Thor 2: Electric Boogaloo

The original Thor was released just two years ago, as a precursor to arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time, The Avengers. Taking Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby's conception of a living god existing among humans and his journey to learn from and help them, and cultivating it into an excellent space opera featuring fantastic action, humor and storytelling, director Kenneth Branagh and an all-star cast put forth an amazing production, handily among the best of its kind, besting all but The Avengers and perhaps the original Iron Man (and a few of the X-Men movies if you really want to count the Marvel properties owned and operated by other studios). And so, between the film's relative success (for a B-list character) and the insane popularity of it's 2012 mash-up pseudo-sequel, there was bound to be another entry to the franchise, in this case Thor: The Dark World. But with new director Alan Taylor (a longtime small-screen filmmaker best known these days for his work on Game of Thrones) behind the lens, how much difference should we expect from this sequel, an might that in fact be a good thing?

Whatever you do, don't tell him to put the hammer down.

After the destruction of the Rainbow Bridge at the end of Thor and after being subsequently being cut off from Midgard (that's planet Earth, for those unawares), our titular hero (Chris Hemsworth) and his fellow warriors have been correcting the damage done to the galaxy, traveling between the Nine Realms and putting down the uprisings that have been occurring outside of the reach of the Asgardian warriors until now. When peace is finally achieved, Thor returns home with grief in his heart, still pining for Earth and his true love, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who has been searching the stars for the slightest sign of his arrival. But even as he does return to visit her, he finds the planet in crisis, as a rare planetary alignment has blurred the barrier between worlds. Soon the Nine Realms will find themselves in danger once again, and it's up to Thor and his villainous half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to protect the known and unknown universe from a dire threat, as the Dark Elves and their malevolent leader Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) search for a secret weapon to enact their ultimate plan for conquest.

Loki is the one who knocks.

If there's one advantage that Taylor brings to the table over that of the much more renowned Branagh, it's that the former knows his way through a fair share of action scenes. Where Branagh - like many modern directors - did not fully understand how to bring compelling action to the big screen, Taylor brings a whole new skill to the table. This new Thor is chock full of action, from a land and air battle between the Dark Elves and the Asgardians to a portal-jumping fight that travels all over London, Taylor and his crew prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can create wonderful, intelligent and thoroughly thought-out action that is easy for the audience to follow without diminishing its visual wonder. Battles have a meaty weight to them, and while perhaps not as exciting overall as in The Avengers or adopting the humorous overtones of Iron Man 3, they still fit in nicely with the family-friendly tone that Marvel has become known for the past few years. The CGI in Thor: The Dark World also looks far more seamless than in its predecessor, with Taylor making excellent use of what must have been his largest budget to date. There is a much larger range of environments than before, each with its own personality and culture that the director and his team ultimately respect.

Twoo Wuv!

The narrative is also very strong, though perhaps not spelled out as thoroughly as it could have been. Rather than a story about actions, The Dark World focuses on relationships as its main current. At the forefront is the relationship between Thor and Jane, but there is also the complicated brotherhood of Thor and Loki, and the differing relationships between each brother and their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and mother Frigga (Rene Russo). To a lesser extent, we see connections between Thor and his fellow warriors, between Odin and Frigga, and even the chaotic connections between Malekith's Dark Elves and the Asgardians. Even though the plot itself is a bit ragged, with motivations often lost or never fully realized, these connections are expertly explored, and by top-notch actors, as it stands. Hemsworth continues his streak of strong performances in his return to the role that made him a star. Showing a more mature, demure and contemplative side to the what was largely a brash and impulsive character throughout two films, the actor fully embraces his leading man status AND firmly takes the reigns of his franchise, recognizing that it brought him to where he is today. Hiddleston also stands tall, thanks to both an excellent role and a legion of fans who have been clamoring for more Loki since his now-legendary breakout two years prior. Hiddleston is definitely playing a villain, but seems to have garnered such a mass following of those who want to see the character as more of a reformed anti-hero than a straight bad guy. Taylor and his screenwriters (Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, alongside legendary comic writer Christopher Yost) give the fans just that, with a character that is equal party sympathetic and evil, with plenty of room to grow.

No Sif for you!

It's a shame the rest of the characters don't get quite as much development, and as a result their performances as a whole suffer. There are a lot of roles strewn throughout the movie of differing levels of importance, and even the biggest parts sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Though they're often given moments to shine, both Portman and Hopkins are much, MUCH weaker here than they were in Thor. Portman does the best she can with the material she's given, and is still quite good, while Hopkins definitely seems to chafe in his reduced position of importance, as his showing is as bare an effort as is necessary. Eccleston's main antagonist is bereft of depth, though the benefit from deriving material from so talented an actor is that it gives Loki the attention he deserves. Stellan Sarsgard and Kat Dennings both return, but both have reduced character and end up being reduced to mere humorous extras. To add insult to injury some of the gags aren't even funny, though thankfully those moments are few and far between. Rene Russo is one of the few talents to get more to do in the sequel than the original, and her bad-ass take on the Asgardian queen is a welcome addition to the mythos. It's sad she still has a relatively small part in the movie, however. And Idris Elba, who was such a universal delight in the original, returns with more variety to his overall performance. It's too bad Elba seems stuck in supporting roles, as he naturally has the talent to lead his own franchise, given half the chance.

Women might just be the true strength of Asgard.

But the biggest misstep might be the treatment of Jaimie Alexander's Sif and the Warriors Three, played by Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, and Tadanobu Asano. The trailers all tease of a love triangle between Thor, Jane, and Sif, who in the comics has a long relationship with the God of Thunder. But that's all Taylor does with the material; he teases, never going any deeper into the idea. There are two reasons for this. One is that the The Dark World is fairly packed with sub-plots, side characters and quite a bit of action. That leave much less for character development, and Sif's apparent affection for her fellow warrior had to take a backseat to other, more important scenes. The second was an incident early in production, where an on-set accident caused Alexander to suffer a spinal injury, no doubt resulting in a reduced role. Perhaps this will be revisited in Thor 3, but for now it's mere window dressing. As for the other uses of the characters, Taylor generally keeps them for comic relief, and for one major sequence towards the end of the second act, they actually have a bit of importance. Still, Marvel fans no doubt hope that these four - such an integral part of the history of Thor himself - will have more to add in future sequels.

Thor and Loki: Brothers in arms.

There are definitely issues that plague Thor: The Dark World, though despite these missteps, Alan Taylor excels in bringing us the latest chapter in the the character's ongoing epic tale. Even better, he gives his entry to the franchise a personality all its own, borrowing a bit from Branagh's original while adding his own distinctive flare to the final product. While the there are obviously some major differences between the two, the overall quality of The Dark World is just about on par with the original, placing it near the top of Marvel's greatest movie releases. Even if you're not a fan of the superhero genre, I urge you to go out and see this gem, as it's one of those fun epics that doesn't NEED prior knowledge of the series to get by. However, it is true scions of Kevin Feige (the guy who organizes all these movies) who get the best out of this film, and those who live for Stan Lee cameos, post-and-mid-credit scenes, and fun action meeting even more fun humor as our heroes fight to save the day will find little to nothing wrong with this, another successful step on the way to 2015's Avengers sequel.

Wow, Loki really let himself go.

Bang Your Head

San Diego's Comic-Con International is naturally a big deal for fans of comic books. Heck, the whole thing began because comic fans wanted to get together and meet big names in the industry. That's what fandom is, and few conventions have expanded as much as Comic-Con since it's inception in 1970. For years, new television shows have also had an impact, as many potential fans learn of shows like Heroes and The Walking Dead first through the previews and panels at Comic-Con. It was only natural progression for the film industry to get in on the act, and many major releases over the years have appeared there. At 2010's Comic-Con ALONE, there were announcements for forthcoming films Captain America, Green Lantern and 2012's The Avengers, and preview trailers for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Tron: Legacy and Machete, among others. One that might have flown under a few radars (but not under mine) was the recently-released Hesher, produced by Natalie Portman and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Though it's heavy-metal influence wouldn't seem to fit with the comic book crowd (and to be fair, it really didn't), the transformation of Gordon-Levitt into a chain-smoking, crude malcontent seemed too off the wall to discredit, and the strength of the scene previewed for attendees was surprisingly good thanks to his stellar acting. A year later, Hesher finally made its way into theaters. Though it came out nearly two weeks ago, I had pushed it down my list of must-sees, behind more popular fare Bridesmaids, Priest and Everything Must Go. With very few visitors to see this film however, I knew I had to make room for it in my schedule before it was booted from theaters, and so I caught a recent showing (with a larger than expected audience; no theater will ever be as empty as my showing of The Warrior's Way) with no expectations other than a great performance from the leading man. I just didn't know if that would be enough.

Seriously, that's the kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun. Fear him.

After his mother dies in a car accident, T.J. Forney (Devin Brochu) is deeply depressed and plain sick of the world. He and his father Paul (RainnWilson) now live with Paul's mother Madeline (Piper Laurie) and go to grief counseling, but don't seem to be making any progress. T.J. develops a crush on a supermarket checkout clerk named Nicole (Portman) after she rescues him from a bully, but isn't sure how to approach her. That changes when T.J. meets Hesher (Gordon-Levitt), a homeless, troubled and mean-spirited youth who ends up living in the family's garage, with T.J. and his father so depressed they are unwilling to remove him. Hesher soon becomes an integral part of their lives, helping (in his own way) with their various issues and putting them down the road to recovery.

Hesher manages to keep his shirt on a total of about ten minutes

This film basically lives and breathes on the basis of Gordon-Levitt's performance. Having made a name for himself playing non-violent, almost nerdy characters, his performance here is nothing short of miraculous, only cementing his incredible talents as an actor. Hesher is rude, crude and foul-mouthed, and everything that he says is comical carnage, laying out an entire theater with laughter. Even in the film's later stages, when the script forces him to be more sensitive and honest, he's still a comic hoot, and I never expected to laugh so much during this film. Gordon-Levitt simply becomes so entrenched in the character that he completely melts into the role. Hesher is the number one reason to see this film, bar none. Since the story is told from T.J.'s perspective, Brochu needed to be a solid talent to handle the film's narrative, and he vaults this low bar easily enough. Having to play against Hesher's mouth, T.J. is a much more silent character, having to express much of his dialogue through unspoken emotions. Though there are a few obvious crocodile tears involved, he manages that part of the job okay. It's the few chances he gets to speak where Brochu really shines through, especially in arguments with Gordon-Levitt or Wilson. Wilson at first doesn't do a lot as Paul, T.J.'s father, but sit around on the couch and look depressed; he does such a good job doing it that you really connect when he starts to snap out of it in the film's later acts. Wilson is like many actors who are best suited to these types of secondary roles, and a strong post-Office career seems secure in that vein. Portman plays the only "normal" character in the film, her role a good bounce-off for T.J.'s silent depression and Hesher's insanity. Sadly, that's all the purpose Nicole has, as she doesn't have much to do with the film's long-term implications. Finally, Piper Laurie is second only to Hesher in laughs department as T.J.'s senile grandmother who adapts best to Hesher's appearance in her home. Some of the best scenes feature both Hesher and Madeline, especially at the family dinners.

Yes, Natalie Portman is in YET another 2011 film... not that I'm complaining

The script is hilarious, but it does run into some problems. Written by director Spencer Susser, the film spends far too much time not doing anything while reveling in its silliness. The film's first half almost seems to be a Hesher tutorial to get you acclimated with the few details you NEED to know while supplying laughs to the audience in abundance. The second half ramps up the purpose, but also ramps up the cheese and melodramatics to a point that is almost painful to take in. Everybody reconciles with everybody else and Hesher unsurprisingly is the reason for all of that, but I would have liked a less traditional storytelling formula used for such unique characters. Also, Hesher's character often goes bat-shit crazy, almost scaring of the fans that he'd cultivated to that point. Thankfully the humor never lets up; the dialogue and Hesher's ability to appear seemingly from thin air drive the film to be so much more than the sum of its parts.

This is pretty much the mentality we should all have

I really didn't know what to expect from Hesher, which is why I put it off seeing it for so long. I'm glad I did finally see it, however, as the insane humor, great characters and good if not great story were more than I could have ever imagined from a novice director and a metal soundtrack that might not be my preferred musical genre. Hesher comes in at #9 for 2011; it's not P.C., its not polite and your parents might look at you funny for liking it, but it's still a lot of fun if you just sit back and allow the talents present to take you to places you didn't think you'd ever appreciate.

Oh Ye Olde Gods

Okay, enough of that; back to actually SEEING movies, and not just talking about them. Summer officially kicked off this past weekend with the arrival of expected cinema superstar Thor as it hit the big screen. Though the expectations were obviously high for the blockbuster leading off the year's hottest season, there were a few obstacles standing between Thor and automatic box office dominance. First of all, the obvious: a comic book movie is being directed by Kenneth Branagh. That's right, the film's helmsman is the guy best known for his film adaptations of Shakespeare plays Henry V and Hamlet. Say all you want about comic books being art (and I'd agree) but the difference between colored paper and the written word of the Bard is a big one, no matter what your feelings on the matter. Secondly, who in the hell heard of Chris Hemsworth before he was cast in the film's lead role? Sure, the Australian actor has the proper physique to portray the God of Thunder, but who knew anything about him before he played Jim Kirk's ill-fated father in J.J. Abrams's Star Trek reboot? Unknown actors don't carry the same weight as known quantities like Will Smith or Matt Damon. Finally, the character of Thor created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby back in the 60's is not exactly a known quantity to fans outside of comics. Based on Norse stories and popular in Marvel Comics' heyday, Thor was a result of Stan's obsession with mythology, which resulted in several myth-based superheroes, including Thor, Hercules, and The Forgotten One/Gilgamesh. Unlike more grounded heroes like Spiderman or the X-Men, the character of Thor was never one meant to connect with the similarities of his audience. Instead he was supposed as an icon, an unreachable pedestal for other heroes to look up to. This hardly lays the groundwork for a film franchise, but Thor was one of the few untapped Marvel Comics properties, and introducing him to theater audiences was crucial if he was to star alongside Iron Man and Captain America in 2012's Avengers film. Being a mid-level comic fan myself, I still had high hopes despite these lingering concerns, which helped me to check out Thor in its opening weekend.

Apparently, Thor's working on the railroad... all the live-long day

After his hubris results in war between the noble city of Asgard and their ancient enemies the Frost Giants, Thor (Hemsworth) is exiled by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) to Earth and stripped of his godly powers as punishment, to learn humility. Once on our planet, Thor meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist theorizing of gateways and bridges connecting intergalactic destinations. Now she has her biggest piece of evidence, but before things can move forward her work is confiscated by the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. and its operative Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg). Meanwhile, things are not all well in Asgard, as the ailing king Odin falls into a coma, leaving his wicked son and Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as the sole heir to the throne. Soon, Thor's allies are attempting to get him back to Asgard as Thor himself attempts to prove worthy of harnessing his godly powers while becoming smitten with Jane in the process.

Hey, it's "what's-his-name"!

I needn't have worried about Thor disappointing. In the same vein of similar recent Marvel adaptations, it manages to be a complex mix of action, drama, character and comedy, a delicate tightrope that is managed thanks to respect for the source material and assistance from comic creators like J. Michael Straczynski who have been a huge part of Thor's presence in pop culture. While Branagh might have been expected to play up the seriousness of the story, he does a masterful job of actually making the experience a lot of fun, especially involving a liberal dose of humor that catches the audience off guard while never feeling out of place. This should have been expected, since the original comics did much the same thing, but it manages to be a pleasant surprise, especially when the comic timing of film is impeccable. The interaction between characters never feels forced, with the perfect casting done to make these characters feel real whether they live on Earth or in a different dimension.

Twenty years later, the fallout of the father-son three-legged race still rages on

That cast is what really makes the film fall in place. Hemsworth proves himself as the next generation of action star with not only raw physicality and force of presence, but a lot of legitimate acting talent to boot. Stepping lightly between action hero, hilarious comic and romantic lead, Hemsworth is asked to wear a lot of hats in what might be his largest ever role, and he manages to juggle these different bits into a strong character that will hopefully translate into a real franchise and not a one-hit wonder. Portman seems to be everywhere this year, as Thor is her third film released so far in 2011. The actress may never again reach the critical acclaim that netted her an Oscar nomination for last year's Black Swan, but she's never less than amazing in any film she chooses to be seen in, and her role here shouldn't be construed as simple love interest. Jane Foster is a genius, a strong woman in her own right who keeps herself going despite lack of support or notoriety. Tom Hiddleston got the role of trickster Loki from having worked with Branagh in the past, and it's a good thing, too; I can't think of anybody who could match his delivery and look that perfectly captures Thor's enemy and yet loved brother. Probably the best role in the film, Hiddleston will most likely get a good, long look from major studios after this.

Hiddleston got the part by being seven years late for a Severus Snape audition

For the secondary characters, there is a lot of talent boasted between both Asgard and Midgard (that's Earth, for you mortals out there). Stellan Skarsgard plays Jane's scientific advisor and friend of her father's, bringing a sense of professionalism to the cast. His near-humorlessness is perfectly foiled by Kat Dennings, who plays Darcy, Jane's intern and gofer. Dennings has some of the funniest dialogue in the script, but her humor is not just confined to the spoken, as her actions often illicit the same amount of chuckles. Gregg is no star, but his character, introduced in Iron Man and something of a connecting piece between the films, is interesting enough to compensate for his lack of actually doing anything. As the leader of the evil Frost Giants, Colm Fiore adds to a list of compelling antagonists under his resume. Though not his best role, his convincing work does wonders for the film's tale as a whole. Perfectly cast are Thor's friends, Sif and the Warriors Three. Jaimie Alexander, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano and Joshua Dallas are all excellent and perfectly capture the essence of these characters from the comics, though I honestly wish more had been done with them, especially their backgrounds, which are largely absent. Alexander in particular demands interest, since in the comics Sif is romantically interested in Thor, though that is ignored here. Racists might have had issue with Idris Elba playing the Asgardian Heimdall, but I had no problem with such a talented actor taking the role. As the all-seeing guardian of the realm, Elba has an unexpectedly strong part, and it was nice to see the Wire veteran getting a meaty role in a successful film. The only real disappointments are Thor's parents as Hopkins overacts his way through a stunted role, and Rene Russo does nothing of interest as Frigga, Thor's mother.

Elba shows the Council of Conservative Citizens where to suck

Speaking of disappointments, beware how you watch Thor in theaters. I saw this film on an IMAX screen and in 3D, and I can't honestly recommend it for most viewers. While most scenes and special effects look great in these conditions, it is ironically the film's few action scenes that suffer from the 3D conversion. Fights are disjointed and blurry, with so much mashed together that you find yourself squinting to try and see what exactly is going on. I've heard that he 2D showings clean up nicely, and I'd have to suggest that you don't pay the extra dough to see it in 3D, since it's just not polished enough to be pretty. Most theaters should have that option open to you, so if you can, avoid the crowds and go low-tech.

Seriously, where did this guy come from???

Thor might not be everyone's cup of tea, but at #5 for 2011 I honestly can't understand why not. Like most of Marvel's recent comic book adaptations, Thor is easy for non-fans to appreciate and enjoy but truly rewards the comic fan, a trend that keeps geeks waiting for the inevitable Stan Lee cameo, secret scenes of famous characters and nods to the superhero universe around the film, making it feel like a part of a whole instead of a stand-alone clunker. I had a lot of fun at the theater, and I think if you give Thor a chance, you'll be happy with the results no matter your disposition to the genre.

High School High

Sometimes I see a trailer I absolutely hate. The trailer would fill me with such a loathing and bring me no end of misery, often resulting in my dismissal of the film because there could be no way that it could ever be good, not in a million years. Sometimes my initial opinion turns out to be mistaken. Sometimes that trailer I hated so much turns from ugly duckling to beautiful swan and the full-length film is so much more than the bits and pieces of trash I had initially viewed. The Adjustment Bureau is the best recent example I can come up with, decent-at-best previews turning into a much better time than I had been expecting. So yeah, sometimes that works out. Sometimes, however, what you see is what you get. When trailers began to show for Your Highness, the latest movie by the director of Pineapple Express and the latest movie release specially designed for chemically-treated individuals, it would be safe to say that I was less than impressed. Despite genuinely liking Danny McBride in small roles in other movies and Natalie Portman's general awesomeness, I couldn't get past the idea of wastes of space like James Franco, lousy-looking special effects and the trailer's overall vulgar attitude. It was a major turn off, so when I sat down to watch it this past Monday (the only other feasible option was the historical thriller The Conspirator), I was hoping that the real thing would trump any previews.

Be afraid of where she sticks that arrow...

McBride plays Thadeous, younger son of King Tallious (Charles Dance) and brother of the heroic Fabious (Franco) in a mystical realm of enchanted creatures and heroes. While Fabious is celebrated all over the land for his bravery and combat prowess, Thadeous's antics are generally frowned upon by the people in his kingdom's court, and he isn't taken seriously by anybody, not even his own father. When his brother's bride to be (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux) for part of an evil ritual, Thadeous finds himself forced to join Fabious on a quest to get her back. Teaming up with a strong female warrior (Portman), Thadeous must discover a strength he never knew he had and rid the land of Leezar's menace.

It's good to be third in line to be king!

At first glance you might think that not a whole lot of effort was put into the making of Your Highness, and for the most part you would be right. According to director David Gordon Green, the script was nothing more than an outline for the story to follow, meaning that most of the movie was made up as the filmmakers went along. This outline was written by McBride and Ben Best, who in the past has teamed up with McBride on the film The Foot Fist Way and the HBO series Eastbound and Down. That prior collaboration aside, the lack of in-depth scripting means that all the dialogue here is improvised, which can be a clever move when done intelligently. Unfortunately, most of the performers here are obviously not that good when it comes to improv. Far too often, the punchline to a joke is reduced to immature cursing and poop humor, which the film takes the time to revel in. It also features blatant nudity when it can get away with it. Don't get me wrong; I like dirty jokes at times, but even I demand my crassness to aspire to an intellectual level. Futurama; Monty Python's Flying Circus; The Marx Brothers; W.C. Fields; Rocky & Bullwinkle; if you're going to be dumb, you can at least present that stupidity in a clever way, as these examples have over the history of film and TV. Instead, most of the humor here lacks severely, funny only to those whose higher brain functions have been limited by choice (and plenty of narcotics) or chance.

Portman wonders what demon she pissed off to be in Your Highness

Another item lacking is in the special effects department, whose sole duty is to make fantasy tales like this fun to look at. Sure, it's a fantasy PARODY, but when the story goes all out with dragons, witches, minotaurs and ogres, you might want to make them as real as possible to avoid seeming TOO self-degrading. Unfortunately, the team hired wasn't up for the job, as the effects look okay at their best, atrocious at their worst. It's obvious they blew their money on one or two big scenes and had to scrimp and save the rest of the way. One scene featuring a "wise man" who dispenses advice is weird in that the character is obviously a mediocre puppet, a clear sign of mismanaged funds when you consider a much more ferocious monster battle later on.

The blank vacant look to Franco isn't acting...

What was probably the film's biggest coup was hiring big-name actors to play the lead roles, most notably 2011 Academy Award Best Actress winner Natalie Portman, who gives it all but is all wrong for this role after capturing the hearts of audiences in last year's Black Swan. Not that she can't play the part; she's far and away the best part of the film as the ranger (think Tolkien's Aragorn or Legolas) with trust issues and a killer right hook. The problem is that she's BETTER than what this film could possibly have to offer. You might think that one bad role doesn't unravel a career, and you'd be right. Still, with 2011 already adding this and No Strings Attached to her resume, one has to hope that Portman makes no more missteps in the near future. This material is much closer to McBride's usual fare, and even I'll admit that he can be surprisingly funny as the film's cowardly hero. McBride is one of those talents who seems to be on the Jack Black career path; best as a supporting character, he's stretched in a lead role and can't be counted on to be at his best throughout. He's certainly not helped by his character's ability to be completely unsympathetic. At least he's better than Franco as the lofty heroic brother. This one's for you, James. Everyone seems to think you're hot shit. They think you have awesome talent. Well, I haven't seen it yet. Maybe if you didn't whore yourself out to whoever would give you screen time, or maybe if you kept the illicit drug use (need we remind you of your simply awful Oscar hosting gig?) to a minimum, I might be more considerate and give you half a chance. As it stands, you can't impress me, ESPECIALLY if this is the kind of material you so often bring to the table. The rest of the supporting cast is unremarkable, as talents from Deschanel to Dance to Damien Lewis are wasted and Justin Theroux doesn't do himself any favors with his mediocrity. And when you think about it, why would they even care? It's hard to believe this was anything more than a paycheck for most of them.

The film has horses... that's a good thing, I guess

I'm all for pot comedies, but when you take the "comedy" aspect out of the equation I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with what's left. Easily one of the year's worst, I had hoped that Your Highness would be so bad it was good. Instead, it looped all the way around and became bad again, surely a sure sign of the level of quality Hollywood can get away with when given a chance, by consumers too high to care. Honestly I'm not sure what the film's producers were aiming for; were they TRYING to insult most of their potential audience? No matter, I suppose. It's likely this film won't be remembered by this time next year, and I can't imagine a more fitting end for Your Highness than to go up in smoke.

Pinnochio it Ain't

Romantic comedies can be tricky business. There are so many that follow the exact same format, dissimilar man and woman who gradually fall for one another over the course of the film. On occasion, that formula is turned on it's head and you get exceptional titles like When Harry Met Sally. Other times, the formula and the chemistry between the romantic leads works so well that you get a title that exceeds expectations despite covering no new ground; Love & Other Drugs.would be a perfect example. But the vast majority of the films in this genre rarely ascend to such lofty heights, content to market themselves to the current younger audience and distinguish themselves in little way from their contemporaries. The question is which tier contains No Strings Attached, directed by Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman. Star Ashton Kutcher has held the theme close to heart, starring in films from 2003's Just Married and My Boss's Daughter to the more recent What Happens in Vegas, Valentine's Day and Killers. He's been in so many romantic comedies he's practically married to it. But co-star Natalie Portman has had such a varied career to this point that it's difficult to imagine her in such a film, especially when she's likely to win an Oscar for her psychological horror film Black Swan. So what happens when these two seemingly mismatched performers are asked to make a film that might otherwise get completely ignored under other circumstances?

"Okay, what's that smell?"

Actually, the result is not too bad. No Strings Attached has Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman) as a pair of souls who met at a summer camp during high school. After many years as occasional friends, they decide to get together, but not in the boyfriend/girlfriend way. Emma has a problem with committed relationships, leading to the two becoming "friends with benefits," or more simply sex buddies. This works out well for both of them until Adam begins to realize that he's falling for his partner, which threatens to not only disable the couple's current train, but end their entire friendship in the process.

"Yeah, well... we bang"

As I mentioned earlier, Kutcher has done a bunch of these films, so you'd have to figure he pretty much knows what to do when the camera turns on. Of course, I wouldn't KNOW from seeing any of them; I haven't actively watched Kutcher in anything since 2000's Dude, Where's My Car, and so I'm not really an expert on his works beyond his role as Kelso in That 70's Show. Seemingly having not aged physically since 1998, Kutcher is a basic charming guy, but since he does it so well you'd think he was a modern day Carey Grant or Robert Redford, not simply playing a variation of himself. Adam is a somewhat interesting role, with the young man suffering father issues stemming from his father Alvin (Kevin Kline) being such a famous actor while Adam languishes as a Hollywood stagehand. While what Kutcher does is good, however, it's hardly a stretch from his public persona. Portman is much more interesting, with an aversion to commitment so intense she's almost neurotic. She simply doesn't believe in the idea of relationships because of seemingly eventual partings. If you're going to break up anyway, why put in all the effort and hard work? Portman makes the movie, and though her character's issues are the film's main impetus, she is never the villain or made to be the reason things don't go so as well as they could.

"The balloon is my apology for the smell the other night."

If only the film loved its supporting characters as much as it did the two leads. Kline is charming but something of an asshole as Adam's famous father. The film keeps reminding you that he's an asshole while adoring fans look at him and sigh. A side story featuring a budding relationship between Adam's friend Eli (Jake Johnson) and Emma's friend Patrice (Greta Gerwig) was interesting but did nothing to move the film's story forward. Cary Elwes was barely used in the film, and I wonder why his character was even kept in the script at all, so ineptly was he used. Chris "Ludacris" Bridges entertained with one-liners but otherwise was underutilized. Mindy Kaling and Olivia Thirlby are talented actresses whose casting here served no purpose besides providing familiar faces. The only secondary character used to good effect (besides Kline) is Lake Bell as a nerdy assistant at Adam's work. A little better use of these secondary characters would have allowed the main story to go a little more smoothly, whereas there were a few too many bumps due to lack of story cohesion.

Soup in bed?? On THOSE sheets???

While Ivan Reitman made his name writing and directing comedies in the seventies and eighties, he hasn't done a real romantic comedy since Legal Eagles in 1986, and it shows. As mentioned before, the story suffers from stutters and hiccups due to not having enough plot to really fill 110 minutes. It's also quite adult in it's look at human sexuality (which isn't bad) but goes over the top in parts (which is). The best scene involves Adam using a sort-of taboo situation to give Emma a mix tape, but there aren't nearly enough great scenes like that throughout No Strings Attached's story to make it easy watching. It's obvious the more adult content is meant to appeal to a younger demographic (ironic, yes) but it also seems that Reitman was not necessarily the best option to work on this, as the film doesn't feel unique to the generation its targeting. I can easily see this story being adapted as a more mature non-sexually-oriented title that can appeal to more than just a small demographic.

Ah, the awkward slow kiss... a classic

All in all, I actually LIKED No Strings Attached, though that was more in spite of it's faults than because of anything it did particularly well. The dialogue is actually quite snappy, the acting from the two leads Portman and Kutcher is enjoyable and the laughs do come enough to make me forget about the lousy story and underused supporting cast, at least in the moment. It didn't cover any new ground for the genre, but I certainly had more fun in this film than I did watching The Green Hornet; for this reason alone No Strings Attached makes #1 of 2011's Top 10 films. How much you want to bet the next film I see knocks that clean off?

Roll Out the Black Carpet

When your film opens the Venice Film Festival, it's kind of a big deal. When your film is chosen to open ahead of megastar George Clooney's film The American for that festival, it means something. When your film is on most critics' shortlist for Best Picture several months before it's even released to the general public, expectations are made. That's what it's been for me with The Black Swan, the latest film by Darren Aronofsky. The director, whose previous film The Wrestler was a critical darling and helped relaunch the career of Mickey Rourke (and was one of my favorite films that year), had originally thought of the two films in the same story, but decided to split them into two separate films when there proved to be too much for just one film. So The Wrestler focused on what many consider to be a low-class performance, while Black Swan did the same with what many consider to be a high art form, despite both being physically taxing and exhausting on their respective performers.

In Black Swan we meet ballerina Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), a mid-career dancer who has never had a chance to be a star. Hoping the producer will feature her more this season, Nina tries out for the lead role of Swan Queen in the classic show Swan Lake. For the role, producer Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) wants a dancer who can embody both the two distinct characters of the White and Black Swans. Like the White Swan, Nina is technically proficient and innocent, but the Black Swan is the manifestation of seduction, and Nina has a difficult time putting emotion and seduction into her dance. While fearing being replaced by the technically-awkward but graceful newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis), Nina's pursuit of perfection on the stage lead a whole new side of her to emerge, manifesting itself in shed skin and black feathers.

Like The Wrestler, the feeling of Black Swan is gritty and dark, a refreshingly ground-level look at the world of ballet, as dancers are constantly in danger of being replaced by younger, fresher variants and careers on stage end long before those of your average athlete. Nina is square in the middle of that conflict, young enough to hope for more focus and to replace the company's lead veteran (Winona Ryder) while old enough that the appearance of Lily has her metaphorically peeking over her shoulder. As a result, and in order to achieve the perfection she so craves, Nina's descent into darkness comes as no surprise. It's easy to see where Aronofsky was influenced by such films as All About Eve, in which a veteran actress is eventually replaced by a younger, energetic protegee, only for that young woman to undergo the same situation as soon as she's square in the spotlight. Comparisons to The Wrestler are of course expected, though the former focuses on recapturing old glory and redemption, whereas the lead in this film seeks "merely" to be perfect. And that is expressed perfectly every time Nina is shown stretching (in which we're shown ways in which the average American could never find themselves) and in dance, which always manages to look beautiful while apparently uncomfortable to the person performing.

Like Thomas thought of Nina, I knew Natalie Portman would do a good job of portraying the innocent, timid ballerina, but wondered how she would pull off having to be more emotional and seductive in her performance when the Black Swan took over. To my relief - and glee - Portman proved to be every bit the actress needed. Not only did her performance astound my senses as an innocent woman forced to adapt to survive her chosen profession, but her dance was also inspired. I'm not a ballet aficionado, but while I was pleasantly surprised - if somewhat bored -  with her ability early in the film, it couldn't hold a candle to a late-film performance in which the Black Swan has taken over, and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. Cassel plays a theatre producer who uses sexuality to get his performers to create art, rather than just dance. Though Nina has the hots for him, he's hardly an attractive man. His charisma is undeniable however. In a scene in which he he seduces Nina, then walks off saying that was what he wanted in reverse was brilliant, one that exemplified all that was good and bad about the character. I'd never been particularly impressed with Mila Kunis in the past, but she puts on a great show as Lily, Nina's complete opposite. Playing the Anne Baxter to Nina's Bette Davis, Kunis does a great job as the seductress who might be after our hero's job.

The supporting cast is also strong in two small roles. Though the overbearing mother of a dancer is something of a cliched role, Barbara Hershey is perfect in this role. Technically, the elder Sayers never actively seems to push Nina in any direction, but her complete lack of respect for Nina's privacy among other things leads one to believe that Nina feels the pressure from her former dancing mother. Hershey plays well the role of supportive mother, though one perhaps a bit misguided. Winona Ryder plays Beth MacIntyre, the company's veteran dancer and former star who is being forced into retirement. Though she's Nina's idol, she feels the same of Nina as Nina feels towards Lily: unbridled fear of being replaced. Ryder is actually amazing in this small role, which doesn't see her much screen time but allows her to put all her emotion into a few brief scenes.

The film does have a few small problems, but the biggest is it's special effects budget. The film tries to show more than can be believably implemented in quick sequences, involving one scene with rapidly-growing feathers. Darkness helps these bits somewhat, but the cheapness of the effects is still a minor distraction. The timing of these effects however is actually much better, as the director shows a good eye towards making you think "did I just see that?" in an otherwise normal scene. Also, there's certain level of confusion towards the film's finale which doesn't feel fully believable. It's hard to explain, and it's only one bit, but still, a bit more exposition wouldn't have hurt there. The film also surprisingly has a sense of humor, which is certainly funny but at times detracts from the idea that this is a psychological horror film, and doesn't blend in as much. Still, when one character finds out that another had a sex dream about them, he cry to her retreating form "Was I good?" elicited chuckles from the packed theater I was in and does a good job of lifting the dark film's mood. And on a final note, Tchaikovsky's familiar melodies are still as lively and energetic as I remember from when I first heard them so long ago. Hearing the music is like being accompanied to the show by a familiar friend, and makes the experience much more enjoyable.

As I said at the beginning, when a movie like Black Swan garners so much early attention, expectations are made. Sometimes these expectations exceed the actual quality of the film, but in this case they don't. Black Swan was everything I expected and even threw a few surprise curves my way, making this a unique experience compared to anything I've seen this year, and it's portrayal of the dangers of seeking perfection is expertly told. With great performances, excellent mood, wonderful art and a truly shocking emotional transformation by the film's lead make Black Swan my new #1 film for 2010. But really, are we surprised?