An interesting piece of film trivia packaged with some excellent casting choices.
Hitchcock follows the "master of suspense" Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma in the true story of their struggle to produce the classic film Psycho, and how the film was nearly never made.
While I can't say the film gripped me necessarily, it was certainly well produced and well acted; the set dressing, costume and make-up are very convincing and immerses you in the time period, which I think is the best a film like this can hope to achieve. After all, we know the film Psycho gets made and is a huge success.
I'd say that Anthony Hopkins appearance as Hitchcock is perhaps the weakest in appearance, but that's only because Hitchcock is a very identifiable man. He does however convey the power, conviction and troubled mind of the man.
Award for best dead ringer goes to James D'arcy as Norman Bates' actor Anthony Perkins, disturbingly similar!
I guess I knew very little of Hitchcock and the sort of man he was, so this film was both eye opening and a little lukewarm at the same time. We see his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) struggle as her husband becomes possessive towards his beautiful leading lady Janet Leigh (Scarlet Johansson) and I can't say I even knew about this! So the film focuses almost entirely upon the hardships Alma dealt with being married to such a creative man, and the sacrifices he is prepared to put them through.
My favourite parts were the scenes obviously put in to show the time period of film, specifically the censorship rules. You cannot show a toilet! At all! The film is quite fascinating in these respects.
It is more about the people involved than the film itself. I don't think I will watch Psycho with any particular added intrigue, more I will watch any Hitchcock film in general with more awareness of the man's techniques and personality.
I'd say its recommended for film buffs and biopic fans. Most people will probably find it either slow or not particularly special. The casting choices and the production efforts are remarkable though.
A fantasy adventure film with plenty of energy and excitement, and keeping with its subtitle it has some surprisingly dark undertones and visuals! Lightning strikes twice today.
While Thor does battle across the Nine Realms to restore order, scientist Jane Foster discovers an anomaly on Earth that acts as a doorway to a long forgotten artifact. Upon finding this power the Dark Elves and their leader Malekith, who have lived since before light's creation, seek it out. Thor must protect Jane and all Nine Realms, but he going to need unlikely allies to do it...
You know what, I was one of the people mocking and hating on Thor originally (I didn't even see the first film in the cinema!) as a Marvel concept it seemed utterly redundant. Nowadays though I can't help but enjoy myself watching this increasingly interesting story unfold!
I imagine this is due to the sequel's total immersion into the Nine Realms (rather than strictly focusing on Earth) and the creativity this lends to design, characters and mythos becomes fascinating. It is very much a fantasy movie first, where as Iron Man and Captain America are strictly science fiction stories.
The humour is still here, wonderfully, since that was what kept the first film afloat. Thor is his powerful self with no human weakness, but they still spend time on the goofy humour, lightening an otherwise bleak storyline. Loki returns and is diabolical as ever; the film's heart lies with these two characters and how they are evolving since the events of Avengers Assemble. The film has some incredible moments later on, I wouldn't dare allude to anything here.
I don't know if its just me, but the film reminded me of Superman 2 in an uncanny way. It has a classical film vibe about it, no excessive plotlines or redundant twists, and there's plenty of people being tossed through buildings and mountains during the action sequences!
It is a very simple story (all of its complexity lies with Thor and Loki's relationship) our villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) really isn't done justice and acts more like a typical boogeyman; he lurks in the background and forces the plot along when need be. I never saw him as more than just an embodiment of evil. If he had been given more time, I might have rated this film higher.
I enjoyed Thor - The Dark World a great deal, probably more than the original! It has some plot conveniences and Thor never feels at risk (but those around him certainly do!) but take it for what it is, a big exciting and visually interesting fantasy film, and you'll see so much more lying underneath.
Additional Marshmallows: And, because most of it is set within the Nine Realms, you don't get the problem of "Why doesn't he call on the Avengers!?" like a certain Mr Stark...
Hey, hey guys, you want to see my Thor review? Sure, I'll copy it here for you! (it is a short review!)
Thor (2011)
Kenneth
Branagh, more known for his Shakespearian adaptations,
uncharacteristically directs this rather uncharacteristic Marvel
superhero blockbuster, to match the other three "avenger" superhero
movies.
Thor, the Norse god of thunder is brash and big-headed, and his
overconfidence has him banished from the realm of Asgard to live among
mortal humans. While there his brother Loki, god of mischief, vows to
surpass Thor's past glory.
I have a huge difficulty (as someone unfamiliar with comics) taking Marvel's Thor
with credibility; to me they have merely taken an existing myth and
made it their own. I have trouble putting him beside Iron Man and the
Incredible Hulk! As such, having watched the film, I am still uncertain.
However, all of these films continue to surprise me with an insane level
of charisma, you can't not like them. I laughed a decent number of
times here. The mighty Thor falls to Earth, only to be immediately
knocked unconscious by a small woman's taser! Plus seeing how well they've depicted the mythology here is nice to see.
It is extremely CGI heavy, but the actors all look like they are
enjoying themselves - Kenneth Branagh himself openly stated he was a
huge Thor comic book fan, and I think it shows.
It doesn't take itself seriously, and that is a blessing. It isn't
terribly intelligent, and I might say its the weaker of all the
"avengers" heroes so far, but it was certainly enjoyable!
A half way decent homage to the classic monster movies that holds a lot of atmosphere, even if it doesn't hold its characters highly enough.
Upon the death of his brother, Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro) travels back home to uncover the mysterious circumstances around the murder. His father (Anthony Hopkins) and old flame Gwen (Emily Blunt) support him as best they can, but when his investigation leads him to be salvaged by some sort of beast, Lawrence's life is about to change.
Something of an homage to the classic monster movies (I've not seen the original Wolfman, apologies!) this film is lovingly set in the period, stooped in shadows, musty houses and a score by Danny Elfman. Many of the effects are impressive (despite the transformations being CG, which is a bit of a shame) the action later on in the film is lavishly blood splattered and extreme. The Wolfman himself is of the classic movie design, more human than wolf.
Unfortunately though, The Wolfman takes a terribly long time to get going; the first act is riddled with uneventful moments and scenes, the film refuses to give us what we are here to see. Normally these films let us relate to the characters, or sympathise, or even have a hope for them during their plight, but sadly I felt very little for any of them. True enough, can you see Anthony Hopkins as Benicio Del Toro's father?
It is quite predictable too, which adds to the film's deliberate feet-dragging. We know what's going to happen, so get on with it. There's some weird dream and hallucination visuals too mid-way through... I couldn't decide if they were silly or not.
Hugo Weaving was a pleasant change to the film's pace, arriving forty minutes in as a detective who had investigated "the Ripper" (interesting connection!)
It has issues, mostly in regards to pacing and a poor focus on character development, but if you can get through the first half, the second half is explosively animated and full of violent gore. It still won't feel fully satisfying even at the end, but has plenty of moments throughout.
Additional Marshmallows: Oh dear, the director also did Jurassic Park III. Forget I mentioned that!
