Kong: Skull Island (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 118 minutes
Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Writers: John Gatins (story), Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein and Derek Connolly (screenplay)
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Corey Hawkins, John Ortiz

Kong: Skull Island is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

King Kong gets yet another turn on the remake wheel with Kong: Skull Island- an alternate story with astounding special effects and impressive cast who are let down by the mediocracy of it's unintentionally comedic screenplay.

Set in 1971 with a striking visual resemblance and hero-worship of Apocalypse Now, Kong: Skull Island  sees a group of scientists and soldiers make their way into uncharted territory in the South Pacific where several planes have gone missing. It does not take long for the group to realise that they have been fooled and instead sent on a deadly mission to a place where prehistoric terrors rule the roost and the giant Kong is the king.  

It is impossible to make a King Kong film in this day and age on a minimal scale. With the advances that are continuously being made in CGI in cinema, we must accept the inevitable, which is that we are going to see more and more remade action films, particularly ones involving giant monsters such as Kong and Godzilla. So it really isn't a surprise that another reimagining of King Kong has been produced whether it was actually needed or not.

Therefore, with the days of making B grade action films or monster story sequels on a shoe string budget gone, Kong: Skull Island has not surprisingly been blessed with a $185 million budget and done wonders with it. The film is a spectacular visual extravaganza which features a larger Kong than we have ever seen before and he is an extremely impressive creation. Kong's island is inhabited by a number of primeval creatures who are all lifelike and terrifying thanks to the fantastic CGI employed in this film. The action sequences which feature these monsters are especially awe-inspiring visually, yet a little lack-lustre when slotted into the story.

Visually, Kong: Skull Island is everything a blockbuster should be. It's an incredible shame that it's screenplay cannot support it's weight. Unlike it's exterior, the script is of B-grade quality. The dialogue is clunky, predictable and, for the most part, unintentionally funny, as is the case with many of the events in the film. When you are not belly laughing at the lunacy of some of the scenes in the film (such as the Skull Crawlers and the camera flash), complete boredom sets in. Unfortunately this plagues Kong: Skull Island right from the very beginning when you are hoping that things will become more exciting once they actually reach the island. But no.

The screenplay does however, pay homage to the original King Kong story with such inclusions as Kong being restrained by chains and Brie Larson's Mason Weaver being the beauty who tames the beast. Yet, this is the only similarity the female heroine shares with Fay Wray's Ann Darrow in 1933 and again when Naomi Watts played her in the Peter Jackson remake in 2005. Mason is a stronger female character than her predecessors and Larson brings to her a raw, but spellbinding quality with her natural wit and charisma. However, the film as a whole is a waste of her talents, as it is for Tom Hiddleston also. Considering Hiddleston is given top-billing, he is actually given very little to do and a terrible lack of character and character development.

And it's an action movie....needs a bit more sass, wit and entertainment...of course Samuel L. Jackson MUST be part of the cast! In recent times, Jackson has just became a caricature of himself and his mutters of "mother f**ker" and "bitch please" are so sub-standard for any film that he is in that it does not have the desired impact in Kong: Skull Island nor makes him seem as bad-ass as he once did. His performance is just so over the top Jackson-esque that it just encourages one massive eye-roll.

Despite the overwhelming temptation the filmmakers must have felt to use the CGI now available to us, Kong: Skull Island really did not need to be made and it's mediocrity says this loud and clear.

4.5/10

Crimson Peak (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Writers: Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain, Charlie Hunnam

Crimson Peak is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Universal Pictures.

Guillermo del Toro's Crimson Peak has an incredibly creative and beautiful sense of self visually with it's atmospheric gothic recreation of nineteenth century New York and England.  However, with no narrative sense of individuality or unpredictability, the film that would seem to be perfection at the hands of fantasy/horror master del Toro is an unfortunate mash up of past films and is so much so that it loses its identity as a story.

Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) has been confronted by the harsh reality of death in life since she was a young girl and has been haunted by the restless from beyond the grave since the death of her mother. She is quite taken by an English stranger, Thomas Sharpe ( Tom Hiddleston) who stirs up life in the New York home she shares with her father (Jim Beaver). A tragic turn of events leads Edith to accept Thomas' marriage proposal and move to his family home of Allerdale Hall in rural England which he shares with his hostile sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastain). Upon her arrival, Edith is greeted by many of the ghosts which haunt her new home and their presence opens a terrifying past that involves her new family.

Gothic horror is often craved by cinema goers who want to experience the old-fashioned atmospheric mode of the genre that used to be so terrifying in the early days of cinema. Unfortunately this sub-genre has not seen much success in the past decade due to the observation that while the production design has got progressively better, the screenplays have lacked intrigue and creativity. The majority of successful and remotely original and unpredictable horror films seen in recent times have been those set in the present and reasonably low budget. Crimson Peak comes at a time when audiences are thirsty for a scary film with a historical backbone to it and with a stellar cast and Guillermo del Toro at the reins, was anticipated to fill the void.

So there is a great deal of disappointment when Crimson Peak is incredible to look at, but predictable and does not hold suspense well right from the beginning. The film has a wonderful sense of identity through it's visuals. which does in fact make it a memorable experience. The production design by Thomas E. Sanders is absolutely exquisite, particularly of Allerdale Hall and it's interiors. Every room within the great house is visually intriguing with it's period appropriate features and perfect symmetry which make them delightful to behold on screen. The costume design by Kate Hawley is also most attractive. The design aspects of the film work incredibly well to give a superb nostalgic atmosphere and make it an aesthetic treat.

The incredible design does seem a waste in a film that really isn't sure what it is. Like the book which Edith is writing, the film makers claim that Crimson Peak is not a horror film even though it has ghosts in it, but a gothic romance. If this is so, it is an example of a romance with minimal romantic chemistry or tension and very little reference to love between husband and wife, but more so between brother and sister. Crimson Peak could perhaps be classified more as a mystery with the inclusion of some terrifying images during it. The screenplay pulls inspiration from a number of horror films from the past and this leads even more so to it's lack of creativity and identity. The majority of comparisons story wise seem to be being made between Crimson Peak and the 1940 Academy Award winner, Rebecca. However, the comparison between the two is only fragmented after one gets past the idea that they are both set in big houses which a woman's new husband has inherited and the slight similarities of their pasts. With some aspects of Rebecca, Crimson Peak becomes a story with the influences of other films such as The Haunting, The Woman in Black (or more likely from the novel the film is based on) and 1995's Haunted. Del Toro and Matthew Robbins screenplay feels more like a collection of pieces of other horror films thrown together and although it avoids feeling messy, does not feel creative or unpredictable in the slightest. The film relies more upon it's visuals of supernatural beings to create tension and suspense rather than it's story, which leads to moments of suspense being sporadic.

While the screenplay brings the film down, the talented cast do the very best with what they are presented with. Mia Wasikowska does very well in her role as Edith Cushing with a real emotional edge to her performance and ability to grasp the inner terror felt by her character. Jessica Chastain embraces the cold and hostile nature of her character, Lucille Sharp and does not falter for a moment during the film out of her terrifying nature, while Tom Hiddleston is awfully charismatic as Thomas Sharp.

Crimson Peak is incredibly intriguing and memorable from a production and design point of view, but lacks screenplay strength and originality. It's release time is perfectly scheduled to coincide with Halloween as if all else fails, it does provide some pretty terrifying ghostly images.

5/10

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 123 minutes
Director: Jim Jarmusch
Writer: Jim Jarmusch
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, Mia Wasikowska, Anton Yelchin, John Hurt

Jim Jarmusch's Only Lovers Left Alive is a beautifully entrancing film like no other. It attempts the complex task of marrying the traditional with the modern in it's creative take on a popular cultural phenomenon and due to Jarmusch's incredible direction and vision results in something truly elegant. While there have been no lack of creature of the night films in recent times, Only Lovers Left Alive is not only an unique interpretation of how they live in today's society, but also a love story which is wonderfully portrayed by Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston.

Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton) have been married for centuries and even though it is clear that one cannot live without the other, Adam lives in Detroit, Michigan while Eve lives in Tangiers, Morocco. As Adam, who is a reclusive musician with fans who are desperate to find out more about him, becomes increasingly depressed with the direction the world is heading in due to the human race, Eve agrees to join him in Detroit to calm his emotions. The two live a seemingly idyllic life together until  Eve's disruptive and meddling younger sister, Ava (Mia Wasikowska) arrives from Los Angeles to spell trouble.

Only Lovers Left Alive gives a completely different take on these immortal beings without neglecting the traditional features one has come to associate with them. Adam and Eve are indeed creatures of the night as the whole film takes place in their waking hours after dark, they of course drink blood and they possess all the physical features that vampires are known for. Yet these traditional aspects are adjusted for the present times. For most of the characters, their way of attaining blood is a lot less barbaric than it was in the past and they carry their feed in a flask, and they all wear sunglasses when venturing into lighted spaces. The characters also talk about times past mentioning such historical figures as Shakespeare and Einstein, but they are not removed from the present. In particular, Adam longs for the past, but he is very much caught up in the present with his music. There is an incredibly beautiful scene in which Adam is in his house filled with guitars and modern day instruments when he picks up a violin and starts to play. This vision of Adam playing the violin is perhaps the most classic and traditional image of a vampire in recent times and is as refreshing as it is nostalgic. Jarmusch has successfully made the link between the vampire tales of old and the present resulting in the film being classic but modern.

The production side of the film is near perfect. Visually, it is incredibly intriguing. The opening sequence of a 360 rotation of the night sky which becomes a vinyl being played and then turns into our first glimpses of Adam and Eve from above is the perfect beginning to an extremely atmospheric film. The location shots of both suburban after dark Detroit and Tangiers completely capture the essence of both cities and the cities themselves are seen from the most interesting angles, which are perfect for the characters. Every visual of the film carries a dark and mysterious feeling and it doesn't break this atmosphere for it's entirety. The soundtrack is also extremely fitting to the film. It adds to the overall atmosphere by being haunting, but also very laid back and cool.

However one must not forget that Only Lovers Left Alive is first and foremost a love story. It is the story of two people who have been in love and married for centuries and have seen the world change together. They know what it takes to make a marriage that has endured for so long last and as a result are still very much in love. There is an overwhelming amount of chemistry between Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston. Their timeless love radiates off the screen and the two work as one whenever they are onscreen together. Swinton is wonderful as Eve and Hiddleston is so charismatic as Adam. He absolutely embodies the depressed character who is torn between his love for specific things in the present and his longing for the past. Hiddleston is the ultimate rock star.

Only Lovers Left Alive is the type of film you really can't get enough of, and will still remain as intriguingly exquisite with multiple viewings.

9/10

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

 

Year: 2013

Running Time: 120 minutes

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard, Chris O'Dowd, Idris Elba, Christopher Eccleston

 

Thor: The Dark World is now showing in Australia and the United Kingdom. Opening in the USA on the 8th November 2013.

There was never any doubt that Thor: The Dark World was going to reminiscent of it's predecessor, which was just a little bit corny, but still a lot of fun.

And it has proved itself to be just that. However, it has avoided the pitfall that many sequels tend to fall into, which is the "The sequel is never as good as the first" category. That isn't to say that Thor: The Dark World is better than the first film, but it is also not noticeably worse than it. Sequel business aside, it is also surprisingly comical and, not so surprisingly, action packed.

Years ago, the Dark Elves entered into battle to return the universe to the dark it was once in, but using an element called Aether. Since then the Dark Elves have been banished and are only awakened when Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) finds the Aether and has it enter her body. Jane hasn't seen Thor (Chris Hemsworth) since he left her in the first film, but he returns to her as soon as he believes she is in danger. He takes her to Asgard to keep her safe and in his sights while the Dark Elves are after her. However, there is one ally Thor needs more than anybody else in these times, and that is his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who, of course, is locked in the dungeon after trying to destroy the world.

Thor: The Dark World is by all means what you would expect from it. It is more about the action, spectacle and entertainment than about the dramatic, realistic and sentimental. The action sequences sure are impressive, especially the final showdown set in Greenwich. The CGI used to create Asgard and it's surroundings is very well done, although Asgard seems to have suddenly become a cross between a cross between Rivendell from The Lord of The Rings and Naboo from Star Wars. There is also a scene between Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth which is almost visually identical to one in Attack of the Clones between her and Hayden Christensen.

As was the case with the original Thor, the script is as corny as can be. Thor himself seems to be a corny character in general, which can often come with the territory of being a buff and handsome god. He is not particularly a character who has cinematically been represented in a serious light, so the amount of humour in the script seems appropriate. While the first half of Thor: The Dark World tends to be somewhat mediocre as not much really happens, the second hour is much better as there is more humour, action and more of Tom Hiddleston's Loki. There is so much humour that the film somewhat borders on a comedy. However, the comedy in the film does work and proves rather enjoyable and entertaining.

Even though Hemsworth's Thor is the star of the film, the film has it's best moments when Tom Hiddleston is on screen. Loki is an extremely complex character. He obviously has an evil past, but this doesn't change the fact that you never quite know what his motives are. Hiddleston makes Loki into a character which the audience feels a real connection with and he is truly the highlight of the film.

Hemsworth does well enough, but his character, as opposed to Loki's is very one-dimensional and nto quite as interesting. Natalie Portman does well as Jane Foster, but often falls into the corniness that Thor does, as one would guess considering she is his love interest. Kat Dennings is also very funny as Darcy and like Hiddleston, doesn't have a bad scene in the whole film. Chris O'Dowd is also on screen for a very short amount of time, but is memorable for his well delivered comedic dialogue.

Thor: The Dark World achieves exactly what it sets out to do as it is entertaining and enjoyable for the most part. Perhaps not the best and most original action production in recent times, but still has some moments worth seeing the film for.

6.5/10



You may have also seen Chris Hemsworth in.....
Thor and The Avengers as Thor
Rush as James Hunt

You may have also seen Tom Hiddleston in....
Thor and The Avengers as Loki
Midnight In Paris as F. Scott Fitzgerald

You may have also seen Natalie Portman in.....
Thor as Jane Foster
Black Swan as Nina Sayers

The Avengers (2012)

The Avengers

Year: 2012

Director: Joss Whedon

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston

Before I begin my review….

                How cool is the idea behind The Avengers?

                It’s absolutely no wonder that the movie created so much interest and had so many fans even before it premiered. How often is it these days that you throw all these movie characters into one film? OK…yes I know. There is the horror film trend of such films as Freddy vs Jason and Alien vs Predator which has its fans and haters.  I remember when I was about 8 there was a cartoon special where all these cartoon characters were put into one show to help the fight against kids taking drugs, but these are the only instances I can think of with the throwing of characters usually not related into one show.

                But The Avengers? It is an action film fans dream! Even if you are not huge on the superhero genre, you can’t help but be interested by this prospect of placing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Hulk in one film.

                And you know what one of the coolest things is? The Avengers is actually better than some of the films which are solely about its characters.  So if you didn’t like the film originally about one of these characters, it’s definitely not a sure thing that you are going to feel the same way about The Avengers. Of course having a different director is a good start for that.

                Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t someone make a film with super bitches from films all in one? I’d love to see Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada take on Faye Dunaway’s Joan Crawford from Mommie Dearest and we would just chuck in there Bette Davis’s Baby Jane Hudson from What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?

                That will never happen…..because Davis is no longer with us, but I am sure we can think of some other movie bitches we can throw in there to watch a massive war of words cat fight on the big screen!

Review

                It’s the film superhero fans have been hanging out for and it does not disappoint.

                The Avengers is a whole lot of fun for anyone whether you are a superhero fan or not. It is a concept that could have been just a big cheese ball, but it surprisingly is not.

                For those of you who saw the 2011 Thor, you will be familiar with Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) brother who has an evil streak. Loki has made his way to Earth with plans to take over the world. The ever present Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assembles a group of superheros consisting of Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers/ Captain America (Chris Evans), Natasha Romanoff/ The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Bruce Banner/ The Hulk ( Mark Ruffalo). It isn’t long before Thor also joins the quest on Earth to ensure his brother doesn’t destroy mankind on this planet.

                Superhero movies have a reputation of being extremely cheesy, so you could expect a film with four well known superheroes in it to be so. However, although predictable, there really isn’t much to roll your eyes at in The Avengers. This is a result of a cleverly written script by director, Joss Whedon. The script just makes the whole concept come together and achieves the optimum result. It is still a superhero action film which isn’t realistic at all, but doesn’t seem completely over the top and the way it is presented to you actually does make you believe that what you are seeing could maybe happen (even though common sense tells you it won’t).

                Another good thing about this film is that you would also expect that with so many big characters thrown into one movie it could become messy and have too much going on. Again, this is not the case. Each character holds their own and you know a bit about every character, but Whedon hasn’t written the script so that one superhero gets more screen time than another or that there are too many stories going on at once. The film sticks to its path and each character adds to outcome in their own way. It is easy to understand and not messy at all.

                The only problem one may have is that if you haven’t seen the other films which these characters are in, you may feel a bit lost. It does help to have prior knowledge of who Loki and Thor are (as not everyone studied Norse mythology at school), why Captain America is the way he is and who is Tony Stark. Otherwise the characters may be slightly lost on you.

                The script also has some very funny moments. Of course, being a superhero action film, its main focus is the special effects and action sequences. These are very impressive as one may expect and spending the extra to see The Avengers in 3D wouldn’t be a waste of money.

                The acting isn’t the main focus of the film, but there isn’t really a bad performance in the film. Robert Downey Jr. is at his witty and comedic best as Tony Stark/ Iron Man and is always great fun to watch. Mark Ruffalo is also very good as Bruce Banner/ The Hulk, giving a performance as the man who battles his inner demons, or inner big green monster.

                However, it is Tom Hiddleston who is the stand out in this film. Hiddleston is one of those actors who has been in the business for a long time, but seems like he has just come out of nowhere with how many films he has been in as of late. He does evil well and is a pleasure to watch.

                The Avengers, although having much hype, is not a let down. It is one of the best action blockbusters you will see this season and just a whole load of fun.

7.5/10

Midnight In Paris

Year: 2011

Director:  Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, Adrien Brody

Before I begin my review…..

You know, there is a difference between thinking a film is a good film and truly liking it. Of course the two can usually come hand in hand with each other, but you can walk away from a film saying “Yes, it was good”, but it is different to walk away and saying “I really loved that film!”

Being a reviewer, I see many films that I know are great films and because I am a fan of great film, I do like them. Yet that doesn’t mean that I am going to put the film on my list of all-time favourite films.

On my list of favourite films, there are many films which I would consider great film, others which I know perfectly well won’t end up on any “Greatest Films Of All Time” lists…except mine. These are the films which you think are great films, but you have that extra emotional attachment to them because they strike an interest with you or you can relate to them.

Why am I talking about this? Because I loved Midnight In Paris! It is a good film, not one of the best films at the year or a contender for the Academy Awards (but I wouldn’t mind seeing it as one!), but it had a lot of me in it. I love the city of Paris, I loved all the literary and art maestro’s in the film and I love films that take you back to the glory days or yesteryear. Yes, I do want to live in Paris in the 1920’s. And if I do, I want to look and dress like Marion Cotillard.

Here is my review…

Review

It’s been a long time since Woody Allen has made a critically acclaimed film and you may have heard that Midnight In Paris is his best film in decades. You may like to know that this is true.

Woody Allen is completely back to form in Midnight In Paris. He has discharged the trends in the films he has made in the past 10 years which were still selling cinema tickets, but clearly not working for him. Midnight In Paris is subtle but charming and very sweet. It is almost like a modern day fairy tale with the all-important moral of the story at the end. New territory for Allen, but it works.

                Hollywood screen writer, Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams) are on a trip to Paris. Gil, who is struggling to write his first novel, falls in love with the city, while Inez is quite the opposite and doesn’t romanticize Paris the way her fiancé does, except if it includes her friends and in particular old flame, Paul (Michael Sheen). Gil decides to take a night walk back to their hotel while Inez goes out dancing, and he finds that Paris comes alive at midnight.

                It is completely obvious within the first five minutes that Allen is in love with Paris the same way he is with New York. His montage of Parisian landmarks and Parisian life is a wonderful way to set the scene and make the audience fall in love with the city.  His cinematography of the city is loving and beautiful.

                People who are not fans of Allen’s past work will still enjoy Midnight In Paris, as it is completely different from the majority of his films. It hasn’t got the same “weird” vibe as most people describe his films as having. It is a load of fun, and helps if you know a bit about great writers and artists of the early twentieth century to make it all the more fun. Some people may find it all just a bit silly and the concept completely ludicrous, but there is no doubt it is entertaining.

                The script is very clever for a subject which is actually quite simple when it comes down to it. The concept of going back in time is not a new one, but it seems completely fresh in this film and Allen does a wonderful job of recreating both turn of the century Paris and 1920’s Paris.

                What the best thing about Owen Wilson’s role in this film as opposed to his past roles, is that he comes across a lot more natural than usual. He is often criticised for giving forced roles where she seems like he is trying too hard to be funny, but here he is just completely at ease. He gives one of his best performances in years.

                Wilson and Rachel McAdams are completely mismatched on screen, which means that they have achieved their objective. Unfortunately, she is not quite as believable as the hard to handle fiancé. She seems like she still really wants to be nice so her performance does feel forced.

                Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston are a real treat as Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Adrien Brody is hilarious as Salvador Dali. Marion Cotillard is charming as usual and completely at home in her city of Paris.

                A wonderful treat, especially for those who love Paris.

8.5/10

Thor

Thor
Year: 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Tom Hiddleston

In My Own Words
It's amazing what "Home & Away" does for Australian actors. For those who don't know, "Home & Away" is an Australian drama series that airs every weeknight at 7pm in Australia and has been doing so since 1988.  I once had an actress friend who said that she never wanted to go on "Home & Away" because it was "trash"....funnily enough she never made it very far in her chosen profession as I haven't heard of her since . As much as people such as this past "actress" like to bag out "Home & Away", it does provide up and coming actors with a fantastic stepping stone to future international success.  I'm not saying that if you take part in "Home & Away", you are definately going to become a Hollywood star, but for the ones who really want to take the big leap and try their luck in Hollywood it must look great on their resume. Let's look at some past "Home & Away" actors, shall we? Isla Fisher played Shannon from 1994-1997 and is has been in films such as "Wedding Crashers" and "Confessions Of A Shopaholic", not to mention being Sacha Baron Cohen's wife and the mother of his child. Isabel Lucas of "Transformers" fame's first role was as Tasha for four years in "Home & Away". Melissa George, who has had several successful Hollywood roles in the remake of "The Amityville Horror" and "Derailed" as well as television roles in "Grey's Anatomy" and "In Treatment". Ryan Kwanten started off his career on "Home & Away" as well as bad boy Vinnie. The list goes on and on. The star of "Thor", Chris Hemsworth, is also a "Home & Away" alumni. I remember I once saw Hemsworth walking along a street in Sydney while I was out at my work Christmas party one year. He's come a long way since then! And, like many other Australian actors, he has "Home & Away" to thank for kick starting his career!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
"Thor" is reminiscent of what the old action/fantasy movies used to be like, yet still has the characteristics of a Marvel Comic production. Largely carried by extremely impressive special effects, but is still a big cheeseball. "Thor" is definately amazing as far as the visuals go and there are some great moments in the narrative, but there are still some momentsin the script and direction which instigate a roll of the eyes. It is an interesting project for Kenneth Branagh as looking over his past directorial career, "Thor" is his first attempt at a comic book adaptation or an action spectacular. He is no stranger to Shakespearean cinema and there are indeed some Shakespearean references in "Thor". In Short, "Thor" highlights Branagh's strong points as a director and his low points. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has always dreamt of the day when he will be crowned king of Asgard. His father, the current king Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is about to crown him king when their long time enemies, the Frost Giant's bring havoc to Asgard so Thor goes after them without his fathers permission. Odin is so furious with his son that he banishes him to Earth, where Thor meets scientist, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Thor tries to get back to Asgard, but finds out that his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is working against him and will do anything to no let his brother back into Asgard so he can be king.

"Thor" is very much a touch and go situation. There are some really wonderful things about it and some other things that, as said before, just make you want to roll your eyes. It could almost be divided into two movies. One is a great action film set in the a fantasy world where a great battle is taking place, while the other film is a lack lustre and corny romance story set in New Mexico. The first movie is really quite spectacular to see on the big screen. The graphics are absolutely outstanding and completely bewildering, especially if you see this film in 3D. Asgard is almost like a cross between the Emerald City (except gold)in "The Wizard Of Oz" and Naboo in "Star Wars" and has the elegance and grace of ancient civilizations. The cinematography is wonderful throughout all the scenes in "Thor", as is the editing in the action sequences. Yet, there is the problems of the script. Of course it is corny in the way that comic book films are so it is forgiven for that reason. It would be a worry if there was a comic book adaptation trying to be completely serious and dramatic. Branagh has got this part right. Although it is a lot cornier on Earth than Asgard. The romance between Thor and Jane is very comic book romance. Absolutely over done, predictable and cheesy. But hey, thats comic book romances for you!

After seeing "Black Swan", it was almost like a feeling of finally being able to exhale seeing Natalie Portman in this film. Her performance is nowhere near the intensity of that of Nina in "Black Swan" and it is so lovely to see her in a role like this. It is an exceptionally easy one for her and she seems very natural and at ease herself. Chris Hemsworth isn't too bad, but again is very comic book hero corny on Earth. When he is in Asgard, his acting is actually a fair percentage better than on Earth, especially when he is fighting with his father. Anthony Hopkins is flawless as usual and adds emotion and intensity to the film. Not a bad word can be said about Tom Hiddleston. He's perhaps not as evil as what he could be, but that isn't something that remains in your mind when you leave the cinema. Kat Dennings is a great addition to the film and adds humour as Jane's sidekick, Darcy.

"Thor" is a typical comic book movie crossed with the grand spectacle, historical action film. It is just good entertainment. Not a dramatic masterpiece like Branagh is used to directing, but still good viewing. Cheeseball fun.
6.5/10