The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 

Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger, #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

"We wanted to make it period but we didn’t want to go back to the period of the original, 1941. I wanted it to be very much a vision of Edward Gorey’s London, which is Victorian London. There’s nothing more gothic and shadowy and horrifying than that. They had already decided on that when I came on so it wasn’t my choice, but I thought it was the perfect period to go to. It’s all about the darkness. "

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time here: The American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results more so on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definitely better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definitely doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but it is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.

 
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effects-work and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Silence of the Lambs.

Review #1498: The Silence of the Lambs.

Cast:
Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Ted Levine (Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Brooke Smith (Catherine Martin), Diane Baker (U.S. Senator Ruth Martin), Kasi Lemmons (Ardelia Mapp), Frankie Faison (Barney Matthews), Tracey Walter (Lamar), Charles Napier (Lt. Boyle), Danny Darst (Sgt. Tate), Alex Coleman (Sgt. Jim Pembry), Dan Butler (Roden), Paul Lazar (Pilcher), Ron Vawter (Paul Krendler), and Roger Corman (FBI Director Hayden Burke) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004))

Review:
"I realized the actual bottom line truth of doing Silence of the Lambs, something I felt when I read that book. I thought, this could be the scariest movie ever, and I wanted to make that movie. I wanted to make a Psycho caliber fucking terrifying movie."

As the first (and so far only) horror film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, the inevitability for covering this film was high, particularly since the character of Hannibal Lecter is particularly well-known across film and novels over the years. This is adapted from Thomas Harris' novel of the same name, originally published in 1988 as the follow-up work to Red Dragon, which had been adapted into a film by Michael Mann under the name Manhunter (1986). The follow-up book Hannibal (1999) and the other book would be turned into films with Hopkins as Lecter, while the prequel Hannibal Rising (2006) would be turned to a film with Harris as screenwriter, and a Hannibal series followed a decade after that. Fitting that a horror film like this would come from an acolyte of Roger Corman (who even cameos in the film) with Jonathan Demme. He met Corman while doing publicity for Von Richthofen and Brown, and Corman was interested in Demme to do work for him at New World Pictures. The result was Angels Hard as They Come, which Demme produced and co-wrote with Joe Viola. He then directed his first work with the studio as director with Caged Heat (1974). Over the years he had a steady career of films, such as Melvin and Howard (1980), Something Wild (1986), and Married to the Mob (1988).

Despite the failure with audiences at the time of Manhunter (now regarded as a cult classic), there was still interest in turning the next Harris novel into a film, although the initial plans was apparently going to have Gene Hackman directing/starring in it (various others were considered for both lead roles, such as Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer). Hopkins came about in interest because of his doctor role in The Elephant Man (1980). With a dark sense of gravitas and two killer performances from Hopkins and Foster, it is no wonder why this proves to be a great classic. It finds a balance between suspense and horror that drives through every beat and procedure with relish and entertainment. It is amazing to think about how solid of a performance Hopkins draws from such an unsavory but relentlessly fascinating presence, particularly since he only occupies a certain amount of time in the film that doesn't even run to thirty minutes. And yet here we are, still captivated and engrossed by what we see of him (such as in the numerous close-up shots of his face) as the calmest and most brilliant terrors of the human mind. On the other side of such interesting conversations is Foster, who proves quite dedicated and useful in focus of the drive for curiosity with regards to the dark parts of the human mind. She makes a resourceful presence that never seems lost within the madness. Glenn proves just as sharp in reasoned authority, while Levine rounds out the main group with creeping finesse in his lurking moments, and the others prove worthy in keeping the stakes level. On the whole, while the sequences with Hopkins and Foster are easily the most memorable of the film, the film holds up just as well in driving one in pursuit and skin-crawling with no pretensions whatsoever. The thrills can be quite entertaining like any other movie, but it is in that chase that really gives one a good jolt in their seat, and it is easy to see why this became imitated and well-known. It has a capable director in staging scenes with useful impact to go with a game cast that makes the most of their surroundings for a good time of carefully executed thrills that prove as effective nearly three decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: The Dark World.

Review #827: Thor: The Dark World.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Christopher Eccleston (Malekith), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Zachary Levi (Fandral), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Rene Russo (Frigga), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Algrim / Kurse), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), and Alice Krige (Eir) Directed by Alan Taylor.

Review
In retrospect, Thor (#041) was an exciting (if not somewhat flawed) movie. It may have taken a bit of time to get rolling, but it had a fine enough climax and established Thor as a quality hero, with Hemsworth doing a fine job in that film. In the sequel, he is also excellent, even if the film around is not exactly as thrilling as before. Hemsworth is believeable as ever, and his chemistry with others in the cast being good highlights. Portman is alright, though it seems she really isn't given that much to do. Her scenes with Hemsworth are fine. Hiddleston is memorable as ever, with enough trickery and charm, highlighted by his scenes with Hemsworth. Eccleston (admist a bunch of makeup) isn't that great a villain (a problem one could say about other villains in the Marvel films), but he is at least somewhat threatening.

While the effects are pretty good (aside from times when everything seems to be photographed in blue-greyish), the plot doesn't really seem to gel itself well, particularly with the Aether, though the Loki-Thor parts do help the movie get back its footing. The action is alright, with the climax being fairly decent enough. The rest of the cast is fine enough. It may not be up to the caliber of the other Marvel films, but it is entertaining and I'm sure that others likely will like this film a good deal more than I did. Take it for what it's worth, a comic book film with some instances of flair that work in most of the right places.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beowulf (2007).

Review #648: Beowulf.

Cast
Ray Winstone (Beowulf), Anthony Hopkins (Hrothgar), Angelina Jolie (Grendel's mother), John Malkovich (Uniferth), Brendan Gleeson (Wiglaf), Robin Wright Penn (Queen Wealtheow), Crispin Glover (Grendel), and Alison Lohman (Ursula) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and #581 - Forrest Gump)

Review
It is somewhat weird for me to write a review of a movie I also had to write a compare and contrast essay about, but here we are. Beowulf is a classic tale from long ago that inspired many tropes of heroism in other stories, which is why it has had a few adaptations over the years, like The 13th Warrior, or even the 1999 version of Beowulf, along with spin offs such as Grendel (and the film of it as well), but this movie is something of its own. Motion capture animation is hit and miss when it comes to scenes, at times it can look good, like the battle scenes but other times it looks a bit off-putting, such as closeup shots of characters looking more like a 90's interactive adventure story. The actors are at least entertaining, they seem to have a grasp on making these character interesting, though the character motivations and the plot itself is changed significantly. The idea to have Beowulf be a flawed man is either a brilliant way to make the plot seem more interesting, or just disappointing that they couldn't follow the story even in motivations.

At least the characters are given more screen time to develop, though the story sometimes seems more like a telenovela then an action film. At least the film has moments that are pretty fun to watch, the scene at the end is pretty good, I like how the movie doesn't hold back on the action/violence, and even though the movie has its silly moments (the beginning scenes are a bit odd to watch), it at least is an entertaining movie. Is it a movie that's true to the story? Not really, the whole subplot of Grendel's mother has a few new subplots and the movie ends on an ambiguous note, whereas the story ended on outright victory. I guess the movie's quality depends on your relation to the story and if you can let changes not affect your perception of the movie. I thought it was just okay, but at least it tried to be an entertaining movie, and it probably did a better job at doing that then the other two Beowulf films I mentioned earlier, which I guess is a good thing.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Review #301: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Cast
Jim Carrey (The Grinch), Taylor Momsen (Cindy Lou Who), Frank Welker (Max), Jeffrey Tambor (Augustus May Who), Christine Baranski (Martha May Whovier), Bill Irwin (Lou Lou Who), Molly Shannon (Betty Lou Who), Clint Howard (Whobris), Mindy Sterling (Clarnella), and Anthony Hopkins (Narrator) Directed by Ron Howard.

Review
In my review of The Cat in the Hat (#210), I mentioned the How The Grinch Stole Christmas film in one line of the rhyme (don't ask) Even the Grinch has a better film. 91 reviews later, the being known as irony has come, and so here I am reviewing this. Does it live up to the so called rhyme? It certainly is better The Cat in the Hat, but this can't escape the reaches of the thing known as criticism. To be fair, Jim Carrey (Who is very familiar here: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, Batman Forever, Mr. Popper's Penguins) does a show stealing job, even if sometimes he is a bit grating on the ears. The rest of the aspects varies severly. There are some decent performances by the supporting cast (Let's face it, in any Carrey film (That I've reviewed), he pretty much overshadows the entire cast), but there are some...oddities. Let me get this out of the way, but I loved the 1966 animated special and the 1957 book (By Theodore Geisel [Also known as Dr. Seuss]), but this isn't really in terms of...love. The makeup, while admirable for the effort, isn't really necessary. I do wonder if there is a Doctor in Whoville though. And then there's the main problem that in a way is connected with the other Seuss film adaptation. It's that the characters are radically changed from their original inception. While in the special the Whos were not really characterized other then just citizens who loved the spirit of Christmas, I could at least get their motivation and admire it. Here, the Whos are just...mean spirited. And that even extends to the Grinch's origin (Due to the Who's. Oh hey, that rhymed. But I don't have time.), which feels souless. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, instead of the Who's being happy with what they had, make them the opposite to try and make an interesting story. Then I realize that violates the spirit and soul of Dr. Seuss and his books. The last 20 or so minutes do attempt to be more like the book, but that doesn't help as much. In the end, while their is some sort of dialouge with a bit of comedy, it is hampered by a flawed script that doesn't capture much of the book of the lesson at all. But I will indulge you in a rhyme once again.

The Grinch is indeed better then the Cat,
But it really isn't much better then that.
Jim Carrey does a decent job,
But this still might make you sob.
Not in a good way,
But in a head shaking foray.
The spirit of the book is messed with,
It will give you an absolute fit.
Go watch the special instead,
You won't have the feeling of dread.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thor.

Review #041: Thor.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson), Colm Feore (King Laufey), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Josh Dallas (Fandral), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), and Rene Russo (Frigga) Directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Review
Greetings fellow viewer who clicked the link from the review of Thor: Ragnarok (2017) or simply wanted to see an old review. To provide some context, I have written a small piece of memories from this film, having seen it when I was 14.

In retrospect, I will say that Thor (2011) is a decent film, but it definitely pales a bit when compared to Iron Man or the film that followed this one, Captain America: The First Avenger. That's not to say that this is a mediocre movie, but it definitely has its issues, such as some of its human characters along with taking a bit of time to really get going. Hemsworth does a capable job, however, and Hiddleston and Hopkins are also fairly good standouts in a movie that has some dazzle in what proves to be fair entertainment.

The film is a exciting film that won't put you to sleep, as the film has action that is done well. The acting is good, especially from Hemsworth. The only flaw I find is that the film takes a little time to go, especially after Thor is banished to Earth. In a way, this is the penultimate film before The Avengers (The final being Captain America - #060).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.