Basically, I've come to the conclusion that it is a deeply flawed film that I have little desire to watch again. And yes, I know I'm going to be burned at the stake by some friends for everything I'm about to say. So what exactly is my beef with the god of thunder?
WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
Editing
I love the Bourne movies, but unfortunately so does everyone else. As a result, filmmakers look at the Bourne films and somehow come out with the assumption that what the audience loved was the shaky camera and quickly editing action scenes. These deluded filmmakers try to copy this effect, and in some cases they up the ante and make the camera shake more and dare their editors to make faster cuts. The result is the recent trend of action films with fight scenes that no one in the audience can see or understanding. We're left with the vague notion that the hero is fighting someone and that something cool probably happens, but before we can process that there is even a fight going on our hero is standing victoriously over his fallen foe. And it sucks. Thor does exactly this. Kenneth Branagh, who'd never directed a movie like this before, took this popular approach to his fight scenes, harassed his editor to make the cuts even faster, and viola. One of my friends had no idea what the hell was going on in the climatic battle scene. She was not alone.
The film's editor, Paul Rubell, is on my bad side not just for the fight scenes, but for the whole film. The man has edited some solid action films in the past (Blade, Transformers, Public Enemies, Collateral). The point is, he should know better. He should not be pulling out editing reminiscent of a Uwe Boll film. The editing was to quick, even on simple dialogue interactions. As a result, it took constant effort to process what was going on onscreen.
To give credit where credit is due, I don't blame Rubell entirely for the Asgard editing botch. The man was clearly trying to mask the sub par CGI. Still, he doesn't get a pass for making walking and talking difficult to understand.
Acute lack of and/or nonsensical character development
You know how sometimes you wonder what got left on the cutting room floor? Thor is one of those films that I'd love to hear got loads cut out. I'd love to hear that someone cut out lots of character development scenes that explained some gaping plot holes. Unfortunately, I doubt this happened.
First up, let's discuss Jane. Natalie Portman has proved she's worth her salt in the last year, so why is she so wasted in this movie. Black Swan marked her out as a talented actress, not a pretty face only to be used as window dressing (see Megan Fox in Transformers for an example of an actress being used as window dressing). Still, she's wasted in this role. Jane's sole purpose is to convince us that she's some paragon of goodness that Thor falls in love with instantly, or so I guess. The film lost me as to the nature of his interest in her. Sure, she's cute, and the film tells me she's supposed to be smart, but why does Thor, who clearly has banged every babe in his home world and then some, go all mushy for Jane? It feels like there is something missing here, because I honestly find Darcy a more interesting character than Jane.
My biggest issue with character development actually concerns Loki. Why was the whole he's an ice giant plot necessary? I could have totally bought him as evil/jealous of Thor without it. This sub plot was just not necessary, and as a result these scenes just ate up time that could have been spent looking at Thor or perhaps explaining the whole love affair between Thor and Jane.
Girl Porn
There is a lot made about the subjection of women in film for the male viewers gaze. TO be honest, this entire film felt like porn for girls. I'll be the first to admit that I spent every second of this movie drooling over Thor. Good lord that man's eyes....anyways, I suspect that all my female friends liked this movie simply because of how attractive Thor was. Of course, none of them will admit that this was the sole reason why they liked the movie, although they'll admit that it's part of their love for it. Of course, Natalie Portman seemed to have a similar reaction every time Thor touched her. There was a look on her face that seemed to say, "Oh my God this sex god of a man is actually touching me! Don't faint, keep it under control, remember my line!" Yeah, I suspect it wasn't difficult to act as though she was in love/lust with him. It certainly wasn't for any of the female audience.
I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the movie basically being about how attractive this man was, but I cannot allow an actor's hotness to solely determine how good a movie is. If that was the way Hollywood worked, Shoot Em Up would have been a great movie because of Clive Owen's good looks.
~Lauren
No comments:
Post a Comment