Tim Burton vs Nostalgia: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Hey guys. Today I'm gonna start a two part movie review comparison... thing. I'm going to look at two movies, remakes at that, that people seem to really dislike. Both were made by Tim Burton. I plan on arguing for them. This should be interesting.

The first in the two-parter is about, as the title suggests, Charlie and the Chocolate factory: a film based on the book by Roald Dahl and a remake of the much beloved 1971 film directed by Mel Stuart and starring Gene Wilder. That version (the 1971 one, which is, for the record, actually called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory") is what most people remember from their childhoods. It is still generally what people think of  when anyone mentions the tale, one might even say more so that the book. It has some great songs, really iconic scenes and memorable characters. But is it really as great as people make it out to be? Or is that the nostalgia goggles and "first is better" mentality? How does Burton's adaptation hold up? Why do people have such hatred for it? Let's take a look, shall we?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a showdown!

Now, I'm going to come straight out and say it: I never liked the original film growing up. I'm not sure if that was down to the fact that I read the book first, or that I was a bit older when I first saw it. I never saw what the big fuss was about. To prove my point, I'm going to look at the different factions of the two films (and the book on which they are both based) and critique.

1. Before the factory
Here I'm going to examine the openings of the two films and compare a little with the book. The opening of the original film was honestly a large factor in why I didn't like it growing up. One word: BORING. Yes, I understand they're setting the scene but, man, does it drag! The first FORTY TWO minutes of this thing is the lead up to actually entering the factory (y'know that part we actually care about). It's only 99 minutes long in total! As a writer I understand the benefit of making your audience wait for something, I really do, but nearly half the running time is just a weensy bit excessive, don't you think? In that time, there are three songs ("The Candyman", "Cheer up Charlie" and "I've Got a Golden Ticket" all of which I feel are slightly pointless. I'll get back to that) but the rest of it is mostly talking.

"I'm a colossal waste of time. Pay up, moviegoers."

Don't get me wrong, there are some good scenes in the opening. I really like the interaction we see between Veruca Salt and her father in the nut factory , which sets up the character well, I just wish the scenes featuring the other kids were as memorable. And some of the clips of the worldwide hysteria over the competition are priceless, especially the one featuring the man who's built a machine to find the winning ticket. That was some great comedy and to good use. However, any momentum and  intrigue built up by the good scenes is buried beneath layers of Charlie going to school, focus on the wrong vendor of sweet things and the whole hullabaloo with Slugworth (which I'll get back to later). To contrast, In Burton's version we already have a good idea of Willy Wonka himself through showing not telling (which is what they do in the original FYI. Visual medium, people.) while keeping him shrouded in the necessary mystery. The use of eye-catching colours and incredible sets make sure we remember the other contestants. While it could be said that in this version the other contestants are much more caricature-like in comparison to the realer examples in the original. However, I argue that making them more exaggerated is more in keeping with the ideas of Dahl himself, who made them hyperbolic examples of the traits he wanted to emphasize as bad (this applies to the parents too). That's my view on it thought. I also really like that the Burton version shows more cutaways of the worldwide rush for the Wonka bars where the original mostly shows America (with that one Peruvian dude).

The Characters:
The main differences character-wise between the two movies are Wonka and Charlie's characters but I'll briefly looks at the others too. As I've said before, I thought that the hyperbole used with the characters in Burton's version was more true to the book. As far as charlie's family is concerned (and I'm just being honest here) they're both pretty dull. C'mon, you know it's true. However, the character injections given to Grandpa George and Grandma Josephine in Burton's was welcome and boosts that version up a notch. Grandpa Joe is, as a character, kinda meh. He's moral support, the magical old mentor figure who encourages the protagonist to follow his dreams, yadda yadda yadda. I believed David Kelly (from Burton's version) more in terms of the feeble, bedridden for years grandfather, where Jack Albertson (from the original) always seemed a little too able bodied. They both have charisma, I'll grand them both that, but I felt that Charlie from the original and Albertson had better on-screen chemistry. Also, gotta love that one supremely dated scene where Charlie berates Joe for buying chocolate when "That money was for tobacco!".

Die for your sins?
Sure, I'd do that.

Now to the mains. Firstly, Ima throw you a curve-ball and say that I haaaaate the Charlie in Burton's movie. Holy shit, is he boring! Out of all the things this movie does right, it screws up with the MAIN CHARACTER. I'm not sure if it was the script, or the direction, or the performance by Freddie Highmore but they take this normal, fun loving, intelligent kid from the book and warp him into mini-Jesus for some reason! Why? The protagonist is the character we're supposed to identify with, making him perfect defeats the purpose entirely. The original Charlie, on the other hand, has normal human emotions. For example, there's one scene where he's in school and the teacher is asking how many Wonka bars the kids had bought so he can use them as examples for maths class. Charlie, having only bought one bar, is laughed and condescended to by his classmates and teacher, and he understandably is upset. This is valuable character development, people! We sympathise with and understand him better for this. Now, I know that the character is meant to be free of the fatal flaws that the other ticket finders possess (such as greed, pride, sloth, wrath, etc... why to they sound familiar?) but he's still meant to be human. Yes, he's caring, yes, he's selfless but he's still a child! Dahl understood that and so did the makers of the original film (Dahl actually wrote the original script for the movie but an man named David Seltzer rewrote much of it before filming. Dahl hated the end product.) The scene that almost undoes my liking for the original's Charlie is the added "Fizzy Lifting Drink scene". For the record, Dahl despised this scene too. It completely goes against the message that the story is trying to convey about the value of humility and being grateful for what you have.

Now to the man himself: Willy Wonka. Another fun fact here, Dahl originally pushed for Spike Milligan to play this character. You know, the guy who wrote "On the Ning Nang Nong"? He was one of the founders of The Goon Show, one of the inspirations for Monty Python's Flying Circus? Okay, follow this link and TELL me this man would not make a great Wonka. I dare you. Now that's out of the way, I honestly feel that Depp's Wonka is fifty times better than Wilder's. It's odd though, you'd think that Wilder would be phenomenal in this role. He's a fantastic character actor and can be incredibly funny. Yeah, so is Depp, but if you'd told me beforehand that Edward Scissor-hands would do this role justice I'd probably laugh you out of the building. Yet... Depp does it better, in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's the direction or the writing (I think it was the writing) but Wilder's Wonka comes off as far too... mild.

In the book, Willy Wonka is a little like Sherlock Holmes: He knows exactly what's what and revels in being cryptic and often downright rude. He makes next to no sense most of the time but in a fun-loving way. That's important. Y'see, Wonka is effectively a manchild. A kid in a candy store if you will (see what I did there?). He's living the life we all thought we'd be living (when we were about five and thought buying a chocolate factory would be within our means once we grew up). He loves his work intensely, more than he loves people, quite possibly more than he loves himself. Burton's Wonka capture's this. He's weird, a little unnerving at times but he always seems like he's genuinely having fun. Wilder's Wonka is too restrained for that. He's too softly spoken, too matter of fact. When he does something kooky it doesn't seem like it's because he wants to or because he wants to see how people will react, it comes off as someone with a genuine problem. And for all his craziness, Wonka as a character is not clinically insane, just a bit odd.

The Songs:
Finally, the songs. No surprises here: I prefer Burtons' songs personally (composed by Danny Elfman, credit where credit is due). Both films have a great deal of songs in them. Technically speaking, the original has nine songs (ten if you count the creepy tunnel one), many of which are iconic and fondly remembered to this day. "The Candy Man", "Pure Imagination" and who could forget "The Oompa-Loompa Song(s)". However, the original movie has plenty of dudds. Does anyone remember "Cheer Up Charlie"? That one song near the start that lasts about a year and furthers nothing? Or "Give it to Me Now", Veruca's arbitrary "I'm a spoiled brat"song? Now, in comparison, Burton's version has only five lyrical songs (with a really awesome opening theme though, amiright?). None are as fondly remembered but neither is the rest of the movie. Take off your nostalgia goggles and hear me out.

When I was growing up, having read the book, I was always supremely disappointed with the original's chorus of Oompa-Loompa. Those of you familiar with the book will know that therein, after each child's misfortune, was a cautionary and funny, usually anecdotal song from the Oompa-Loompas, to highlight each child's individual hamartia (fatal flaw). They were clever and when I was reading, I'd always look forward to the next one. What did the original film give us? This thudding, unimaginative tune with little variation from child to child and boring lyrics to suit rhyme. Bad show. Also, if you take into account the fact that these songs are all effectively the same, the original's song count drops to six. In Burton's film, each child's send off was unique and suited that particular child. They took inspiration from Dahl's original poems and each song came from a different decade, which I thought was clever. While we're talking about the Oompa-Loompas, I really don't like the design of either. I always pictured them like pixies or sprites when reading the book (though I know the illustrations are more resembling little tribes-people). I guess having them all look the same in Burton's version is a little weird but the orange skin and green hair is no less stupid. Neither wins out in my book but the improved songs in Burton's give them the edge.

Ooh, no she did-n't!

Other stuff:
I couldn't come up with a connecting thread for these last issues. Oh well! Firstly, SLUGWORTH. Totally redundant. This story was perfectly fine without this completely pointless subplot you added, movie! The only purpose it serves is to give Wonka a reason to blow up in everyone's face at the end of the movie, something out of character in the first place! Just... why?!? Then there's that tunnel scene. I don't even... I get that they're establishing mood, the factory's slightly more sinister than it seems yadda yadda yadda, but that idea is there anyway as soon as children start disappearing. No one was arguing that it seemed too innocent right after a boy's almost died! It's also worth mentioning that the original factory seemed, like Wonka, a little tame. However, that may be at least partly down to the times, CGI wasn't an option then. I let it slide. I've already voiced my distaste for the fizzy lifting drink scene. Another "Why would you think this was necessary?!" moment. In Burton's version, of course, we have the added Daddy issues. Mr. Burton, we get it. Someone didn't get the attention or acceptance they felt they needed from their Papa. We've all been there. Do you need to write it into every one of your movies? It's bad enough with Spielberg, dude. you're better than this.

There may also be a certain level of natural
sympathy on my part regarding offspring of dentists.
No idea why...

That said, I actually don't mind the added back story to Wonka in this version. It helps us understand him as a character, we see his growth and his struggles and that makes him more sympathetic, despite his regular jerkishness.  However, it could easily be argued that this defeats the point of Wonka being shrouded in mystery from the beginning. It could be said that you're not supposed to know this much about Wonka. He's a kook, a call to adventure, not the adventurer himself. Eh, I thought it worked.


Finally, a few words on a great injustice: Why has no-one considered making a Great Glass Elevator film?

There have been two films made of the first book in the Charlie series but everyone seems to overlook the second book (yes, there's a second book, shame on you for not knowing that!) Personally, I prefer Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (probably my inner hipster). It has space travel, the president of the United States (and his former nanny/vice president), Vermicious Knids (who are both terrifying and literate), and a journey into the fabric of time. Oh, and it contains 400% less (plausible) child murder! It is awesome (and makes one wonder if Willy Wonka is a Time Lord, considering that his elevator can travel through space and time...) but would, admittedly, be difficult to adapt into a movie. Still, it's a little disheartening that, in order for us to have even the possibility of a GGE film we'd need another Chocolate Factory reboot as the cast of the original is too old and/or dead and Burton's version left no opening for a sequel. I am disappoint. Small concerns, life goes on.

Overall, I prefer the new version. That's my opinion, if you wish to share all the reasons you think I'm wrong and deserve to be disemboweled for such treason/heresy/general incorrectness, please feel free to leave a comment below. This has been my relatively nostalgia-goggles free view. Next entry should be up next Wednesday (I have things, sorry for the lapse in regularity) um, tune in? Dial up? I dunno what terms the kids are using these days. I leave you with a house remix featuring that song that gave us all unnecessary nightmares for weeks. Enjooooy!:

Embrace the Madness

The Legend of Korra Season 2 Finale

Hello friends, Romans, countrymen. Lend me your ears. Today, Ima talk about the recently aired (online anyway) finale to the second season of "The Legend of Korra" TV show. Yes, I know I'm late again. I have stuff to do, I'm sorry. Anyways, I'm going to be talking about the 40 minute finale as a whole. Yarr, thar shall be spoilers. Let us proceed.

 For the sake of ease, I'm going to assume you've been keeping up with the series thus far (also, I marathoned the final four episodes and they blur a little). Brief recap: Varrick, blah blah, Tenzen spirit fail, blah blah, Unalaq evil, blah blah, Korra bitchy then nice, blah blah, more love triangle bullcrap, blah blah, "we must restore the balance". Everyone up to speed? Good. 

Now overall I felt that this finale had the same problems as the finale to season 1: It tried to do too much too quickly for the sake of closure and ended up feeling rushed towards the end. There's also a bit of a deus ex machina (that I'll get back to later). Overall, I felt it was apt for the season that was in it, as in it dragged for the first bit then rapidly picked up speed and felt ultimately unsatisfying (keep your mind out of the gutter). The plot is basically that Unalaq has fused with Vatu and become a dark avatar and he and Korra fight. He extracts Rava from Korra's body and smashes it against a rock until it's dead, resulting in Korra losing her connection to the past avatars, then turns into a giant dark spirit and sets off to terrorise Republic City. Meanwhile, Tenzen gets some closure on his Daddy issues in the fog of lost souls and rescues Jinora, Kya and Bumi. They go back to the convergence spot and learn of Korra's predicament. It just so happens that the tree Vatu was trapped in was the tree of time and Korra meditates there and turns into a giant blue Korra spirit and goes to fight giant Unalaq, Power Rangers style. They fight and *loophole!* Korra remembers that in avatar Wan's memories she heard that if Vatu ever defeated Rava or vice versa, the other would grow inside them until they both existed again. Jinora appears and glows, distracting Unalaq for enough time that Korra can make a move. She plucks Rava from Unalaq's chest and fuses with her, they fight and Korra wins. Yay. She then decides not to close the spirit portals and should let the spirits coexist with humans once more. The End. (Also, Korra and Mako talk and decide they don't work as a couple, Eska and Bolin kiss but Eska doesn't want to be tied down by him. Has anyone else noticed that those two are basically just Andy and April from Parks and Rec?)

Embodiments of Good and Evil?
Wrestling kites, definitely. That makes sense.

I had some major issues with the message this season was sending. After such a great villain and conflict (though badly resolved) in the last season, I was eager to see what this season would follow with. I was intrigued by the idea of embodying good and evil in Rava and Vatu and had decent hopes for the talk of restoring balance as I thought they might be going a route that is often overlooked. However, they went with the safe choice and for that the season fell drastically in my opinions. 

Here's the thing: The whole "restore the balance of good and evil" thing has been done to death. It tends to be the driving force behind "chosen one" narratives (AKA the monomyth) and anything that follows similar tropes, such as Avatar. However, one very important factor in this idea of balance is often overlooked: The idea that for balance to occur, there needs to be both good and evil in equal proportion. This is what Yin and Yang represent, the ever present balance and struggle between good and bad. One cannot eradicate the other because they are present in each other. Most of these narratives focus on restoring the balance by defeating evil. That's fine, if evil has grown to such strength that it is smothering the good (as in the "Avatar, Legend of Aang") however, here evil was trapped in a tree. That hardly seems balanced.

I think the reason I had such high hopes for this was down to the emphasis on balance in both the imagery and dialogue of this season. Unalaq said repeatedly that he was working for Vatu to restore balance and I began to think that someone had finally gotten the hint as to what the word balance means. Nope! He's just evil and wants 1,000 years of darkness (not unlike the new Thor film, actually). Iroh's fan service reappearance, talking of balance, the constant Yin-Yang motif, good and bad spirits, I thought they were all leading up to something clever. Nope! Big battle, they smash the bad guy, happy ending. They also overlooked that, having destroyed Vatu, he should have started to grow again from within Rava. Nope! Let's ignore our own logic (though that could potentially come back if they have a third season, so fingers crossed).

When they started talk of a Dark avatar I was grinning my face off because IT MAKES SENSE! You have Rava and Vatu wrestling in Avatar Wan's memory, symbolic of good and bad's struggle against each other. Wan disrupts that, wouldn't it have been great if, to bring everything full circle, The dark and light avatars end up perpetually grappling with each other, as it had been in the beginning? Ugh. It was simply disappointing that a clever enough show would ignore such an obvious issue, especially considering the stress they put on it. 

A dictionary, motherfucker! Do you own one?!

Anyway, what else was in the finale? Jinora suddenly becoming a pseudo-Jesus was weird but otherwise inconsequential. I really liked that Korra and Mako didn't restart dating, that was getting tired and stupid, plus it can't hurt to have a hero without a love interest every once in a while. Asami seems to have gotten sidelined in the finale, I didn't really see why she would have to go back when she knows how to work the machinery that the Northern tribe were using, could've been useful. I liked that Varrick escaped, leaving that open for the next season (I love this guy's phrasing: "Zhu Lee, do the thing!"). 

Then there's the issue of Korra. I get the feeling that the writers of the reboot didn't like her very much because they keep making her screw up. Fatally. In season one she loses her Avatar powers (deus ex Aang restores them but there's a definite moment of "What the fuck, Korra? Be more careful with the fate of humanity and stuff!") Then in this season she loses Jinora and later her connection to the past avatars. Like, dude! Honestly, Korra as a character has always struck me as somewhat ungrateful compared to Aang. I know this is just her personality and the writers were trying to make her distinct from her predecessor but did they have to make her so... bratty? Because that's what she tends to come across as. I cared much more about Asami (who is awesome but gets a criminally sparse level of screen time and development) than Korra at the end of this. When Korra lost the connection to Aang and the others (irreversibly, might I add) all I could think of was "Oh great, now you've screwed everything up for the future avatars!" I just don't understand what went wrong with her character, especially considering how other characters with similar flaws come across better. Varrick almost sparks a war between the two water tribes because he's greedy but I still liked him. Mako can be cold and overly serious but I still liked him. Bolin could be cocky and makes some bad decisions but I liked him. Why was the protagonist the one exception? 

Honestly, does anyone know? I found it so hard to empathise with her this season. Oh well, I guess we'll see what season three: "Changes" has in store. This has been my review of the season 2 finale for "Avatar: Legend of Korra". 

Embrace the Madness.

Let's be controversial: Religion (Part three: The Easily Offended)

Hello again, friendship people. Today I finally complete my three part doohicky discussing, questioning and lightly insulting (the definition of "lightly" being changeable and flimsy) religion and all that fun stuff. Don't worry, friends, it'll all be over soon and I'll get back to poking holes in (other) easy targets. Like bad to mediocre movies! So, if you haven't read my previous two sections there are here (part one) and here (part two). If you're easily offended by the discussion of something you believe in... well, stick around because in this section I am going to be discussing YOU! Yes you, entirely hypothetical easily offended reader! You, with your presumably sheltered background and unchallenging circle of friends. You, with your probable unfamiliarity with the internet's intolerance and controlling parents. Am I getting close? If yes, I'm a psychic! If not, that's exactly what I wanted to happen. I'm hyper today.

Joking aside, this informo-pinion-rant is probably going to be the least related to religion specifically out of the three segments. That's not to say I won't be using religion as an example, ooh no, it just happens to be the most extreme example of something that really, really annoys me. Now that's out of the way, let us begin.

I would like to tell you a little story, friends. Once upon a time there was a girl. Spoiler, that girl is me. She was on the internet one day and found an entertaining image that she decided to share with Facebook. The image was this:

I guess comic is more of an accurate description. Oh well. Anyways, I put this on my facebook wall because I thought it was funny. I found it funny and wanted to share it with my friends, some of whom may also find it funny. They did. It got likes and shiz. End of story, right? 

Wrong. About a week after posting this I got a text from a friend asking me to remove the picture from my feed because it had offended her. She was fairly religious and insisted that just because I thought it was funny did not mean it would be taken as a joke by all, it had quite annoyed her. I honestly had to recheck the post to see if the picture was in fact the one above, thinking maybe I'd accidentally posted my support of puppy drowning or the like. I refused to take the picture down because, in my defense, the picture was in no way aimed at this friend and was intended as a joke. I then, in a possible misjudgment, went on to question why my friend had had such a reaction to the picture. I asked if, perhaps, it was evidence of an insecurity in her own faith and had nothing to do with me whatsoever. 

She didn't talk to me for a week. Maths class was awkward as hell. I moved class the next week (that was gonna happen anyway but it was aptly timed).

This, dear readers, is one example of my experience with the easily offended. I've come across many such people while inching my way along this here mortal coil, not all of them religious but all of them equally taken aback at their precious whatever being questioned. I am far from the most tactful of people. I try, I really do, but only when the situation deserves it. Religion (or anything similarly trivial) does not deserve it. 

Here's the thing, readers: Nothing is above jokes. Not religion, not death, not bad people. Nothing. If something believes itself above jokes it is clearly not secure in itself that it can withstand being laughed at. If we collectively refuse to make jokes about something, it gains power over us. And that's generally not good. They say that humour is the enemy of authority and I wholeheartedly believe that. People were executed for making jokes at the expense of Nazis and communists and tyrants. Why? Because even those with the most control are insecure. And jokes niggle away at that insecurity. Satire has power, political cartoons in the Sunday paper have power, Youtubers who make fun of Kim Jong Un have power. Because humour is power. I'm losing the run of myself, back to my point.

So, why do normal people get so offended when I insult something like religion? They're not the pope, or a rabbi or preacher. Why the knee jerk offence? This is due to a phenomenon which has seen a significant rise in the boom of the internet: attaching your personality to the things you like. This is what I want to talk about. 

There's a concept called BIRGing. Basking In Reflected Glory. This is the phenomenon that a sports fan feels when their team wins, or a fan of a TV show feels when their favourite two characters finally get together. The individuals themselves have nothing to do with the outcome, yet feel pride and happiness for their success. It's a little bit like national pride (which is a topic for another day, friends). BIRGing is usually accompanied by CORFing. Cutting Off Reflected Failure. This is when the sports fan's team doesn't win, or that perfect couple doesn't end up together (*ahem* Katara and Zuko *ahem ahem*). The fans can disengage themselves because, after all, they have no personal input to the result so it shouldn't affect them. 

However, and this is a big however, that is not how human nature works. People can't disengage that easily. If they could there would be far fewer riots at football games and much, much less non-canon shipping fanfiction on the internet. We are social creatures and we get invested in things we like. That's our nature and it's normal. But we need to keep it in check. 

It's important for people to understand that, should someone insult or dislike something you like, they are not insulting you. For example, if someone (let's call them Bob, for the sake of ease) really liked the film "Grease", I have every right to say that I think it's overrated (which I do. Rant for another day). If I were to say this, Bob may see it as my insulting the movie. Fair enough. If Bob personally took offence at my insulting this movie, there we have a problem. If he were to not talk to me for a week for not liking the same movie as him, people would think he was being unreasonable. Substitute in religion and I get people saying "Well, you shouldn't've insulted the thing".

It all comes down to self esteem. Organised religion's more "wolf in sheep's clothing" aspect is taking advantage of people in dark places by promising them something better. What's that thing, you ask? Attaching their personalities to religion of course! And the worst thing (or "worst" depending on how you see it) is that it does help people. No, that's not a bad thing (I'm really digging a hole here, aren't I?) but the fact that they've now invested so much of their self esteem and their happiness in one organisation is a little worrying. I'll go back to my Dumbo analogy from the last installment. Dumbo thought he needed the magic feather to fly. But what would happen if he never learned to fly without the feather? He's quite possibly worse off that before because he's so heavily dependent on that one, small, incredibly flimsy thing. Commitment to an organisation similar to this or its more extreme cousin: drug addiction. Alcoholics feel like they can't be fun or interesting without drink. Caffeine addicts feel they can't wake up without their morning boost. Those dependent on religion feel they can't be confident in themselves without their God and church behind them. It's not healthy.

To quote the book of Beuller:

While I know it's not as easy as all that, it's a good place to start. Try not to attach your personality to Justin Bieber, or Arsenal, or The Church of Reformed Baptist Lamb Chops. Your personality is yours. Try and have faith in yourself.

And with that, friends, I conclude my three part segment on Religion! I hope you've gleaned some insight from it, of what an awful and blasphemous person I am if nothing else. Final thoughts to leave you with: Try not to accept things blindly. We have critical facilities for a reason and we need to see through our own bullshit from time to time. Question everything. Question me, if you want to, the comments are just below. I'll probably answer, we can have a nice chat. Try not to be super easily offended. If your friends have to pussyfoot around everything they want to say to you, they're not going to be comfortable around you. That ain't good. 

Why?

I like the way you think.

Embrace the Madness

Thor: The Dark World or "ANOTHER!"

Hello friends. Yes, I know I have broken my flimsy rule of "I'll try and get something out once a week". Apologies, I've had rehearsals for my school play (I'm Mama Morton, it is Chicago), my one year anniversary was last Friday and that involved effort, there have been tests and Halloween things and school and blergh. Also, Pokémon X and Y came out. Nuff said.

I also saw a movie and, in a break from somewhat halloweeny subjects such as witches and devils (daring ones) which were totally planned and not just things I wanted to talk about, I'm going to review the latest Marvel superhero film, "Thor: The Dark World".

I will try and keep this review as spoiler free as possible but I'm not entirely sure as to what can and cannot be considered a spoiler, be warned. I'll also be talking a little about the other Marvel superhero movies (namely Thor and Avengers Assemble) so if you haven't seen them you may feel slightly alienated. Apologies. 

Now, to the movie. I was very much looking forward to this movie. I thought that Thor was one of the better "lead up to the Avengers" movies in terms of plot, humour and characters. Y'see, Captain America was decent in terms of plot but fell down in terms of characters (the villain was incredibly meh) and the humour was fleeting (thought did enjoy cap punching Hitler in the face). Also, Cap is a wee bit boring, but I'll get back to that. Iron man was better in terms of characters because Tony Stark is charisma on a stick but the plot, oh the plot. How it did meander. The humour was good but, holy shit, if I had a euro for every time I wondered "where the hell are they going with this?"... I would have more money than I have now. Thor was good because they knew where their strengths lay. They could be dramatic when they needed to be but they weren't afraid to make jokes. It had a good grasp of what it wanted to do and set up things that needed to be done. It wasn't perfect but out of the three, I felt it was the strongest. 

Back to this movie. Basic plot summary: There are some evil elves (don't laugh) who want this evil dark scary red weapon dust called the "aether" to bring the universe back into darkness. They don't like the Asgardians very much cos they almost wiped them out a long time ago. Now they're back and they want their evil scary dust. Also, Thor misses his earth girlfriend. Discuss. 

Yeeeeeah, the plot is average but it knows what it's doing. It's no Iron Man "well, Ima just fly around and break international laws until the plot shows up". There is a Maguffin, a countdown and a clear villain. There are stakes. Mmmmm steaks..... Shh, Rachel, focus. So, let's talk about what's good.

Firstly, I absolutely LOVE the design for Asgard. Remember way back when, when I as talking about the design for Krypton in Man of Steel? It's a little like that but it's there for keepsies. I don't know if it's my Celtic blood but I'm a sucker for the twisty, quasi-"book-of-kells" stuff. It's just so cool. Throw in Chris Hemsworth in some stylised armour and some modern technology-ish stuff and I am one happy movie goer. And it's only five minutes in. 

Another good point to mention: Loki's back. Loki is another reason I really liked the first Thor over the other lead up movies: Loki is a strong villain. Red Skull and random "I like money and power" guy have nothing on Loki. Loki is relateable. Watching his struggle in the first film, you can understand the choices he makes and ask yourself if you would do the same, given the circumstances (though realistically, it's unlikely you'd ever be torn between your Frost Giant parents and your Norse Gods ones. You'd choose the Norse Gods, duh.). He is, ironically, very human. But he's still threatening, there's still the necessary malice because his loyalty is never certain and you're never sure what's going on in his head. He is complex and an all round great character. And in this film (this isn't a spoiler because it's in all the trailers) he is working with the good guys. 

Now, I can't tell you why because that is a spoiler but you really do get to see more of Loki's vulnerability in this film. And not a "hulk smashing him around a bit, puny god" physical vulnerability but true, emotional fragility. It's very well done on the part of Tom Hiddleston. Actually, all of the acting is great here, props to everyone. Not only do we see that layer of weakness to Loki but we get more of the Trickster God element that was lacking slightly in the previous two films we was in. Loki has some fun with his snark and his illusion powers (the line, "God bless America" factors in. It's hilarious. But you need to be there) One small qualm was the lack of funny awesome hat but I survived. 

Join me, and together we shall wear all of the silly hats.
And maybe rule the world or something.

More on the characters, Kat Dennings' makes a return as the ever hilarious and generally awesome Darcy, Jane Foster's intern and friend. There is a shoe motif. Again, you have to see it. Also very funny are Chris O'Dowd, in a relatively small but memorable role, Stellan Skarsgard returning as Dr. Eric Selvig (he helps forward the shoe theme) and Johnathan Howard as Ian the intern. 

Then of course there are Thor and Jane, played by Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman. They... exist. I said that the first Thor movie knew its strengths, as does this one. So it leaves the two leads off sreen as much as possible. It's probably not a good sign when Thor needs to be sidelined for the good of his own movie, but that's kind of the case here. It's not the fault of the writing or the actors, it's really just the fact that the character is not that interesting. In a lineup of interesting, intelligent, charismatic characters, Thor ends up  the lesser. He's mostly confined to action and punchlines (ie. he's a Norse God and he has to take the tube, har har har) much in the same way Cap was. It's not to the film's detriment but it does make one wonder what could have been done were the protagonist not so... constricting to the writers. Oh, and they do try. There is character development and we see him grow it's just not the part of the movie one remembers. i remember the shoes being mentioned four times better than I remember half of the soul searching scenes and the "I have slight daddy issues" scenes. It's not bad, just a smidge boring. But they try, points for effort. You get a gold star, writers.

Then there's Jane. Here's the thing with Jane... in the first movie she had a reason for being there. She was the eyes through which we, the audience, saw Thor change and become better. She helped him along his journey. Here... that's gone. Here all she serves for is a Maguffin related source of tension (no spoilers, shh) and as "something to pine for". She doesn't feel like a proper character because she has no goals of her own in this film. In the former she wanted to get her research back from shield and she wanted to figure out what was going on with this guy who fell from the sky (must... not make... raining men reference). Here, she starts out doing research on stuff (spoilers do not allow me to elaborate) but fairly promptly drops it for reasons and Eric and Darcy do all the science from there on. She's a plot device, essentially and that's no fun, especially considering that I liked the character in the first Thor. 

What else was in this movie? Oh yeah, Christopher Eccleston! 

I'm sorry, he has nothing on David 

See? Looka dat face

Well, he doesn't look like that. Chris #2 here plays Malakith, the evil elf leader dude. He wants to destroy the world... for reasons. Remember how I was praising Loki for being a layered, sympathetic villain. Yeah, Malakith is the opposite of that. And as if it wasn't enough, for half of the film he's speaking another language. Yes movie, because we needed another barrier to making him relateable. We really learn very little about him other than: he is ruthless and wants to plunge the universe into darkness. I'd much prefer if we knew what his favourite colour was, that would at least give us something else to go on. Besides, next to "evil is fun", "I want to destroy the world" is one of the laziest villain motivations out there. They try to get across that he wants revenge as well but that really doesn't factor much into his plan, so I ignore it (hey, so does the movie). Going back to a good villain, Loki wants to rule. That's simple and could be seen as lazy, yes, but we also understand why he wants to rule. He's had this promised to him, he's incredibly arrogant and believes he deserves power, and he resents his brother. We understand him. I have a feeling understanding Malakith would just open up plot holes. Ones other than the ones Malakith is trying to open (spoilers, you have to see it).

That, and his minions look like power ranger minions with teletubbie masks on. Very silly. Not very impressive.

Shh, not here you're not.

Overall, while this movie had some big 'ol flaws, it had a strong core, a well handled balance between humour and seriousness and some great characters to cover for the mediocre. I would definitely recommend going to see it, be you a comic book fan, a sci-fi fan, an action fan or just a straight up fan of movies. It will not be a waste of your time, you will probably enjoy yourself at least a little. Happy belated Halloween.

Embrace the Madness