Thor: The Dark World (2013) review

One could say that Marvel took a very huge risk in developing a Cinematic Universe, something that we have really never seen before in the world of film. But in the end, they did succeed at their goal, creating a massive universe for their superheroes to live in. How did they do it? They made a whole bunch of solo films focusing on the characters that would later come together to form ‘The Avengers’. However, of these heroes, one’s first solo outing was perhaps the biggest risk Marvel had faced up to that point. The idea of a ‘Thor’ movie was tricky. Not only did Marvel had to work around the fact that the Asgardian God of Thunder did not come from Earth but from the mystical realm of Asgard, but they also had to worry about making it work without it being too campy. Thankfully, 2011’s ‘Thor’ was far better than expected thanks to the Shakespearian influence from director Kenneth Branagh and the charisma of star Chris Hemsworth in the title role. Sure, it had some flaws, namely the fact that the film really didn’t explore the universe of the Nine Realms that much, but nevertheless it was an extremely entertaining film.

Thor and his brother Loki would return again for ‘The Avengers’, with the latter establishing himself as one of the premier villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a huge improvement from his rather underdeveloped role in ‘Thor’. In fact, if Tom Hiddleston’s surprise appearance at this year’s Comic-Con proves anything, it is that Loki has become perhaps the most popular character in the MCU. Now, everyone’s favorite gods return for the next MCU film, ‘Thor: The Dark World’. This time, Branagh is not directing; instead, it is Alan Taylor. He has been mostly known for his work on television, but when one of those shows is ‘Game of Thrones’, it’s clear that this man was qualified for the job. Overall, Taylor manages to improve on Branagh’s film in regards to the action, visuals, and for doing a better job at immersing us in this universe. It’s still not entirely perfect, mostly because of some pretty weak villains, but as a whole, ‘Thor: The Dark World’ is another great entry in the MCU, thanks in part due to the performances from its two leads.

After helping the Avengers save Earth from an alien invasion led by his brother Loki (Hiddleston), Thor (Hemsworth) returns home to Asgard where he continues to bring peace to the Nine Realms while Loki is imprisoned in the Asgardian dungeons. However, things start to change when, back on Earth, Thor’s love interest and astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) becomes infected by a substance known as Aether. This draws the attention of the race known as the Dark Elves, led by Malekith the Accursed (Christopher Eccleston), who attempted to use the Aether to take over the world many eons ago before he was stopped by Thor’s grandfather Bor. Sensing that she is in danger, Thor brings her to Asgard in order to find a way to get the Aether out of her. However, when the Dark Elves begin to attack, Thor is forced to team up with Loki in order to stop this new threat.

In a lot of ways, ‘The Dark World’ improves on some of its predecessor’s biggest problems. Most of ‘Thor’ was spent on Earth instead of on Asgard. Now, that’s necessarily a bad thing because the stuff on Earth was well-handled in terms of helping Thor grow as a character, but we never really got a chance to immerse ourselves in the universe that is the Nine Realms, or Thor and Loki’s home world of Asgard for that matter. That’s not a problem here. More time is spent off-planet and we get a better sense of the universe. Also, from a visual perspective, it does actually look nicer than it did in ‘Thor’. Taylor also works better in regard to action scenes while still maintaining the light-hearted atmosphere and humor that worked so well in Branagh’s film.

However, this film suffers from one major problem. The villains in this film are really weak. In fact, dare I say it they’re the weakest villains to date in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and considering what we’ve seen from these movies, that is saying a lot. The great Christopher Eccleston is wasted in the role of Malekith, who spends most of his time brooding and speaking in Elvish. There could have been some really good character development in terms of the relationship between him and Thor, seeing how he was thwarted by the latter’s grandfather but sadly we don’t get that. His second in command Algrim (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) is a more threatening villain. Even then, and I’m not spoiling anything, they don’t do much with him either, even when he transforms into a stronger character known as Kurse in the comics.

But on the bright side, the film is well-acted. As Thor, Hemsworth is once again excellent as he continues to maintain Thor’s charming and likable personality. We also see that Thor has grown as a character since the last film (‘Thor’ that is, not ‘The Avengers’) because he isn’t as brash as he was in the first film. Equally great here is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Hiddleston just owns the role and even steals the spotlight from Hemsworth at times. In fact, the best scenes in the entire movie are when the two of them are on screen together. Natalie Portman unfortunately gets reduced to a ‘damsel in distress’ role for this film, but her chemistry with Hemsworth improved quite a bit. As for the rest of the cast, some do get more substantial roles than what they had in the previous film (like Rene Russo as Thor and Loki’s mother Frigga and Idris Elba as Heimdall) but some are still stuck in minor parts, like Sif and the Warriors Three. There could’ve been some good romantic tension between Jane and Sif for Thor’s affections, but it kind of seems like that stuff ended up on the cutting room floor.

I can’t really call ‘Thor: The Dark World’ the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sure, Alan Taylor manages to improve on some of the flaws of the previous film but this film really suffers from having perhaps the weakest villains in the MCU, underusing Christopher Eccleston in a role that could have had so much more to it. Thankfully, the film is still very entertaining, mainly thanks to the charismatic performances from Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston as Thor and Loki, respectively. It seems likely that another ‘Thor’ film will happen, probably after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’. Hopefully for the next one the villains are far better. Considering how this film ends (again, not giving anything away), how about they make Loki the main villain again? Perhaps we can get a Loki spin-off as well?

Rating: 4/5

(P.S. Don’t forget to stay through the credits for there are two post-credits scenes in this one, the first giving us a glimpse as to what’s down the road in the MCU (‘Avengers 3’, I’m guessing considering what route Joss Whedon is apparently taking with ‘Age of Ultron’.))

Olympus Has Fallen vs. White House Down

Earlier this year, I did a post where I talked about the ‘copycat films’ trend that has been happening in Hollywood over the last few years, where two films that have almost exactly the same premise come out the same year. At the end of that post, I briefly talked about the two ‘copycat films’ that were released this year, which were both centered around invasions at the White House: Antoine Fuqua’s ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ and Roland Emmerich’s ‘White House Down’.  Not only do both films revolve around a takeover of the White House by terrorists, but they also feature a John McClane like character who saves the day a la ‘Die Hard’. Since that post was published, both of these films have hit theaters and I have seen both of them, so now it’s time to discuss these two films and possibly decide which one is the better film.

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

‘Olympus Has Fallen’ sort of took me for surprise. When comparing these two films, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ is far more intense, not just because of the fact that this movie was rated R compared to White House Down’s more audience-friendly PG-13 rating; a serious tone is maintained throughout the entire course of the film. In a way, it works and in some ways it doesn’t. With a premise like this, it seems like everyone involved in this film was taking it a little too seriously because let’s face it; this is sort of a silly premise. While that is sort of a flaw, the main character Mike Banning surprisingly has a good amount of depth to him. He was once a member of the President’s Secret Service, but left the job after an incident that resulted in the death of the First Lady. For the record, both of these films’ leads are in a similar situation; they’re trying to turn their lives around and they ultimately do… by saving the President in the process. In the case of this movie, it’s less cliché than in ‘White House Down’ (more on that in a bit). On that note, the best thing about this whole movie is Gerald Butler’s performance in the lead role. To put it simply, these kinds of movies are the ones where he’s at his best. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well and in the end, while ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ takes itself a bit too seriously, it’s still pretty entertaining.

Rating: 3.5/5

WHITE HOUSE DOWN

Right off the bat, the key difference between these two movies is their overall tone. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was more serious while ‘White House Down’ doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s more lighthearted and in this one, the President even gets involved in the action. However, this film ends up being even more cliché than ‘Olympus’. This film doesn’t pull many surprises. One cliché in particular that I’m getting rather sick of is the ‘deadbeat dad’ plotline… mainly because it’s been in most of director Roland Emmerich’s movies (‘2012’, ‘Independence Day’, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, etc…). On the bright side, like with ‘Olympus’, this film benefits from the performances from its leads; in this case, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx. The two work off each other very well, which helps to ease the tension during some of this film’s more intense moments. All in all, they help make this movie entertaining despite its flaws; most of which stem from the writing.

Rating: 3.5/5

How these two films fared:

As far as critical reception was concerned, both of these films received rather mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, ‘White House Down’ has the better ratings (50%), but just by 2% over ‘Olympus Has Fallen’. The former also earned more at the box office (over $200 million), which may have been because of the film’s summer release date (the latter was released in March). However, with a budget of $150 million, it’s considered to be a bit of a flop. Meanwhile, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ grossed more than twice its budget (which was a more modest $70 million) and a sequel is currently in development that will take place in London.

Overall winner:

This is a tough one because, as shown by my ratings for these two films, I’m not really sure if one of these films is better than the other. Neither is particularly original, so it all depends on the way each film is executed. From a writing standpoint, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ has a better developed lead character while ‘White House Down’ is full of clichés. However, I’d say ‘White House Down’ was more entertaining. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was surprisingly very intense, but it felt like it was taking itself way too seriously. ‘White House Down’ is a more straight-forward popcorn flick. So in the end, I’ll give the slight edge to ‘White House Down’ but for the record, I do think both of these films are pretty entertaining. It just depends on what you’re looking for; a super-intense action thriller, or a more light-hearted one.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Retrospective

The next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ‘Thor: The Dark World’, is set to hit theaters this upcoming weekend. So, instead of just doing a single review on its predecessor, I decided to do a look back at the entire Cinematic Universe as a whole from the first Iron Man film back in 2008 to ‘Iron Man 3’, which was released back in May. Since I started this blog back in May of 2012, I’ve actually only covered two of these films; The Avengers (which was the very first review that I posted on this site) and Iron Man 3, for which I did both a regular review and a Spoiler Post regarding the film’s controversial twist. So now it’s time for me to talk about the other five films that were released before ‘Avengers’; Marvel’s ‘Phase One’. Since I’ve talked about Marvel’s success in creating this Cinematic Universe multiple times already, I’ll leave it at that because otherwise you’ll know what I would say next. So, let’s take a look back at the past seven films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

IRON MAN (2008)

I can easily sum up the reason why this movie is so good in three simple words; those three words are ‘Robert Downey Jr.’. This is easily one of the best casting decisions in the history of superhero films, if not the best. If it wasn’t for him, I have a feeling that this movie wouldn’t have turned out as good as it did. Don’t get me wrong; this is still a really good movie, but it is Downey’s performance as Tony Stark, billionaire turned superhero, which really elevates the material. Admittedly, there’s really not much I can say about this film other than it is a top-notch superhero film and it did its job at establishing what was to come in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It hit all of the right notes in terms of story and character development and as such, it certainly stands as one of the best superhero films of the last few years.

Rating: 5/5!

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

Marvel first brought the character of the Hulk to the big screen in 2003 with Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’. However, the film was sort of a flop at the box office so Marvel decided to reboot the franchise, which would now be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This Hulk film, directed by Louis Leterrier, is much better than its predecessor for one key reason. Lee’s film was more focused on the drama than the action. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing because I do think that the dramatic material was at least well-written, but it made the film rather boring at times. This one takes a more ‘action-packed’ route and while that might mean that the screenplay is a little lacking at times, it is still a very entertaining film. Edward Norton and Tim Roth both do excellent jobs as Bruce Banner and Emil Blonsky (the latter becoming ‘The Abomination’ by the end of the film), respectively. While Norton was eventually overshadowed by his successor, Mark Ruffalo, in ‘Avengers’ in terms of their respective performances, he still does a great job at displaying the character’s struggles and emotions. As for Liv Tyler and William Hurt as Betty and General Ross, they do okay jobs but I think that Jennifer Connelly and Sam Elliott were better in the roles in Lee’s ‘Hulk’. Still, this ‘Incredible Hulk’, while not perfect, is at least better than the previous ‘Hulk’ film. I do look forward to seeing another Hulk film with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. However, that film unfortunately might not happen for a while, at least until after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’.

Rating: 4/5

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

It’s common knowledge that sequels are never as good as the original. Iron Man 2… is one of those movies. Now, while I do rank this film at the bottom when it comes to ranking all of the Cinematic Universe films, I don’t think it’s a bad movie; far from it in fact. It’s very entertaining as most superhero films are and Robert Downey Jr. is still fantastic as Tony Stark. So what’s the main problem, then? Well, it seems like the filmmakers went a little too far in terms of ‘raising the bar’, as is usual with sequels. There are just too many characters in this movie, which means that some get less development than others, namely the main villain Whiplash. Mickey Rourke is very good in the role, but at one point he is reduced to being the pawn of another villain, Justin Hammer. On the bright side, Sam Rockwell steals the show whenever he’s on screen but unfortunately that means that Whiplash gets thrown to the sidelines. One thing that could have helped was if S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn’t really overused in this film, which I feel they are. I’m fine with the inclusion of Black Widow but I feel that Nick Fury should have just stayed as a brief cameo. There are some other minor gripes that I have, one of them being that Tony is a bit too arrogant in this film. Now, I can see where they were going, because there’s this other plotline that Tony’s dying from palladium poisoning because of the substance’s use in his arc reactor, but I’m not sure that plotline went far. Still, despite its flaws, ‘Iron Man 2’ is still an entertaining superhero film but it could have been much better.

Rating: 3.5/5

THOR (2011)

This film was easily the biggest risk that Marvel was taking during ‘Phase One’ because this could have ended up being a very campy film, which would not have been good for Marvel if Thor was to be one of the Avengers. But in the end, this film turned out to be much better than expected, mainly because of two reasons. One is director Kenneth Branagh, whose experience with Shakespeare translates to this film. The themes of honor and family are constantly present in the film and are very well-handled. The other is the performance from Chris Hemsworth in the titular role, who flawlessly displays both charm and arrogance as Thor. The rest of the cast is great as well, although some could have been given a little more to do, including Natalie Portman as Thor’s love interest Jane Foster and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, though for the record in the case of the latter that’s just in this film. Obviously, that changes with ‘Avengers’. Another positive about the film is the surprising amount of humor in the screenplay and it works very well. My only major complaint with the film is that if feels like it is mostly setting up what’s to come later. For a film that takes place in a universe like the Nine Realms, we only see three of them; Asgard, Jotunheim, and Earth… and we spent more time on Earth than in the other two worlds. The one thing that I want to see in the next film is that they explore this universe more. Thankfully, the trailers seem to indicate like that will be the case. But as a whole, the first ‘Thor’ movie is another great entry in the Cinematic Universe.

Rating: 4/5

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Out of all of these films, ‘Captain America’ probably seems the closest to an old-school summer blockbuster, being set in the 40’s during WWII for the majority of the film while still having some of the more modern storytelling aspects from the other Cinematic Universe films. This film manages to find the right balance of the old and the new; director Joe Johnston is at his best whenever he does period films, like ‘Rocketeer’ or ‘October Sky’ and this film is no exception. Like with the other Marvel films, the filmmakers did a great job at casting the lead hero, in this case Chris Evans as Captain America/Steve Rogers. As Rogers, Evans is extremely likable and charismatic, and his ‘never give up’ attitude is very admirable. Even after he becomes Captain America, he maintains that likable persona throughout the film. This film has perhaps the best ensemble cast (aside from ‘Avengers’ of course) of Phase One. How can you go wrong with a cast that includes Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, and Stanley Tucci? This film also one of the best, shall we say, ‘superhero couples’ in Cap and Peggy Carter (played by Hayley Atwell). Their chemistry feels genuine and this helps make the ending scene of the film quite emotional. All in all, while I can’t say ‘The First Avenger’ is the best of the Phase One films, it is my personal favorite.

Rating: 5/5!

THE AVENGERS (2012)

For a more ‘detailed’ review of the film, here are links to both my original review and the post where I listed this film as the best film of 2012 (which I still stand by, for the record):

Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2012/05/avengers-2012-review.html

Top 10 post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-top-3-films-of-2012.html

Do I really need to talk about this one? You probably know what I’m going to say, seeing how I named this my number one favorite film of 2012. So, I‘ll keep it short. ‘The Avengers’ is one of the finest superhero films to date. You really have to hand it to Marvel on this one. They took their time, developed their universe and the characters, picked the right cast to play these heroes, and finally brought them all together under the direction of Joss Whedon for one of the most epic films to date. Whedon, a director who does a great job at working with a large cast, gives equal time and development to each of the main heroes. No single hero is more important than the others and some get better development that what they had in previous movies, namely Black Widow and Hawkeye. Tom Hiddleston also establishes himself as a premier super villain in the role of Loki. Admittedly, it takes a while for the film to get going but once it finally does, it’s incredible. The screenplay is full of witty dialogue, leading to a lot of funny moments. My personal favorite scene; when Hulk and Thor crash a Leviathan down into Grand Central. Once they get up, Hulk suddenly punches Thor off-screen. It’s so unexpected and yet so funny at the same time. The bottom line is that if you haven’t seen this film yet, I strongly urge you to do so because it is one of the best of the superhero genre.

Rating: 5/5!

IRON MAN 3 (2013)

Here are the links to the two ‘Iron Man 3’ posts I did back in May:

Original Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-2013-review.html

Spoiler Post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-spoiler-talk.html

Like many 2013 summer blockbusters (e.g. Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel), ‘Iron Man 3’, despite receiving solid reviews from critics and becoming the second Marvel film in a row to gross over 1 billion at the box office, has received a rather mixed reception from audiences. From what I’ve seen, some of this negativity is a little unfair, namely from those who hated it just because of the controversial twist surrounding the film’s ‘main villain’. Yes, it is a big change from the comics, but it actually did work from a story perspective. As for another ‘complaint’ about where S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other Avengers were during the events of this movie, I can answer that… they had their own s*** to deal with. Remember that the biggest reason why ‘The Avengers’ worked so well is because Marvel took their time and developed their universe and the characters in it by doing solo superhero films. Not every Marvel film can be ‘The Avengers’ and directed by Joss Whedon; solo superhero films are still effective. Besides, aren’t the ‘Iron Man’ films the highest grossing solo films in the Cinematic Universe?

Okay, rant over, back to ‘Iron Man 3’. The reason why the film works so well is because it has a solid character-driven story, as Tony tries to deal with the anxiety from his near-death experience at the end of ‘Avengers’. This is perhaps Robert Downey Jr.’s best performance in the role; he still maintains the arrogant attitude that Tony is known to have, but it’s dialed down (which is a huge improvement over ‘Iron Man 2’) because of what he went through. This is a Tony Stark story; the fact that he’s not in the Iron Man suit as much doesn’t hurt the movie (another sort of unfair criticism if you ask me). The suit doesn’t make the man. It is the man who makes the suit. The ending, while definitely raising questions of how Tony will play into the next two Avengers films, serves a fitting conclusion to both this film and the whole trilogy itself.

Another big improvement over 2 is that Don Cheadle finally gets time to shine in this film and his camaraderie with Downey Jr. is much better. The whole cast is terrific, particularly the two main villains. As for Ben Kingsley, he succeeds at working with the major twist surrounding his character, being very intimidating while he’s The Mandarin, and goofy when he’s the actor Trevor Slattery. As for Guy Pearce who, spoilers, is basically the main villain, he’s also great. I like how the character was set up as an effective ‘demon’ for Tony. My one complaint about the film is that the female parts are rather underwritten. Yes, Gwyneth Paltrow still has fantastic chemistry with Downey Jr. and she does don the Iron Man suit for the first time in the film… for about 2 minutes. Aside from that moment and the finale, she’s once again stuck in the damsel in distress role the whole time. Rebecca Hall is stuck in a similar situation; not given anything to do. In fact, the movie really doesn’t make it clear about whose side she’s really on, especially considering that they kill her character off. But in the end, ‘Iron Man 3’, while not the best Iron Man movie, comes pretty damn close to being on the same level as the first film.

Rating: 4.5/5

As an added bonus, here are my further thoughts on ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ now that a few more episodes have aired and my thoughts on the first trailer for ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’.

Agents of SHIELD- 5 Episodes In

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a very positive review of the pilot for ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’, where I praised the show’s more humanistic approach to the Cinematic Universe and for its terrific cast, especially Clark Gregg as Coulson (obviously) and Chloe Bennet as Skye. Now, there have four more episodes since the pilot and at the time I am posting this, the next episode will be airing tonight. Unfortunately, this show has now been hit with the same curse as ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’; pretty solid critical reviews, but audiences have been mixed and, like ‘Into Darkness’, I’ve been hearing more negative reviews than positive.

Overall, I stand by my thoughts on the series. Sure, it may not be the best TV show ever but it continues to do a great job at developing its characters and the universe that they now live in after the events of ‘Avengers’. As far as the main cast goes, the only characters I think who haven’t really got much opportunity to shine in the show so far have been Fitz and Simmons. Both De Caestecker and Henstridge are doing great jobs, but for the most part, they’ve only played minor roles so far in the series. On the other side of the spectrum, Agent May, Agent Ward, Skye, and Coulson have been given more to do so hopefully they give more to Fitz and Simmons down the road. I do like that this series has actually started to establish future villains; one of whom being the character of Graviton (played by Ian Hart, who you might recognize as Quirrell from ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’). I also appreciate how the writers are still using the Extremis serum plot-point from ‘Iron Man 3’. It’s good to see that this series is continuing to establish its place in the Cinematic Universe.

Like in the pilot, the writers continue to do a very good job in developing its characters and, more importantly, some of the mysteries surrounding them; the biggest being whether or not the Coulson we know really died in ‘Avengers’ and the reason why he somehow miraculously survived. In Episode 4, ‘Eye-Spy’, the team tracks down a thief who turns to be a protégé of Coulson. At the end of the episode, the protégé speaks with May and mentions that ‘something’ is different about Coulson, giving further speculation to what really happened after Coulson was stabbed by Loki. Could he be a life-model decoy, perhaps? Another interesting storyline is revealed in Episode 5, ‘The Girl with the Flower Dress’, where Skye reveals to Coulson why she joined his team. She’s looking for her parents, who were connected with S.H.I.E.L.D. When Coulson mentions that she might not like what she finds, I get the feeling that this could spell trouble down the road. Could this possibly lead to some future villains on the show?             

Admittedly, the second episode was a little lackluster compared to the pilot (except for the awesome cameo from Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury), but recently the show has really started to take off and it’s become one of my favorite shows currently on television. I’m excited to see what routes the writers take in future episodes and how they might connect with the upcoming Marvel films, namely ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ because of how big of a role S.H.I.E.L.D. will play in that film. I do hope this series stays running for a while. The show did get a full-season order from ABC, but with the decreasing ratings and the increasing ‘meh’ response from audiences, a second season may be doubtful. I for one hope it does happen, especially considering how unlucky Whedon shows have fared in the last decade (‘Firefly’ after only 1 season and ‘Dollhouse’ after 2).

Speaking of Winter Soldier…

Captain America: The Winter Soldier- First Trailer Review

The first thing that hit me about this trailer is that it seems to eliminate the biggest fear I have about this movie; if directors Joe and Anthony Russo could handle a big summer blockbuster (albeit one coming in April, but that’s beside the point) when they have been mostly known for television work. On that note, the action looks really incredible and the film looks great from a visual standpoint. My other big praise about this trailer is that the film really feels like a true sequel to ‘The Avengers’. No offense to ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Thor: The Dark World’ (I’m guessing not much S.H.I.E.L.D. involvement in the latter, though I won’t hold that against it) but considering the level of involvement that S.H.I.E.L.D. has in this film, this one feels the closest to being the follow-up to ‘Avengers’. I’m also interested in seeing how they handle the more political aspects of the story because Cap is not entirely supportive of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s methods as we saw in ‘The Avengers’.

My sole complaint is how they portray the Winter Soldier in this trailer. For those of you who haven’t read the comics, the Winter Soldier is actually Captain America’s best friend James Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) who apparently died in ‘First Avenger’. As you can see, he actually survived and is brainwashed to become an assassin. The trailer doesn’t make any mention about how Barnes is the Winter Soldier so unless you knew about it going in, you might not recognize who the Winter Soldier is. However, I’m pretty sure that they will establish the relationship between him and Cap in the movie. But aside from that, the movie looks very good and I think it actually has the potential to be the best of the Phase Two films.

A review of ‘Thor: The Dark World’ will be out soon.

Ender's Game (2013) review

When it was released in 1985, ‘Ender’s Game’ was a huge success, so much so that the United States Marine Corps, along with many other military organizations, have it listed on their recommended reading lists. But as far as getting a film adaptation for the story off the ground, that took a while because author Orson Scott Card believed that it was ‘unfilmable’. Something must have changed his mind over the last few years because now, in 2013, nearly 3 decades since the book was released, the film adaptation has finally hit theaters under the direction of Gavin Hood. I will admit that I went into this movie flying rather blind because I had not read the book. Also, I guess you can say I was rather nervous seeing how Hood’s last film was the god awful ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’. But as a whole, the film turned out quite good. Not only does Hood manage to redeem himself from his previous film, but it’s well-acted and while I can’t officially say whether it did a good job at representing its source material, the themes explored in the story are pretty thought-provoking.

In the year 2086, an alien race known as the Formics attempt to invade Earth. It was only through the efforts of commander Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) that the invasion was thwarted, preventing the invaders from taking over the planet. But, with another invasion likely, the International Fleet begins to train young children in the hopes of finding the next candidate to lead the Fleet against the Formics. Andrew ‘Ender’ Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), the youngest of three children in his family, is chosen by Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis) to join the cadets who are currently training at the elite ‘Battle School’. There, he is put to the test in a series of war-games and begins to not only gain the respect of his peers but prove to his superiors that he is the perfect candidate to lead the fight to save humanity.

From the perspective of someone who hasn’t read the book, it seems like this movie did a solid-enough job of staying faithful to the book. According to Scott Card, the main reason why he thought the book was ‘unfilmable’ was because ‘everything takes place in Ender’s head’. In that regard, some emotional resonance might be lost, but as a whole, the key themes of the book are still pretty relevant. The ideas that Card explores in this story are very interesting, like the effects of war not just on a whole society, but certain individuals as well. The ending in particular puts the main character of Ender in a situation that he doesn’t want to be in. For the sake of spoilers, I won’t give it away but it raises the question of whether or not one may view their actions as being the right thing to do. It’s quite a bold route that Card took and this translates well on the big screen.

As far as the film goes, Hood manages to move away from some of the problems that plagued his last film ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’. For the record, that film wasn’t entirely his fault (the material was sort of uninspired in the first place) but that film lacked proper direction. With this film, it has much better direction and the action scenes/visual effects are much better. The film also benefits from solid performances by the entire cast. In the lead role of Ender, Asa Butterfield carries the whole movie on his back and he does a great job at conveying Ender’s emotions. This kid is certainly up there amongst the better child actors working in Hollywood today. Harrison Ford is equally terrific in the role of Colonel Graff, giving a far more subdued performance than expected. As for the rest of the cast, they are excellent as well, but most of them (Viola Davis, Abigail Breslin, etc.) don’t exactly play big roles in the film.

I went into this film having not read the book, but now I’m very much intrigued to do so. Was this story ‘unfilmable’ like Orson Scott Card said? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Card mentioned that the main reason why the story would be hard to adapt because it mainly took place inside Ender’s head, so the writing may have lost some emotional resonance in the transition to film. But, compared to a film like ‘Cloud Atlas’, which went all over the place because of its multiple storylines, it seems like this story was rather easier to adapt to the big screen. The key ideas that are explored in this story are still there, and the ending in particular will leave you thinking. Casting is also quite excellent, with terrific performances all around, especially from Asa Butterfield and Harrison Ford. I’m not certain if this will lead the way for a new film series, mainly because the next entry in the series, ‘Speaker of the Dead’, takes place 3000 years after the events of ‘Ender’s Game’ with Ender being about 35 years old at that point. Will they try and do it right away and change it so that Butterfield can still play the role? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Rating: 4/5

2013 Preview: November

We are now two months away from the end of 2013 and the start of a new year of movies. Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s year-long preview of the films set to come out during 2013. This is Part 11 and today we’ll be looking at the lineup for the month of November 2013. There are quite a lot of films to talk about this month, including some blockbuster sequels, a couple of animated films (including Disney’s latest), and much more.

NOVEMBER 1- A trio of films open up the month, along with the nationwide expansion of a major awards contender.

*The first animated film of the month, ‘Free Birds’, is directed by Jimmy Hayward (director of 2009’s ‘Horton Hears a Who!’). The film focuses on two turkeys (voiced by Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson) that team up and steal a time machine to travel back in time in order to change history so that the turkey is no longer a staple of the Thanksgiving menu.

*Author Orson Scott Card’s 1985 best-selling novel ‘Ender’s Game’ gets its big-screen adaptation directed by Gavin Hood (‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’). After an alien race known as the Formics attack Earth, a group of young children are trained in order to find the next leader of the ‘International Fleet’. Hugo’s Asa Butterfield stars at the titular Ender alongside Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, and Viola Davis.

*A group of Hollywood legends headline ‘Last Vegas’, a comedy directed by Jon Turteltaub (‘National Treasure’). Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Kevin Kline, and Morgan Freeman star as a group of friends who head to Vegas for a bachelor party when Douglas’ character gets married.

*It seems like this year’s Oscar race will come down to two films; Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ and ’12 Years a Slave’, directed by Steve McQueen (‘Shame’). Based on the book of the same name by Solomon Northup, the latter film tells the tale of Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a violinist living with his family as a free man in New York in the year 1841. However, he is then forced into slavery in the South. The cast includes Michael Fassbender as Northup’s vicious slave owner, Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti, and more.

NOVEMBER 8- Only one film is set to open this week but hey, when that film’s a Marvel film, you can see why no one else wants to compete with it.

*The next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ‘Thor: The Dark World’, the sequel to 2011’s ‘Thor’, hits theaters as the second film in Marvel’s ‘Phase Two’. Chris Hemsworth reprises his role as the titular Asgardian God of Thunder, as he fights to save the Nine Realms from a new threat; the Dark Elves led by Malekith the Accursed (Christopher Eccleston). The majority of the main cast from the first film, including Natalie Portman as Thor’s love interest Jane Foster, Tom Hiddleston as Thor’s brother/nemesis Loki, and Anthony Hopkins as their father Odin, return to reprise their roles from the previous film and are joined in this film by Eccleston, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, and Zachary Levi (Levi replacing Joshua Dallas in the role of Fandral).

NOVEMBER 15- Again, only one film this time; this one being a sequel to a film that came out 14 years ago.

*Malcolm D. Lee, cousin of Spike Lee, directed a romantic dramedy in 1999 called ‘The Best Man’. Now, 14 years after that film was released, Lee and the main cast of the original film (Taye Diggs, Morris Chestnut, and Regina Hall among others) return for ‘The Best Man Holiday’.

NOVEMBER 22- The next entry in the Hunger Games franchise goes up against a Vince Vaughn comedy.

*Vince Vaughn stars in ‘Delivery Man’, a remake of director Ken Scott’s 2011 film ‘Starbuck’. Vaughn plays a man who learns that, through being a sperm donor, he has fathered over 500 children. When most of them try to sue the sperm bank in order to reveal this information, he must decide whether or not he should come forward about it. Chris Pratt and Cobie Smulders co-star.

*The first film adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ best-selling book series, ‘The Hunger Games’, opened to very positive reviews and almost 700 million at the box office when it opened back in March 2012. Its first sequel, ‘Catching Fire’, will hit theaters this weekend. Francis Lawrence (‘I Am Legend’, who will also helm the final two films, ‘Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2’) takes over directing duties from Gary Ross for the film, which finds Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) caught in a rebellion that is brewing in the districts of Panem following their victory in the 74^th annual Hunger Games. Woody Harrelson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, and Lenny Kravitz return with most of the original cast and are joined by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Sam Claflin, and Jena Malone.

NOVEMBER 27 (Wednesday):  The biggest week of the month starts early with 4 major releases, including Disney’s newest film and an American remake of a Japanese classic.

*Director Spike Lee’s newest film, ‘Oldboy’, is a remake of the 2003 South Korean film of the same name. Josh Brolin stars as a man who is imprisoned for years, eventually seeking revenge against those responsible once he gets out. The film also stars Sharlto Copley, Elizabeth Olsen, and Samuel L. Jackson.

*The latest Disney film, ‘Frozen’, is based off of the fairy tale ‘The Snow Queen’ by Hans Christian Andersen, author of ‘The Little Mermaid’. The film is co-directed by Chris Buck (co-director of Tarzan) and Jennifer Lee (screenwriter for ‘Wreck-it Ralph’). The film follows Anna (Kristen Bell), a princess of the land of Arendelle, who has to team up with a mountain man named Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and a snowman named Olaf (Josh Gad) to find her sister Elsa (Idina Menzel), the other princess of Arendelle who has the ability to create snow and ice who, after having gone into hiding, caused an eternal winter across the land. The film will feature songs written by Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (‘Avenue Q’).

*While not starring in it, Sylvester Stallone produced and wrote the screenplay for ‘Homefront’, an action-thriller starring Jason Statham as a DEA agent who comes into contact with a group of drug traffickers led by a meth kingpin named Gator (James Franco). The film also stars Winona Ryder and Kate Bosworth.

*Finally, there’s ‘Black Nativity’, which is an adaptation of a retelling of the Nativity story with a black cast originally written by Langston Hughes. The cast includes Forest Whitaker, Angela Bassett, and Jennifer Hudson.

And that’s the film lineup for November 2013. Come back next month for the final part of this year-long preview where we’ll take a look at December’s lineup of movies.