Reviews: 'Thor' & 'X-Men: First Class'
It’s been a Marvel couple of weeks, and with Captain America up and coming as the last piece of the Avengers puzzle we’re looking for a very Marvel couple of years to come. I, for one, am a Marvel fan and don’t find myself deeply offended by people making big budget Superhero films; it’s no more exploitative in my mind than say the Harry Potter Franchise, or picking up the biggest weepiest book on a best sellers list and adapting it into Oscar-fare. In the end film is a medium for entertainment just as much as it is artistry, and whilst I don’t hold to the argument that big flashy blockbusters aren’t meant to be scrutinised because they are mindless entertainment, I do think that a film can be merited for being entertaining. Let’s put it this way; if the film is not aiming for artistic resonance it should, at least, be aiming to be absorbing for the audience.
It might seem tangential to talk about the merit of an ‘entertaining’ film, but I think it is particularly relevant to these two Marvel Megaliths, a pair of films designed with a specific purpose. ‘Thor’ is as much about setting up ‘The Avengers’ as it is about its titular Norse God. ‘X-men: First Class’ is as much about setting up a new X-men franchise as it is about any of the first class of X-men. With such financially minded motivations, is it possible to judge these films for their actual artistic merits and entertainment qualities, fully aware of how they are half spent building foundations for more films to come?
Yes. Yes we can.
A brief look around the internet showed me straight away that my opinion was not the general consensus: I thought ‘Thor’ was excellent and found ‘X-men: First Class’ to be a sputtering pile of potential under layers of drivel. Most people would put that pair solidly the other way around, and I could see why ‘Thor’ wasn’t loved, but I sure as hell can’t see why ‘First Class’ was.
‘X-Men: First Class’ is riddled with holes and no, I’m not talking about the rampant trampling of continuity that has got many of the hard core X-Men fans riled up; but it is frustratingly good at moments and utterly dire at others, like someone got two different films and jammed them straight into each other in a messy cutting exercise. Somewhere in here is a Campy, tongue in cheek 60’s mutant romp where Magneto and his rising strings theme-tune James Bond about the world, eventually teaming up with a bunch of misfits to stop a smirking Kevin Bacon in his shiny Submarine from diabolically starting World War 3. Slammed into that is a touching story about the origins of Professor Charles Xavier, privileged and condescending, becoming friends with a tragically destroyed young Holocaust survivor in a relationship that is gradually torn asunder by the growing realisation that in the end their ideology is far too different.
Except that it isn't gradual at all; Xavier and Lensherr meet and form their grand old friendship in a few sparse months and have their epic breakup in just as little time, and we’ve got to take their word for it that this is all terrible. We were spoiled by Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewarts absolutely superb relationship in the first two X-men films, which try as they might, McCavoy and Fassbander can’t replicate. They try, by God, and ‘First Class’s greatest asset is just how hard the two are trying to sell some absolutely terrible dialog and plot, but it’s not enough to save this sprawling mess of a film. This storytelling is not sharp; it’s choppy, jumping from location to location with lazy title cards and plot-line to sub plot with the same incoherence. The first half of the film feels very much like ‘meanwhile, Magneto is doing this!’ and the rest of the plot holds it up weakly. It’s not hard to see that this was supposed to be Magneto’s origin story with the hi-jinks of some kids thrown in on the side.
The film is not terrible, and at times genuinely manages to be entertaining, but is often so lacklustre it’s depressing. There’s not been a good X-men film since X2, which is still one of the best Superhero films to date, and I’m fairly sure there never will be a better one. There were a few scenes I really rather loved (Magneto lifting a submarine from the water comes to mind) and there were some great concepts flirted with (the death of Sebastian Shaw) but the execution doesn’t match up to the promise. Fassbander is by far the strongest performer in the cast which is in thanks to his character having a huge pool of depth to draw from, but aside from him most of the cast are rather loosely fitted. McCavoy does his best with a bland character and Kevin Bacon is reliably Kevin Bacon, but January Jones lacks even the slightest hint of charisma to play Emma Frost and Jennifer Lawrence puts in a rather muted Mystique.
My boyfriend, as it so happens, was an extra on the set of this film some months back. When he returned from shooting he told me bluntly that he fully expected ‘X-men: First Class’ to be mediocre at best from what he’d seen. He wasn’t wrong.
But on to Thor;
‘Thor’ suffers from 3 great issues: Firstly, it is directed by Kenneth Brannagh who brings with him such a level of calibre not seen amongst superhero films that it would inevitably be underwhelming. Secondly, the film is tasked with setting up 'The Avengers' for a good half of it’s runtime, and thus at times feels like the first half of a television two-parter with a lot of foundations and not a lot of payoff. Thirdly, this film is about Thor, who ranks up on my set of the top 5 utterly boring superheroes (If you’re interested, that list goes Superman, Green Lantern, Thor, Hulk and Captain America) for being immortal and one dimensional. He’s a God of thunder who wields a hammer that lets him fly and that’s about it.
As 'X-men: First Class' proved; for even the most compelling super heroes their stories are only as interesting as their villains. ‘Thor’ is not about Thor specifically, but about his society, his family and his villain, Loki. Much as Fassbander brought the big guns as Magneto, drawing as much magnetism (sorry) to the character as possible, much of Thor’s heavy lifting (again, sorry) is done by Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Chris Hemsworth embodies Thor with gusto, and so he should or he would look ridiculous, and presents excellent comic timing. However; Thor as a character develops half as much as Hiddleston’s Loki in this film. He’s already heroic, strong and good-hearted, he just needs a sharp slap across the face to remind him that he’s not always right.
That’s the plot of this film down to it’s very crux; Thor’s epic slap upside his head. This is partly why I rank Thor quite highly, I’m a sucker for a neatly enclosed, terse plot that takes place within a certain boundary. Less time is spent bouncing around the world and more on establishing the characters their differences and their development. Thor takes place in only three places and it benefits massively from this; by taking out the flashy complication of world trawling and convoluted plot babbling what you get is a very neat, well formed story.
It’s satisfying to watch pompous, big headed Thor get steadily knocked down by the reality of humanity until he hits breaking point and then reclaim his glory with a new lesson learnt; I don’t know everything. It’s a good start and Thor admits himself that he still has a long way to go, but it lays down the foundation of a great deal of character development without being heavy handed. The supporting cast is only a few, which allows room for relationships to grow, and for the first time in years I didn’t want to scream whenever Natalie Portman said anything.
As a side note; this might also be the first time I’ve believed someone as pretty as Natalie Portman could be an astrophysicist, which might be because I already know Portman is an exceptionally smart starlet but also because she doesn't sound like she’s just reading an auto-cue all time. She’s stuck in the role of ‘love interest’ and ‘plot device so Thor can come back for the avengers’, but she was likeable and sold her chemistry with Chris Hemsworth as mostly physical, which is a lot easier to buy than instant true love. I never thought Thor had fallen for Jane, or likewise, just that they were both seriously considering jumping one another. It works rather well; actually.
The world of Asgard is well realised even if it is basically a special effects cake but it is beautiful and sold by the conviction of Anthony Hopkins, who never once looks a fool for agreeing to the film. I would be remiss not to mention Brannagh’s Shakespearean touch; and I couldn't help but be reminded of the majestical splendour of his version of ‘Hamlet’ when Hopkins brutally tears down his son and banishes him. It was never going to be Shakespeare, but it’s hardly 'Daredevil' either.
The strength here lies with Tom Hiddleston, who plays Loki with such an understated resolve it is impossible not to feel for him; his development moves swiftly but his motivation rings true. Of every character in the film he is the most Shakespearean, almost like the Hamlet to Thor’s proud Laertes. The quiet, pensive manipulator who is forever teetering on the edge between a desperate need for acceptance, love and respect and genuine darkness. Loki pulls back from the edge many times and Hiddleston sells every beat; his angry tears as he finally faces Thor are particularly poignant. In this film his is not a villain; just a foil, and when we see him next in 'The Avengers', he’ll be a completely different man. I have no doubts Hiddleston will rise to that; even if I’m not so sure how our assembled heroes will fit just yet.
In the end this comes down to that entertainment factor; 'Thor’s weak moments were few and far between, and I never felt as though I wasn’t interested or entertained by what I was watching. 'X-men: First Class' dragged and suffered from its poor execution; I would far rather watch a film that aims for a certain level and meets it consistently, than one that wobbles back and forth between great and terrible before settling on a lukewarm medium.
