Thor

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I remember being annoyed at Branagh incorporating bits of Henry IV. I hate it when people chop and change Shakey.

I still think Olivier's Henry is the better movie, for all its staginess.

What do you think of Kenny's Much Ado, Jembers?

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Ooh Frankenstein's a bit of a stinker as well.

I'm glad Branagh's calmed down a bit and stopped starring in his own blockbusters. He is a good actor/director, but he went a bit mad I think.

[gigolo aunts aren't gentlemen]

Olivier's Hamlet would have been electrifying on stage, I think, but doesn't quite work as cinema. Branagh's whole production is so unremittingly shallow that it's like Wikipedia started adapting their articles into films. It probably is quite useful, then, for GCSE studies of the play - but no further. It mainly seems to exist so that people can say they've seen Hamlet, without having to really think about it.

Also, saying Olivier's shit doesn't stop Branagh being shit. But at least neither are as shit as McKellen, who I've never seen onstage or screen doing anything but stinking or hamming. Simon Russell Beale, now there's a Shakespearean.

[Jemble Fred]

I remember being annoyed at Branagh incorporating bits of Henry IV. I hate it when people chop and change Shakey.

I still think Olivier's Henry is the better movie, for all its staginess.

What do you think of Kenny's Much Ado, Jembers?

Well in that case you can never appreciate Shakespeare on screen, bar the filming of theatrical productions. It would be madness not to do everything you can to make the best cinema experience out of whichever Shakespeare play you're adapting, which will necessitate lots of textual jiggery-pokery. Branagh's use of Henry IV is one of the film's great strengths, to my mind.

As for Much Ado, it's quite low on my list, but then I'm not a fan of the play either. BEN ELTON'S GREAT IN IT THOUGH.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I think if you're filming a Shakespeare play you should forget about doing everything you can to make the best cinema experience out of it and instead concentrate on protecting the sanctity of the text. Fuck the cinematic experience. It's a Shakespeare film. It's hardly going to have all the 17 year olds in California baying to see it anyway.

[Jemble Fred]

But surely you know that the odds of you seeing the full text of any Shakespeare play in the theatre are very slim indeed, are you saying that theatrical companies should also include every single syllable and comma? Anyone making a film adaptation who doesn't want to combine the best of Shakespeare's text with a satisfying cinema experience should just... stop.

It's a Shakespeare film. It's hardly going to have all the 17 year olds in California baying to see it anyway.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Well yes, but the Baz Luhrmann film is very faithful to the text, isn't it?

[gigolo aunts aren't gentlemen]

The sanctity of which text? There is no concrete version of Shakespeare - even the To be or not to be soliloquy varies quite a bit from edition to edition. Bear in mind how unreliable the original source is before you start treating it like the Koran (yes, I know). The Baz Luhrman film does a great job at capturing the spirit of the play, but it leaves a lot out (which is why it isn't about five hours long).

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I have no problem with cutting. I don't like sticking bits of plays into other plays is all.

[gmoney]

Didn't Shakespeare do that quite a bit? Take bits from other plays and such?

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I don't think so.

[gmoney]

I'm sure I read he'd swap scenes with other playwrights. Probably misremembering.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I just think there's something a bit "greatest hits" about it.

"Oooh - that bit from Macbeth is great. We'll slot it into Richard II. Nobody'll know the difference."

[Jemble Fred]

I just think there's something a bit "greatest hits" about it.

"Oooh - that bit from Macbeth is great. We'll slot it into Richard II. Nobody'll know the difference."

Who on earth has ever done that though? I've seen far too many Shakespeare movies, but I can't recall any which paste text from one play into another, completely unconnected one. So what the hell does that have to do with including a brief extract from Henry IV in Henry V? A flashback to an earlier scene from the same History cycle, with the same characters, to underline the emotion of Falstaff's death to an audience who quite possibly wouldn't have any idea of who he was, or where Henry came from, and what kind of prince he had been? If anything, seeing as the original audiences would have all been extremely aware of Falstaff, that incredibly brief flashback is actually doing more of a service to Shakespeare's original intentions than it would have been if they'd just not bothered. Without showing Pistol, Bardolph et al in happier times, you're robbing the play of much of its emotion, which would have been obvious to the punters when it was first staged. Coltrane makes great job of the role in the time he has, too.

[Tiny Poster]

I don't care about all your Branagh opinions, people. I just know that he was a good Woody avatar in the underrated Celebrity (Allen's last great work).

Oh, Sweet and Lowdown came out afterwards, didn't it? Well.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Saw this earlier and it was pretty darn good, I thought.

It scored a significant number of points for not following the standard, tedious, origin story template. I don't know if that was the specific reason, but it pelted along at a brisk pace and never once felt too long. I was worried that the large number of characters was going to led to a big Spider-Man 3 style clusterfuck but, even if some of them get short shrift, it all fits together fairly well, for the most part. With any luck, the Avengers movie will show a similarly light touch.

It's not perfect by any means. The fight scenes suffered from the typical close-up shaky cam action (although I was sitting in the front row, which may have hampered my appreciation of them somewhat). Also, having praised it for carrying on at a decent clip, it could probably have done with a slightly expanded running time, as some of the plot turns felt like they could have done with a bit more set up.

[thugler]

But surely you know that the odds of you seeing the full text of any Shakespeare play in the theatre are very slim indeed, are you saying that theatrical companies should also include every single syllable and comma? Anyone making a film adaptation who doesn't want to combine the best of Shakespeare's text with a satisfying cinema experience should just... stop.

Horrible film. Lurhman also messes up some basic character stuff near the beginning.

[AlkyBastard]

I'm absolutely puzzled at all the positive reviews this has been getting. 94% at Rotten Tomatoes! I saw it yesterday, and thought it was a load of arse. I haven't read the original comic, so I neither know nor care if it's a faithful adaption. Similarly I don't know much about Norse mythology (and I gather the filmmakers don't either). I can only judge it as a film, and a really bad one at that.

It's always difficult portraying the afterlife or other such mythical realms in films, because it's a vague metaphorical concept that works better in your imagination than in real life. When you try to film such a thing with actual actors and sets it always looks shoddy. Do you make it look ancient or modern? Should it resemble historical periods from the real world or be completely imaginary? In films they typically get a few plastic Roman columns and turn on the smoke machine. In this film they tried to make Asgard both tangible and otherworldy at the same time, but it just didn't hang together. They can't make it too realistic looking because then it seems too earthly and not heavenly enough, but equally they can't make it too fantastical because then none of it looks real. The whole concept just falls stylistically between the two camps.

You've got Anthony Hopkins & Co dressed up in ridiculous costumes that might just wash in a comic, but not in-camera. They've made the design vaguely medieval, with a bit of Vikings thrown in, but everything is so plastic and shiny that they look they're in a daytime kiddies action show. It's Lord of the Rings meets Power Rangers, rendered in eye-melting rainbow-coloured CGI. Every single scene in Asgard looked completely ridiculous, and the terrible cod-English stage accents didn't help either.

The guy playing Thor may look the part with his muscles and his blond hair, but he's a terrible actor. He flatly shouts every line, as if he's in a school play and wants to be heard at the back, at the cost of having any emotion in his delivery. Hopkins at least chews the scenery for a laugh. In a way that brings up its own problem:- you've got this grand, camp, hammy magic world where the tone is completely at odds with the Earth-bound sequences starring Natalie Portman. Just when you get used to the style of one world, the story switches to the other one which is incredibly jarring. So when it first goes to earth it's like you've landed in a different film, one that's even less entertaining. And when you've settled into the (slightly) more realistic Earth bits, it's back to Odin and the rest of the fantasy roleplayers and you'll have to get re-acclimatised all over again. And so on and so forth. The two strands are completely incompatible.

At the end Loki (Prince Harry to Thor's William) sends down this metallic robot thingy that looks like it's come from the original The Day The Earth Stood Still by way of Michael Bay. You know, those laser shooting robots that are such a big part of Norse mythology.[nb]I'll leave the moaning about other inconsistencies, such as the presence of black and Asian Norse Gods to the racists.[/nb] Cue some boring laser beam action with typical action shitfest explosions.

On top of that every other shot is titled at an odd angle for no fucking reason whatsoever - exactly like Battlefield Earth. It's total, total knickers; as bland as dumb as your average braindead summer blockbuster, Kenneth "Shakespeare" Branagh notwithstanding.

[kidsick5000]

It's a fun film. And perfect for getting younger audiences in.
It might be a bit too light, it's got zero Branagh visibility, but it goes along at a good pace and manages to cram a hell of a lot in without becoming riddled with plotholes.
The only complaint I have of Hemsworth is that the hair looks too fake and in place. As for acting like a god, he carries himself pretty well. And he's convincingly charming with it.
Supporting cast is great, and despite it being a bit of too obvious casting of Anthony Hopkins as Thor, he is bloody good at it. There's an astoundingly convincing piece of acting as the younger Odin. It's only there for a short moment but the way he moves and walks takes years off the man.

A good start to the summer and it's great to see how on the ball and connecting Marvel are getting with their films.

[NoSleep]

Ah, you must have meant Hopkins as Odin. I was puzzled for a moment.

[Glebe]

This cracked me up... "I'm Thor!"

CONAN Thor

CONAN Comedy Thor (2)

[kidsick5000]

Ah, you must have meant Hopkins as Odin. I was puzzled for a moment.

Oops. yes

[phantom_power]

i thought this was a really fun film. great direction, awesome sound design (thor's hammer and that big metal thing's ray of fire sounded amazing) and a brisk, well-told story. i don't know anything about the comics, which may have helped as this is a bit of an origin story.

i thought they dealt with the distinction between the worlds very well, and the link with science helped the suspension of disbelief. they handled the realisation of the earthly people that they were dealing with norse gods well, which can be tricky, and it is very funny in places.

[NoSleep]

i thought they dealt with the distinction between the worlds very well, and the link with science helped the suspension of disbelief. they handled the realisation of the earthly people that they were dealing with norse gods well, which can be tricky, and it is very funny in places.

This reminds me of Immortel, another film that uses mythical gods, this time Egyptian, and makes them powerful aliens intervening on Earth.

[sirhenry]

This reminds me of Immortel, another film that uses mythical gods, this time Egyptian, and makes them powerful aliens intervening on Earth.

Was that before or after the Stargate franchise, which was built on exactly the same premise?

[Ignatius_S]

Was that before or after the Stargate franchise, which was built on exactly the same premise?

It came out after Stargate - but the comic book that the film was adapted from, was published well before Stargate got started.

[Jemble Fred]

I had a similar idea involving British Gods/Faeiries and Faerie Kings and Queens... but I never got into Stargate, so had no idea what else was out there. I suppose explainign away mythology with aliens must have been done from every angle by now.

[NoSleep]

It came out after Stargate - but the comic book that the film was adapted from, was published well before Stargate got started.

The first comic book (La Foire aux immortels) came out 1980; Stargate was 1994.

Typically twisted French Sci-Fi.

[Bad Ambassador]

The first comic book (La Foire aux immortels) came out 1980; Stargate was 1994.

Typically twisted French Sci-Fi.

Doctor Who did the exact same idea in 1975.

[phes]

I didn't enjoy this movie one bit. It took some convincing for me to go, and so mind numbingly dull was it that we both fell asleep. Just boring, boring boring. Couldn't give a toss about any of the characters and the jokes had all the edge of a satsuma. I cant think of anything positive to say about it, aside from 1 minute in total of action sequences that were pretty cool. To compound my misery, we missed the last 2d showing and had to watch it in 3d. My fears were confirmed before we'd even bought the tickets, when the young girl at the counter warned us that it was definitely the most shit and pointless 3d'ing she's seen. Many of the scenes were so dark that by halfway through I had taken off the 3d glasses. And in fact it was better watching it in partially blurred 2d.

I wish i'd put my foot down and told the woman I was with that 'your highness'  looks a bit rubbish and has got bad reviews, but it has Danny McBride falling down the stairs in a suit of armour. So you can take your Thor and just chuck it in the bin.