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!

So the reviews for the final cut of Wolverine are starting to roll in

And it sure as fuck isn't pretty.  If you are a studio manager, you are going to have to be upset about reviews like this one.  They are calling it a fiasco.

For those of you stuck under a rock, obsessed with the NFL draft, the Jay Cutler drama, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, or the bad economy, there was another major story in March 2009. It turns out that world media piracy scored it's biggest kill ever.  They jacked an advanced working copy of the new Super Hero blockbuster X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  Of course, this XVID went straight to Bit Torrent, and from there to millions of kids around the world.

The work was unfinished at the time this cut was made.  None of the photo-realistic 3d visual effects (you can expect to see soon) are in the bootleg cut.  Super simple 3d previz graphics are in place.  DOS video game air planes fly across polygon grid sky, etc.  This is hysterical to the typical viewer.  You can also see the wires & cables attached to every character as he or she leaps across the warehouse, office, road, canyon, etc.  Wire removal is one of the most basic and important elements of action film effects these days.

As you may have gathered already, I did see a copy of this film.  Didn't manage to get all the way through it.  Time was pressing.  I needed to get home, and I was board.  The interest wore off rather quickly.  After the novelty of seeing a bad copy one month early wore thin, there was not much reason to watch it.  I refrained from reviewing the bootleg here, as I didn't finish it, and it is quite unfinished.

I wrote to some friends and told them the product was bad.  I did caution them that this work was unfinished, but with such hammy segues between critical plot-points, I couldn't see how this work might be fixed up.  A friend of mine inside the industry cautioned me not to draw any conclusion just yet.  He informed me that there are emergency editors in the world who are paid millions of dollars to fix-up would-be blockbusters teetering on the brink.  With some tweaking, the final cut can be dramatically improved.  He reminded me that the first cut of Star Wars is now a legendary fiasco among film students.  Everything was patched up by D-Day.

I respect this guy, so I heard him out, but I had a hard time believing that such an effort might fix this film.  With such fundamental mistakes in writing and direction, there is only so much magic an emergency editor can weave.

Anyway, the reviews of Wolverine look pretty nasty right now.  A preview was granted to a limited number of friendly critics.  According to Rottentomatoes.com, the number of critics there was just 17.  Right now the count is 9-8.  9 say it is good.  8 say it is bad.  Reading the 9 positive reviews will raise a lot of eyebrows.  When the review is positive, it is not very good.  When it is negative, it is pretty bad.  Based on a reading of these reviews, it would seem that there are some pissed off fanboys, and some lukewarm fanboys.

What will happen when the non-fanboys begin to review this movie?  Right now Wolverine is pulling 53% on the T-Meter, and the strength score.  I would expect that to fall right through the floor as hostile reviewers like Rex Reed begin to check in.  Expect this movie's T-Meter to finish in the 30s.

I have to say, I am most highly displeased.  I am a big fan of comic books.  This is the second bust in a row.  Worse still, this is a movie that should not have been a bust.  It could have and should have been every bit as good as Iron Man or the Incredible Hulk.  Wolverine is not like the Watchmen.  We are not talking about a vastly overrated piece of shit story here.  We're talking about one of the most favored characters in Marvel history.  They also have one of the most favored stars in Hollywood for this one.  What I see here is a missed opportunity for a terrific blockbuster.  Another one goes down the drain.

So, Dave, if you were to put a fine point on it, just what is wrong with this movie?  It is incredibly cliche.  You have a good brother.  You have an evil brother.  The two of them walk through life together, back-to-back until finally one day, the evil brother's evil becomes to terrible, and the good brother parts company with him.  Of course this means war, and the bad brother must have some revenge.  Now the good brother must kill the bad brother.

Folks, Ballywood makes 20 movies like this every single year.  I am not kidding you either.  They litterally make 20 of these movies every single year.  It is an old archetypal story.  This was just too damn similar to other basic stories I have seen.  It wore thin very fast once I identified the anchient pattern of the work.  Everything was utterly predictable.  No surprises here folks.  You knew the end from the begining.  This is why I didn't bother to finish it.