Thor: Love and Thunder (3/5 Stars)

 

I don’t think anyone could have predicted that Thor would be the Marvel character to be the first to get a fourth movie. After all, Iron Man had gotten his third before anyone had even gotten their second and Thor’s second movie “The Dark World” is arguably the worst Marvel movie ever made. But Marvel took a fairly substantial and ultimately successful risk with the third movie “Ragnarok”, replacing the pseudo-Shakespearean seriousness of the first two installments with the rainbow goofiness of Taika Waititi, the new director of “Ragnarok” and here as well “Love and Thunder”. So dramatic was the reorientation of the Thor franchise, that the third movie left out entirely the largest subplot of the first two movies, Thor’s romantic relationship with the scientist Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman. Say all you want about the acting chops of Natalie Portman (and there is much to say), but she isn’t all that funny. Given the new direction, ditching her was probably a wise move. But her story was still out there to wrap up. This “Love and Thunder” does while expanding dramatically the “Thor” universe of the “Marvel Universe”. 

There’s a lot of expanding going on all over the place in the Marvel Universe Phase 4. I watched the TV Series “Loki” and that introduced an infinite amount of timelines. I watched “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and “Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” and that introduced an infinite amount of universes. I didn’t watch “The Eternals” but it seemed from the trailer that Marvel had decided to start its own religion (diverse and abnormally good looking, just like the world’s present elite). Now “Love and Thunder” establishes that every polytheistic religion in history has real gods that all hang out together in Omnipotent City. There is, among others, Queztalcoatl the Aztec god, Bast the Egyptian god, some sort of Samurai god, and Bao the god of dumplings. They are ostensibly led by Zeus, played here by a fat Russel Crowe with a Greek accent. It is hard to tell where Marvel is eventually going with all of this, but I expect it will be a bit more difficult to tie together something with the weightiness of the previous Avengers movie. After all, what does it matter what occurs in an Avengers movie when it has been established that we are watching but one timeline in one universe with an infinite amount of other timelines and other universes where something else entirely different occurs. I expect Marvel was always going to have this problem no matter what if had gotten so successful that it eventually introduced all of its characters. It seems like an exceedingly wise decision looking back to start the journey with the simplest of heroes, Iron Man, whose superpower was mechanical in nature. It helps to ease the audience into it. 

It was once opined by some person whose name escapes me that the advent of comic book characters was like the resurrection of the old polytheism. (I only remember that this person went on to prepare a thesis about this topic and then became a professor who taught this class for his entire career). I think that is only fitting that a villain of the “Thor” universe be a character named Gorr, The God Butcher, who vaguely resembles Jesus. What do I mean by that? Well, for one he is played by a thin Christian Bale and is dressed in sandals and a robe. He looks vaguely like Jesus might if he were a character in a Marvel movie. Also like Jesus (at least as compared to the old polytheistic gods) he lacks a sense of humor and is a bit of zealot. But really, the biggest similarity is that he is going around killing all of the gods, much like the intolerant Christians (and also Muslims) of history. It is not a mistake that Marvel did not include Jesus (and especially not the Prophet Mohammed) in the crowd in Omnipotent City. There would have been protests in America and riots in the Middle East. 

In “Ragnarok” the villain played by Cate Blanchett was kind of by-the-numbers and the weakest part of the movie. Here, Gorr the Butcher is one of the strongest parts. In particular, Christian Bale’s performance is so strong and his arguments so on point there is a real danger that his seriousness might overpower the goofiness of Thor’s new groove. Here is an example of how Taika Waititi (and his co-writer Jennifer Kaitlin Robinson) deftly avoid that. In one scene the children of New Asgaard (appropriately now a tourist attraction in the Disney owned Marvel Universe, see The Northman) are kidnapped by Gorr the Butcher, spirited to the Shadow Realm and threatened with death. Thor explains to the children that they are in a tight spot, but as they are Vikings of Asgaard, they will gain eternal reward in Valhalla should they die in glorious battle. Classic Thor. 

Two more notes. First, in one scene Thor gets his clothes blown off. The movie clearly uses CGI on Thor’s naked body. Really? Is even Chris Hemsworth not good looking enough for a Marvel movie? Second, one of the throw-away scenes involves an allusion to gay romance. I don’t think Marvel should get diversity credit for that unless they keep it in the Chinese version.

NOAH (4/5 Stars)

The time for mercy has past. The time of punishment has begun.

You want faith? How about the faith of the producers behind writer/director Darren Aronofsky’s new film, “Noah.” They have reportedly spent $125 million dollars to make and market it. Sure, Aronofsky is a great filmmaker. But he is not a proven blockbuster filmmaker. His hits have always been these low budget character studies (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, Black Swan). The one time he did command a large budget for the time travelling obscufated odyssey The Fountain it became a critical and box office failure, a sure poster child for ambitious folly. “Noah,” on paper at least, seem adept at capturing the audiences that filled the theaters for Darren Aronofsky’s previous films but also the people that showed up for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and other money making religious films. But “Noah” was not made by a religious filmmaker at least not one recognized by any church groups as being especially religious and “Noah” is a demonstrably different type of movie than Aronofsky’s earlier work. The producers are hoping to capture both audiences but there is also an outside chance it might not get either. And what will be left is the artwork itself, another ambitious folly or at least the most unique blockbuster (i.e. a movie with an over $100 million dollar budget) I’ve ever seen.

The strangness of “Noah” is born from its dark and primitive source material and the baffling sincerity of its modern makers in telling it exactly as it should be told. The original story can be found in the book of “Genesis” in the Old Testament of the Bible. It is a short story and can be summed up like this. God became dismayed at the wickedness of his creation and wished to eliminate all of it via a huge flood. He ordered Noah to build an ark and save two of each animal to survive. Noah builds the ark and God does exactly what he said he would do. He covers the world in a huge flood and kills every single human and every single animal on earth except the Noah and his family and the animals they have collected on the ark.

Now a modern audience would perhaps object to God’s malevolence in this story. Surely not every person on earth is wicked and even if they were, how is it okay to kill them all without warning or due process? Where is the justice in that? And by the way how is collecting two of each animal saving the species? Won’t they all become degenerate and hopelessly inbred in a few generations after the flood? Really the only way this story would make moral sense is if you were living in prehistoric times and continually witnessed the wrath of Mother Nature without knowing the science behind it. Surely, if you do not understand how the storms work, you may imagine that a deity was creating the weather in response to the behavior of humans. Or if you did not know the world was round and had not the slightest idea how big it was and thought the rain came from holes in the ceiling of the sky like the Bible describes (and not say the evaporation of existing water) you may have no trouble believing a flood could raise the ocean level for 40 days above all the existing land in the world and then sink to its original level after the rain stopped falling. These concerns are generally so prevalent in modern society that any Old Testament tales are generally eviscerated beyond all recognition from the original worldview of the author. Take for example the movie, “Evan Almighty” that starred Steve Carell as a U.S. Congressman who is told by God (Morgan Freeman) to build an ARK. Turns out in that movie, ARK, represents ‘Acts of Random Kindness.’ Oh the original Noah was rolling in his grave.

But Darren Aronofsky is telling this tale as it should be told: that is dark and weird and catastrophic. And he is using computer generated visual effects for all the animals. And he is creating incredible storms bashing up entire landscapes, and he went and built a huge ark out of gopher pitch and wood. In essence he poured the money only possible in modern society with a completely developed economy into a tale that only people in a primitive society with no scientific knowledge could take seriously. Who is the primary audience for this movie? Nobody? That is why I think the producers committed a great act of faith in this movie. I would not have done it. And I liked it.

The casting for this movie is pitch perfect. Russell Crowe plays Noah. Anthony Hopkins plays Methusala, Noah’s grandfather. Jennifer Connelly plays Naameh, Noah’s wife, and Emma Watson plays Ila, an adopted daughter. Finally Ray Winstone plays Tubal Cain, descendant of the original Cain and self-proclaimed king of this prediluvain Earth. Biblical acting is not your normal kind of acting. It is reminiscent of Shakespearean acting but with less humor. I think there is but one and only one joke in this movie. (But of course who could joke when the apocalypse is at hand.)  They all pull it off very well. Russell Crowe and Anthony Hopkins both seem more at home in movies that take place a long time ago than they are in modern settings. We are reminded of their roman gladiator movies for good reason. I could praise the acting of Jennifer Connelly but I would prefer merely to dwell for some time on how beautiful she is in this movie. She is of that group of few women like Jodie Foster and Sandra Bullock that seem to have hit their peak of physical perfection in their mid-forties, not an easy thing to do. Emma Watson is cute too but we all already know that. Stealing the show though is Ray Winstone as Tubal Cain. The character is completed invented and a definite improvement from the original tale. Tubal Cain questions his Creator. Did you not cast my ancestors out of the Garden of Eden to live in hardship in the desolate wilderness? And is it so wicked for me to survive as best I can with what you have given me? Why does you not speak to me? Am I not made in your own image? I think he has a good point.

Other interesting things to dwell on: The production design of Noah’s Earth suggests a world that has been untouched. That is the landscape is flat and spare. It does not look like Earth as we know it but an Earth just formed. Creationists are of this view and that the great flood is what formed everything like the Grand Canyon. However when Noah tells the story of creation to his children, when he speaks of the seven days, we instead see several billions of years starting with the Big Bang in very fast forward. That’s not quite right I thought. Also the wickedness of man is linked to environmental degradation. This too is not quite right. I would bet anything that the original author’s did not give a hoot about the squandering of Earth’s resources and was far more concerned with sodomy and other like things. I know it is sort of better this way, but if you are going to go so far to be faithful with the source material, might as well go whole hog huh.

Les Miserables (4/5 Stars)

This is that rare movie which deserves both a glowing review and a disappointing one. Greatness is in sight that is perhaps the most tragic part, but right next to some supercharged catharsis and magnificent melodies there are these superfluous plotlines and tedious tunes. I should be a big time producer giving blunt notes with a fat cigar and final cut. Okay people, this is what they should have done.

Let’s start with what is fantastic: First of all the story of Jean Val-Jean is pretty incredible. Hugh Jackman plays a man who was sentenced to nineteen years of forced labor for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephew. The man who is in charge of him is a steely man of the law named Javert, played by Russell Crowe. On the last day of his sentence, Javert presents Jean Val-Jean with a parole slip that Jean will be forced to carry with him his entire life forward. It is stigmatized piece of paper that announces Jean as a criminal to all who meet him and which condemns him to unemployment and shame from here on out. Then one day, a cold poor and lonely Jean finds himself on the doorstep of a church. The bishop there brings him inside and feeds and clothes him. In the middle of the night, Jean steals the churches silver. The police catch him soon after. Jean lies and says the bishop gave him the silver. The police bring Jean back to the bishop. One word from the bishop and Jean is imprisoned forever more. The bishop tells the police that he indeed gave the silver to Jean. After the police have left, the bishop indeed gives the silver to Jean but tells him that he must use it to become a better man.  And this Jean indeed does, donning a new name, breaking parole, and becoming perhaps the most truly Christian person in a pitiful and treacherous society of industrializing and urbanizing Parisian society circa 1815-1832. Javert searches for Jean the entire time, convinced that criminals do not change and obsessed with bringing him back to justice.

Then there is the story of Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway, a seamstress in Jean’s factory in 1820, cruelly fired for being a single mother (unbeknownst to Jean) and thrown out into the unforgiving streets. In order to pay two sleazy local tavern keepers, played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter (two sublime three named actors who flawlessly fit into an inner city industrial revolution setting whether in Paris or London, see Sweeney Todd) to take care of her child, Cozette, she heads down to the docks selling first her hair, and then her teeth, and then lastly herself as a prostitute. Finally, she is victim to the Cholera epidemic sweeping the city of Paris.

Les Miserables is a musical and a completely sung through one at that. There is as little as actual talking as possible, although since the singing is live, it does not have the stilted nature that say Evita had. For the most part, the music is better too, at least in the first half of the movie. Jean Val-Jean does not have any great songs, but because his story is so strong, and because Hugh Jackman acts the hell out of the songs, and because the songs are so fast, the lack of any particularly great music does not slow up the movie. It is always a gripping and tremendously uplifting tale of redemption. Fantine’s story is utterly depressing with no way out, but it is saved by some great music, the most famous being the solo “I Dreamed a Dream.” That has got to be one of the saddest things I’ve ever witnessed. I literally became embarrassed to be part of a theater crowd and really wanted everyone else to leave. The tavern keepers provide some much needed comic relief with the catchy tune “Master of the House.” I’m telling you the first hour and a half of this movie really couldn’t have been better.

The movie inexplicably fails when the story jumps ten years to 1832, introduces a bunch of boring characters involved in a revolution that is never really explained, and the music becomes mediocre at best and yawn-inducing at worst.  

You know it really matters to be able to understand what exactly a really slow unmelodic song is all about. Otherwise you are sort of just waiting for it to end. We have a lot of people singing about a revolution but what is the revolution about? Who are they against and for what? I understood the conflict between Javert and Jean Val-Jean, but I have no idea what the barricades we’re all about. If it was against the monarchy, where is the monarch? If it was a class war between the poor and rich (which I think I remember from my high school class is what Engles and Marx thought it was about) than why is the main character a rich person, played by Eddie Redmayne, slumming it up with the revolutionaries. I remember a rather boring song sung by one of his compatriots that questions whether he is more interested in the revolution or some girl he saw from a distance and fell in love with (this being a grown-up Cozette with a woefully underwritten personality). I think that’s a great question. Where does this guy’s allegiance lie? Why am I watching him in a movie named Les Miserables?

This movie should have done one of three things: Cut at least half of Eddie Redmayne’s songs, make the songs he sings decent un-boring songs, or make the revolution actually about poor people fighting against oppression. You know I saw this same pussyfooting around the obvious in this summer’s “The Dark Knight Rises.” If you are going to walk up to the bell of socioeconomic conflict (i.e. class warfare) then be a man and ring it. Now I doubt you will find many Americans in the audience (me included) for that sort of thing but when it is left out, the conflict has no antagonist and becomes dreadfully boring. Let’s put up some barricades! Who are we fighting? I don’t know!

If I were in charge, I would have also used the melody for “I Dreamed a Dream” more than once. Really, there is no reason not to when the movie does not come up with anything better and yet insists on having very slow solo songs. It helps when the characters are forgettable and their problems are not interesting to have them sing a melody that is by itself worth hearing. There was this inexplicable love triangle between three undeveloped characters. The least known of them spends about five minutes of our time singing about being left out. Change that tune to the Dream one and it might have been a little more bearable to sit through as we wait for the story to cycle back to the interesting characters once again.

One more thing and try to take this as something other than homework. This story, Les Miserables, has gotten flak before for a benign reason. It is about the struggles of the very poor but its audience has been traditionally very rich. Long running lavish Broadway musicals that win lots of awards have much higher ticket prices than the average movie and going to the theater to see an unapologetically cry-inducing musical about poor people is, let’s be honest, a bit of an upper-crust thing to do. This movie is worth seeing, it is true, but go ahead and also see this year’s “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” another great movie about poor people that was actually made by poor people. Both have abject poverty. Both have disease and death. Both have traumatic events. Hell, both have bad teeth and prostitutes. But see them both. And then think about what you saw and ask yourself: why are they so very different?

Body of Lies 10/11/08

Oliver Stone once gave a wonderful insight into telling which war you were watching in a movie if you took away the title, the names, and the dates. He pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a WWII movie because the troops were always going somewhere. The GIs always had a destination. They were going to Berlin, or they were going to a guard a bridge, or they were going to do something anything. He then pointed out that you could always tell you were watching a Vietnam movie because the troops endlessly went in circles, didn't really accomplish anything, and usually ended their fights by calling in airstrikes. 
Ridley Scott's 'Body of Lies' I think will provide a blueprint for movies about the war on terrorism. By the looks of this film, and previous movies about the war on terrorism, this war isn't going to be very entertaining. A movie that is true to the war on terror, like this movie, will be very complex technically and morally, will have convoluted story lines and, for the most part, elusive enemies and far-sighted hard to reach goals. Because this movie resembles something like truth, it is sometimes hard to get through. For half the movie, the enemy isn't clearly defined and is incredibly hard to identify. Leonardo Dicaprio, a CIA agent on the ground, and Russel Crowe, his boss in D.C., go to very great lengths simply to find out what the enemy is doing. After several failures, they stage a super elaborate plot to get to a terrorist responsible for bombings in Europe. Still then the plot goes haywire. The point seems to be that no great expense in technology and good will across the ocean in D.C. will ever compare to actual ground experience and intelligence from allies in the base region. 
The ally in this region, who is continually blown off by the ultimate know nothing arrogant boss, Russell Crowe, is a Jordanian counter-terrorist minister named Mark Strong (He's Middle Eastern even if his name lies opposite). He's morally corrupt (has torture rooms) but is perhaps the only hope for an effective strategy in such a FUBAR place. (The middle east in this movie is a wasteland covered in garbage and sand being roamed by wild scurvy dogs) Unfortunately the only way it seems to get anything done is to involve innocent civilians in the process. This usually gets them killed. When the Russel Crowe character says "no one in this mess is innocent," it sounds like something he needs to constantly repeat to himself in order to sleep. When Dicaprio gets tortured near the end of this film, a part of me thought he certainly deserved it. He certainly did horrible things to get there. 
This movie is tough to watch at times, but I give it a fresh review because it is ultra competent and provides a real on-the-ground look at the war on terrorism. (I would bet the entire thing was shot in the middle east. Some of the war torn vistas seem dangerously close for any film crew) The story makes sense even though sometimes Dicaprio's character seems offset with different principles. Its hard to reconcile the renegade man who would sacrifice innocent civilians and outright challenge government authority with the guy who takes the Arab nurse out on a couple of dates. This is a character with a divergent mind. The role called for a great, maybe impossible, performance. I think Dicaprio's take on it wasn't entirely plausible. Crowe on the other hand was as good as it could be. I heard he gained fifty pounds to play this role. That I think was unnecessary. Unless the character is Oscar worthy stuff (Like Raging Bull or Monster) you really shouldn't be putting yourself through that sort of punishment. It helped the character but this movie doesn't deserve that sort of commitment.
As for Ridley Scott, he has once again proven that he is an ultra-competent director. I don't recall the last time when he did something truly significant (maybe Thelma and Louise) but in the last decade he has been building a list of good (not great) movies. (American Gangster, Kingdom of God, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator). This one certainly updates the war movie genre to current technologies and complexities. It is probably the best movie to come out about the war on terror, but, looking at the track record, that doesn't say much. Still, with the way this war is set up, an easy narrative is going to be hard to come by. 

American Gangster 11/04/07

American Gangster tells the story of two men. Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a Harlem drug dealer, who revolutinized the heroin business from 1968 to 1973, and Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) the honest cop who brought him down. The movie moves back and forth between the two characthers, each of them are equally interesting. Frank Lucas is an exemplary businessman, smart serious and humble. Roberts is the kind of man whos only good at his job. Between divorce proceedings he turns in one million dollars in unmarked bills at a time when that sort of thing was looked down upon with suspicion. The movie, which is based on a true story, looks and acts authentic (I don't know what it is about the 70s, but it always appears as grungy and dirty. Did they not have barbers or showers then?) This is an incredibly solid movie and it is as good as it is on paper as it is on the screen. It's two hours forty-five minutes long and never boring. It's not a great Ridley Scott film like Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, or Gladiator. It's more like a Black Hawk Down or Matchstick Men. There's a good reason for this.
This may be a great film if it weren't for the fact that it is the little brother in a genre that is filled with classics. Compare this movie to Goodfellas, Scarface, The Departed, or The Godfather and it falters. It doesn't stand up to them. So while it may be the best gangster movie this year it certainly isn't one of the best. 
Another slight problem is that these roles don't seem made for the main actors. I take a look at the Richie Roberts charachter and it doesn't say 'only Russell Crowe should play me.' Neither does the Frank Lucas charachter say 'Denzel Washington was born for this role.' I got the feeling that these guys could be played by anyone. They are too cut and dry for one person. There isn't the complexity or emotion that gives the audience a 'Tony Montana' who could only be played by Al Pacino or a 'Tommy' who Joe Pesci was born to play. The charachters aren't memorable to be burned in one's mind for too long. Not saying this isn't a good film, just saying it pales in comparison to earlier works in the genre.
Probably the most memorable charachters in the film belonged to the supporting roles. Josh Brolin plays an unrepentant sleazy cop in the first role I've bothered to recognize him in. (He seems to be old enough to have been in a bunch of movies by now.) I find it amusing that he would have a late 80s style slicked back corporate haircut. I think it just goes to show how much the cut has become a metaphor for slimy corruption. It was popularized a good decade after this film took place, and it still works to perfection. 
The second supporting role is a complete surprise. Cuba Gooding Jr. in a role that doesn't completely suck in a decent movie! Wow! I don't care if its only for five minutes, this is the first acting gig he's done in ten years that isn't shameless and embarrassing. The academy, I bet, still wants to take back his oscar, but now with slightly less bitter rage. 

3:10 to Yuma 09/09/07

The earth is hard, the climate is dry, the sun is scorching. The bad guys outnumber the good, and in the entire town there is but one woman. That's right, this is a Western and its the best I've seen in a theater. Of course that isn't saying much, but my point is that this is a good Western. It's also a good remake apparently, this very movie was made a half century ago or something. So we add "3:10 to Yuma" to the "King Kong list" of remakes that are probably superior to the original film.
The plot is pretty simple, the real draw to this film are the performances. Almost in a duel/partnerships are Russel Crowe as outlaw Ben Wade and Christian Bale as a failed family man whose son outspokenly voices his disapproval of him. An example of their conversation "Someday when you walk in my shoes, you would understand." Intese pause. "I'll never walk in you're shoes." Such words from sons can drive men crazy. And so we get Christian Bale becoming a hero before our and Wade's eyes. It's a sight to see the transformation. The intensity, the passion, the tough grit. Very few movies give a lot to the word honor nowadays, but we see it in this movie in spades. 
Two more righteous shoutouts. One goes to the Ben Foster who turns in a splendid performance of Wade's sidekick "Charlie Prince." The little touch of sophistication goes a long way. The second shout out goes to the climatic gun fight. Hopefully this movie is turned into a video game at some point. There's plenty to work with here. 

A Good Year 01/16/07

resh: Ridley Scott's new movie is about a successful London stock exchange man, Russel Crowe, who inherits his uncle's French vineyard. He at first wants to sell it but after a good deal of nostalgia he decides to not only keep it but to move there leaving behind his old life.
This might seem like a cliche movie and it is, but the way that Ridley Scott tells it makes it feel like new. There's so many techniques he uses in the beginning part of the story that speeds up the story. Why? Because Max is a stock trader and is life is supercharged all the time. But as he spends more time at the estate the movie itself slows down. Most movies start slow and end fast. This one starts fast and ends slow. It's a very smart way to tell the story and it makes this movie worth seeing. It isn't a must see of any kind. But its a short, clean, and complete movie. Very good.
Of course another good reason to see this movie is the kid Freddie Highmore. He plays the young max and shares many a good scene with the really old Albert Finney. It was kinda cool to see the kid had grown since the last time I saw him in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I hope someday someone puts that kid in a movie with Dakota Fanning. I think that would be positively righteous.