The Mighty Thor

If you keep track of the movies via such sites as trailers.apple.com, rottentomatoes.com, and imdb.com, you probably have heard that roaring thunder just over the horizon for some time now: Thor is going to be great. In fact, it's probably going to be the biggest single blockbuster of 2011.

RottenTomatoes weighed in earlier in the week with a massive 83% T-Meter, and an audience profile indicating that 92% of all Rottentomatoes readers wanted to see this movie. The score has fallen a bit, but this is still the highest-rated large-scale release on the board. By a vote of 148-37, the critics are saying this move is pretty fresh. 83% of audience members liked the movie.

I just got back from seeing Thor just a few moments ago. I loved it. There is a whole lot of entertainment and fun in this movie. This is good stuff, Maynard. This is probably my favorite movie of the year, with all due respect to The Adjustment Bureau. {Incidentally, Matt Damon was terrific in that flick. Obama was just trying to bust his balls.}

Yes, there are a few little quibbles here and there with this implementation of Thor. Thor was betrothed to the lady Sif, there was no Jane Foster hanging around. To be honest, they are running with a reboot origin that doesn't match the original comic book. Also, Loki was never a Frost Giant; neither in Norse Mythology nor the comic book

Frankly, none of this matters. Everything works well in the movie. Kenneth Branagh is to be congratulated for a stellar job directing. I can't believe this Shakespearian actor would ever have had an interest in directing a Marvel Comic book adaptation. (!!!) He must have been attracted the royal intrigue and grandeur of it all. Certainly, these themes are more than evident his past work like Henry V and Hamlet.

During the course of the movie, I wondered why it was all working so well. Largely, it was a bunch of well-cast actors making a good script shine. The effects and the 3d stuff are there in abundance, and give the movie a ton of visual appeal, but you like this story and these characters in the story. This is the thing that stayed with me.

Of course, you know I had to have a look at the cast list and their birthdays. I can tell you the Casting Directors made some very interesting choices Astrologically speaking. Oh yeah? Like what?

How about casting Anthony Hopkins (Capricorn) as Odin, the king of the universe? Capricorn is frequently called the greatest of the cardinal leadership signs. Consult Chuck Noll and Don Shula about that. We have no doubt that Anthony Hopkins is the king of the universe either. You're quite convinced that he's a great one, also. You know the archetype of Capricorn is "Father", right? This one is playing the "All-father".

The problem is that this king has a pair sons astrologically incompatible with himself. They are Chris Hemsworth (a Leo), and Tom Hiddleston (an Aquarius), and neither is a cardinal. Who shall he give the throne of the universe too when neither is the ideal type? One of these two will have to succeed him. It is interesting that the casting director chose to make a Thor a Leo, and his brother/enemy Loki an Aquarius.

Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Leo is the Hero/King? Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Aquarius is the Anti-Hero/Revolutionary rebel? Yep, check it out. Yet these are 180 degree opposites who have a strong complementarity, along with tremendous differences.

Reference Tom Brady and Randy Moss for an example of these differences and complementarity. For some, Brady would make a pretty good hero/king, and Moss would make a pretty good anti-hero/rebel. Yet the two of them came together for a time and had great dynamism.

Hemsworth is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be a Leo. He's a noble warrior, and seems like royalty. He even looks like a fucking lion. His leadership charisma is great, but his decision making is questionable. He is a hot head, and he wants battle and glory. He loves the spot light and loves to be the center of attention. He's loves it as all of Asgard shows up to cheer his proclamation as heir to the throne.

Hiddleston is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be an Aquarius. He's brainy. He's unconventional. He's more than a little bit bent. He's pretty otherworldly. He's not a particularly good looking leader from the Charisma standpoint, but you believe he has the brains for the job.

I don't know what you thought, but I thought these two guys had great acting chemistry together.

Naturally, you can understand why a Capricorn leader like Hopkins would have doubts about both of these boys. You can also understand why he had to chose the Leo son. Nevertheless, they have their conflicts. Firey Leo-Thor is a hot head. He wants to break out the chariots of victory and go to war. A stable, solid, realistic, feet-on-the-ground, down-to-earth, pragmatic, utilitarian, honest Capricorn King knows why that isn't a good idea. They have a pretty big wing-ding over it too.

It's all totally believable. Given the people you are looking at on screen, you just naturally believe this is what would happen.

This isn't the only bit of interesting astrological architecture going on in the flick. It's interesting that they give Thor two Sagittarius buddies, and Gemini for the Warrior-3. So you have two fire budies and an air sign for Leo-Thor's side-kicks. Perfect.

Sif is the non-conforming piece of data. She is a Pisces; incompatible with everybody. She must have been somebody's girlfriend.

Then we have the scientific trio of Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings. Guess what? All three scientists are Geminis. Gemini is a mental and mercurial sign, just fine for science. They are also nicely aspected towards a Leo like Hemsworth.

Incidentally, Portman and Hemsworth sure seem to have some sensational chemistry together. This would be typical. Gemini chicks frequently go after Leo boys. Interestingly enough, when you look at their numbers (using Sirus 1.1) they have some fantastic scores... in everything but romantic and sexual attraction. They aught to be in business together, and given this movie, I guess they are.

Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth

Data for Natalie Portman: Data for Chris Hemsworth:
June 9, 1981 August 11, 1983
12:00 PM 12:00 PM
Standard time observed Standard time observed
Jerusalem, Israel Melbourne, Australia
31 N 46 35 E 14 37 S 49 144 E 58
Tropical PLACIDUS Tropical PLACIDUS
Time Zone: 2 hours East Time Zone: 10 hours East

Sun 18 deg 28 min Gemini Sun 17 deg 51 min Leo
Moon 17 deg 44 min Virgo Moon 20 deg 14 min Virgo
Mercury 5 deg 13 min Cancer Mercury 13 deg 48 min Virgo
Venus 5 deg 04 min Cancer Venus 8 deg 28 min Virgo
Mars 2 deg 59 min Gemini Mars 28 deg 18 min Cancer
Jupiter 0 deg 41 min Libra Jupiter 1 deg 19 min Sagittarius
Saturn 3 deg 01 min Libra Saturn 29 deg 02 min Libra
Uranus 27 deg 15 min Scorpio Uranus 5 deg 04 min Sagittarius
Neptune 23 deg 37 min Sagittarius Neptune 26 deg 40 min Sagittarius
Pluto 21 deg 40 min Libra Pluto 27 deg 03 min Libra
Asc. 23 deg 55 min Virgo Asc. 3 deg 07 min Sagittarius
MC 23 deg 30 min Gemini MC 11 deg 29 min Leo


Category Totals
1. Romantic and Sexual Attraction: 32
2. Similarity of Interests and Temperament: 257
3. Mutual Success and High Achievement: 223
4. Problem Solving, Communication, and Mutual Understanding: 75
5. Mutual Kindness, Friendliness, Pleasantness, and Peace: 184
6. Aggressiveness, Competition, Power, Success, or Violence: 143
7. Adventurousness, Surprises, Disturbances: 131
8. Shared Creativity, Imagination, and Inspiration: 34

Given above are your compatibility scores in 8 different categories. A score of 100 is average. A score above 100 indicates that the trait is strong, and a score below 100 indicates that the trait is weak. More specifically, you can interpret the scores as follows:

Above 150 is very high. This trait is VERY strong!
125 to 150 is above average. The trait is strong.
115 to 125 is slightly above average. The trait is slightly strong.
85 to 115 is average.
75 to 85 is slightly below average. The trait is slightly weak.
50 to 75 is weak.
50 or lower is VERY weak!

That is not The Wolfman (2010)

Much to my surprise, a copy The Wolfman (2010) was circulating around the lunch tables of Calabasas Commons today. A certain vendor we have relations with was passing the movie around on a USB 2.0 memory stick.

I was stunned, not that somebody had a movie on a stick, but rather that a file was floating around so soon. The Blu-Ray is not scheduled for release until Tuesday.

"This must be one of those filmed films, right?"

"Nope it is a Blu-Ray rip!"

"But the Blu-Ray is not out yet."

"Somebody nailed it early."

"Really?"

I grabbed a copy from another associate who had his laptop with him. An hour or two ago, I plugged my USB 2 stick into the PS3 and began to watch. It didn't take too long for the howls to ensue... from me.

THIS IS NOT THE WOLFMAN I SAW IN THE THEATER!

No, this is the unrated director's cut. Gone is the lean, mean, fast-paced, sparce, simple tale I enjoyed very much. Welcome to a long, bloated, slow-moving, cut with contradictions and lots of bad creative ideas.

This cut is basically 2 hours. The theatrical is about 98 minutes on my clock. It looks to me like they cut the right 21 minutes. 7 of the first 9 got cut. It was a very wise decision to leave that rubbish on the cutting room floor. There is nothing to see there folks. Just move along. Not since Star Trek Voyager has cuting 7 from 9 looked soooo good to me.

What do you miss? Well... lets just say it this way... Benicio was the weak link in this movie. Even in the theatrical cut, his weak and somewhat off key performance comes through. The first 7 of 9 aggravate the situation to an ungodly level.

We actually hear Benicio recite the "Alas poor Yorick... I knew him, Horatio" speech from Hamlet. Believe me, I have seen 12th graders at Bullard High School in Fresno California do it better than that. This was downright obnoxious. It was a very good thing for Del Toro's career that the editor left that footage on the cutting room floor. You can't let that kind of crap get into the final cut. I think it is a very bad thing for his career that they put this footage back in for the Blu-Ray release. Most actors walk through life terrified that the world will unmask them as the frauds that they are. I am warning you, this Hamlet bit is going to unmask you...

And it's a terrible thing for the movie too.

Apparently, after performing Hamlet, some of the actresses are feeling a bit Randy backstage, and it looks like they would like to start up an orgy with their leading man. Just as everybody begins to start up a groove, Lawrence's would-be sister-in-law kills the buzz by knocking on the door and announcing she needs Lawrence's help in tracking down his missing brother, Ben.

This is a wretched stock scene, where the soon-to-be-hero is caught with his pants down, turns down his heroic calling rudely, and his soon-to-be-love finds him disgusting. Of course, all great love & hero stories start this way, right? Nope. All the bad ones do.

Until you see it, I cannot explain the level of damage these 7 minutes do to the whole movie. It derails the whole thing. The editor was a good surgeon. He surgically removed the tumor, and patched the (w)hole extremely well. If you leave this cancerous 7 minutes in body, the following hell ensues:

• Lawrence is no longer a sympathetic character. He's now just another debauched asshole actor with serious childhood issues. There's nothing for me to cheer for there folks. How about you?
• The fact that Emily seeks his aid makes no sense. What help will a debauched alcoholic bohemian with serious psychological issues be in tracking down her missing fiancée? Nope, he's no help at all.
• The fact that Lawrence immediately turns around and breaks his contract to look for his brother really makes no sense.

In the theatrical, we see Benico performing Hamlet, we do not hear him. Over the top of his performance, we hear Gwen narrating her letter to Lawrence. It's a simple letter to a man she does not know at all; a guy who should have been her brother-in-law, and a guy who... maybe... can help. Chicks think like this in desperate moments. Lawrence doesn't do anything overt to disgrace himself, or come off as a bastard, ergo a romance now seems plausible.

With the 7 minutes of cancer cells extracted, we get off to a nice & clean fast start. With the cancerous 7 minutes in, we are already in a train-wreck condition.

Those who read this blog know I was a big advocate of the theatrical release. I bitch-slapped the critics online, at work, in front of family, and friends. I spread good word of mouth for the theatrical release. I dragged brothers, coworkers, friends and former room-mates out to see the movie.

I'm going to tell you straight-up: I hate the director's cut. If this Blu-Ray is like the wretched Daredevil Blu-Ray, and does not contain the theatrical cut, I won't buy it. If you won't release the theatrical cut, I will never buy it. The directors cut is already a fuck-up.

Big question for Universal Studios: why did you release this shit? This never should have seen the light of day. You did a great job in burning the dead bodies and burying the ashes. Why issue this full-confession now? The Top-Kill succeed until you blew the concrete cap off the well. What the hell's the matter with you? What were you thinking?

In any case I now understand several things:

• I understand why Universal went into panic when they saw the first (Director's) cut of the movie. I would have also. In fact, I did.
• I can understand why the project got pushed 16 months while rescue-editors worked to save the patient's life on the table. I would have made the same command decision had I been in charge.
• I can understand why there was conflict. Apparently, the director fought Universal. He didn't want to give up on his little darling scenes. He somehow... The stupid bastard managed to get these turds back into the Blu-Ray.
• Joe Johnston is apparently a very, very stupid bastard. I can't believe he actually directed Hidalgo and the Rocketeer. Those were actually good movies. Hidalgo was very good; one of my favorites. Just call him Sloppy Joe the Hoe.
• I can see why Joe Johnston has not directed many movies in his long career. He looks like a stubborn fool, unwilling to receive good, constructive criticism when it is offered.

Anyway, steer clear of the download copy. Wait for the real thing. The Director's cut is a raw-red bloody abortion. You don't want to see this. It's downright ugly. See the theatrical cut. Universal got it right. Joe Johnston got it wrong.

The Wolfman rocks! See it at the best possible theater!

So yesterday I played hookie from work and went to see The Wolfman. I saw it at 2:00pm at the AMC16 theaters in Woodland Hills. In short, I loved it. I dragged a friend of mine named Colin out to see it at 7:00pm. I am glad I saw it a second time, immediately, under different circumstances. This will soften the scortched earth polemic I was going to write against the movie critics. Don't worry, those jokers are going to catch some bullets, but I was planning to nuke them.

The first time I saw the movie, it was at a state-of-the-art movie theater. I am talking about Sony 4K DLP projectors, and maximum quality THX sound. It had stadium seating with reclinable chairs. In short, it is a circa-2000 theater, and everything we would expect from a quality theater. The second time I saw the movie, it was in a circa 1971 movie theater with old-fashioned film projection and no THX sound. We had old fashioned seats. This theater provided a different and inferior experiance.

The first time around, I could see no reason at all for many of the criticisms leveled against this movie. Even now, I no evidence for most of the criticism. However, some shots stuck in the old-fashioned theater. Several critics have accused Benicio Del Toro of giving one of his most mumbling performances in recent memory. The first time around, I felt that was a straight-out lie. Every word out of his mouth was perfectly inteligible. The second time around it seemed like three different actors were all mumbling indestinctly. The first time around I though Emily Blunts performance was just fine to outstanding. The second time around she was a bit flatter. I still didn't agree with those who said she gave a lifeless and off-key performance. Rubbish!

The moral of this story is simple: This is a fully modern movie, designed from square one for the fully modern digital cinema. Do not see it in an older theater. See it in the most recently constructed, most state of the art facility you have. In my neck of the woods, this means Arclight, Muvico, or Mann Chinese. Analog does bad things to this movie. I am fairly sure that there is going to be a sensational Blu-Ray effect when it is released.

Now for the critics. Heyhehehehehehahaha... {evil laugh} You guys are loosing your street cred right now as we speak. A flat-cold disagreement between the people and the critics is taking place on Websites like Metacritic.com and imdb.com. The people love this movie. The critics do not. Ergo, the critics lose. I love it!

You guys need to get off your faggotty high horses and ditch the art-school bullshit you were taught. It has warped your minds, and your judgment. Enjoy movies as natural men and women uninfected by crappy doctrines of art. See it from our point of view. Get rid of this monumental bias that Gay romance constitutes an A film, and werewolf movies constitute C or D material.

False reports about this movie:

• The pace is poor: Bullshit! Bull fucking shit! This movie is very fast paced. It takes just 22 minutes to get to the point where Lawrence is bitten. It takes just 45 to get to his first transformation. It takes just 1 hour to get the point where he is werewolf running around London. It only takes 80 minutes to enter the climax sequence. At 98 minutes the movie is over. This is a fast-pace movie. I love the fact that it doesn't waste any time or even frames. Every 1/24 of a second counts for something. I love the efficiency.
• Benicio Del Toro Mumbles: Not in a good theater he doesn't. Sorry you saw it with piece of shit film projection there boys.
• Emily Blunt is flat as a pancake: False. Not in a good theater she isn't. Her performance is just fine.
• Anthony Hopkins only gets a little devilry: Rubbish! This is his best badguy role since Hannible Lecter. He gets a chance to really cut loose, and he is a tremendous bad guy in this movie.
• The other performances are flat: Excuse me, did you see this movie? What movie did you see on that drunken night? Hugo Weaving gave one of the best performances of his career here! That was a stand up and shout performance. He was great.
  
• It's super gory: What? What movie did you see? Have you seen Saw or Hostile? That is gore. There is some monster gore in this movie, but it is brief, and not celebrated.
• The guys in Werewolf suits look dated: They did that to keep the spirit of the original alive. Believe me, these are good suits. It is the dated approach, but if you saw the originals, you know why they did this. This critique is off-point.
• They don't understand Goth: Say wha...? This was arguably the most gothic movie ever! This is a gothic masterpiece!
• Rex Reed says that "Sometimes the monsters hunt you!" is a howler of a bad laugh: Rubbish! There is nothing funny about that line. Rex, you are getting pretty old. I think 4th stage dimentia due to advancing Azheimers disease is getting to you. Some false connection went off in your mind as the result of an organic malfunction. But then again, you always were off point.
  

In short, you can see that I totally and vehimentally disagree with critics on just about all major points. I think we have a classic monster movie here. It is at least twice as good as Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. Maybe three times as good. If you liked that movie, you will love The Wolfman.

Ignore the critics. Go see this movie. See it in a state of the art digital cinema.