SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

The Space Inbetween

During their time in Sixth Form College, four teenagers, Will, Simon, Jay and Neil aren't the cool kids. Not by a long shot. But they aren't the nerds either. They're The Inbetweeners, wannabe-popular kids always trying to find that one aspect that will label them as 'cool' and set them for life. Much like the four semi-adults, The Inbetweeners Movie isn't really a movie. Not by a long shot. But it makes bigger steps than its television origins. So has it joined the ranks of successful adaptations such as Serenity or South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut? Or is it simply a uninteresting 90 minute-long episode like The Simpsons/Family Guy movies?

The Inbetweeners Movie starts with the foursome finishing school and deciding to travel to Malia, Crete for a 'lad's holiday' and so Simon can get over his break-up with love-of-his-life Carli. Whilst there, they meet and try their luck with a quartet of girls, have to deal with narcissistic and obnoxious club reps as well as struggles within their own tight-knit group.

Firstly I must apologise if there are any American readers of this review. The Inbetweeners Movie was released in the UK on 17 August, and will not be released in the USA until 25 November, so this won't really be appropriate to read until you're getting your starting to reach for the scarf rather than your sandals. Therefore we got to see the attractive, sunny beaches of Malia during our almost-Summertime, but for the Americans, they will see four young English lads enjoy radiant Crete whilst they shiver in their mittens. I predict that the film may not do so well over the pond, with America not really being that acquainted with the original Channel Four television series. However, this could turn out to be another Shaun of the Dead, a film that the Yanks inexplicably lean towards and embrace. Meanwhile, here in the UK, The Inbetweeners Movie became the most successful British comedy of all time in merely its first week's release, and I can't say it's a shock.

I believe that I laughed at The Inbetweeners Movie more frequently than I did at Horrible Bosses, Bridesmaids, The Hangover Part 2 and any other comedy released this Summer. The writers have managed to capture the debauchery, lost innocence, and wild-eyed enthusiasm that these characters would have on a lad's holiday. The characters transfer to the film smoothly, with their adventures gladly fitting the television series' style.

However, since the film's tag-line is "This Summer, Four Boys Become Men", you'd expect some growth in the characters, and only two of the characters really change for the better, the other two just stay the same as they are. Potential personality improvements or maturity are teased briefly but quickly sidelined by more jokes about sex and certain character's mothers. Personally I would have preferred to see each of the four main characters have their own journey to experience, but they have slightly left the Inbetweeners story open for further instalments so there may be more to come. If the film is the end of The Inbetweeners, then I feel it is a rather fitting way for them to go. A few open plot-lines here and there allow the audience to make up their own story-lines and due to intelligent writing, the characters manage to charm you through their vulgarity and camaraderie.

This film has been compared to the letdown that was Kevin and Perry Go Large or called the "British Pie" of comedy, whereas I believe that it stands as both a fantastic instalment into the Inbetweeners story, as well as a fun, enjoyable, laugh-out-loud comedy about adolescent boys finding their feet in foreign land. It's much better than anything else that's being offered at the moment, that's for sure.

Rating - 8/10

Ninjas Vs. Pirates

Nowadays, Hollywood films tend to fit into one of three categories: an original story, an adaptation of a popular TV show/video game/already released film, or a sequel/threequel/fourquel. The latter usually carries a heavy burden of continuing the storyline and characters that the audience have become associated with, whilst making the situation feel fresh and original. Recently, the two newest instalments of popular franchises were released to the cinema-going public. One has recently broken the $1 billion worldwide box-office mark, whereas the other has received near-worldwide critical praise.

I found the first Kung Fu Panda to be an absolute delight, and believe that it is the best animated film that Dreamworks have done, closely followed by How To Train Your Dragon. The comedy was sharp, the animation was crisp and the voice acting was performed brilliantly, especially Dustin Hoffman's Master Shifu. Thankfully the sequel more than matches its predecessor.

The disgraced and tyrannical peacock Lord Shen (brilliantly voiced by Gary Oldman) has created the world's first cannon and threatens to take over China by defeating any Kung Fu Master that stands in his way and make Kung Fu obsolete. Po travels with the Furious Five to defeat Shen, whilst attempting to learn about his origin and attain inner peace.

The first Kung Fu Panda earned my respect for making a children's film that the whole family could enjoy; Po might have been a tubby lovable oaf for kids to laugh at and there were bright shiny colours to amaze them, but there were often instances of mature friendship between the Master Shifu and his apprentice Po, quite deep conversation on the nature of the Universe and the occasional sarcastic side glances given by someone unimpressed by the chubby panda. It was able to mix both adult and child-orientated humour perfectly, which is something that steadily drifted away within the Shrek franchise. Kung Fu Panda 2, on the other hand, not only manages to maintain that balance, but also feature genuine heart-tugging moments when delving into Po's back story and contain much more mature content; I can't really see Shrek 5 dealing with the genocide of ogres, nor Cars 3 showing the terrible tragedy of a Mother Jeep sacrificing her life for her only baby.

As well as handling the subject matter delicately and professionally, the creators of Kung Fu Panda also treated the setting with respect as well, not succumbing to making the film into a stereotype. Instead, the whole Kung Fu philosophy and Chinese ancestry is taken seriously and honoured in significant ways. Whilst Panda started the film with a dream sequence shown in an Anime-style, Panda 2 starts with shadow puppets telling the story of Lord Shen's dark origin.

Away from the sometimes-serious storyline and authentic setting, the film is still incredibly enjoyable and fun. Jack Black continues playing a panda version of Jack Black, although the side characters receive a bit more fleshing out, especially Angelina Jolie's Master Tigress. The animation is as crisp as ever, and the 3D technology finally does make a difference, with quite a few instances being improved with high-flying acrobatics and weapons being chucked in the direction of the audience.

Despite its cutesy appearance, Kung Fu Panda 2 sits very highly in my personal opinion and I think that when 2012 comes around, this will be known as the Animated Comedy Of 2011. Dreamworks can gladly quote me on their DVD box-art.

Now on to Disney's latest and unnecessary venture into the already stagnant waters of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Like many others, I was a huge fan of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl; despite being based on a theme park ride, it was something fresh and an exhilarating return to the swashbuckling films of the past, infused with an overall dry humour and topped off with an eccentric Johnny Depp performance, combining to create an overall entertaining thrill ride. However, the sequels managed to screw something that wasn't broken by introducing confusing two-dimensional side-characters (is she a bayoux-dwelling voodoo witch or the Spirit of the Sea?), elevating boring main characters to positions they would never inherit (Pirate Lord Swann?!) and having an unimpressive and non-threatening main villain behind it all. (Can you remember his name?...... Not Barbossa or Davey Jones. The other one. The small English tit with the wig. No? My point.)

But here was a chance to make things right. A new start. A way to apologise to fans of Pearl for the second and third films. The proposed beginning of a whole new trilogy. No Kia-ora. No Or-Blando. Rush and Depp were staying. Everything seemed so hopeful.

The result? Let's just say when you're halfway through a film and you reckon that what you're watching could use either of Or-Blando or Kia-ora to spice it up, it's not doing it for you.

The newest instalment of Pirates takes place immediately At World's End finished, with both Captains, Jack and Barbossa, starting to look for the long-lost Fountain of Youth. On their way, they must face adversaries such as the legendary Captain Blackbeard (Ian McShane), a Spanish fleet intent on destroying the Fountain and mythical creatures such as mermaids and voodoo-style zombies, etc etc. Anyway, on with the autopsy!

The great aspect of the original trilogy, especially the first instalment, was that Bloom and Knightly's duo were relatively new to the Pirate World. It was scary, unknown and required a guide to help them. Enter Captain Jack Sparrow. Jack knew the ins and outs of the lingo, mannerisms and code of pirates and helped the innocent couple find their way. He was the Gandalf to Frodo, Dumbledore to Harry, or Yoda to Luke. Just one that was often drunk and duplicitous. Now that the Swann/Turner collaboration have decided to hang up their corset and sword, Jack steps into the protagonist role and the film follows how he manages to wiggle out of numerous sticky situations. Hardly enthralling watching, especially when Depp's 'Pepe Le Richards' act is getting tired now. There's nothing new for Jack to learn as he easily handles himself in tough predicament after tough predicament.

The other reason I returned to the franchise was to see Geoffrey Rush continue chew more scenery as the delightfully double-crossing Captain Barbossa. He was the personal highlight of Pearl and World's End, and his inclusion into the four-quel made me excited for the potential in his new role. However, as always the case, his acting talent is squandered, being reduced to a role where he isn't really allowed free reign to evil-do like his previous performances. Instead, more screen-time is dedicated to new characters such as Penelope Cruz's bland and blatant romantic interest, and the uninteresting storyline between an abused priest and an appropriately fish-faced mermaid.

Overall, I gladly recommend the nuanced and fun animation over the pirate-filled nonsense. I see a bright future for the Kung Fu Panda franchise whereas the 'new' Pirates trilogy need vast improvement to bring it any closer to the original three.

Kung Fu Panda 2 - 9/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - 3/10

The Apes Are Revolting

A solitary and angry ape, escaped from his confinement, revenge on his mind, runs down the middle of a deserted street at night. He enters his old Master's house and silently watches him sleep.

This is why I now fear apes.

Before tonight, they were harmless, playful animals that you see on National Geographic or piano delivery men in Tetley Tea Bag commercials. They weren't threatening to bite my finger off due to the unsanitary living conditions in zoos, or planning on overthrowing society because Draco Malfoy sprayed them with water. Now I'm going to be looking over my shoulder, worried that some pissed-off simian is going to be plotting my downfall. Anyway, enough about my new found agrizoophobia (that's right), let's talk prequel!

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the apes-as-overlord franchise, as well as the longest film name since The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Set in the present day, ROTPOTA has loose ties to the Charlton Heston-original Planet of the Apes but isn't wholly a prequel to it. Thankfully it has nothing to do with the débâcle that was the Tim Burton remake either. My Wikipedia searching has led me to believe that it will be the start of a brand-new retelling of the original story. Without the dramatic Statue ending I imagine, since we are witnessing our downfall in ROTPOTA, it's not gonna be such a shock.

Perpetual-stoner James Franco plays Will Rodman, a scientist trying to find the cure to Alzheimer's by testing drugs on lab monkeys. One ape reacts well to a particular sample, largely increasing her intelligence. However due to a bout of monkey-rage and a security guard's gun, the Momma Monkey dies and Will ends up raising her baby, Caesar. Caesar shows advanced intelligence, learns sign language and eventually becomes a proper member of Will's family. But when fully-grown Caesar defends himself and attacks a neighbour, he is taken to an ape shelter and mistreated, leading to him encouraging his fellow apes to rise against us oppressive humans.

Andy Serkis, famous for portraying Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong in.... well.... King Kong, again dons the Motion-Capture suit to provide the movements and facial features of Caesar, and the effects are astounding. They may appear slightly off-putting at first, but as you grow to know Caesar, the uncanny valley smooths out and by the end, you start cheering this fictional ape as he does his destructive best to overthrow our society. The other apes looks so damned lifelike, I honestly thought the film-makers had taught an orangutan to sign to Andy Serkis. The special effects are definitely what makes this film stand out. It couldn't have been made without them, as we empathise with Caesar from the start, and full credit to Andy Serkis, whose fantastic acting quality is again shown through a digital character.

The other actors in the film, especially the main stars James Franco and Freida (Slumdog Millionaire) Pinto aren't really used to the best of their abilities, and are merely sideline characters to Caesar and his storyline of imprisonment and escape, which is a shame. Franco never really grows as a character, and he isn't really shown fighting for Caesar's freedom that much and Freida Pinto might as well not have starred, as she brings nothing to the storyline. The only other actor worthy of mention is John Lithgow, perfectly portraying Will's father as he slowly slips into dementia and the wracks of Alzheimer's. His face just oozes innocence and blank wonder as his world steadily drifts away from him.

Despite that most of the audience know the outcome of the film, the writers have made sure that the origin of ape and man's role reversal is one wrought with emotion, as you end up wishing the apes to be free from their oppressors and come out on top. And when a film has the power to make you want to see humanity overthrown, you know that it's made you care for these digital creations.

Now bow to your Ape Overlords! You have only James Franco to blame.

Rating – 8.5/10

We posted the first trailer for the sequel A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas earlier today but here is the synopsis and first official promo picture as well.

Enjoy!

Synopsis:
After years of growing apart, Harold Lee and Kumar Patel have replaced each other with new friends and are preparing for their respective Yuletide celebrations. But when a mysterious package mistakenly arrives at Kumar’s door on Christmas Eve, his attempt to redirect it to Harold’s house ends with the “high grade” contents — and Harold’s father-in-law’s prize Christmas tree — going up in smoke. With his in-laws out of the house for the day, Harold decides to cover his tracks, rather than come clean. Reluctantly embarking on another ill-advised journey with Kumar through New York City, their search for the perfect replacement tree takes them through party heaven — and almost blows Christmas Eve sky high.

The Hollywood Reporter's Heat Vision blog is reporting that Bruce Willis is in negotiations to join the cast of G.I. Joe 2. He would play the role of the "original" Joe Gen. Joseph B. Colton.

If Willis joins the cast he would join an impressive cast that already includes: Channing Tatum as Duke, Ray Park as Snake Eyes, Byung Hun-lee as Stormshadow, Dwayne Johnson as Roadblock, Elodie Yung as Jinx, DJ Cotrona as Flint, Adrianne Palicki as Lady Jaye, RZA as The Blind Master, Joseph Mazzello as Mouse and Ray Stevenson as Firefly.

So it seems like Sony is really confident in their new franchises, they just confirmed The Smurfs 2 for August 2nd, 2013.

The release date for World War Z has been confirmed for Dec. 21st, 2012.

So by now most of us have seen and formed opinions about the Catwoman Gogglewoman suit that was released last week and then again via set pics.

Well one person has an interesting opinion and it is the actress herself Anne Hathaway telling MTV:

"If you didn't like the photo, you only see about a tenth of what the suit can do," she teased. "And if you did like the photo, you have excellent taste."

The Yahoo story where I saw this info was also quick to point out that we as fans should all remember that she is Selina Kyle, who starts off as a cat burglar before becoming Catwoman.

Really??

The thing that really bothers me is that we need sites like Yahoo to remind us of something that we already know! We are still not down with the super 3D goggles. Just because she is maybe Selina in the pic does not change our opinion.

Yes, this is not something that will keep me from going to the movie, and I am sure Nolan's team will have some magic in post-production, BUT that does not mean we can not criticize something that was released as an "official promotional picture"!

Something similar happened when the first pics of the new Amazing Spider-Man suit hit the net but those were set pics and since then several official pics have been and most of the criticism is now gone.

So please do not insult our intelligence. Yes we know Anne plays Selina and we know that the suit might have a bunch of cool gadgets that Engadget and Gizmodo will probably go crazy about, but the suit still does not excite some of us and those over-sized goggles are just a bit too much.

BTW, yes I think she still looks hot in the outfit.

The cinemascape of my childhood consisted almost entirely of the imaginations of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Spielberg in particular looms large in my memories: the Indiana Jones movies, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., the Goonies, Back to the Future. All of these happily abide in my nostalgic “oh but you can go home again” movie section. These two giants went on to make any number of powerfully influential movies, but Spielberg’s movies, for that golden period that bridged the late 70s to the early 80s, have a timbre, an innocence, and a joi de vivre entirely their own.

I had reconciled to the fact that to experience that Spielberg-esque feeling, I would have to raid my DVD collection, throw on some jammies and curl up on the couch. Then, J.J. Abram, who apparently possesses the same love for that time that I do, dreamed up Super 8. I can only try and describe this movie as part E.T., part The Goonies, part Close Encounters, with a dash of Jaws thrown in. If you see that description as anything other than the most glittering endorsement, this movie might not be for you.

I want to say up front, there are plot holes. There are moments that are utterly unbelievable, but that doesn’t diminish what all this film does right. The single greatest achievement here is the cast.

The story centers around a group of kids (very Spielberg) in a small Ohio town in 1979. Our protagonist is the young Joe Lamb, played beautifully by newcomer Joel Courtney. His dad is the sheriff (the always exemplary Kyle Chandler), and his mother recently died in a tragic accident, which is where this film begins. Abrams clearly understood the empathic power of Courtney’s doe-eyes, and uses them on the audience frequently and to wonderful effect. Charles, Cary, Martin, and Preston round out the gang of kids who are trying to film a zombie movie using a Super 8mm camera, thus the name.

They recruit a young girl from their school named Alice to co-star in the movie. Elle Fanning turns in a bravura performance as the girl from a broken home, daughter to an alcoholic father. When she joins the boys at a railroad depot outside of town to film a night sequence, everything goes awry when a pick up truck slams into an oncoming train, causing a calamitous wreck virtually on top of the kids. They escape, and miraculously, so does their video camera, which recorded the entire ordeal.

Chaos follows them back into town as people disappear, dogs run away, electronic equipment goes haywire. The military are involved, and are not to be trusted. It is of no point to go further into the story. By and large, it holds together well, serving as a delivery vehicle for over-the-top special effects and action sequences, and some wonderful performances from the cast.

With Abrams directing, he makes choices I can only call ballsy. In two specific instances, he lets the camera linger for several minutes, close-up on Courtney’s and Fanning’s faces. Nothing else occupies the frame but a young face, and every microscopic reaction to the emotional trauma he or she is living through. It’s gutsy filmmaking when you have Oscar-winning talent on hand, but to do so when you have not only green stars, but incredibly young ones, it would be disastrous where it not for the astonishingly nuanced performances these two teens turned in.

Courtney and Fanning carry the emotional weight of the story remarkably well, and have a marvelous rapport that effortlessly causes you to care deeply for them and how this will all pan out. Chandler is once again brilliant here, and continues to prove he is the most under-appreciated actor out there. At this point, I will pay to watch this man read an organic chemistry textbook. He has all of the charm, the charisma, the good looks, and the like-ability to be an A-list celebrity. Here’s hoping Hollywood has finally taken note.

When people ask me what my favorite movies are, I have my “critic” list, which is filled with movies of exceptional artistic and technical merit, and my “sentimental” list, which is filled with movies I just flat out love, despite their imperfections. The Lord of the Rings movies occupy spaces on both. Spielberg has films on both. Super 8, the glorious homage to the era of the birth of the blockbusters and the man who helped create them, sits firmly on my sentimental list. It is far from perfect, but it has remarkable heart, tremendous actors, and just the right dose of nostalgia. In very many ways, it is the perfect summer flick, at home in 1981 or 2011.

Grade: B+

The summer of 2011 brought the moviegoer four comic-book action-bonanzas to choose from. That total rises to five if you count Transformers 3 in that company. When X-Men: First Class joined the list, I couldn’t muster much enthusiasm for it. I loved the first two X-Men movies. The mention of the third movie evokes responses from people ranging from “meh” to something akin to uttering choice four letter words on holy ground. I didn’t hate The Last Stand, nor did I hate Wolverine. But I sure as hell wouldn’t call them good movies. After Wolverine, it felt very much as though the franchise had simply run out of gas.

I am pleased to say that with First Class, I was very much mistaken. The first X-Men movie, helmed by Bryan Singer, never provided a clear genesis story, which this film most certainly does. As such, it has to take place in the early 1960s, which Director Matthew Vaughn uses to stylize this movie in a slick/sheik veneer of glitz that never feels tacky, just stylish. Vaughn, while not a veteran director, brought the wonderful Stardust to the megaplex a few years ago, and his gorgeous visual style is not diminished here.

The crux of the story, written by Vaughn, Jane Goldman (Stardust), and Zack Stentz and Ashley Miller (Thor, Fringe), from a story by Bryan Singer and Sheldon Turner, revolves around the complex relationship between Charles Xavier, played by James McAvoy, and Erik Lehnsherr, played by Michael Fassbender, who later become archenemies Professor X and Magneto respectively. We meet a young Erik, forcibly separated from his parents in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, by a mysterious and sinister man played chillingly by Kevin Bacon. Twenty years later, Bacon’s Nazi torturer is known as Sebastian Shaw, what his real name may be is unknown. Shaw remains as unscrupulous and evil, willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone to achieve his ends.

At the same time a young Erik is being tortured to trigger his ability, in England, Charles, an overachieving child of a wealthy British family, encounters a woman who looks like his mother in the kitchen of his family’s large manor house. Charles’ psychic ability tips him off to the fact that whoever this person is, its most certainly not his mother. Her ploy called, the woman morphs back into the blue changeling we will later know as Mystiq, here known simply as Raven. A fast-friendship forms, Charles serving as the only friend or family the mutant girl has ever known.

We fast forward to the early 1960s, where most of the film takes place. John F. Kennedy is president. Tensions between the United States and the USSR are at the breaking point, as an event history calls “The Cuban Missile Crisis” begins to unfold. The Cold War is a perfect period in which to set an X-Men genesis story, as the doomed friendship between Charles and Erik echoes a great deal of the mentalities that created and sustained the Cold War.

When Erik and Charles become aware of each other, a friendship forms, growing stronger as time goes on. They devote themselves to locating others like themselves, assembling the disenfranchised mutants, plucking them from security and self-hatred. Arguably the heart of this movie is the voyage from self-loathing to self-acceptance among the mutants. Charles stands for the idea of harmony and unity between the mutants and mankind. Erik believes that the mutants will never be accepted by humanity, and they will always be enemies. This rift and struggle continue throughout the X-Men franchise, and this film puts it front and center, showing how it all began and how ideology irreparably fractured the relationship between two friends.

Without doubt, this movie works so well because of the relationship between the two leads. McAvoy and Fassbender have enough chemistry to blow up a lab. These two are talented, gifted actors, with many stellar performances in their young careers. I won’t pretend this film belongs in the same league as McAvoy’s turn in the incomparable Atonement, but make no mistake, this is a fine film and utterly enjoyable from start to finish.

The supporting cast are quite capable. The standouts include Nicolaus Hoult, from the superb British series Skins, Jennifer Lawrence, the “it” young actress of the moment from her jaw-dropping performance in Winter’s Bone, and Lucas Till.

The look and feel of the film are top notch. The direction sure and confident. The story unusually robust and tightly woven for the genre. A few winks and nods to the audience about things that will happen to these characters 40 years later provide nice humor, without becoming too meta or self-congratulatory.

I had expected to be entertained by X-Men: First Class, but I did not expect to so thoroughly enjoy it. It stands out as the freshest, best conceived and executed of the summer comic book flicks. It introduces us to the X-Men from the beginning, establishing relationships, history, and a concise explanation of the enduring conflicts of the X-Men universe. I particularly enjoyed the weaving in of mutant influence into the events of one of the most terrifying moments in history.

In all, X-Men: First Class successfully fused the very best elements of the comic book movie genre: larger-than-life conflicts, super powers, and effective allegory; while avoiding the traps that too many of these movies, including some released this summer, fall into, like clunky plotting, poor character development, and sacrificing the brains of the movie for special effects brawn. This film not only reinvigorates the franchise, but takes its place as the best of the X-Men movies.

Grade: B+

Comic book based movies have become a staple of summer moviegoing. Ever year, at least three action-heavy, effects-laden, hero-driven blockbusters vie for our ticket dollars. The summer of 2011 brought four of them to your local theatre. The first one out of the gate was Thor, a movie made out of necessity so Marvel could continue on to make The Avengers, a group to which Thor belongs.

Having bypassed the comic book side of geekdom entirely, I have no opinion on Thor and its faithfulness or lack there of to the source material. I know something of Norse mythology, but after seeing this movie, that knowledge is mostly useless here. The movie’s story is straightforward, if not hackneyed. Two brothers, princes, one hot-headed and reckless, defy their father. Hot-head creates a disastrous situation, and dad has no choice but to punish him. In Thor, its all heightened to melodrama, but for what it is, it works moderately well. Character development is teacup deep if that. No aspect of it is surprising, or even particularly suspenseful. Thankfully, the film is well populated by very pretty people on arguably even prettier sets.

Chris Hemsworth could not look more like a beefy, handsome, norse god, which is somewhat ironic as he’s an Aussie. Blue-eyed, long-blond haired, he is strikingly attractive enough to ensure a few more matinee idol roles. I can’t judge his acting by this film, however. The role requires no real emotional heavy lifting, but even with that, I felt his performance was a bit wooden.

I preferred Tom Hiddleston’s turn as Loki, who brought a real earnestness to the character, even with a muddled script. As the primary heavy, Hiddleston brings great angst and emotional turmoil to the part, though true character development is largely missing.

Idris Elba chews up the scenery as the golden-eyed Helmdall, guardian of the mystical gate Bifröst. The presence of Anthony Hopkins (Odin) and Natalie Portman (the love interest Jane Foster) baffled me. Hopkins brought his usual gravitas to the role, but the script would not allow either Oscar-winning actor a chance to prove their mettle. Any starlet could have occupied the Foster role, which saddened me, as Portman is truly talented, but wasted here.

Which leaves the director. I have been a massive Kenneth Branagh fan since I first saw his extraordinary Henry V. He acquits himself here, delivering a visual feast, though the story itself could only generously be called a snack. That is clearly not his fault.

Thankfully for us all, the bulk of the film takes place in Asgard. The art direction is off the charts. The world created I can only describe as mythic in proportion and magnitude. Every surface, every detail of the realm of the Norse gods was clearly lovingly crafted. Asgard is massive, awe-inspiring. The costuming, the special effects, the scale of it all delight the eyes. Sweeping camera shots take full advantage of the craftsmanship on display. I absolutely loved the visuals and every moment I could spend soaking up Asgard further validated the price of the ticket.

The land of the frost giants fared considerably worse than Asgard. The frozen world and its denizens I can only describe as ugly. It was dark, uninteresting, and a wasted opportunity.

A note to moviegoers: I saw this in 2D. I am not an anti-3D purist by any stretch. I find some movies are superb in 3D. This one was definitely not. The 3D effect was applied artificially in post-production and transformed the one great thing the movie had going for it, the glorious visuals, into a muddy, nasty mess. The 3D version should be avoided at all costs.

Other super hero movies outshone Thor this summer, particularly the surprisingly good X-men: First Class. However, all of the elements are present to make the second movie, and there will be a sequel, a great comic book movie. Perhaps Marvel have learned after hiring Joss Whedon to pen The Avengers, that hiring highly talented writers only helps these films. For the sake of Thor 2, I certainly hope so.

Grade: C+

The Social Network is a movie about Facebook.

Like so many brilliant movies before it, the summary, while completely true, is utterly lacking. The Godfather is about the mafia. Raging Bull is about boxing. Schindler’s List is about the Holocaust. All true. All horribly inadequate.

Trying to describe this film in a review taxes a writer’s abilities. I can muster only the most profound respect for Aaron Sorkin and his ability to render the majority of this movie’s subject, computer programing, into compelling, enthralling entertainment.

Sorkin only enhances his reputation for brilliant, fast-paced, intelligent dialogue here. In my experience, people don’t talk like Sorkin writes them, but I desperately wished that they did. In this context, the dialogue isolated the main character, Mark Zuckerberg, brilliantly portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg, with nearly the same efficacy as his actions.

Here in is the core of The Social Network. The extraordinary irony is that Facebook, the epitome of the “social network” revolution, was created by a man who can not function effectively in society. From the first frame, Zuckerberg is a man of tremendous intellect and a correspondingly tremendous arrogance. He seems to suffer form an Autism Spectrum Disorder, rendering him socially maladjusted. He famously talks through the logic of why he is intellectually superior to his girlfriend with said girlfriend. To say it ends horribly is an understatement.

But the film can only begin this way. By the standards of Wall Street and too many people, Zuckerberg is the portrait of success. He became a billionaire in his early twenties. This film painstakingly details the failure of a man who has billions but has no need, desire, or value for wealth. It is the portrait of a man forever kept outside of the human interaction he desperately desires by his own fundamental lack of empathy.

I found him to be a tragic character. He did not want to be a pariah. He wanted to belong, and yet possessed none of the tools to affectively manage a social life. This plays out over and over again in his life. Seemingly overnight, he becomes unimaginably wealthy, but wealth has no value to him. Unfortunately, he falls prey to people who only value wealth. He cannot see them for what they are, and it destroys the only enduring relationship he has.

That one true friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield in a revelatory turn, stands by and supports Zuckerberg from beginning up until the fateful end. Saverin puts up the starting money for what became Facebook, helped develop the code, and did much of the legwork to get the embryonic venture off the ground.

I cannot say with certainty that the entirety of the relationship between these two young men is objectively portrayed. I related and sympathized with Saverin completely. Whereas, the conflict between Zuckerberg and the infamous Winklevoss twins, I felt the film did not take sides, and let the viewer determine for his or her self who was right and who was wrong.

The most startling performance to my mind was Justin Timberlake as the predatory Sean Parker. Parker read Zuckerberg from the off and fed him precisely what he wanted to hear. The relationship endured until Parker’s true colors showed, and all was lost. Unfortunately, by this point, Zuckerberg was utterly alone. Timberlake brought nuances to the role I had not expected from the musician.

The social study of The Social Network plays out amongst the major characters: Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and Sean Parker. The Winklevoss twins are handsome, intelligent, wealthy, socially popular. Every facet of what Zuckerberg wants but cannot have, they live and breathe every day of their lives. Personally, I view Saverin as being the realistic ideal of what Zuckerberg would like to be, and yet he cannot see it. He is kind, loyal, hard-working, brilliant, manages fairly well with other people, and avoids the self-entitled whining of the twins. Parker is the dark side of it all, effectively using Zuckerberg’s yearnings and insecurities to get what he wants.

The movie will stand as one of the finest films of 2010, and rightfully so. David Fincher brings Sorkin’s script to life artfully, and turns the tale of the phenomenon of the past decode into one of the most compelling stories of our time. The movie is about Facebook, but like the website itself, far more is happening here than can be summarized, and in this way, The Social Network is the story of the eternal yearning of humanity to belong, and the failure of so many to do so.

Grade: A