Thor (2011)

by Steve Kochems

A recent trip overseas graced me with the fortune of it becoming both business and pleasure. The question I wondered though was, which one would Marvel's Thor be?

In a preview I posted a few weeks ago, I said, based on what we'd seen thus far from the God of Thunder, that it would probably be as good as The Incredible Hulk (not an insult, but not a big compliment either). I worried about it becoming too campy or difficult to place in reality because of it's fantastical content, unlike the luxuries Iron Man or Batman Begins had.

But that being said.... I have to say I was pleasantly surprised with what Kenneth Branagh was able to do with the first installment with the mighty Thor. He juggles the two different worlds quite nicely and brings out some really good scenes where the two worlds inevitably clash (namely Thor's first few hours on Earth).

To be brief, the film follows the eager and juvenile Thor is thrust down to Earth after reigniting a war with the Frost Giants. Down here with us mortals, Thor must change and grow up so that he can be "worthy to possess the power of Thor."

Okay, that's incredibly brief but I don't want to spoil too much. The biggest positives of this film are fortunately the two most important characters: Thor and Loki. Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston were outstanding choices. Hemsworth is every bit as blindly arrogant as Hiddleston is deceptive and cunning and both make some major changes from the start to the end of the film.

On the flip side, I found the two Oscar winners in this cast to be on the blander side. At times Odin (Anthony Hopkins) can blow you away with his explosive temper and fury, but skates through other scenes as if it were cold out and his arthritis was acting up. In the same sense, Natalie Portman brings some youthful energy to some of her scenes but never really seems like the brilliant scientist Jane Foster is trying to be. These gripes though do take a backseat because for the most part these two are always on screen with either Hemsworth or Hiddleston, both who save even some of the blander scenes.

One major concern many people had for this was how it would play in with The Avengers. I don't entirely agree with the majority of people who say secondary characters like Black Widow and Nick Fury bogged down Iron Man 2 and I would say the same about this film here. Agent Coulson gets way more screen time than we've seen before but it all stays relegated into the story. Plus, fanboys get a few easter eggs, some obvious and some you need to listen a little closer for (Bruce Banner shout out).

Ironically, I was quite surprised by the end of the film, so far as how it correlates with what would be the next immediate film in the story of Thor (i.e. The Avengers). Though, by the time Marvel had greenlit the script for this film they were well aware of what would come next for the Norse God, so I have to assume they know what they're doing.

Unfortunately I can't say that I was really blown away by Thor. It was certainly a good movie and I'd see it again, but it brought very little to the table that wasn't expected. It didn't dig deep into a concrete theme or struggle for any character really, with Hiddleston clearly being the only one really trying to go there. However, if you're in the mood for some absurd action with a little magic, Thor might be right up your alley.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Preview: Superhero Summer of 2011

by Steve Kochems

A few weeks ago I posted about the lack of upcoming films this spring with any intrigue, at least in my eyes. Aside from Battle: Los Angeles, I’ve stuck to my hibernating plan, and boy is it good.

But as May looms, I can’t help but think about the major superhero movies that are on the horizon. Captain America, Thor, X-Men: First Class, and Transformers 3 are the four films I’m primarily going to look at today and I will measure them up against my patent pending Superhero Movie Spectrum, posted below.

1	1.5
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	Elektra
2	2.5
Daredevil	Watchmen
3	3.5
X-Men: Last Stand	Spider-Man 3
4	4.5
Transformers	Hulk
5	5.5
The Punisher	X-Men
6	6.5
X-Men Origins: Wolverine	The Incredible Hulk
7	7.5
Iron Man	300
8	8.5
Spider-Man 2	Batman Begins
9	9.5
X2	The Dark Knight
10
Sin City

So, without further adieu, here’s a quick look at what I like and what I dislike about four summer blockbusters that are just a few weeks away.

Thor – May 6, 2011

What I like about it:

Thor has probably the most well-known cast of all these films and that should help carry the epic nature it’s hoping to get across. I’ve also thought that Chris Hemsworth was a genuinely good choice as the God of Thunder, a choice as good as Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Here’s to hoping he can meet those expectations.

What I don’t like about it:

Thor’s setting is going to be the toughest to keep grounded in reality. Ever since Batman Begins, superhero movies (at least the good ones) have had the difficult task of bringing real science into a surreal world. Christopher Nolan and Jon Favreau have each done an excellent job of this, but director Kenneth Branagh has his work cut out for him. The trailers also worry me, while Asgard looks every bit as awesome as it should, I worry that it’s too quirky and dare I say campy for its own good.

Expectations:

I expect Thor to be a good movie but not a great one. It’ll certainly be watchable but more than likely will never be in the conversation with something like Sin City, probably right in line with Ed Norton’s The Incredible Hulk.

X-Men: First Class – June 3, 2011

What I like about it:

Again, the trailers have been outstanding. I was far less skeptical of the cast and crew for this film though, since Matthew Vaughn is one of the better young directors in Hollywood (see: Layer Cake, Kick-Ass… also produced Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). I also think that this film has an additional layer to it that most comic book movies overlook, save Nolan’s Batman movies. This film has the possibility of horror overshadowing it, the power struggle between Charles Xavier and Magneto and how their friendship ruptures is almost certainly going to have lives at stake.

What I don’t like about it:

The content. I love comic book movies quite a bit, but after Brett Ratner’s bowel movement titled Last Stand, I was really turned off to the X-Men stories. I thought Wolverine was a fresh and fun take on his character and I was excited to see more of those (primarily a Magneto Origins film). But another ensemble film was decided upon again. Here’s hoping the Last Stand was just that and we get something fresh this time.

Expectations:

I actually expect the most out of this film, something I never would’ve believed had you told me this a year ago. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender both are looking like outstanding casting decisions and having X-Men and X2 helmer Brian Singer on as a producer gives it major credit to draw it in line with the original films. Dare I say, it could be as good as X2? Or even the Dark Knight?

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon – July 1, 2011

What I like about it:

Director Michael Bay responded to the massive outcry against the previous film, blaming the writer's strike as part of why the script suffered. An apology is better late than never I guess. He’s also claimed that this film will be the best of the three and many are inclined to believe him. Am I? Doubtful.

What I don’t like about it:

Yeah I don’t really believe Bay’s comment above but at least he’s trying something. Since it’s widely considered that Revenge of the Fallen was the worst thing since the Gigli, he might be doing this as a marketing ploy, pretend to apologize to get those suckers back in the seats! However I will admit the first film wasn’t entirely terrible. Yeah, the content isn’t my cup of tea but I’m willing to admit it’s a decent enough story and film that this one could in fact be just as good as that. But how good is that?

Expectations:

Very little. Bay’s films have continued to sacrifice story for the sake of just being louder. I’d be more optimistic if I actually thought the original content wasn’t somewhat laughable to begin with (then again, we have a Battleship movie on the horizon). So where on the scale does it rank? Elektra status, couldn’t care less.

Captain America – July 22, 2011

What I like about it:

The trailers. Everything from the set design, costumes, hell the overall environmental feel is really well conveyed (thus far), which surprised me. I worried a great deal about this movie with Joe Johnston (Jurassic Park 3, The Wolfman) at the helm and Chris Evans as the lead, but so far it’s really impressed me and may turn out to be the best film this summer.

What I don’t like about it:

Joe Johnston. He’s never really blown me away as a director and cutting a good trailer doesn’t always translate to a good film. Chris Evans would’ve also been listed here, but the way he’s handled interviews and how he’s looked in and out of the costume on screen has sold me. Joey boy has not, yet.

Expectations:

When the film was first green lit, they were huge. Then they filled the cast and crew and I worried. Then I saw the trailer and said "wow", this might actually work. So I don’t know what to expect. When in doubt, base it on the footage you’ve been able to see, and if I go that route, I think it’s going to be a pretty darn good film. Probably somewhere in line with the 300, so far as quality.

So that’s about it, we’ll see how accurate my predictions are and I’m excited to see (almost) all of these movies. Are you? Let us know what you think!

I Spit On Your Grave

"What the fuck?" There's a lot to say about this movie, but I... I just don't know what the hell... wow.

I've seen a lot of movies. I've seen a lot of horror, a lot of action, and a lot of comedy, but nothing I've ever watched previously really compares to this movie and how I reacted to it after the credits rolled.

I had never heard of I Spit On Your Grave, a remake of a 1978 thriller/gore-fest of the same title (although it was also released under another title, Day of the Women). My roommate put it on one night and, honestly, I had no interest in watching it at all... I just wanted to go to the bar. In the end, I'm glad I did because this was a film that everyone should see- it's that insane.

Before I get into the film itself, let me point something out: I watched this movie in the company of three girls. Probably not the best choice, as the entire film is about the brutal gang rape of a female and her ensuing revenge on her attackers. Also, I enjoy yelling at the television while movies play and I usually root for the bad guys- maybe this wasn't the best movie to cheer on the baddies...

Officially put in the rape/revenge genre, Grave follows the story of Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler), a writer who sets out to a secluded cabin for the summer to write her next great novel. The beginning of the film follows her around as she: writes, sun-bathes, drinks, walks around half naked, runs around half naked without a sports bra on, smokes weed... that's pretty much all. Oh! Her sink is broke or some shit, so she calls a plumber.

This is where the movie takes a crazy turn. Note to the female readership: never call a plumber when you're an attractive 20-something hottie alone in the woods.

So the plumber, Matthew (who's a little... slow) goes to Jennifer's cabin to fix her plumbing. She rewards him with a kiss, and he absolutely freaks the hell out. He runs out and Jennifer is left totally confused as to what exactly just happened. We next see Matthew meeting up with his friends (who treat him like shit) and he tells the story of the girl giving him a kiss- one of his friends, Stanley (Daniel Franzese, the gay friend from Mean Girls), reveals to the group that he has a video of Jennifer changing and proceeds to show the crew a nighttime shot of her in her underwear.

Hearing Matthew's tale and seeing the video, the gang decides to head over to Jennifer's cabin that night to have some fun with her. The leader, Johnny (soap star Jeff Branson) is mad because the rest of his crew made fun of him, claiming that a girl as good looking as Jennifer could never get with a guy like him.

To make a long, uneasy and a bit horrible story short, the crew breaks into Jennifer's cabin and begin to torment her. Just as they are about to rape her, she escapes and runs through the woods. There, she stumbles across a police office by the name of Storch (Andrew Howard). Storch leads Jennifer back to the cabin to investigate her claims that guys attacked her. Once they get back, however, we see that Storch is in cahoots with the bad guys and shit gets REALLY crazy.

A long and drawn out rape scene ensues in the cabin and then continues on into the woods. The scene ends with Storch about to shoot Jennifer, but at the last second she jumps off a bridge and into a river. The gang never had a chance to kill her, but they all think she would have drowned in the water because she was savagely beaten and raped.

Turns out, that's not the case and shit's about to get REAL.

Jennifer is gone for a month and then stuff starts to happen that make the guys think she's still alive. The first to confirm this theory is Matthew, who... wait. I can't let you know what she does!

The revenge Jennifer gets, which is the best part of the entire movie and what everything leads up to, is God damn EPIC. I won't get into the details here because it's one of those things you really need to see for yourself (words just don't do it justice), but some of the shit she planned for these assholes was jaw-dropping and extremely fitting. Here's a short list of some of the stuff she unleashed on the redneck rapist pricks:

A noose
Fish-hooks through eyelids
A shotgun and a mans rectum
A more than graphic combination of teeth and pliers
A BEAR TRAP
A bathtub full of water and lye
A horse bit, some rope, some hedge clippers and a man's ding-dong

By this point in the movie, everyone is waiting to see how crazy her revenge is going to get. It was all fitting to each character, who all wronged her in their own way.

One of the more interesting parts of this film was watching it with girls. I never realized how different movies can be from a male and female perspective, and this was definitely what I considered a learning experience. I'm sitting there laughing while the rednecks are terrorizing the girl (it's a movie and the parts before the rape scenes were pretty funny), the girls were genuinely freaking out and covering their eyes. Claims of never being able to sleep ever again where uttered. But as the movie went on, we all felt bad for Jennifer despite the fact that the character wasn't really developed that well- she was just this poor victim that we all wanted to see be redeemed. When the main character started to get her revenge, everyone, especially the girls, were really into the movie.

There's a scene at the end where Jennifer has Storch tied up with a shotgun halfway up his ass. He thinks Jennifer has his daughter and begins to plead with her, saying "Please [let her go?]... she's just an innocent girl." In complete unison, all the girls watching the movie with me and Jennifer on the screen say "So was I".

That right there should say just about everything there is to say about this movie.

Battle: Los Angeles

by Steve Kochems

For all they cynics out there who thought I'd just come out here and blast this movie for being superfluous action schlock, well, I think you underestimated the popcorner in me here. With a cast of no-names and Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Thank You for Smoking) driving off aliens invading Los Angeles as a plot and Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) at the helm, I was as surprised as you.

The film begins with Staff Sergeant Nantz getting ready to turn in his papers and retire from the Marines. The obvious action move here would be to open up with Nantz on his final mission (which proves to be critical to those under his command later) and how it goes wrong, but Liebesman takes his first big chance here and uses this time to introduce over a dozen Marines living their lives on the home front, some returning and some preparing for an upcoming deployment. No explosions or bullets (yet), which might bore many average movie goers but it's those first ten minutes that give this film what many action films (see; GI Joe) lack: heart.

Life goes on as usual while almost nobody except NASA seems to care that meteor's are heading for Earth. Before I get too far into that, I should mention what I thought to be the strongest quality in the movie. Because of the shaky camera work and drowned out dialogue from explosions and gunfire, this movie really came off as pretty realistic. It felt like a cross between Independence Day and Saving Private Ryan, two films that are about as high as one could be compared to when it comes to an action movie.

Now, some reviews I've read have complained about these aspects, the drown out, incoherent dialogue within war zones. I've also seen a few people complaining that for the most part, the alien's intent is barely explained. I can't deny these facts, but ultimately I think it just plays into the realism of the film. Aliens invade and start blowing us up, I don't think they're going to send us a letter of intent. The film does a good job of inter-cutting a few news clips where analysts and scientists speculate as to why this is happening. It also helps that each battle scene is shown as a tactical one, a battle of positioning and wits, not just firepower. Real wars are not always about who has the bigger gun but who can out think their enemy.

Another plus to this film is that the aliens are never really portrayed as indestructible or untouchable. Their ships explode when flying to close to a gas station or hit with a grenade launcher, and their foot soldiers are just as armored and formidable as a Kevlar coated Marine. This really makes the losses of battles, positions, and more importantly soldiers and civilians much more difficult to bare. Even the ones only mentioned in passing, whole squadrons being obliterated in the crossfire, really makes this difficult to watch (in a good way).

This brings me back to my original point, heart. Because the film emphasizes such realism, it hits so much closer to home when characters die. To me, that scores big points. To others, it might just make it boring until more things go boom.

I won't say this film isn't without its flaws though, the biggest being a technical choice. While the gritty camera work and lighting adds to the film, it's score takes away. Some music simply seems out of place or too quiet, like Liebesman wasn't sure if he should leave it in or not so he just turned it down. I would've much preferred no score at all, make it a straight war-picture and fill it with ambient sounds, people screaming, dying, explosions, the whole lot, but this would've probably upped the MPA Rating to R and possibly drove away casual fans.

All in all, I was quite surprised with how good this film was and would recommend anyone that likes action movies to give this a chance. Forget the absurd premise for a second and treat it like you treated Cloverfield. You might find it to be better than you'd think.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Cyrus

by Steve Kochems

Hey Folks! I know, it's the slow season for movies and, as you can tell, Mike and I have been a little tied up. But I was able to head out the other night and redbox a flick I heard a lot about this past year, Cyrus. For $1, why not try it out?

The film follows John (John C. Reilly), a bum who's circling the drain years after his divorce, with his only real friend being his ex-wife Jamie (Catherine Keener) who's planning to get married (to a well-played asshole, Matt Walsh). After some nagging by his ex and her fiance, John agrees to go out to a party with them.

After many drinks and many failed attempts to talk to any woman, he has one of the most awkward and funny meetings with Molly (Marisa Tomei). After a few dates, John thinks this relationship could be the one, but little does he know, at home Molly has an overly (and somewhat Oedipal) son who isn't quite yet ready to yield his mother away, Cyrus (Jonah Hill).

Honestly, I would've paid more than a dollar for this flick. While advertised as this quirky, Step Brothers-esk comedy, Cyrus is certainly not that. The humor isn't dependent on two actors and a sloppy script. Instead, we have a sleek and crisp story that, while lacking in laughs, actually has a surprising amount of heart to it.

I knew Reilly could act, and even lead (see: Chicago, Walk Hard), but the biggest surprises were Hill and Tomei. Their chemistry onscreen is really a sight and refreshing when it comes to a movie like this. That being said, Hill and Reilly still bring a lot of comedy and awkwardness to their scenes and are a tandem worth watching again (though, their few scenes together in Walk Hard are just as good).

I think this is a film I've gotta take a second look at though, since I went in under the impression it was less on heart and more on comedy. That's the best thing I can say to anyone who watches this movie- go in with an open mind and don't expect anything, good or bad. I bet you'll be presently surprised.

Rating: 4 out of 5