[Movie Review] Thor: The Dark World
The latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thor: The Dark World is likely to run parallel to Iron Man 3. Which is to say, it picks up where The Avengers left off but this time we follow Thor. And Loki. Warning: Minor spoilers.
The first Thor was directed by Kenneth Branagh and it had a distinctly epic, Shakesperean feel to it. The second movie was helmed by Alan Taylor of 'Game of Thrones', which sort of translates to more epicness (without the Shakespeare) and it shows, it does show. Somehow I was actually reminded of Final Fantasy XII while watching it, and I pretty much consider FFXII pretty darn epic -- both story-wise and visually. Reading the production notes you can see that the team tried very hard to create something believable and yet not. Taking elements from glorious empires in history, Asgard's architecture is a curious mix of many -- melding together to create a location that is as fantastical as it is plausible. The costumes too were lovely -- I imagine they'd be reused for some other movies because I can't see them selling it off after just one use!
Chris Hemsworth has grown into his role as Thor, the crown prince. Unlike his more optimistic self in Thor and The Avengers, this version of Thor is more subdued, more serious and has apparently developed a sarcastic side... though when on Earth he's back to the adorable slightly confused alien prince trying to fit in. With the exception of Fandral, every other actor makes a return in their roles. I actually like Fandral in this incarnation -- he actually seems like a possible sparring partner for Loki.
Reflecting on the cast, you can't really say it's an ensemble cast but every character had his/her shining moment, even Frigga. Especially Frigga. Even Odin, whom I still feel is a little miscast (but finding an elderly classical actor who can pull of the beard couldn't have been easy) had his Odin-worthy moments. But there is a rather comfortable balance here, which I find quite comforting.
However there is a little bit to be said in the romance department. As with the first movie, Hemsworth and Portman's onscreen chemistry is just lacking. I can see more affection between Rene Russo and Anthony Hopkins, and they had just one scene with two cutesy lines together! And throwing in a new intern for Darcy is just a plot convenience, if nothing else it gives her someone to smooch. The supposed jealousy from Sif lasted all of two seconds, and after that it's forgotten. Throaway sideplot much?
The central theme that runs through Thor has always been sibling envy. And though the movie is named Thor, it is also Loki's story. Ah, Loki. I don't think Tom Hiddleston ever expected his portrayal of the Trickster to catapult him to instant fame. And he doesn't even need fanservice scenes, though if rumor has it he's perfectly capable of them if push comes to shove.
Loki is both what is good and bad about 'The Dark World', in that due to the unresolved sibling envy from the previous movies you know he's central to the plot this time. Hence with that still on the plate and adding on a Big Bad in the form of Malekith, it comes to the question of who gets the bigger portion. Certainly Loki is just Loki with no added embellishments (even wearing the same scratched and dented armor from his attempts in 'The Avengers') while Malekith gets an army and even his own language, but the lack of a fleshed-out backstory renders Malekith as nothing more than a villain-of-the-week. A fancy one, but a cardboard nonetheless. A point that I would like to make came in the form of a young couple who sat in the row behind me in the cinema. Before the lights dimmed the girl was gushing about how dreamy Chris Hemsworth was, but at the end of it she kept repeating "That Loki was so sly! I can't believe he did that!"
So yes the movie is named 'Thor' but in the end Loki, whose total screentime is probably less than half of Thor stole the show. Period.
It is perhaps a good thing for Joss Whedon that by announcing Thanos is not the villain in 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron', leaving Loki out is also the sensible thing to do since anything with Loki in it will end up gravitating around him, and that just won't do. Might as well call it 'The Avengers: Return of Loki with some new villain to give a secondary plot'.
Which is totally what Thor turned out to be, but nobody will ever admit that.
The first Thor was directed by Kenneth Branagh and it had a distinctly epic, Shakesperean feel to it. The second movie was helmed by Alan Taylor of 'Game of Thrones', which sort of translates to more epicness (without the Shakespeare) and it shows, it does show. Somehow I was actually reminded of Final Fantasy XII while watching it, and I pretty much consider FFXII pretty darn epic -- both story-wise and visually. Reading the production notes you can see that the team tried very hard to create something believable and yet not. Taking elements from glorious empires in history, Asgard's architecture is a curious mix of many -- melding together to create a location that is as fantastical as it is plausible. The costumes too were lovely -- I imagine they'd be reused for some other movies because I can't see them selling it off after just one use!
Chris Hemsworth has grown into his role as Thor, the crown prince. Unlike his more optimistic self in Thor and The Avengers, this version of Thor is more subdued, more serious and has apparently developed a sarcastic side... though when on Earth he's back to the adorable slightly confused alien prince trying to fit in. With the exception of Fandral, every other actor makes a return in their roles. I actually like Fandral in this incarnation -- he actually seems like a possible sparring partner for Loki.
Reflecting on the cast, you can't really say it's an ensemble cast but every character had his/her shining moment, even Frigga. Especially Frigga. Even Odin, whom I still feel is a little miscast (but finding an elderly classical actor who can pull of the beard couldn't have been easy) had his Odin-worthy moments. But there is a rather comfortable balance here, which I find quite comforting.
However there is a little bit to be said in the romance department. As with the first movie, Hemsworth and Portman's onscreen chemistry is just lacking. I can see more affection between Rene Russo and Anthony Hopkins, and they had just one scene with two cutesy lines together! And throwing in a new intern for Darcy is just a plot convenience, if nothing else it gives her someone to smooch. The supposed jealousy from Sif lasted all of two seconds, and after that it's forgotten. Throaway sideplot much?
The central theme that runs through Thor has always been sibling envy. And though the movie is named Thor, it is also Loki's story. Ah, Loki. I don't think Tom Hiddleston ever expected his portrayal of the Trickster to catapult him to instant fame. And he doesn't even need fanservice scenes, though if rumor has it he's perfectly capable of them if push comes to shove.
Loki is both what is good and bad about 'The Dark World', in that due to the unresolved sibling envy from the previous movies you know he's central to the plot this time. Hence with that still on the plate and adding on a Big Bad in the form of Malekith, it comes to the question of who gets the bigger portion. Certainly Loki is just Loki with no added embellishments (even wearing the same scratched and dented armor from his attempts in 'The Avengers') while Malekith gets an army and even his own language, but the lack of a fleshed-out backstory renders Malekith as nothing more than a villain-of-the-week. A fancy one, but a cardboard nonetheless. A point that I would like to make came in the form of a young couple who sat in the row behind me in the cinema. Before the lights dimmed the girl was gushing about how dreamy Chris Hemsworth was, but at the end of it she kept repeating "That Loki was so sly! I can't believe he did that!"
So yes the movie is named 'Thor' but in the end Loki, whose total screentime is probably less than half of Thor stole the show. Period.
It is perhaps a good thing for Joss Whedon that by announcing Thanos is not the villain in 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron', leaving Loki out is also the sensible thing to do since anything with Loki in it will end up gravitating around him, and that just won't do. Might as well call it 'The Avengers: Return of Loki with some new villain to give a secondary plot'.
Which is totally what Thor turned out to be, but nobody will ever admit that.