Definitely An Unexpected Journey

So after a couple days of digesting a movie a ginormous as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I now feel confident enough to to justly review the movie.

Peter Jackson's retelling of the J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit was definitely unexpected. Let's start with the good. The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. Even in the regular frame rate, the picture was stunningly clear. The saturation was also a plus. It was a very pretty film to watch. Secondly, I love Martin Freeman. He IS Bilbo Baggins, right down to the core. His portrayal of the hobbit was just perfect. I truly believed he was Bilbo. The cast in general was just full of superb acting, though that's what you get when you stock your cast full of actors from the BBC. Ian McKellen was excellent as Gandalf as always. The dwarves were led by the talented Richard Armitage who played Thorin. The cast also included James Nesbitt as Bofur, Aidan Turner as Kili, and Stephen Hunter as Bombur.

So the acting was very good and the film was visually very appealing. The most crucial part of any film is the story. The story was not bad. It definitely felt like Tolkien since there was a lot of attention to detail but there were some elements that I just did not like. I appreciated the way Jackson opened up with Old Bilbo narrating the story and eventually revealing the story is being told to Frodo. I did not like Frodo's cameo. It felt very forced and like it was only there to appeal to the members in the audience who loved Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. I understood he was trying to reveal that Bilbo was writing his story on the day of his 111th birthday, the same day he leaves and Frodo's adventure begins, but something about it just did not feel right.

I also was not a fan of the Pale Orc having a bigger story arc in the movie then he did in the book. It seemed as though Jackson was trying to create more action and tension than there was in the first part of The Hobbit because he wanted it to be more action-y. This, took away from the feeling of a true Lord of the Rings feel. There did not seem to be as large of an emphasis on plot because when there was actual plot it moved very quickly. However, I did love that Jackson decided to expand Radagast's (Slyvester McCoy) story farther than what we read in the book. His storyline helped really enhance the plot and it was interesting to see another wizard beside Gandalf and Saruman, especially another good wizard.

The film was good but not great and thinking about it, I would say it is like The Two Towers for me considering that movie is really good but it is not my favorite (or I think) the best out of the trilogy. 

The Journey Begins

Tonight I am going to the midnight premiere of The Hobbit and I honestly couldn't be more excited. I love The Lord of the Rings; I own all of the extended editions and watch all of them at least twice a year. So needless to say I am a huge fan of the movies and the series.

I know there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the film about Jackson deciding to film the movie at 48 fps when the standard is 24 fps but honestly, this is because we are not used to a frame rate that high and it seems to be more popular with people my age. Regardless, I highly doubt it will stop me from loving the film. Jackson is a visionary and no one could translate Tolkien's world into film quite like him. So I have nothing but high expectations and high hope. I am sure I will not be let down.

So I've been kind of a hiatus

 School has been VERY hectic but I'm back now and ready to review more films. I think to dip my feet back into the water I'm going to be reviewing Wreck-It Ralph. Next week I'll be reviewing The Hobbit, but more on that later.

Wreck-It Ralph, which stars John C. Reilly, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Sarah Silverman, is a very cute and endearing cartoon about a video game villain (Ralph) who no longer wishes to be bad. Writer and director, Rich Moore was able to find a pleasant balance between entertaining both the children and adults who viewed it. It is not often a children film achieves this. The film is a real treat for those who are old enough to remember 8-bit games since the main character's game is that style.

There were some parts of the movie that I really did not enjoy. Although, the animation was quite impressive and all the actors did phenomenal jobs with their voice work, there were just some parts that felt a bit odd or forced.  There was a brief moment when a cartoon version of Skrillex popped on screen  and I really did not enjoy it. It just seemed bizarre to me for him to appear on screen however I can see that maybe his cameo existed in order to appeal to the older audience members. I was also not a fan of the romance between Jane Lynch's character, Calhoun, and Jack McBrayer's character, Felix. Don't get me wrong, I love Jack McBrayer and Felix was such an adorable character, however the romance just felt wrong and very forced. It seemed as though Disney felt there needed to be a romance because it is a Disney movie. The romance was very underdeveloped, very rushed, and just overall threw off the theme of the film.

The film is one about accepting yourself for who you are and it doesn't matter if you are bad or good, as long as you are comfortable with yourself, that's all that matters. This is a very important and endearing message to send to children. It's time to start telling children it doesn't matter what you look like or who you are and that's good.

How Jurassic Park Taught Me to Love Movies

As the spring semester of my sophomore year comes to close, I cannot rightfully end the semester without writing about my all-time favorite movie Jurassic Park. The film, directed by Stephen Spielberg, came out in 1993. A very brief synopsis of the film is as follows: during a preview tour with several specialists in the field of Paleontology and Mathematics, a theme park featuring real dinosaurs, suffers a major power breakdown that allows the cloned dinosaurs to run amok.

Before Jurassic Park Spielberg had directed Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and The Color Purple to name a few. So by the time directing Jurassic Park arrived, Spielberg was already an established director. Spielberg seemed like an obvious choice for Universal Studios to take on such a massive film and he did such a fantastic job.

One of the reasons I love the film so much is because it was one of the first movies to use CGI. Spielberg wanted the audience to have the same reaction to seeing the dinosaurs for the first time as the characters in the film, which led them to the addition of CGI and this was the first film to use digital surround sound. But Spielberg was worried that computer graphics meant Nintendo type cartoon quality. He originally only wanted the herd of Gallimimus dinosaurs to be computer-generated, but upon seeing ILM's demo animation of a T-rex chasing a herd of Galamides across his ranch, Spielberg decided to shoot nearly all the dinosaur scenes using this method. For 1993 the graphics are quite breathtaking. A viewer watching this movie has the feeling that he/she is looking at a real dinosaur.

The first time we see the dinosaurs, the viewer is taken aback. Up until this point we have been following the main characters Dr. Grant, Dr. Sattler, John Hammond, and Dr. Malcom since their arrival to the exclusive island housing these genetically cloned dinosaurs. The camera, in one fluid sweeping track, follows the jeeps the characters are in until the jeeps stop and Dr. Grant and the others spy the Brachiosaurus’. The camera switches between a close up of Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler’s face. This leaves the audience really yearning to see the dinosaurs. The audience finally gets their wish when the camera pans to reveal the very breathtakingly real (for that time) dinosaurs. Now the GCI looks very silly and fake, but for then the dinosaurs look very real. They are tall and majestic against an equally CGI’d background. The scene is quite impressive for 1993.  

However, not all the dinosaurs are CGI. The production team did use animatronics for the famous T-Rex and menacing Velociraptors. Watching the film and intently studying the differences between the CGI and animatronics dinosaurs, I find the animatronics dinosaurs to be more real. This might be because I am watching the film in a decade of extremely advanced CGI or because I usually prefer animatronics to CGI in general.

The scariest scenes in the film are hands down the scenes when the two children are trapped in the kitchen with the Velicoraptors and when the T-Rex is attacking the jeep the children are in. These scenes both use animatronics. The look and movement of the animatronics is just more menacing and realistic. The texture of the dinosaurs is also really astonishing. One can almost feel the texture of the skin of the dinosaurs. As the Velicoraptors are stalking the kitchen looking for the children the viewer can feel the extreme fear of the children due to the menacing threat that at any moment the Velicoraptors might catch the children. However, the most fear inducing aspect of the scene is John Williams’ score.

John Williams is a VERY talented composer and has worked with Spielberg on Jaws and the Indiana Jones films and with George Lucas on the Star Wars films. Williams is a master at evoking a certain emotion from the audience using the most simple of melodies. His music flows intricately and masterfully from an upbeat, happy tune to a very ominous and foreboding warning. His music greatly enhances such scenes as the T-Rex chase scene to the joyous moment when viewers first see the dinosaurs. Many people forget how important music is to a film. It can either bring the movie to a whole new level or weaken it due to poor melodies and tunes. Without Williams score on this film, Jurassic Park would not be as strong of a film.

Jurassic Park is one of my favorite films because of its dutiful attention to detail. The push to create new technology in order to enhance the viewing experience for viewers and the wise choice for John Williams to score the film are little details that make the movie so wonderful. I think Jurassic Park is sometimes under appreciated, but what people do not understand is what the film did for the world of CGI and all the opportunities and possibilities its invention opened up for the world of film.

Hot Fuzz; the story of a Bromance

One of my favorite movies is Shaun of the Dead and Simon Pegg is one of my favorite actors so in only seemed natural to watch the movie Hot Fuzz (2007) in order to see how it compares to Pegg’s other movies. Honestly, I think Hot Fuzz is my favorite. It is one of those films that I have watched so many times, and I still notice something new each time. There are so many subtle details and references, that it is a film that needs to be viewed more than once. Directed by Edgar Wright and written by Simon Pegg and Wright, Hot Fuzz is smart, witty, a parody cop movie in a refreshing way, and is still incredibly funny.

Hot Fuzz (the short of it) is about a highly successful London cop, Sgt. Nicholas Angel (Pegg) who gets transferred a small town and gets paired with a witless partner, PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost). This reassignment proves good for Angel because he and Butterman stumble upon a series of suspicious accidents and events.

A more detailed description includes Frost being reassigned to this small town because he is too good a cop and is making all of his fellow police officers and superiors look bad. So his new colleagues immediately dislike him because they think Angel is there to show them up. The only one who likes him is Butterman. Butterman is in awe of all of the action Angel experienced in London. So Angel, reluctantly, takes Butterman under his wing and together they unearth a dark secret about the town.

Both Pegg and Frost are brilliant comedic actors in general and in this film specifically. Their comedic timing only strengthens Hot Fuzz’s witty style. They really know how to keep the movie flowing and they have a very good ability to vie off each other’s energy. Their off screen friendship definitely seems to help with their on screen chemistry because when you are as good of friends as these two are off screen, you know their style and how to keep the comedy flowing.

Wright has directed a number of successful films along with Shaun of the Dead. So it makes sense why this film has a similar feel to Shaun of the Dead because both are really smart, satirical films that parody of a specific type of film. Shaun of the Dead is a parody of zombie films like Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later, while Hot Fuzz parodies cop films Bad Boys II, Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon. Ironically Sgt. Angel is the character that has most of the clichés cop movie lines but is unaware of this due to his lacking repertoire involving cop films. So, Butterman, who is so totally immersed in cop movies, stands by while Angel says all of these classic one-liners, such as “Shit just got real” and “Punch. That. Shit”.

Both films were written by Pegg, which would also explain why the two movies are so similar. Pegg has a very clear writing style that combines wit, humor, a specific knowledge of film and its genres, and seriousness. Hot Fuzz is a very funny satirical film that is also very serious at times. The film can move from really funny to really serious in just one line, which is what makes the film so brilliant. A couple moments in particular are when Angel is fighting off this giant brute and the moment is tense because the brute is trying to kill Angel. Angel manages to knock him out and the mood changes from serious to funny in an instant because Angel says, “Playtime’s over” and knocks him out. It is a very funny moment of comic relief done right. The other very serious moment that turned funny in an instant is when Angel discovers the Neighborhood Watch Association is actually a group of murderers. They are all chanting something in Latin. They are shrouded in black cloaks and have flashlights lighting their faces. It is all very creepy and uneasy. Once the chanting subsides, one of the female members starts discussing town events. She mentions that a couple had twins and when the shower will be held. It is all light-hearted and a complete 180 from the moment before. The effect is a fit of laughter.   Pegg is clearly as talented as a writer and he is an actor.

Some very interesting scenes visually would be when the murder of Martin Blower is happening, the scene chronically Angel’s journey to Sanford, and the beginning of the final showdown with Neighborhood Watch Association. The scene involving Martin Blower’s death the viewer watches see parallel actions going on. One scene follows Angel and Butterman spending the night watching Bad Boys II and Lethal Weapon. The other scene is Martin Blower being murdered in his home. The actions in each scene mimic and parallel each other. When the murderer hits his victim on the head, the movie cuts to Angel falling down into a chair. Then Angel says the line, “You have to be pulling my leg,” and the shot cuts to the murderer pulling his victim (by his legs) into a kitchen.

The scene after Angel has been reassigned to Sanford, we follow his train ride and subsequent rides until he reaches his hotel in Sanford. The viewer starts off seeing the hallway of what is most likely the Police Station and hear the voice of Angel’s new boss, Lt. Frank Butterman. As his voiceover plays, the shot then fades into Angel packing for his new position. The camera cuts to a picture of Angel as a child and then a car passes in front of the lens of the camera and the shot is now outside. Angel is standing in front of his apartment building and once again we hear the voiceover play. A taxi pulls up and the viewer gets a close up of the Taxi sign. As the voice over continues to play, the scene fades in and out of Angel on a subway car and then another train. The camera then makes a series of quick cuts of Angel’s head on a window, a plant on the table in front of him, a different perspective of him looking out the window. Then another quick cut of Angel waiting for the next train, it’s light out; the shot quickly cuts to dusk, angel has fallen asleep. Then another cut as a train goes by and he is jolted awake. Then a quick succession of cuts of Angel, plant, taxi. All of these cuts are happening in rapid succession and create a very dynamic viewing experience. The journey then reverts back to how it began with soft fades and the light going in and out on Angel and the scenery around while he is in the taxi and on the last leg of his journey. The different type of editing techniques illustrates the contrast of the parody nature of the film and how it is still its own unique movie.

The best scene that illustrates how Hot Fuzz is a parody is when Butterman and Angel decide to take on the villagers on Sanford. Once Butterman joins in the camera moves between quick takes of the Butterman and Angel and the people of Sandford shooting at each other. The moment when Butterman and Angel have taken down the people in the square, the camera movement mimics that of one someone would see in a cop film. The camera circles Angel and Butterman after they have taken down the doctor and Angel says, “You’re a doctor, deal with it” in a very breathy, cop film voice. The camera continues to circle them and feature the two of them together in the frame from different angles as they discuss what to do next. It is all very cliché but works for the film because Hot Fuzz is trying to parody but in a refreshing way.

This film is a genuinely good film. I think it is even a great film because every element of filmmaking comes to together in a smart, cohesive manner. Hot Fuzz is a bitingly satirical film that is hugely entertaining that everyone should see at least once because it is a very well made film and to be honest, those are very rare know-a-days. The film is a very smart film in its writing, editing, and directing. All the elements work together so perfectly to make one fluid, continuous movie.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead...or are they?

In my Lit class, we have been discussing Existentialism on and off for the past couple of weeks. During one of these discussions, the subject of writing from the point of view of an obscure character came up. So naturally we discussed the play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. I had read this play in high school and greatly enjoyed it so I wanted to watch the movie and see how the themes fate and destiny, and whether we can really ever escape it, are portrayed in the film adaptation.

The film Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990), directed and written by Tom Stoppard, follows the characters Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman) and Guildenstern (Tim Roth) from Hamlet. The story is really about fate and whether we really have control of our lives because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern keep reliving their life from the beginning of their journey to see Hamlet and ends when they are ultimately hanged. The story is more focused on the idea of fate and how we are merely players in the game of life. However, the film is very playful. It is playful with its dialogue, its editing, and story. Stoppard really draws the viewer in with witty and clever dialogue, and through a surprisingly engaging story told via the point of view of two very minor and insignificant characters from one of the greatest stories of all time.

The film begins by following Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on a journey somewhere yet unknown with Rosencrantz decides to start flipping a coin. Each time he flips the coin, it lands heads. In the beginning it seems to just be a random occurrence that it lands heads so many times. But after 76 times of landing heads, Rosencrantz begins to think it means something while Guildenstern thinks it is just random. Of course the coin landing heads so many times is NOT random. At the beginning of the film it may be unclear as to why the coin never lands tails, but by the end it is evident that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are stuck in a type of limbo that affects the outcome of the coin. The coin landing heads may also allude to the fact that they both end up getting hanged.

What is interesting about the film is how it is structured. The film is linear, per se, but the transitions between scenes are discontinuous, much like how I would imagine life in Limbo to be. An example of this in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is when they are watching a travelling show and then suddenly the camera cuts to them in a castle draped in curtains that have fallen upon them. Also in the castle, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern try to leave the room they magically appear in only to end up at the opposite entrance of the room. They are trapped within the room because they are unable to make other choices outside of what fate had laid out for them. Even though the idea of their limbo is to try to figure out what they did wrong and change it. The editing style is definitely unique and supports the idea that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are in some type of supernatural place.

The ending line of the film (“There must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. Somehow we missed it. Well, we'll know better next time.”) suggests the two are stuck in a cyclical Limbo in which they are forced to relive their lives over and over again from a certain moment. There are other lines through out the film that allude to the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, in fact, dead. For one, there is the title of the film, the fact Rosencrantz and other people keep mixing up their names, and they can’t remember what the first thing they did that day was.

The best scene in the movie is when they are playing the game, “Questions”, which is when two people keep asking each other questions and the game ends when one of the players says a statement or asks a question with rhetoric. The point of this scene, besides being very visually interesting to watch, is to play with the idea that questions are more important than answers. If you ask the right question, then maybe you will begin to better understand life and its meaning. The scene is very visually interesting because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are playing this game on a badminton court and are acting like there words are volleys. So each time they lob a question, they move across their side of the court. The scene juxtaposes a very playful game with a very serious message about life and its purpose.

What makes this film so strong, other than the script, are the actors (Oldman and Roth). Their portrayal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being stuck in some sort of Limbo is believable through their body language. Even the subtlest movement fits so perfectly in the story because each little facial tick or shrug tells just as much as what is said. In Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead what is said is just as important as what is left unsaid.

The film is really a brilliant adaptation of an equally genius idea to take on a story from the point of view of a seemingly unimportant character, or characters in this case, about how fate is something we can never escape or change.

Symposium Response

The Film Symposium was actually a lot of fun and really interesting. I found both Dr. Peary and Dr. McElhaney discussions lead me to think about film criticism and Advise and Consent, respectively, in different ways. I think the symposium went really well because, at least for me, I got to talk to a lot of people outside of the classroom, whom I would not normally talk to, about the movies. The conversations I had were stimulating and insightful and these conversations were only happening right outside the auditorium. It is refreshing to talk to people who are interested and educated about the same things as you. It makes the conversation much more enjoyable. I learned to look at films in a certain way from my peers that I would have never thought to or would have seen myself. People are so similar yet have such different views on something we all watch.

I especially thought this way during the discussions after Dr. Peary’s film on American film criticism (For the Love of Movies) and Dr. McElhaney’s lecture on Advise and Consent. 

With the documentary on American Film Criticism, it is safe to say that most in the audience learned much more about the history of film criticism than they did before. I really liked how the profession originated from trying to promote the films and then gradually evolved into more of a study and critical look on how people were trying to put in words what that certain movie was trying to accomplish and what it did well. I also like how American film criticism then develop several theories about film as a way to explain the techniques and styles of different directors. The way this profession has grown is truly tremendous. 

What is interesting about For the Love of Movies is how differently the students saw the job of being a film critic from the professionals in the documentary. The idea that anyone can be a critic did not only seem foreign to me but to others as well. I do think a person has to be educated in order to be an informed and good critic. Sure everyone can have an opinion about the movie they saw but in order to be a GOOD critic, one has to include so much more. There has to be an attention to detail, knowledge of film history, an efficient writing style, and personality. The argument that anyone can be a critic is like saying anyone can be anyone can be a psychologist. If I read up enough textbooks about psychology and get a handle on the profession, I can be a psychologist too, right? NO! That is not how it works. People who are educated and have degree in their profession know better than those who are amateurs. People can now study film and how to be a good film critic and those are the people who are qualified. So the critics in the documentary upset me because they are the ones giving the amateurs on the internet power by saying, “anyone can be a film critic” instead of actually empowering themselves by saying they are more knowledgeable on the subject because they studied and are affluent in film.

What made For the Love of Movies such a powerful documentary for me was it made me want to be a film critic and that was not my professional original goal. It made me understand that if I love movies so much, I should make it my job. Films that have the power to persuade someone into a dying profession are certainly good ones.

This documentary was successful because it sparked a lot of conversation once it was done and a lot of people had strong opinions from what was said in it. Especially about the critics because unfortunately being a film critic is a job where it is better if the person is younger so once he/she becomes older, he/she has to find something else to do, such as teaching. However, the older film critics do not realize this and are still trying to write even though they are producing and saying things that are outdated and are not really in touch with the younger generation and what is going on in films.

Dr McElhaney’s lecture on Otto Preminger's Advise and Consent was very interesting and insightful. I learned a lot of new information about the film that I did not previously know. For instance, it was interesting how Preminger changed the clear moral message from the novel Advise and Consent into a more ambiguous film without a clear message. Obviously the film was very controversial with its moral ambiguity and also how the film had a homosexual scene in the film that either was or was not homophobic, depending on how the audience member personally viewed the scene. Also, I found interesting how the author hated the adaptation because of the changes made and because there was no strong message against communism and homosexuality.

What I did not know was that many people and critics did not like the film because it was basically about nothing. Which makes complete sense because the audience is engaged in this movie for more than two hours and they are invested in some resolution to the problem at hand but such a solution never comes. It is the biggest, anti-climatic movie of all time. The critics and the audience were certainly justified in this opinion because the movie is a let down and I am not surprised that audiences thought this.

I appreciate that though, for the majority, critics did not like the film, they did respect the way it was filmed and the way in which Preminger employed deep focus shots and long, sweeping takes instead of the normal quick cuts.

What I found most interesting about the presentation was when Dr. McElhaney showed the trailer. The two points that stood out most to me were how the movie was more advertised around the director and his status rather than the story and the actors in it and how the trailer gives away that Brig Anderson kills himself. I personally thought that to be one of the twist in the movie that an audience member would not see coming, yet the theatrical trailer chooses to divulge this information upfront instead of letting the audience be surprised. Maybe if this information was left out of the trailer, people would have responded slightly better to the film because there was a twist in it. I know I appreciated the film because of that little surprise.

The discussion after the lecture was interesting because there was one audience member who kept asking a lot of questions about the film and its subject. She took the discussion in a direction that was different from what how most people viewed the film and she had not even see Advise and Consent, yet it was interesting to hear her opinions and thoughts on the film because they added a new perspective.

I am glad and honored I was able to be a part of such a successful and fun event. I learned a lot from the variety of events and felt my understanding of the cinema, 1962 and other eras, and American film criticism was greatly increased through the film symposium.

A Shakespearean Director's take on a Classic Marvel Superhero

 I decided to write the first review on Thor (2011) because all last week my roommate kept reciting, “Thor the God of Thunder was riding on a filly, ‘I’m Thor’ he cried, his horse replied, ‘So get a thaddle thilly.’” Therefore the only plausible way to deal with my desire to rewatch Thor was to use it in an assignment. Basically my roommate and I are very close.

She (Hilary) and I have been roommates for two years. We were thrown together as timid freshman testing out the waters of college when we realized the new environment would be somewhat survivable because we are both awesome people. Hilary is so awesome that I couldn’t bare the thought of not rooming with her the upcoming year. So here are; two sophomores, delving deeper into our respective majors (her Geosciences and Education and myself Radio/TV and Cinema Studies).

I have to admit I love my majors because it is fun to watch movies and intently analyze them along with putting together and editing my own creations. At the bottom of it all I just really like to watch TV and movies and talk about them. I’m kinda like Abed from the TV show Community. I find these things interesting to break down and study. There is always so much meaning and detail, which is exactly what I’m going to be exploring in this blog.

Thor is an exquisitely stunning film directed by Kenneth Branagh that masterfully blends a Shakespearean sense of dramatic storytelling with the modern day appeal for action.

For those of you who managed to miss the fourth installment in Marvel’s Avenger series, the film is about the god Thor who is as powerful as he is arrogant. Because of this arrogance, his father casts him out of their land, Asgard, to Earth where he is only as strong as the next man. Through Thor’s banishment he must learn what it means to be a God and all that he is responsible for. However, his banishment gets tricky when his little brother Loki decides he is going to take over the realm. Thor must stop his brother from destroying all the peace their father created while King, while stuck on Earth in order to keep all the realms safe.

Let’s talk about the visual effects for a moment. They are breathtaking, absolutely breathtaking. A team of visual artists worked very hard to make this film as beautiful as it is entertaining. Every color is magnified; in one particular scene when Thor, Loki, and his friends enter the Jotunnheim (where the Frost Giants are), the entire realm is gray and black, with some white because of the snow. Everything is sharpened as to really emphasize the coldness of the realm. But what is really striking is Thor’s red cape contrasted with the gray, cold background. It is so vibrant that it almost makes the entire setting black and white. It is very reminiscent of Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. The entire film is black and white except for two parts; the beginning in which the viewer sees the color of the flame of the candle being lit and then again when the main character is watching a little girl walking through the streets while apartments are being raided by the Nazi’s. Everything around them is black and white, except for her, in her bright red coat. We follow the girl because of this distinction and are told there is something different about her because of her coat. 

Also really highlighted in this scene is the Frost Giant’s piercing red eyes. Red is a very significant color throughout this film since the color exemplifies power, which is very dominant theme in Thor. For the most part though, the film uses special effects only when the audience is viewing the where the Gods dwell, such as the Jotunnheim and Asgard. When the film changes its setting to Earth, there are no special effects and everything looks very realistic. We are supposed to view the realms as a fantastical and mythical place; which is exactly what the stunning graphics achieve.

The brothers, Thor and Loki, have a very specific color scheme in this epic. Thor's colors are red, blue, and silver while Loki's colors are green, bronze, and black. These colors are incorporated into their princely garb while in Asgard and the two also are dressed in their respective colors when on Earth, although their costumes are not as fantastical. Thor is wearing blue jeans, a navy blue t-shirt, and a red plaid flannel shirt. Loki, during his brief visit to Earth, is wearing a dark green overcoat, a green and bronze scarf, and a deep green tie. Clearly the costuming in this movie is very purposeful and really wants to draw our attention to the contrast in dress and the contrast in characteristics between the two feuding brothers. Another interesting point with costuming are the helmets Thor, his father (Odin, the King), and Loki wear. The color of Odin's helmet is gold, Thor's is silver, and Loki's is bronze. This subtly highlights the importance and rank within the family and as always, Loki comes last. 

The reason Loki becomes so jealous and vengeful is because he always had a sneaking suspicion that he was not really Odin’s son and Odin never truly loved him. That kind of thought can really do a number on a child’s head. Thor was always the favorite, he was the one who would become king someday, even though Loki believed he would make a terrible king; and he would. Thor is too rash and violent. He thinks with his heart opposed to Loki who would actually make a decent ruler because he think with his brain. Loki does find out the reason his father never loved him as much and it is because he is adopted, and not only that, Loki is actually a Frost Giant Odin saved when he made peace so long ago. So there is a lot of underlying tension.

Now, onto the interesting choice in director. If one goes onto Imdb and looks at the other films Branagh has directed, one would notice that for the most part, the films are adaptations of Shakespeare’s greatest works. Now it might be odd that a classic Shakespearean director be chosen to director a superhero movie, but a close look at the plot of Thor would suggest otherwise. The story of Thor is actually very Shakespearean. The story of Thor is actually very Shakespearean considering the story is about two brothers struggling to succeed their father as king. One brother, Thor, is a spoiled, arrogant person who does not know the first thing about ruling a kingdom but believes he does on the basis he grew up as a prince. Compared to Loki who really just wants his father's love and attention therefore he decides to try to start a war and in process causes his father to go in to a deep sleep and just basically tries to ruin everything because his father never loved him enough. The story is really a great epic. The costuming, the staging, and the lighting all really add the dramatic idea that Thor could be a Shakespearean play.

All in all, the movie is arguably the most enjoyable out of all the Avenger's films due to its stunning visuals, the choice to use a director skilled in Shakespeare, and all of the action laid in.