Looking Back At: "Thor: The Dark World"

This next month sees the arrival of Captain America: The Winter Soldier on Blu-Ray and DVD, so naturally, there’s a bit of a gap in my usual review schedule, seeing as I reviewed that film back in April for its theatrical release.  So, I got to thinking, which Marvel franchise haven’t I looked at yet for this site?  And, of course, the obvious answer is Thor.  Now, the reason I decided to take a look at the sequel is because I think it’s worthwhile to note that, while The Dark World is certainly the weakest of the Cinematic Universe’s Phase Two films, it isn’t actually a bad movie.  It’s a solid fantasy action flick that doesn’t lack for imaginative designs and some stellar fights.  However, what this film can be is a weak storyteller with some problematic character representations and not enough momentum to carry its franchise forward.

We pick up where The Avengers left off, with Loki imprisoned at Asgard, Thor off fighting to preserve peace in the Nine Realms, and Jane Foster being sad because she doesn’t have a man.  (More on that later…)  Jane accidentally comes across a power called the Aether, which consequently infects her.  The Dark Elf Malkieth wishes to use the power of the Aether to conquer the Nine Realms, so it is up to Thor to protect Jane and find a way to remove the Aether before its power kills her.  All in all, if this sounds a bit generic, that’s because it kinda is.  Most of the plot feels very by-the-numbers; Malkieth is bland and is truly a waste of actor Christopher Eccleston’s talent, and Jane is here mostly as an obligatory love interest.

Well, that’s not entirely true, for my biggest gripe with the film is its treatment of its female lead.  See, for being present for the majority of the film, Jane has maybe two lines throughout the entirety of the second act.  She becomes a prize to either be won or protected, and the plot is only concerned about whisking her from location to location so as to keep her safety in suspense.  But through all this, she has no character or even thoughts of her own, just blankly going along with whatever her big, strong boyfriend thinks is best.  I’m fairly certain that comic relief character Darcy gets more lines and characterization than the supposed female lead.  There just feels like this overwhelming sense of obligation to her presence, and I’d rather have seen her written out than to tortuously drag her along in a story that she’s barely relevant to.

That said, though, where the script lacks development for Jane (or even Thor, now that I think about it), it is bursting with great character moments for fan-favorite Loki.  And really, his character is the main reason why the film doesn’t slip into dull monotony.  Whether it’s his snarky witticisms or the revelation that he still has a love for his mother and respect for his brother, Loki proves once again to be the villain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  While I will admit that his presence does largely constitute franchise-building sequel establishment, the film’s plot would have been much too generic and soulless without him.

Despite my criticisms, though, Thor: The Dark World is still a decent enough movie.  The visual design of the film looks spectacular, showing off Asgard as a combination of medieval mysticism and futuristic mechanization.  These designs lead to some stellar sci-fi action sequences, including a dimension-hopping climax that doesn’t disappoint.  I only wish that the plot didn’t feel like an act of tired obligation, a reminder that Thor still exists while we all wait for The Avengers: Age of Ultron.  We can only hope that the third installment can find its legs again and tell a less forgettable tale.

It’s somewhat astounding that Marvel has yet to make a bad Cinematic Universe movie, even if they have come close a few times.  Do you think they can hold this streak indefinitely?  Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

"The Double": An Adequate Imitation

Now Available on DVD and Blu-Ray

Does anyone have Terry Gilliam’s number?  I think some film student may have crushed him into a fine powder and snorted him and used his subsequent trip to make film starring two Jesse Eisenbergs (which is already pretty terrifying when you consider how Eisenberg is already a clone of Michael Cera.)  All joking aside, The Double is a surreal little trip that is perhaps a bit full of itself and its ever-important message, but once it moves beyond its self-important world-building, there’s actually something worth thinking about wrapped in an abstract, existential nightmare.

The central conflict of the film isn’t even introduced until about a third of the way in.  The first thirty minutes of The Double is spent showing the day-to-day happenings of Simon James (Eisenberg), an average nobody in all senses of the word.  Nobody at work remembers him or the hard work that he does, and he is surrounded by the elderly in a job that clearly doesn’t offer him opportunity to advance.  Dull oranges and blues hover forebodingly in almost every scene, betraying a sense of oppression and gloom that Simon can’t seem to escape from.  Even suicide is treated nonchalantly as an everyday occurrence.  In short, the film is basically shouting at us that this is what being a young adult in the modern world is like.  It’s pretty ham-fisted when you get right down to it, and if that’s all the film were trying to convey, it would have been a pretty shallow, if visually appealing, experience.

However, things pick up when Simon James’s exact double begins work at the same place; his name is James Simon.  (Well isn’t that clever…)  James is essentially the polar opposite to Simon.  He lazes about and convinces Simon to do all his work for him, yet gets all the praise that Simon not only deserves for doing James’s work, but the work that Simon had always been doing up until that point.  Eventually, it becomes clear that James is out to take over Simon’s life, and what follows is an exploration of the nature of individuality and what makes us more than working-class drones.

The film delves into some pretty abstract territory by the time the third act rolls around, leaving much of what happens on-screen up to interpretation.  Your enjoyment will largely be dictated by how willing you are to hang on for a trip that has little in the way of narrative hand-holding, but I thought it was worth sitting through.  The film is short enough at ninety minutes that its eccentricities never overstay their welcome, but as much as it’s obviously inspired by Terry Gilliam’s body of work, it doesn’t quite capture the same level of depth or surreality that permeates films like 12 Monkeys or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

This film may be a little bit full of itself and may be a bit too obviously trying to show off its cinematic storytelling smarts, but for the time spent watching it, I feel like I got a pretty good experience.  This isn’t a film that’s likely to garner popular praise anytime soon, but I can easily see a cult following emerging now that the film has a DVD release.  Go ahead and give this one a shot!

So, will Jesse Eisenberg ever escape the Michael Cera comparison?  Leave your thoughts below!

"The Normal Heart": Very Deserving Of Its Emmy

Now Available on DVD and Blu-Ray

A made for TV movie is one of the best movies of the year so far.  Let that sink in for a moment…  Made for TV movie.  Best of the year.

Has the gravity of that sunk in yet?  Good.

Obviously, I watch a lot of movies.  I can usually see where a plot is going or understand why something works well or something doesn’t.  And when I first heard of The Normal Heart, my initial reaction was “Great. Another fucking AIDS movie.”  This is in no way to diminish the plight of those infected with HIV or AIDS, but these films always have the same plot about the protagonists fighting against an uncaring system and ultimately watching everyone around them die to the disease.  I’ve gotten the message hammered in so much after so many of these damn things that anything new just seems redundant.  And yeah, The Normal Heart still follows that same basic outline, but it’s distinguished by two things, the first of which is Mark Ruffalo’s fantastic performance.  More importantly, though, it perfectly captures an aspect of the AIDS epidemic’s beginnings that is rarely adequately covered, and that is the all-encompassing fear that permeated that era.

The film follows the life of Ned Weeks (Ruffalo), an openly gay activist for gay rights in the early 1980s.  He’s somewhat a pariah in the gay community because he is radical in his desire that all gay men come out of the closet and demand social acceptance.  The gay community of that era was in the midst of a countercultural movement that emphasized that their sexual pleasure with one another was not something to be ashamed of, so sex was the primary focus of the gay community’s inner politics.  When the “gay cancer” started to make its way through its first unsuspecting victims, Weeks started a movement to stop anonymous sexual activity to prevent the spread of the disease, much to his colleagues' chagrin.  As the years went by, Weeks’ organization grew through grassroots campaigning and awareness-raising in order to assist those dying of the disease, but it was ultimately still an insular organization fighting against a disease that the greater straight hegemony had no interest in assisting in.

Meanwhile, Ned’s personal life reflects his struggles with the organization, for he is a man who at first struggled with personal intimacy, then found the love of his life, and then watched that love slowly die to the very disease he was trying so hard to eradicate.  Ruffalo’s performance is nuanced and heart-breaking, portraying a man who not only is desperate to fight for a cause he believes in, but doesn’t know how to handle it when it starts to affect him personally.  He’s constantly frustrated with the fact that his fellow campaigners refuse to make their identities public in order to spread awareness, and his desperation leads to tactics that ultimately alienate him from the very community he’s trying to protect.

And that’s the film’s greatest strength; it isn’t just about a fight against a disease or against a society that rejects homosexuality.  It is about a fight against the internal struggle of every gay man over whether to reveal his identity to straight society, and face the social ostracism that comes with it.  For almost everyone in the film, that fear is greater than their fear of death at the hands of AIDS.  Ned is constantly villainized for wanting to take steps that would force those in power into action, for wanting to stand up as a group of several million homosexuals and force society to recognize their existence as human beings.  Alas, fear won out in the end: the gay mens’ fear of coming out; straight society’s fear of alternative sexualities; the fear that nothing would be done until straight people also started contracting the disease.

I cried during this film.  This is a very rare thing.  I watch a lot of movies with a lot of sad moments, but this made me tear up.  This is more than just another made-for-TV movie or just another movie about AIDS.  This is a film that is well-made, emotionally-gripping, and does a great job of portraying one of the great American tragedies of the 20^th century.  It deserves its Best Made-For-TV Movie Emmy and Critics Choice Awards and whatever other accolades it has coming its way.  It is well worth seeing.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below.