Moon

One of the best, most overlooked actors, the extraordinary Sam Rockwell stars all alone in this understated and also overlooked science fiction thriller written specifically for him. Sam plays Sam, a lonely astronaut living on a moon base to oversee harvesting of Helium 3, a source of clean energy. His contract was three years, and his only companion an AI robot named GERTY, (voiced by Kevin Spacey) and the occasional recorded video message from his employers or his wife back on Earth. Now there's only a couple weeks before his three years is up, and not a moment too soon; Sam is about to go crazy with cabin fever. He's preparing to finally go home, but then... some strange things begin to happen. Maybe Sam isn't only about to go crazy after all.

The one and only.

It seems as if including Sam Rockwell in a cast guarantees two things -- one being that the movie will be significantly improved, and often completely made by his presence, and two, that the movie will then be inexplicably overlooked or underrated, especially if that movie is set in space. Case in point: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Galaxy Quest, and this movie -- Moon. It's a little sad for the movie to be so commonly underrated, but mostly I find it satisfying to think how I'm one of few who have discovered and appreciate this gem -- like the feeling you have when you're in on that really great in-joke.

So here I am, doing my part to include you in the "joke" that is this pretty-darned-amazing movie. But as much as I like it, I can't recommend it for everyone without some reserve. It's rated R first of all, for twenty or so uses of the f-word, by my count. (And that makes this the first R-rated movie to make it into my portfolio of movies reviewed, a noteworthy milestone by my reckoning.) Other than the language though, there's not much worth a complaint -- brief rear nudity, and a scene of kissing I'd give a medium PG-13. But more importantly, to really appreciate this movie, you have to like its type -- serious, understated, edgy, and a little bit unsettling.

GERTY is happy!

And now there's danger that if I'm not careful, I may begin to rant, and go off topic... that topic being the special effects. They're worth mentioning because Moon was an independent film, and had a relatively small budget for a sci-fi movie (five million) yet its looks are deceivingly impressive. The moon's surface, big harvesting vehicles, and the base all look great -- no corners cut, nothing missing or left out. Practical effects were used to their full potential, and the often overused CGI was included only when necessary, or for that final touch. The result isn't dazzlingly beautiful futuristic space scenery, but more gritty and foreboding, and has a very realistic, down-to-earth feel (so to speak) which perfectly matches the tone of the film. The effects are used as they should be; to support the character driven story by simply making its world believable. Here's where I move on before ranting occurs...

A terrible job... but the view is a definite perk.

Now, as you might have immediately understood when I said earlier that the role of Sam (and in fact the entire movie) was written for Rockwell, the casting, characterization and acting was immaculate. You can't go wrong with Sam Rockwell and edgy sci-fi. Sam the character was written extremely well for its actor, and kudos for that goes to writer/director Duncan Jones (in his film debut, no less). Then, in the general sense of acting -- believability, the right balance of emotions, and natural line delivery -- Rockwell is great, just as he should be. Nuanced and melancholy, with his signature side of quirky, and he does it totally alone, with practically nothing to play off of. What really blew me away in this piece though was his characterization. It was fantastic, and had a bit of an awesome surreal effect to watch... and it's something you really have to see for yourself to fully understand.

Like this. The tiny wooden church makes sense if you've seen the movie.

I wish I could explain in more detail the charms of this movie -- more about the understatedly thoughtful and unique mysterious plot, or why exactly Rockwell's performance impresses so greatly, but spoilers prevent me. All I have left to say is that Moon is not a perfect film, it has its flaws, and as I said before it's not catered to be appealing to everyone, but it certainly is to me. And not only -- just a lot -- because it exclusively stars one of my favorite actors. From my perspective, Moon is all-around great, and from every angle a detailed and masterfully crafted, engrossing sci-fi tale.

Epic

"Epic" is the perfect, ironic title for this movie, because everything is tiny... but just because something's small doesn't mean it's not epic. Course, it doesn't mean it is either...

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand either... On to the review!

Mary Katherine, or M.K., (Amanda Seyfried) is a troubled teenager who just lost her mother. She goes to live in the middle of nowhere with her estranged dad, who's a bit wacko. See, he has this crazy theory that the woods are inhabited with a race of tiny advanced people, and, well, he's right. Tiny human-ish versions of leaves, flowers, sticks and insects live in the forest. The leaf men are the warriors, riding on birds, and protecting their home and Queen from the evil rot. Amongst them, is a seasoned captain, Ronin (Colin Farrell) and a young wayward warrior he tries to keep in line, Nod. (Josh Hutcherson) When M.K. is magically shrunk down to their size, she discovers not only that her father is right about the tiny people, but they also need her help. With the assistance of Ronin, Nod, and two snails-- er, excuse me -- a snail and a slug, she sets out for an important mission to save the forest from the literally-rotten-to-the-core villain. (Christoph Waltz)

And she thought he was crazy!

The first thing you'll notice about this movie is that it's pretty predictable. Okay, it's downright predictable. Disappointing, especially considering the potential of the premise, which in spite of its promising originality, can't make up for a plot taken straight from the mold. There's so much room for creating with the tiny imaginative world, and what do the writers do with it? Doubtlessly inspired by their title, they go big, and environmental, with the fate of the forest at stake, only brushing the surface of creative possibilities. And that's pretty much how the whole film goes -- anything that turned out good is directly counter-weighted by something else that falls short.

"...can you imagine the possibilities of this!?" Who said that quote? (Hint: it's from a movie I wish this one was more like.)

For an example (and to move along) if they'd concentrated more on characters, and made them root-able and loveable, the entire story could have been about M.K. trying to get home, (or something even more creative than what I can think of) and it could have been great. Sure, not exactly "epic," but involving -- I find it easier to connect with actual characters than the things those characters care about, so make the characters relatable. This is a no-brainer. Now, M.K. is a very well-balanced heroine; smart, goofy, sweet, not too girly and not too tomboyish, but even with all the development she gets as the main character, she still feels under-developed. Same goes double that for Ronin and Nod. Ronin fares better thanks to Farrell's more seasoned talents, and his character being cooler and more understated, but apparently no one was on the same page with Nod. Every so often, Hutcherson's vocal inflection doesn't match how his character was animated. (At one point the voice sounds mad, but the character looks sad.) I've never seen this happen before, and the confused result is very distracting, and disappointing to me (who was hoping for a Swashbuckling, funny Flynn Rider type character, and got let down.)
 

They're fine when they're not talking though!

The problem is with the animators. I don't understand it, but for some reason the human (and humanoid) faces are blandly animated in general; "surprise" is the only emotion done with any real success. It's weird, because otherwise the animation is top-notch. The tiny world, and the forest, and even all the normal things like the house are lovely, and characters like the snail and slug are very expressive, with almost nothing to work with! (Or maybe that's why they were better.) I suppose it also helps that they were solely comic characters. In fact, anything that has to do with comedy in the movie is done well, with only a few miss-fires, and that may be this movie's redeeming quality (even though most of the best jokes are in the trailer.)

I want to be tiny so I can be epic while riding a hummingbird...

And now that I've picked the whole movie apart, I hope it won't be too much of a surprise when I say, I enjoyed it. Well, mostly. After all, how could I hate something that made me laugh? It had its moments of being cute as well, and when there weren't faces being weird, it was stylish, and pleasant to look at. And I can still enjoy predictable plots, as long as they're executed well, as this one was -- paced evenly, and with no holes... as far as I can remember. And that is as positive a note as I can manage for my not-so-epic Epic review ending.

Much Ado About Nothing

Ah, such a quaint happening -- a Shakespeare adaptation... modernized, but with the original script intact... filmed in black and white... at the director, Joss Whedon's own house... in the span of about twelve days... with a bunch of famous people he calls "friends." I believe I had never been more interested in Shakespeare in my life.

And I finally got to see it, but now I meet with a little difficulty. I am no expert on Shakespeare, and honestly I probably feel a bit too proud of myself for understanding this movie, though it was relatively easy. I don't feel qualified to critique this movie. I lack the experience and understanding to know if this is a good adaption or not. I only know what I happened to like and dislike. So let this be a disclaimer, and from here on I'll go ahead and make this review as biased, subjective and otherwise personally opinionated as I like. As, really, these things should be.

Leonato is ashamed... no... just hungover.

Apart from one annoying hiccup, I have never has more fun watching Shakespeare than with this little film. And I'll address that one problem first, that is, that in spite of the original script remaining majorly intact, the story has been pointlessly sexed up, just to the level of  PG-13. The villain's accomplice was changed to be a woman seemingly for the sole purpose of their being a couple to add a random inappropriate scene. Then there is another exactly where you'd think it'd be if you know the story. It spoils the movie just enough to make disappointment rain on the otherwise delightful experience. This is the first and last negative thing I will say about the movie, on to the good stuff!

Like the cast. Though this is another situation where my lack of Shakespearean knowledge weighs me down, but, in general, no one sounded unnatural or like they were just saying lines. The leading couple, Beatrice and Benedick, (Amy Acker, and Alexis Denisof) are fiery and goofy -- former mostly to former and latter mostly to latter -- well matched and fun to watch. I particularly love the hilarious, over-the-top scenes where they try desperately to overhear "secret" conversations staged for their benefit. And the one scene between, where Benedick goes through a series of lunges, pushups, and crunches, in an obvious attempt to impress the icy lady.

The comedic styles of Shakespeare and Whedon suit each other very well.

Also standing out in the cast is the awesome Clark Gregg as Leonato, delivering the comedic one-liners only slightly more brilliantly than his dramatic lines. Sean Maher is the complete opposite of his Firefly character, and impressively so, as Don John, the cold, scheming evil villain, and his Firefly captain, Nathan Fillion is probably the funniest character, Dogberry. I laughed many times. And the secondary couple, Hero, played by newcomer, Jillian Morgese, and Claudio, Fran Kranz, easily manage to be an adorable couple is spite of relatively limited screen-time. Everyone in this movie is so obviously having a blast, how can we do anything but also have a blast watching them?

The most effortlessly stylish "home video" ever.

It was an interesting choice to set the film in modern times but still keep the original Shakespearean language, and it was, in all likelihood, a choice of convenience, (scripts and period costumes cost time and money) but it worked in a surprising, unique way. A little jolting at the very first, but only for the first few lines at most, before it becomes perfectly natural. Ladies in floaty dresses, men in suits and the black and white (also a convenience... that I wholeheartedly approve of) suspends your disbelief; it's not set in modern times or the 1600's, it's set in a time and a world of its own.

And a world, at that, that I would by no means mind living in -- a laid-back, joyful place where making a movie is as easy and fun as calling up your friends for a party and grabbing a video camera and a book for source material. And for someone like me, that is nothing short of inspiring.

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- October

October's here already, huh? Well, as predicted, I didn't get to the theater for any movies last month, but I did finally get to see a much anticipated movie that released four months ago... Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing! ...which I will be reviewing soon (whenever I simultaneously have time and inspiration) Anyways, October has more interesting movies than September did in my opinion, but still no absolutely-must-sees. (Just wait 'till November for that!)

Gravity
Oct 4th, PG-13
This space disaster thriller starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock is already making waves with a current 96% tomatometer on Rottentomates. I think I may be missing something, but I'm wondering what is so amazingly interesting about a movie about two people who get lost in space? Because it's one of the most terrifying things EVER? Or just because it hasn't been done before? At any rate I'm only interested because other people are interested and that's not quite enough interest for now.



Captain Phillips
Oct 11th, PG-13
Based on a book that was based on a true story, Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum) directs the great Tom Hanks as the title character who has his ship hijacked by pirates. Pirates! This is very interesting to me, and promises to be exciting and well-acted. If the positive reviews keep coming in, I just may have to see this sometime.



Romeo and Juliet
Oct 11th, PG-13
It seems Shakespeare is back in style. And with it, I am becoming a fan, through Tom Hiddleston in The Hollow Crown, and Whedon's presentation of Much Ado. Romeo and Juliet follows in the footsteps, but it's important to have more drawing power for your Shakespeare adaption than just Shakespeare himself, like Hiddleston or Whedon. So what's this one's? Writer, Julian Fellows of Downton Abbey? Or young actress Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet? Steinfeld is certainly the most drawing to me, she is a brilliant actress, but her co-star, Douglas Booth does the opposite. But the cast also boasts Paul Giamatti and Stellan Skarsgård, and then with Steinfeld, and my new appreciation of Shakespeare, I think I must admit I'd like to see this movie.



The Fifth Estate
Oct 18th, R
Benedict Cumberbatch. Would any of us have even heard of this movie if it wasn't for that name? Nevertheless, here I am. Another true story, Cumberbatch stars as Australian Julian Assange, "founder" of a webpage where dirty government secrets are leaked to the world. Daniel Brühl, Dan Stevens, Laura Linney and Anthony Mackie support. The movie trailer asks us to consider whether right or wrong, whether Assange is a hero or traitor, but I worry the film may try to show us the answer. Reviews are very mixed, which boosts my theory, but honestly, if I see this, it will be for Cumberbatch's acting, and not much else.



What movies have caught your interest this month?

New Trailer: Desolation of Smaug

An exciting feeling of restless anticipation will surround me throughout the next week or so, now that I have seen the latest Hobbit trailer! Have a look for yourself:



Okay, I don't usually admit these types of things, but, I fangirled. Like with the first Hobbit movie, I can confidently predict that at least two things will happen in this movie perfectly: Martin Freeman's Bilbo (of course) and Benedict Cumberbatch's Smaug. He will undoubtedly be... well... stupendous! And the scenes they'll have together... oh my. I am also very excited for the potential that Luke Evan's Bard is showing. he's shaping up to be the Aragorn of these films!

What do you think, Hobbit fans, of the new trailer? What new characters are you most excited to see? Is it possible that December 13th could come too soon?

Middle-Earth Questions

I'm joining in on A Blog Party of Special Magnificence hosted by Hamlette over at The Edge of the Precipice! I'm a big Lord of the Rings/Middle-Earth/Tolkien fan, so I had to get in on all the Middle-Earth fun! Here are my answers to the questions...

1.  Have you read The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit? If so, how many times?
Yes, I've read The Lord of the Rings only once (it's a slightly daunting commitment, but I want to give them another go soon!) and The Hobbit, maybe three times. (Bonus, I've also read "Farmer Giles of Ham" and "Smith of Wooton Major," two short stories by Tolkien!)

2.  Have you seen any movies based on them?
Yes! I saw Peter Jackson's trilogy before I read the books, (but after I'd read The Hobbit) and I credit them with being the movies that made me love movies as much as I do now. I've watched them (extended editions of course!) more times than I can count. My only regret is that I was a bit too young to see them when they were in theaters. I've also seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but only twice so far on that one.

3.  Who first introduced you to Middle Earth?
My dad, he saw LotR in theaters, and then wanted to show them to us kids, but made us read The Hobbit first, so we'd understand the world and such. He almost made us read the whole Lord of the Rings series, but then decided it'd take too long. Turns out, I loved the movies so much I read the books willingly.

4.  Who are your three favorite characters?  (Feel free to elaborate on whys.)
This is the hardest question I've ever had to answer. Only three?? Okay... from the LotR movies only...

1. Would be Sam. He's absolutely the best, and the true hero of the story, and I love his bravery and loyalty. Frodo wouldn't have got far without Sam!

2. Boromir. I love him, he such a meaty, real character, has his moments as a bad guy, but is a hero in the end. Sean Bean plays him so well, and as per usual, has an amazing death scene. One of the best on-screen deaths I've ever seen. But even being dead, he still gets to be in the next two movies! That's how awesome he is.

3. Now is when I have to leave everyone else out, and it's a close call between the siblings, but I have to say Éomer. He's just so epic and cool. And Karl Urban. I wish he had a bigger part like I remember from the books! He and Aragorn were supposed to be good friends, and Karl and Viggo were actually friends, so it would have been neat to give them more time to develop that.

I feel so bad about leaving such great characters out though, so here's my runner-ups: Éowyn, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Haldir... and Figwit!!

5.  What's your favorite Middle Earth location?
That would have to be the Shire. It's just so perfect there. I would move there in a heartbeat. I have to mention Edoras too though, because it's so breath-taking. But really, any location that shows off New Zealand is breath-taking, isn't it? Oh, Minas Tirith is incredible too.

6.  If you could belong to one of the races of Free Folk (Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents), which would you choose?
It would be a toss-up between Elves and Men, either an Elf of Rivendell, or an Man (woman) of Rohan. I have the hair for either, but the hard part would be deciding if I wanted to be immortal or not. Probably not... but then again I love the Elvish language. But then again, the Rohan theme is my favorite.
 
7.  Would you rather eat lembas or taters?
I'd love to try lembas bread, but I love taters already, so I guess it'd depend on if Sam had cooked them or not!

8.  If you lived in Middle Earth, what weapon would you prefer wielding?
I think a bow would be my preferred choice. I'm a decent shot, and don't have any sword training, and a sword would be my second choice, because it's just so classic.

9.  What draws you to Tolkien's stories?  (The characters, the quests, the themes, the worlds, etc.)
The characters, the world, the fantasy, and themes, yes... but I think most importantly, the heart. It's a rare, and incredible thing.

10. List up to five of your favorite lines/quotes from the books or movies.
1. Sam's speech at the end of The Two Towers: "It's like in the old stories Mr Frodo, the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness, and danger they were, and sometimes, you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was after so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come, and when the sun shines, it'll shine out the clearer. Those are the stories that stayed with you, that meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think Mr Frodo, I do understand, I know now; folk in those stories has lots of chances of turning back only they didn't. They kept going, because they were holding on to something. ... That there's some good left in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

2. Aragorn's speech at the black gate: "Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers. I see it in your eyes, the same fear that would take the heart of me! A day may come, when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day. An hour of wolves, and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bit you, stand, men of the west!" And then, "For Frodo."

3. Galadriel opening the first film:  "I amar prestar an. The world has changed. Han mathon ne nen. I feel it in the water. Han mathon ne chae. I feel it in the earth. A han noston ned gwillith. I smell it in the air. Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

4. Boromir and the Ring: "It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing. Such a little thing..."

5. Yeah, I like the long/dramatic ones, and the oh-so-quoteable ones are great, and I'll end with a funny one:
Pippin: "What about breakfast?"
Aragorn: "You've already had it."
Pippin: "We had one, yes. What about second breakfast?"
Merry: "Don't think he knows about second breakfast, Pip."
Pippin: "What about elevensies? Luncheon? Afternoon tea? Dinner? Supper? He knows about them, doesn't he"
Merry: "I wouldn't count on it."

The End!

Thor

Thor. What to say? That the blockbuster accidentally created one of the greatest movie villains of all-time? Who is arguably more sympathetic than the film's hero? There is certainly much, much more to Thor than the beginning of Tom Hiddleston's Loki, but if I were to say this movie may be hard to review objectively, and ... rationally ... I'm sure you could sympathize.

"Seriously Thor, I swear I didn't know my army would be so BIG... or how crazy they'd be! ...should we run?"

Kenneth Branagh directs this take on Shakespearean Norse "gods" who are really aliens, and Marvel superheroes. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) the "god of thunder" and son of Odin, (Anthony Hopkins) the king of Asgard, is poised to succeed his father as king. He is strong, and handsome, and, oh yeah, has an ego the size of the nine realms. When Thor foolishly nearly destroys Odin's peace treaty with the Frost Giants, Odin does what every good king would do; he banishes him to a out-of-the-way world called Earth. When and only when he is worthy, will he be able to claim his hammer and his powers.

Immediately upon his arrival on earth, Thor runs into -- er, is run into by scientist Jane Foster, (Natalie Portman) her colleague Dr. Erik Selvig, (Stellan Skarsgård) and intern Darcy (Kat Dennings) as they track strange weather patterns. Jane doesn't know it yet, but the large, odd acting dude she just "grazed" with her car is the answer to all her questions. Back in Asgard, Thor's friends, Lady Sif, (Jaimie Alexander) and fellows Frandal, (Josh Dallas) Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) consider how to get Thor out of his banishment, while his brother, the "god of mischief" Loki, (Tom Hiddleston) eyes Thor's would-be throne with jealousy, while having a bit of an identity crisis.

"This is not funny, father, humans are so petty and tiny!"

Branagh is mostly known for his Shakespeare adaptations, so he was a very interesting, interestingly fitting choice to direct Thor. It may be sci-fi, but Asgardians know how to use their "thee's" and "thou's" and to never use contractions, and if the conflict between Thor and Loki and their father isn't Shakespearean, I don't know what is. Branagh does an especially impressive job with the latter of these. The most compelling conflicts of this movie are not physical ones.

But I do question some of his choices. Like, what is up with the angled shot composition? It's pretty distracting as I always feel like cocking my head. It only really works when it's a shot of Thor and Jane together -- that's the only way to fit Jane's head in without zooming way out, but that's it. Neither am I a big fan of Thor being a complete fish-out-of water on Earth. It did make for some amusing, some hilarious situations, but it's not practical for him to be that naive. I don't know if these are things Branagh really had a say about though... it could be more a producer/screenwriter problem.

It's not at all odd that Thor falls in love with the first human woman he meets, is it?

My thoughts on the scope of the film and the action of the film are very similar; I thoroughly enjoy, and am sometimes impressed by what I see, but there's sometimes something lacking. Asgard is beautiful and creative, and fills you with wonder, and just isn't used enough. And fight sequences -- particularly the one in the Frost Giant world -- don't have the snap and crackle they could have; they get generic. The most exciting action sequence is when Thor fights off highly trained humans as he goes to claim Mjolnir, it's epic, memorable and involving, perhaps because he's not super-powered at the time?

I wish Thor's four friends had more screen-time and development... which is a complaint and a complement since I liked them enough to want to see more. (Hoping for, and expecting more in The Dark World!) Their best bit of development was their being described as "Xenia, Jackie Chan and Robin Hood" but they left out Gimli! Hopkins as Odin is kingly and very solid; Dr. Selvig and Darcy do what they're meant to -- feed the plot, and add comic relief, but nothing more. Clark Gregg as Coulson makes an appearance, and shows up all the other side characters in awesomeness with ease. And Jeremy Renner has a short cameo as Hawkeye.

Jackie Chan, Robin Hood and Gimli.Fitting descriptions, I think.

As for the man himself, Hemsworth is a bit stiff at first, all proper and aloof, but we do warm to him as he learns humility and to be a true hero. He doesn't grow on you as quickly as is ideal, but since he's in multiple films now, it's a minor problem. He has some great one-liners and does physical humor very well, and once we like him, he's even endearing. Hemsworth's real strength as Thor though, is his appearance -- he is Thor, no question. Now, Jane, well... I don't like Jane. But that's personal, and really more of a dislike of Portman whose acting irks me. Her portrayal of Jane is fine, but there's nothing really special about her.

Okay, I left someone out, right? Who...  oh, right, the guy in green... what was his name...? Just kidding, I was saving the best for last of course! Loki! When I saw Thor for the first time, I tried to like the main character best. It's what you're supposed to do. I thought it was quite odd and sad that the bad guy was more sympathetic than the hero though. Since, I've developed a much more... avid opinion on the subject. Hiddleston's Loki breaks your heart. He does and tries to do some horrendous things, but his situation is so pitiable and Hiddleston plays him with so much charm and complexity and pathos and fervor and understanding, he becomes lovable in spite of his deeds, because we understand him as well. Yet, at the same time, he is an incredibly sinister villain -- but it's only a sneak peek compared to his full-fledged evil villain in The Avengers. I don't know how he managed the role so perfectly, but I'm delighted that he did. Tom Hiddleston is the man.

Does this even need words? No.

In case you haven't guessed it yet, Loki is my favorite. But don't get me wrong, I like this movie as a whole on its own merit, Loki's just a step above. This isn't a masterpiece, but there's a bunch more to in it to love than to gripe about; it's is perfectly cast where it counts, looks unique and stylish, is driven by fun and humor, but stays grounded in truth. It may not be realistic, (in fact it's can get downright cheesy) but its themes are. Thor is a colorful bout of glee and sincerity. And if the sequel keeps up the tradition, it will doubtlessly be a success, so, there's only one thing left to say: come on, Dark World!