This is not a happy time to be a movie fan who no longer gets carded in bars.
Take this weekend’s opening of “Thor” on four thousand screens-a release which reflects the industry’s increasing reliance on that forbidden joy of my childhood – the comic book – to justify its existence.
Now before I earn the sobriquet of “film snob” once again, let me state that I don’t hate all comic book movies. I’m a fan of the first two “Spiderman” entries, and the first “Iron Man“, because beyond the whiz-bang effects, they actually had fairly good scripts and good acting. You remember those things, right?
By contrast, here’s just one piece of dialogue, representing a dramatic high-point, between Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins):
Odin: You are a vain, greedy, cruel boy!
Thor: And you’re an old man- and a fool!
Wow- be still my heart!
What’s troubling is that these fundamentals of script and performance don’t seem to count for much anymore. Many of the nation’s critics, it seems, readily drank the “Thor” Kool-Aid.
Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman cites the movie’s “stirring emotional core”, while Megan Lehmann from The Hollywood Reporter was even more rhapsodic, claiming that Thor “provides an introduction befitting the mighty God of Thunder.”
USA Today’s Claudia Puig gushed: “It takes a director known for his Shakespearian acumen (Kenneth Branagh) to make a spectacular summer action movie filled with epic battles and familial struggles.” (Really, Claudia? Well, if you say so…)
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe’s Ty Burr provided the most inscrutable praise, saying it “gave mediocrity a good name.”
Is that a good thing , Ty? A movie that elevates mediocrity?
It makes one think about the value and trustworthiness of some critics these days, that old suspicion of their sitting on the same bed as- if not actually being in bed with- the folks who make the movies. Think about it: if more people go to the movies, their jobs are more secure, right? And let’s not forget that the studios do advertise- a lot- in the media outlets that pay these folks.
I raise this because in the subtext of many positive reviews there are telling disclaimers: e.g, the movie is less effective when it hits Earth; Hemsworth, the new star, is impressively muscle-bound but charisma-wise, no Robert Downey, Jr.; the 3-D aspect is under-utilized; Natalie Portman has too little to do; it all feels a bit by the numbers, etc. But overall, um- even with these caveats, kids (read: and the kid in all of us) should enjoy it.
Drink the Kool-Aid. Buy the ticket. Celebrate mediocrity!
One reviewer I do respect and refer to often-and who appears to have screened a different movie entirely- is the senior critic of The New York Times, A.O. Scott. In his scathing critique last Friday (“Have Golden Locks, Seeking Hammer“), he got at the heart of the malaise currently dominating the once-proud (or at least prouder) feature film business in Hollywood.
First, Scott speaks of “Thor” as being “not distinctively bad, but axiomatically bad…an example of the programmed triumph of commercial calculation over imagination.”
After watching a post-film preview of “The Avengers“, an upcoming cinematic cavalcade of super-heroes including Thor, Iron Man, and the Incredible Hulk, he really goes for the jugular, condemning the formulaic, franchise-driven orientation of Hollywood: “…the tactic of treating the price of a ticket as an installment-plan payment has more in common with a Ponzi scheme. The purpose of putting this movie in theaters is to make sure you and all your friends go to the next one, and then the one after that.”
Devastatingly, Scott goes on to complete the thought: “Nothing…is the least bit memorable, and I suspect that is not an accident. If you can’t remember what you saw, then there’s no harm in seeing it again. There is no reason to go to this movie, which may be another way of saying there’s no reason not to…as a business plan it’s probably fool-proof.”
In blunt contrast to those of his colleagues riding this latest, mindless wave of movie “entertainment” with halfhearted praise that comes close to patronizing the audience it’s meant to serve. A.O. Scott is willing to write the truth- not only about “Thor” itself, but about the state of the industry that created it.
For the best movies available for viewing at home or on-the-go, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com
To see John’s videos for WNET-Channel 13, go to www.reel13.org
Ouch… Mr. Scott is not very kind in his critique. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I plan on doing it soon, in 3D, Kool-Aid or not. There have been very few movies that I have let a critic talk me out of seeing and I’d estimate that 60% of the time I’ve enjoyed the film, no matter what the critic said.
I’ll watch Thor because I’m one of those old school otaku who wouldn’t mind going back to the days of the serial, and more comic book movies in general and superhero movies specifically should be made.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s much I agree with Mr. Scott about. There are many films Hollywood should keep it’s filthy hands off of. Cowboy Bebop and Akira just to name two of them but I think Thor might have more to it than he gives it credit for.
And yeah, the reason I want to see Thor and the reason I saw Iron Man and the Hulk is because of the Avengers movie. I can’t tell you how long I’ve waited for a team movie and the Justice League is taking too damn long.
I guess I’m a sucker for the Ponzi scheme.
I saw Thor this afternoon, and I may have to retract the statement I made on HuffPo about expecting disappointment to set in once the sense of wonder wore off.
I’m not sure I can offer much of a nuanced rebuttal in the short time before my wife and I set off for Europe on our thirtieth anniversary trip, but I can say I’m not so far feeling the malaise brought on by Transformers or Avatar, which in those cases (and many others) set in before I even left the theater.
As much as the first two Spider-Man films or Iron Man, and moreso than the first two Superman features, Thor is true to the source material. Blame Stan Lee if the dialogue doesn’t suit; he wrote that clangy pseudo-Shakespearean stuff for years. Again, it’s true to the source. More importantly, the film is graphically true to the sense of grandeur and wonder Jack Kirby imparted to the comics during his time illustrating them. Even then, the splendor of his art served the characters and story, and for this film, as in Spider-Man 1 & 2 and Iron Man, the CGI was in a supporting rather than leading role. Which is the opposite of most big CGI films.
The characters, too, fit the established canon. I loved the hint of tension between Jane and Sif, and the inclusion of the Heroes Three, even if Volstagg was a tad slim. Loki’s slide into villainy was exactly right, IMHO, and the Destroyer appropriately used. Maybe Branagh crammed to many of the elements that evolved over several years of continuity into the first film, but I didn’t mind. It was like seeing old friends again after years missing them.
Is it formulaic? Well, yes, in the sense that any adaptation of a prolific creator’s work will follow the formula they establish. Dickens, Austen, Chaplin, Keaton, Capra all used recurring elements. So did Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in creating the Marvel Universe, so coming in there’s no reason not to expect a certain formula. Same as you would if you pop a Charlie Chanor Hopalong Cassidy classic into the old VCR. Doesn’t mean they aren’t enjoyable.
As for the ‘Ponzi’ scheme snipe, Marvel was the first comics publisher to make a regular practise of continued stories and sweeping story arcs, so why shouldn’t their films reflect that attitude? Like so much of Mr. Scott’s review, not understanding the source material makes his review seem ill-informed. It would be like reviewing Pride & Prejudice and complaining about all the odd looking clothing the characters wore. And at least this formula has a few more variations than the standard rom-com, chick-flic or training-bra-and-butcher-knife slasher flick.
Yes, I do long for better, more intelligent films to appear at my local cineplex, but until they show up, I will continue to go see the comic films as they appear.
I might feel differently when I get back from Europe in three weeks, but I suspect I won’t. My first reaction to Thor was that it was better than I exepcted, and that feeling ought to have eroded at least somewhat by now. It hasn’t.