Thor

I make it a rule not to catch a movie without at least having checked the critical consensus. I make exceptions for must-see movies - like most Steven Spielberg movies or next year's The Dark Knight Rises - but in general, I don't like movies to disappoint me; I care about them too much. Then Thor opened here in Sydney, Australia, last Wednesday in time for Easter holidays, a full two weeks earlier than everywhere else. I weighed my chances, and I decided to brave the odds and catch it without having read a single review on it.

Come to think of it, this was to be my first time in a cinema in close to a year. The last time I was a movie in a darkened cinema was last July (the movie was Inception). So today, I was a little surprised that the Events Cinema on George St didn't have a regular 2-D screening for Thor. And then I was shocked to find that a student ticket for a 3-D screening costs $19 (which would make an adult ticket now costing $22 plus a $3 surcharge for the 3-D). Since when are movies so fucking expensive?

While walking to the theatre, a pedestrian started coughing with his mouth wide open, spittle spraying in the night air. It was strange. In the theater, a patron sitting nearby saw it fit to take his/her shoes off, releasing a dank waft emanating around the sardine-tin theatre seats. It was insane. Then the previews started... and just wouldn't end. An 8:30pm screening didn't really start until 8:50. What's the world coming to?

To end the suspense, Thor the movie wasn't bad. I'd give it a solid B. The 3-D sucked. I never really appreciated 3-D movies. I only half-liked them in Avatar, which by far is the only honourable attempt to use 3-D so far, where 3-D graphics were well-used to show depth in panoramas and establishing shots, but not when showing quick actions in the foreground. Not much has changed since 2009, only that with Thor (as with every movie between now and 2012's The Amazing Spiderman), the 3-D was grafted in post-production, which meant it could only get worse. It did. 3-D here was forced into scenes shot with human actors by separating the depth-of-field into different layers within the frame. So instead of seeing a character's body or facial contours being enhanced through depth, they remain flat, but they are juxtaposed against another character's flat body or face which has been pushed back against our field of vision. So what we tended to have was 3 layers of flat images, one behind the other. To an average movie-goer, that would undoubtedly be distracting. I was downright annoyed.

But the movie itself wasn't bad. It's not as great or fresh as the original Iron Man movie, but better than Iron Man 2. I'd say it's more or less on par with 2009's The Incredible Hulk.
Thor was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who have had ample experience with handling Shakespearean tragedies and pathos, and is certainly an interesting (if not inspired) choice to helm this movie about Norse Gods and Men, albeit with a comic book twist. As far as plot goes, though, Thor is very thin. It's half a comic-book action movie, and half a fish-out-of-water movie, and in between you have short, occasionally awkward, occasionally pointless, occasionally funny expositions. But that's fine. Say all you want, but if it underachieved in story and characters, it more than made up for it in its lush set designs, cinematography and art direction. I especially liked the scenes in Asgard, where set designs and costumes were nothing short of breathtaking, imbuing the production with a sense of grandeur and class that lingered. This is one well-imagined, well-shot movie.

Thank Godness for Anthony Hopkins whose presence gave the movie half its weight in terms of acting. Chris Hemsworth, the latest of Australian exports to Hollywood, is physically impressive but nothing more - not his fault really, the script didn't give him a chance. Natalie Portman, though I like her a lot, is awful as Jane Foster. Ms Portman's scientific work (she graduated from Harvard with a degree in psychology) might have been befitting the awful subtitles on her character poster "The Woman of Science", but we look for a character's soul first and her research credentials second - her Jane Foster had neither. Tom Hiddleston has somewhat better effect as Loki, Thor's brother, though Branagh seemed to have no idea how to present this character. Other supporting characters really have no other reason in being there than to act as set-pieces for action or comedy - they come and go at the behest of the editor. For cameos, we had Rene Russo, Jeremy Renner, Idris Elba, and Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still.

All in all, did I enjoy Thor? Yes. I laughed heartily at some of the jokes. I admired the look of the film a lot. Branagh doesn't have a flair for shooting action sequences, but that's not a big impediment in this case because a hammer-wielding hero with God-like powers does not submit himself to prolonged battle sequences. I'll definitely see the movie again in DVD which would spare me the 3-D distraction, irritating previews, and rude patrons. On an unrelated note, after this movie, I wondered if Anthony Hopkins was ever offered the role for Dumbledore in Harry Potter. I would have loved to see that. And Kat Dennings. Someone give Kat Dennings a real role in a real movie. Please.