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.

Mashup in Manhattan

I try not to make snap judgments when I call a film my favorite so far of the year. I generally attempt to step back from the initial rush I felt in the immediate aftermath of the movie in question and ask myself as to what made that particular title so great. That was certainly easy when the films in question were the relatively unremarkable Haywire, The Secret World of Arrietty and Friends with Kids. Much as I enjoyed each of those titles, they were absolutely the best of what was a swath of mediocre releases beginning in January that has continued largely unchecked in 2012. Having a clear frame of mind became more difficult in March, when the first great film of the year was released in the Hollywood remake 21 Jump Street, and again in April with the horror spoof The Cabin in the Woods. As opposed to simply enjoying myself at the theater, I was actually having  rip-roaring times, firsts for the year. When I stood back and declared them #1's, I had to force myself to look past what I loved about them and see them for what they really were. Fortunately, that still made them excellent films, though I now find myself in an even more difficult position today that I did in those past two instances: a great movie that I thoroughly enjoyed to the tune of it easily catapulting to the top of my 2012 rankings. But does Marvel's The Avengers truly deserve to be known as the #1film of the year? Following is a list of the big and little things director Joss Whedon did right in adapting the popular comic book superhero team to the big screen.

Joss Whedon Success #1: A Classic Tale

I'm sorry, it's still difficult to believe that Chris Evans is that big...

When the Marvel Comics super-group The Avengers was first formed back in 1963 by creative minds Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, it was to unite several of the characters the two men created to battle villains no one hero could defeat, in this case Loki, the Asgardian god of mischief and brother and arch-nemesis of superhero Thor. Knowing this, Whedon gleefully pits Loki (Tom Hiddleston) against Earth's mightiest heroes, or at least those who have had successful film runs to this point. When Loki steals an alien power source with limitless potential, the Tesseract (Sorry, purists, but I'm glad they didn't call it the Cosmic Cube), from the hands of international law enforcement agency S.H.I.E.L.D., director Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) calls together the strongest and smartest known heroes in an attempt to prevent Loki from subjugating the world's population. It may not be all that easy, as it will take the combined strengths of super-soldier Captain America (Chris Evans), genius in a metal suit Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), thunder demigod Thor (Chris Hemsworth), gamma-irradiated scientist/monster Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and master assassins Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) to prevent the bad guy from using the Tesseract to summon an alien army to pacify the Earth for his rule.

Funny, he doesn't LOOK particularly angry...

Whedon knew what he was doing when he wrote this script; each character has their own stake in what happens, and the balance between characters is such that never does anyone gets too much attention in comparison to the others. Placating the egos of big-name actors is never an easy task, though that was perhaps made easier by presenting them a tale that starts off with huge consequences and that keeps raising the stakes, never allowing itself to falter even in the face of necessary plot exposition or character development. Keeping a steady pace throughout means the audience never feels lost, even if they've never read a comic book in their life or seen any of the preceding Avengers films. Still, I have no doubt that the die-hard fans will have the best experience, as this is a story that hearkens back to the golden age of comic book heroes and villains.

Joss Whedon Success #2: Hero Cooperation... and Conflict

It's a good thing the god of thunder doesn't sucker-punch...

One of the great thing about the Avengers comics over the years was that you had a constantly-rotating group of heroes who fought gallantly to protect the world from evil. Of course, the unsaid portion of that statement is that this group rotated their members because the erstwhile allies didn't always get along. Whedon did good by not making this a seamless transition from a number of solo heroes into bad-ass super group; these guys have little in common, and early on they make it vocal what they despise about one another. What Lee and Kirby knew, and Whedon wisely picked up, is that when the strongest people on the planet have a beef with one another, rarely will words win a fight where fists do quite nicely. In often clashing with one another, the characters' eventual uniting under a shared threat is made far more amazing, especially when those fights prove to be far from over in the heat of battle. Great acting is simply a great topping, as Downey Jr, Evans, Hemsworth et al make the whole thing work, good or bad, in their characters' interactions with one another.

Joss Whedon Success #3: The Hulk Done Right

Okay, NOW we run!

As a film franchise, The Hulk has not really been much of a success by the standard set by Thor, Captain America and Iron Man for Marvel. Failing to gather much traction either in 2003 or 2008, the reason for Hulk apathy is as simple as the hero's premise: Bruce Banner gets mad, he turns into Hulk, repeat as necessary. But what makes Hulk bland as a solo act grows new life when he's thrown against other heroes, whether he's hunting Black Widow through the bowels of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s  Helecarrier or duking it out with Thor. And when he takes his "Hulk Smash" bit out on an invading army... well, let's just say that seeing is believing. Thanks equal parts smart storytelling from Whedon and the casting of Ruffalo (which has proven to be a masterstroke of genius), not to mention unprecedented CGI/motion capture work which finally allow the not-so-jolly green giant to live up to his namesake, The Hulk finally feels like a force to be reckoned with. Combine that with Whedon's liberal use of comedy to disarm your senses, and he appears to finally be coming into his own as a movie character.

Joss Whedon Success #4: Suitable for Your Children

The new Michael Ball fashion show begins with a twist.

Remember last summer, when Transformers 3 hit the big screen? Besides being a jumbled mess thanks to director Michael Bay, the destruction of Chicago (the film's only worthwhile bit) was tempered a bit when scenes were shown of the evil Decepticons gleefully firing on fleeing civilians and turning them into bones and ash. Or Green Lantern, in which Parallax's invasion of Earth began with the disintegration of several people? The fact that these films easily got themselves PG-13 ratings while recent documentary Bully was repeatedly saddled with an R is kind of bullshit, but what makes those films' actions so reprehensible was that the filmmakers KNEW a lot of young kids and teens were going to beg their moms and dads to see these titles, and the actions of the directors left a poor taste in responsible parents' mouths. That isn't a real risk in The Avengers; while there is certainly plenty of exciting action to go around, parents can be reassured that there will be no violent depictions of mass murder to clog their children's minds, only the kind of fights that will inspire them to mock-fight with friends in their yards afterward.

Manhattan has never looked better!

Marvel's The Avengers is frankly a film with few flaws. It's strongly written, loyal to its fanbase without being disingenuous to those who perhaps aren't on the bandwagon, and amps up the action at all the correct moments. The actors are great, the humor is hilarious, the heroes are larger than life and there really isn't any better film to open the summer movie season. The only thing I can honestly say I didn't like was a factor most Whedon fans are intimately familiar with, and even THAT was done for the right reasons, whether or not we agree. Whedon's classic superhero world might not have the brilliant bleakness of Christopher Nolan's Gotham City, and might not stand up in quality to Nolan's upcoming Dark Knight Rises. It's a different animal, but never will there be a moment when The Avengers doesn't get SOME kind of reaction from you, whether good or bad. For now at least, it's not only the best movie of 2012, but the Marvel Comics movie to rule them all. Marvel's reign of dominance shows no sign of letting up, and I can't wait for the next entry to this franchise, as The Avengers left me wanting even more once the credits had stopped running.

Equus Rex

When the Golden Globe nominations were announced in December, there were more than a few surprises. Sure, I was happy to see nominations for the likes of George Clooney, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Ryan Gosling, all of whom deserved to be recognized. Sure, I was certain that most of the deserving nominees would get their just rewards (and with a few upsets, I was right), but there were still some interesting picks to ponder over. One of those was War Horse, nominated for Best Drama (won Sunday night by The Descendants). First brought to my attention by my equine-loving friend Adrianne, I was struck by the professionalism of the product, even if the content wasn't entirely to my liking (or comprehension, as the teaser had almost no actual plot information, only a horse running around WWI trenches and under fire). Then his name popped up, "Directed by Steven Spielberg", and it all made perfect sense. Only a few directors could center an entire film around one horse and get away with it, and even fewer could go the family-friendly route in doing so. Spielberg, who doesn't really make "amazing" movies anymore, still lives mostly off the nostalgia of yesteryear, and thoroughly okay to good movies like Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park are seen through rose-tinted glasses as classics. Because his movies are so successful, Spielberg is given massive budgets by film companies so he can continue to do the same mediocre things over an over again. That's what made his animated debut The Adventures of Tintin such a pleasant surprise, even if it didn't quite grasp the attentions of American audiences. So now I'm reviewing War Horse in the vain hope that it will at least compare favorably with Spielberg's other December release and, alongside producing the great Super 8, present a renewed sense of quality from this director during 2011.

"They can never know of our secret love..."

Devon, England in the early twentieth century is a boring place. It's apparently so boring a place that Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) has nothing better to do with his time than watch horses play in the fields near his home. When his drunken sot of a father brings home Joey, a young horse too small to do the plow work the farm needs, Albert trains Joey and the pair defy the odds, allowing their family to try and keep hold of their farm a little longer. Then England goes to war with Germany, Albert's father is forced to sell Joey to the Army, and an adventure is clinically rigged in place for Joey and Albert to find one another, over the war torn remains of Western Europe during World War I.

Enjoy your new owner Joey; he won't last long

If I sound a little cynical in my plot synopsis above, it's because War Horse brings out that reaction in me. "Best Drama" indeed; War Horse is a derivative tale of the human spirit and the torments of war, with the only unique characteristic being that it's largely told through the eyes of Joey. That would be remarkable enough IF it had been an original concept. No, the film is actually based on the 1982 children's novel by Michael Morpurgo and the 2007 Tony Award-winning stage play, both of the same name, meaning that any mental strain the filmmakers had to exert to bring this story to the big screen was minimal at best. Sure, there are some beautiful shots (Spielberg might be called lazy, but he's not blind), but for the most part even great cinematography can't help but be overshadowed by the fact that you're watching a movie in which a horse is not only the central character, but the most interesting one. Spielberg and company do what they can to "humanize" Joey as much as possible (including what I'm certain were especially bad CGI eyes in some scenes), but when you limit yourself so much, there's only so much to be done. Joey is easy to root for, but eventually you wish there was something else to distract you.

One of War Horse's better moments...

Don't get me wrong, there are a few scenes in War Horse so wonderful that they momentarily fool me into thinking that there's a better movie sitting just below the surface. As Joey and Topthorn (another horse) move from owner to owner throughout the course of the film, most are boring enough to dry up any of the potential emotion the scenes could have had. That's true until the pair wind up in the windmill of an elderly French grandfather (Niels Arestrup) and his precocious granddaughter Emilie (Celine Buckens, in her feature film debut). It's a sequence that is entirely too short, but manages to do everything right that almost the rest of War Horse gets dead wrong. One helpful aspect is the actual depth in character that these two possess, while their respective acting talents rise above many of those lesser in the cast. They are also helped by being in one of the few parts of the film not entirely shrouded by war and darkness, sometimes light-hearted and funny, with only a few emotionally down moments moving onto the next part of the story. Another great scene has Joey alone and trapped in barbed wire in the middle of no-man's land between the German and British trenches. In this one, a British and German soldier both brave the war zone to work together to free Joey, and their conversation powers the scene and drives home the point that there is very little difference between soldiers in war (or at least in this war). If every scene in the film could have lived up to these two standouts, War Horse would have been my #1 film of the year.

No, thank you, we don't need any horses right now...

Unfortunately, they don't, and the blame for that equally falls on the wooden character models and the creative directors who failed to accommodate for that. Most of the people depicted in the film, from German teen soldiers who go AWOL to the officers of a British cavalry brigade, have no personality beyond their basic motivations. Even the supposed human heroes are dull as dishwater, with Irvine playing Albert as a typical awe-struck teen and Peter Mullen playing his crippled, alcoholic father without stretching out even in the slightest. And if he's such a booze hound, why does the mother (Emily Watson), the strong leader of the family, even let him do ANYTHING? Tom Hiddleston, who wowed us with his talent in Thor, barely charms us here as a young cavalry officer. With the exception of a few people, most notably Arestrup and Buckens, there really aren't any standout characters who can help carry the story forward. Irvine is the worst, and when the story occasionally shifts to his narrative (which is thankfully kept to a minimum), it's among the worst War Horse has to offer. He's way too much Samwise Gamgee to Joey's mute Frodo Baggins, if you get my meaning.

Ah, soldiers of war, ready to die for their country. And then there's the men riding them.

Characters are not the film's only problems, naturally. While Spielberg has all the money in the world to create great sets and imagery, the story is as boring as it is pointless, as any number of films over the years could come up with similar tales. On top of that is the music of another legend, composer John Williams. Yes, Williams is a film score hero, with legendary themes to Star Wars and Jurassic Park on his resume. However, he never ventures far from what works, a fact especially true these days. You can always tell when he is scoring a film because the music you hear is unique to itself while at the same time annoyingly similar to his previous works.

Hey, no peeking!

When War Horse was nominated for Golden Globes, I wondered what made this title so awesome that it attained that honor. Today, I still don't get it. War Horse is not a BAD film per se, but it appears only Spielberg's name keeps this title afloat as one of the most overrated titles released in 2011. Even horse enthusiasts should be wary, as while a couple of scenes full of wonder do make themselves known, it's not enough to ever allow me to recommend it, even as a family trip. If you're lucky, The Adventures of Tintin might still be playing at a theater near you. If it is, that's the Spielberg movie you want to take your kids to see, or even enjoy all by your lonesome. But not this. Never this.

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.