to hate, Clark Gregg runs with his chance at more screentime as SHIELD agent Coulson and never looks back, Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) plays another SHIELD agent, Stellan Skarsgard is the brilliant scientist duped into working for Loki, Harry Dean Stanton as a security guard who meets post-rage Hulk, and Powers Boothe has a quick part as a member of the World Security Council. Oh, can't forget about Gwyneth Paltrow's quick appearance as Pepper Potts, Tony's girlfriend. Not too bad of a cast, huh?

The action is impressive -- more on that later -- but what I liked most was the team aspect of the Avengers. Who's the leader? How will they work together? Can they? The script has countless scenes that throw them together in groups of two and three, five and six, and just lets them go. Yes, they're all different people, but they are in fact fighting together. Jackson's Fury has a great scene late when he has to convince the remaining Avengers to band together, the movie on the whole taking a turn for the dark side as push comes to shove. Their interactions -- both dramatic and humorous -- are a pleasure to watch. Then there's that little kid, primal thing that kicks in. A fight among Iron Man, Thor and Capt. America? Oh, hell yes! A brutal, knock-down fight between Thor and Hulk? Sign me up. The specialist, expert team aspect sounds obvious that it would work (and it does) but these characters clicking into place makes the movie particularly memorable.

Oh, by the way, there's crazy amounts of amazing action. I mentioned earlier watching CGI action gets old quickly, but that's not the case here. The CGI for one, looks real. Crazy thought, isn't it? The movie never goes long without a fight/action sequence, but the best is saved for last, Loki's minions unleashed through a universe portal on New York City, and all that stands in front of them is the Avengers. It goes on for most of 45 minutes but the time flies by. The whole movie does in that sense. Highly entertaining, funny and dramatic, memorable action, and a lineup sheet of some of the coolest superheroes and characters around. Go see this.

The Avengers <---trailer (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Thor

One of many movies that I'm looking forward to in 2012, The Avengers will arrive in theaters on May 4. I've seen the other unofficial prequels that have all led to this movie including Iron Man (loved it), Iron Man 2 (eh), Captain America (loved it), and the Hulk movies (okay, but nothing more). Who's left? That would be 2011's Thor, a movie I really had little interest in seeing, but for the sake of The Avengers, I wanted at least to be up to date on everything. Yeah, that was a bad choice.

In the realm of Asgard, a king named Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has stopped the Frost Giants from destroying the remaining eight realms of the universe. Odin is quickly aging though and is ready to name his son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), his heir and successor to the crown. Thor though is too arrogant, too cocky, and finds himself banished to Earth when he pushes his father too far, all his power and strength -- including his hammer -- is taken from him. He's found in the desert by Jane (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist exploring sightings in the sky. With no powers, Thor doesn't know what to do as he explores this foreign world. Back home in Asgard, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is up to no good though, and Thor must find a way to stop him.

I think it took me about five minutes to decide I didn't like this film, and unfortunately things didn't improve over the next 110. From the previous Marvel superhero movies, I expected a certain quality even when the movie itself isn't that great. Director Kenneth Branagh seems lost here. There is absolutely no payoff here at all. None. Things keep building and building....well, sort of. Things happen in the desert, then Asgard, then other realms, then a lackluster fight at the end. People are shot back and forth through the realms, people fight. I don't see the point of the movie other than introducing the Thor character. It's dull, the attempts at humor fall far short of actual laughs, and a good cast is wasted...a really good cast.

What was my first sign of trouble? The sweeping panoramic reveal of Asgard, a Norse-like realm straight out of Viking mythology, reeked of Lord of the Rings. The overabundance of CGI bored me to death. I maintain that the best of computer-generated imagery is barely noticeable. It just flows with the movie. The scenes that call attention to themselves are pretty clear we're watching something a computer created. But mostly, it's the ridiculous tone. An acting legend he may be, but Hopkins just looks uncomfortable here. Hiddleston as Loki is one of the weakest, most boring villains around. And the introduction of the Frost Giants in the beginning? I realize this is all a fictional mythology, but that's the best that Marvel came up with? Big monsters that freeze things? When they're fighting Thor or his allies in battle, why don't they just freeze them off the bat instead of engaging in hand-to-hand combat? Wow, that's way too much analysis for a movie this dumb.

Now not that an IMDB rating means a lot (is The Shawshank Redemption really the greatest movie ever? I think not.), but Thor is rocking a 7.0 average at the time of this review. The only real bright spot I come up with is Hemsworth as Thor. He's one of the few actors here who looks comfortable in his role. He commits to the part for lack of a better description. Thor, the god of thunder, arriving on Earth with no powers but all his Norse mannerisms and stilted, boisterous speech patterns do provide some laughs. He orders a 2nd cup of coffee, slamming the empty mug down because that's what he's always done. More importantly though, Hemsworth is quite the physical presence. This dude is ripped, and he dominates the fight scenes he's in. Now if he joins The Avengers, I don't see why anyone else is needed -- especially if he's got his Hammer -- but more over-thinking on my part. Silly me. Anyways, Hemsworth is the best thing going here.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well. No doubt that Portman is an above average actress, and it's great to see her in a mainstream blockbuster, but this is not a good part for her. She floats along, tries to act pissed and falls hard for Thor because something's got to happen in this movie. Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Denning play Erik and Darcy, Jane's assistants in the field who get mixed up in the whole Thor arrival. Denning at least gives it a go with her cynical humor, Skarsgard just looks bored. Thor's Asgard crew of warriors -- potentially very cool, in execution not developed and cliched -- include Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, Josh Dallas, and Jaimie Alexander. Making an out of left field appearance, Rene Russo stands around for two or three scenes as Frigga, Thor's mother. Another bright spot in the cool character/actor department is Idris Elba as Heimdall, the Asgard gatekeeper to the portals that reach the other realms of the universe.

Because I'm struggling to put into words why I disliked this movie, let's talk connection with The Avengers. Clark Gregg is back as Agent Coulson, on-site and much-maligned field agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. who must investigate Thor's arrival, as well as his Hammer. Also look quickly for Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another Avenger introduced for the first time here. And if the other Marvel movies have taught us anything, watch through the credits as Samuel L. Jackson makes his requisite appearance in a short scene as Nick Fury. I didn't care for Thor -- the movie, not the character -- much at all, but I'm still psyched for the Avengers movie in May.

I'm trying to put my finger on this one, and I'm drawing a complete blank. I'm not sure what Brannagh was going for at all as a director. The story is aimless, drifting along with no real purpose or set goal. It bounces around far too much, and then when its deemed we've had enough, the credits roll. Hemsworth as Thor is trying though, and he does a fine job with the character, but there's not much else to recommend.   

Thor <---trailer (2011): */****

King Arthur

Few stories have resonated through the centuries like the legend of King Arthur. There are some who question whether he actually existed or if this knight was just the stuff of legends passed down through the years.  However you want to interpret the person -- fictional or real -- the names instantly ring a bell when mentioned.  There's Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, the Round Table, and all Arthur's noble knights.  So how do you make a movie about a person/character who may or may not be real with little in the way of concrete information existing on him? Here's a doozy for you. Do the best you can, and fill in any necessary blanks with battle scenes.

That's basically 2004's King Arthur which claims to tell the most accurate account of the Arthurian legend. One of the biggest issues surrounding Arthur is when did he actually live?  Was he around in the Middle Ages and the Crusades searching for the Holy Grail? Was he around near the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries?  Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun), this action-packed historical epic goes with the second premise and does a fair share of rewriting when it comes to the legend.  This is not your grandparent's King Arthur with a romantic view of a vicious, incredibly dark historical time.  It's down and dirty, and everyone is at risk.

After serving a 15-year term as a protector of Britain, half-Roman, half-Briton Knight Arthur (Clive Owen) is ready to go home to Rome.  His men, Sarmatian men enlisted as Roman soldiers, similarly want to return home after many years of service while seeing their fellow knights drop one by one. With their release coming though, they are enlisted for one more dangerous mission, a trek into Woad territory (natives trying to expel the Romans) where a Roman family's villa stands.  Bring them back and they will be free. Arthur convinces his men to go along on the nearly suicidal mission, but even he doesn't know what awaits them.  The Woads wait in ambush for them, but news drifts down from the north.  A Saxon army (led by Stellan Skarsgard) is marching south, killing everything in its path.  Arthur and his knights must now band together with the Woads (blue paint warrior Keira Knightley leading) to not only accomplish their mission, but somehow survive and get home.

Historical epics are right up my alley, I'll give just about anything a try.  But with an action-heavy director like Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer in charge, you're going to get a ridiculously action-heavy movie that's short on story.  How often can you say that for a movie that runs 138 minutes? There is a ton of potential here because of the money clearly spent in getting the movie made.  The cast is impressive, the action is on a huge scale, Hans Zimmer's musical score appropriately epic, and the story is the stuff of legend no matter what pretensions the movie has about being the most accurate telling of Arthur's story.  But with all that said, it's a mess of a movie overall.  An exciting, interesting mess, but still a mess.

I'm not an Arthur aficionado who will complain about the mangling of the legend's story, but this pushes even beyond my basic knowledge of the story.  It doesn't have to be the romantic portrayal of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but some of the choices here were just odd.  Arthur's remaining Knights serving their 15-year tour of duty for Rome are Sarmatians, a people from Eastern Europe with an Iranian background.  That's fine, but they all look very British.  Guinevere is a Woad, a Briton barbarian by all accounts who is an expert with a long bow and fights alongside the men.  By the by, Knightley in a skimpy leather battle attire is never a bad thing.  Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is not a magician, but a Woad medicine man who looks like a barbarian heathen. Skarsgard sleepwalks through his performance, and Til Schweiger is laughably bad as his son, the also-evil Saxon warrior. Now I'm not sure what was or wasn't accurate -- history is always open for interpretation -- but this one just went too far for me.

What does work is the portrayal of Arthur and his knights, mostly because the actors playing the parts are so talented, not because these individual parts are well-written.  Owen is a suitable Arthur, a commander who is not like his men but has earned their respect through his leadership and in battle.  His Knights include shifty and intelligent Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), expert bowmen, falconer and scout Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), quiet but capable Gawain (Joel Edgerton), young hopeful Galahad (Hugh Dancy), boorish, brutish fighter Bors (Ray Winstone), and ferocious man of few words Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). As a fan of men on a mission stories, I was a sucker for this part of the story, and all of the characters left an impression on me, especially Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone.  I would have loved to see a story that focused more on these characters as opposed to such a large-scale story, but overall they are the best part of King Arthur.

Finishing the movie, I was more than a little surprised to find out it had a PG-13 rating.  This movie is VIOLENT.  We're not taking Braveheart violence, but it's close.  Battle scenes are incredibly graphic with blood spurts, decapitations, limbs being hacked off, and countless uses of axes, knives, spears, arrows impacting and tearing bodies apart.  All that said, the action is top-notch.  If anything it's too good and too much.  A showdown between a huge Saxon patrol and Arthur's small crew on an iced over lake especially stands out as memorable. The last battle is almost 40 minutes long and becomes tedious.  It's well-handled with CGI kept to a minimum (always a positive), and the action is done on an impressive scale, but it all becomes too much after the 98th stabbing or beheading.  There are only so many ways to see a man die.

King Arthur <---trailer (2004): ** 1/2 /****

Angels and Demons

As good as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were, what happened to them when turned into a movie? The books aren't great literature, but they're damn entertaining so a team of director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks should be a sure thing in helping the transition from bestselling book to blockbuster movie. But for whatever reason, something has not clicked with either movie. 'Da Vinci' in movie form was downright boring at times, and sadly, so is the sequel, 2009's Angels and Demons.

Like many fans of Brown's novels, I was caught up in the Da Vinci craze upon its release and after loving that one sought out Angels and Demons which actually is a prequel in the storyline. I raced through both books in a day or so each unable to put it down. Brown's style lends itself to cranking through chapters at a time with cliffhangers seemingly every few pages. So I somewhat naturally figured a movie would be easy to do off this subject material. Who knows, maybe I didn't think it through, but I was wrong in a big way.

After the pope dies, cardinals from around the world descend on Vatican City to choose a successor from their ranks. One night, four of the cardinals are kidnapped with a foreboding note, they will be killed an hour apart somewhere in Rome, all of this leading up to the complete destruction of the Vatican by a powerful, deadly substance known as antimatter. Worse than that, the act has been done by the Illuminati, a long-time enemy of the Catholic church only know exacting their revenge. The deceased pope's camerlengo, Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) calls in Professor Thomas Langdon (Hanks) to help solve the mystery.

Upon arriving in Rome just hours before the murders are set to begin, Langdon discovers a way to save the kidnapped cardinals. Centuries before, Galileo created a path for people to join the Illuminati if they could follow four clues leading to four different locations. These places are all over Rome and Vatican City so with help from a beautiful Italian physicist (Ayelet Zurer, because every movie needs a beautiful Italian physicist) Langdon starts a race against time to save the cardinals that will take him all across the city.

If this makes sense at all, Howard's 138-minute version of Brown's book feels rushed for the first 90 minutes or so. Howard does not have the advantage of having hundreds of pages of background to set the stage for what's about to happen. Too bad because in place of that all-important background we get lots of scenes of Langdon explaining the historical importance and symbolism of what we're hearing. The book allows this to happen as an aside that doesn't take away from the pacing of the story. In movie form, it brings the high tension to a screeching halt while Langdon pieces together historical mysteries that have stumped brilliant minds for hundreds of years. Langdon on the other hand can figure them out in mere minutes.

Some of this has to be attributed to the sometimes mind-bogglingly bad screenplay which bounces around so much and so quickly it can hard to keep up. Granted, the book is basically one long, extended chase sequence, but there's time here and there for a breather. Not so here as the last half hour to 45 minutes goes from bad to worse and keeps on climbing on the ridiculous meter. I loved Brown's novel even more than 'Da Vinci' but can admit I thought parts of the ending were horribly out of place. The movie takes that one step further on a badness scale, but I won't ruin that here for you. I'll let it be spoiled elsewhere.

While I don't think Tom Hanks is the right choice to play Langdon, the movie's faults are not his own. The dialogue is stilted beyond belief and rarely comes across as believable. Hanks tries to make the most of it, but almost every line of dialogue he has is either a history lesson or a smart-ass comment. Zurer's Vittoria Vetra character has been relegated to background duty here, going from a great character in the book to a sounding board here for some of Langdon's mystery-solving. McGregor is a bright spot -- although the character loses a lot of necessary background from the novel -- with Stellan Skarsgard and Pierfrancesco Favino making the most out of their parts as Vatican security supervisors.

I hate putting this because I realize I sound like a pompous ass, but the book is miles ahead of the film version. Transitioning a beloved book to the big screen is a daunting process, no doubt about that, but it just hasn't worked here with either of Brown's source novels. As for Howard, he makes a beautiful movie -- it'd be hard to make Rome/Vatican City not look good -- but too many changes are made that were made for no obvious reason. Stick with Angels and Demons the novel and avoid this stinker. God help us when The Lost Symbol hits big screens.

Angels and Demons <----trailer (2009): * 1/2 /****