Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Spoilers ahead! I never cared much about superhero movies, but then the Marvel Cinematic Universe happened and, every year for the past eleven years, they've been the movies I was looking forward to seeing the most. No matter how disappointingly awful some were, I was still excited to see what would come next. And after Avengers: Infinity War ended with that huge cliffhanger, Avengers: Endgame became my most anticipated Marvel film ever. And boy, I was not disappointed. 

The story picks up after the devastating events of the previous film, with the remaining Avengers — Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) — joined by Captain Marvel (Brie Larson), Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), and Nebula (Karen Gillan) to track down Thanos (Josh Brolin), steal the Infinity Stones and reverse his action. Unfortunately, they learn upon finding him that he had destroyed the stones, and Thor kills him. Five years later, Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) comes back from the Quantum Realm and proposes the others to travel back in time and prevent Thanos from finding the stones in the first place.

While it's a bit convoluted and confusing, the time travel plot not only makes perfect sense — and even if it didn't, I still wouldn't get why many people are vigorously complaining about it being nonsense. Have these people forgotten its a superhero movie involving time travel they are talking about? — as it manages to combine the storylines of the twenty-two previous movies beautifully, but it pays tremendous homage to the fans who have been following the Marvel Cinematic Universe for more than ten years, and to the characters — Captain America gets to reunite with Peggy — I don't get why people are complaining about this, Cap deserves a happy ending and him staying in the past doesn't mean he changes the past/future, it simply means that he created another timeline and that at present time there are two Steve Rogers, one old and one young as he's been defrosted as he was supposed to be —, Tony Stark gets to see his father, Thor his mother and Jane, and Bruce is finally at peace with the Hulk.

As for the characters, many viewers didn't appreciate the treatment some of them got, especially Thor who, according to some people, has been reduced to a pathetic comic relief as he's now a fat alcoholic other characters, specifically Rocket, often make fun of. I, on the other hand, think that the writers wouldn't have done anything better than that with him. Sure, we are so used to seeing this muscular, powerful and confident man, it feels weird seeing him in this as he's the opposite of that. But keep in mind that he has lost everything — his father, his mother, his brother, his best friend, the woman he loved, Asgard — and on top of that, he blames himself for failing to kill Thanos when he had the chance in Infinity War. So much has happened to him, it's only natural that he has become the man he is here. And what the did with the character of Tony Stark over the years is beyond impressive — not only he's no longer the selfish, arrogant he used to be and has taken the young Peter Parker under his wing, but he gets to the point of giving up his happiness, his chance of having a family to save the universe. With Endgame, we also get to see more of those characters who either weren't in the previous film, such as Hawkeye and Ant-Man or were barely in it, such as Captain America. I was a little disappointed with how little they used Captain Marvel though.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

The cast does an excellent job, from Chris Hemsworth who embodies to perfection this new Thor with an incredibly humorous performance to Scarlett Johansson who finally gives a strong, compelling performance as Black Widow to Tom Holland who is barely in the film and yet manages to still the scene as he shares a touching moment with Robert Downey Jr.. There are also many wonderful and unexpected cameos from Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Rene Russo (Frigga), Tilda Swinton (the Ancient One), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Robert Redford (Alexander Payne), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), James D'Arcy (Edwin Jarvis), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym) and, of course, Stan Lee.

The film is also filled with memorable scenes from Captain America finally grabbing Thor's hammer — the reaction of the audience was insane! — to the scene with all the Marvel women — I actually cried at this point because a boy sitting right next to me was very excited as he said, "it's all the girls".

The film is, as always with Marvel, visually spectacular, it has a killer soundtrack's and it's wonderfully paced — the three hours running time flies by — but most of all, it's rollercoaster of feelings and emotions with its homages, and the graceful combination of moments that make you laugh, moments that give you goosebumps and moments that will make you cry.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

I saw The Cabin in the Woods when it came out and, although I liked it, I never bother rewatching it, mainly because I had terrible taste in movies back then. After reading Cinematic Corner's 10 best horror films since 2010, I thought it was time for a rewatch.

The story follows five college kids, Dana (Kristen Connolly), Curt (Chris Hemsworth), Jules (Anna Hutchison), Holden (Jesse Williams), and Marty (Fran Kranz), as they head off to a cabin in the woods for the weekend, and along the way they come across a creepy man who warns them about the danger. Of course, they ignore him and isolate themselves in the cabin anyway.

There couldn't have been a more stereotypical horror scenario than this, am I right? Well, thankfully, there's so much more to the plot —as revealed in the confusing opening (confusing because you feel like you're watching the wrong movie), there's a team of high tech people who is responsible for whatever is about to happen in the cabin— and, although the major twist is revealed right from the start, the plot is compelling and engaging from start to finish.

Not only The Cabin in the Woods has a well-thought plot, but it makes fun of clichés in horror movies incredibly well, starting from the characters who are your typical horror movie victims —Dana is the sweet and innocent one, Curt is the athletic/jerky one, Jules is the slut, Holden is the nerd, and Marty is the stoner. Only this time around they are not plain dumb nor they make the most idiotic choices ever such as splitting up to cover more ground. Eventually, they do idiotic things but only because it's the tech people manipulating, controlling them. Despite their clichés, they are likeable and you'll find yourself rooting for them.

The cast does a pretty good job too. While Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth and Anna Hutchison do fine in their roles as they play the clichéd characters very well, Fran Franz steals the show as he nails the role of the stoner with a believable and hilarious performance. There are also two great performances by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, both in the role of tech controllers, and the share such chemistry, it's a pleasure to watch them, and a lot of fun too.

Lionsgate

Because of the humorous tone The Cabin in the Woods has from the very beginning, I was a bit worried about the horror aspect. I worried over nothing though as the film delivers on the front too. While I wouldn't call any of the scenes scary, there are some rather chilling scenes, fun killing scenes and so much gore to please a fan of slasher.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

I was pretty excited to see Bad Times at the El Royale, and it was not only because Chris Hemsworth is half-naked every time he's on screen, but because the promotional material had me intrigued. Unfortunately, my theatre didn't show it so I had to wait for home release. 

The story takes place in a remote hotel on the California-Nevada border, the El Royale, in 1969. One day during the off-season, the concierge and sole employee at the hotel, Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman) welcomes four unique individuals: Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a Catholic priest; Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo), a struggling soul singer; Laramie Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm) who claims to be a vacuum cleaner salesman; and Emily Summerspring (Dakota Johnson), a rude woman. They each have their secret and over the course of the night, they will show their true selves.

I'm going to stop right there as going any further into the plot would spoil it for you, in case you haven't seen the film yet. It's not a spoiler though that the plot, although it's quite thin and its twists aren't always as surprising as they should be, is throughout very compelling and interesting as director Drew Goddard —he also wrote the screenplay— makes wonderful use of flashbacks, which are important to enrich the plot, and alternative point of views.

In Bad Time at the El Royale, Goddard took plenty of time to introduce, give depth and develop the characters and it did pay off as the film has interesting, three-dimensional characters you can care about —I ended up rooting against Chris Hemsworth's character, that's how much I cared about some of the others.

The performances are also great. Jeff Bridges gives yet another excellent performance in the role of Father Flynn as he handles the character's oddness and eccentricities very well. Jon Hamm, whome I wish had more screen time, does a great job as the salesman as he brings his charm along with nice comedic timing. Chris Hemsworth gives a charming performance as cult leader Billy Lee. Dakota Johnson is surprisingly good as Emily, especially if you consider she isn't given a lot to do. The standouts, however, are Cynthia Erivo whose singing performance delivers the character's emotions to perfection, and Lewis Pullman who pulls off an apparently dull character beautifully.

20th Century Fox

Goddard was able to build tension and mystery, while also balancing drama and dark comedy. There's a lot of violence but it somewhat feels appropriate. The cinematography is stunning with its lush colours, the production design is superb, and the soundtrack is fantastic.

Overall, it feels like Bad Times at the El Royale is a Tarantino wannabe but, ultimately, I didn't care because the execution is great, and the film is a hell of a fun ride.

12 Strong (2018)

I'm not the biggest fan of war movies and I usually avoid them, especially when I haven't heard much about them, whether it's good or bad things. 12 Strong stars Chris Hemsworth though and there's also Michael Shannon in it so I gave it a chance. 

The film tells the true story of a US Special Forces team, led by Captain Mitch Nelson (Chris Hemsworth), who, weeks after 9/11, was sent into Afghanistan to retaliate. There they form an alliance with an Afgan warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum (Navid Negahban), in order to fight a common enemy, the Taliban, and secure the strategic city of Mazar-i-Sharif. And they have to face off tanks and rockets on horseback.

And that's basically the reason 12 Strong was made, to bring to the screen a heroic and inspiring true story which to me, someone who is not American, looks like yet another propaganda against the Middle East and Islam in general that highlights how Americans saved another country and civilians from terrorists. 

If I were to leave that out, 12 Strong still wouldn't be nothing but a barely average war movie. The story isn't consistently engaging. It's interesting at first but it eventually becomes quite boring, and if it wasn't for Hemsworth's charisma, I would have probably stopped watching. Also, the story isn't even that moving. 

The characters are pretty basic and by that I mean that we learn pretty much nothing about them, with the three main characters being three strangers to us. We learn that they all have a family, period. They have no depth whatsoever and it's kind of hard to care about for them.

In spite of the lacklustre screenplay, the actors do a pretty good job overall. As I mentioned above, Hemsworth is charismatic and makes for a pretty good lead; Michael Shannon is a bit underused but he's great as always and Michael Peña brings some comic relief. 

Warner Bros. Pictures, Lionsgate

The action, on the other hand, is pretty good. If you are expecting 2 hours of pure action, you'll be disappointed. If you are expecting some intense and realistic action sequences, you won't be disappointed. It's a little confusing to watch at times because of the shaky camera you can't always tell who is who, but the sequences are pretty good.

Overall, 12 Strong isn't a terrible movie but it's definitely too long and quite boring. If you want to see something more compelling, watch Michael Bay's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

 

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Though I couldn't wait to see all those characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe to meet in one film directed by the Russo brothers (and to see Chris Evans and his glorious beard on the big screen), I had some reservations about the Avengers: Infinity War. Instead of getting part 1 and part 2 as we were promised years ago, we got only one movie. Actually, we got two movies squeezed together and the result isn't that good.

Intergalactic despot Thanos (Josh Brolin) is determined to collect all of the Infinity Stones in order to bend reality to his will and the now-torn-apart Avengers must team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy to stop Thanos before he puts an end to half the universe.

Without diving into plot details, that's what the Russo brothers want, I'll only say that Avengers: Inifity War's plot is simple, definitely too thin and so very thought through. It isn't always engaging nor interesting (my mind was wondering multiple times and it wasn't only when Chris Evans was on screen) and because of the way the multiple storylines are handled and the fast cuts, instead of feeling like a single story, it feels like a collection of stories, fragmented stories.

With all those main characters reunited in one movie, it was obvious that some would be left behind. Unfortunately, it feels like they all were left behind. Some characters arcs are developed --Wanda finally gets the attention she deserves-- but overall, there's not much development and no one gets enough screen time. However, the superheroes are one of the reasons I still enjoyed Avengers: Infinity War. While the merging of storylines is handled poorly, the interaction between characters from different movies --the Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, and Wakanda-- works very well. These alone are probably worth the money as it's these moments that bring a lot of effective humour into the film. And of course, the fact that the cast has a wonderful chemistry helps a lot.

As for Thanos, I'm not sure how I feel about him. On the one hand, I appreciate that they gave him some backstory and that they showed an emotional, tender side of him; on the other hand, I don't like that he's given ridiculous motives and that we are even supposed to empathise with him. They tried to do what they did with Killmonger but I'm not sure it really worked this time. His sidekicks are terrible though. They are not even one-dimensional, they are zero-dimensional.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Other than that, I think it's safe for me to say that Avengers: Infinity War is a pretty solid film. It delivers plenty of humour, full of banters, Thor: Ragnarok-style, and you will definitely be laughing a lot during this. If you didn't like that about Thor: Ragnarok, you'll still be able to enjoy Avengers: Infinity War as the Russo brothers manage to deliver plenty of tension and suspense, and their combination of humour and drama is spot on. Yes, this is the kind of movie that you make you cry. A lot. Because, without spoiling anything, major characters you care about die in this one.

As for the action, there's a lot of it. Though its execution makes you think you're watching a Michael Bay film at some points, it's pretty good, entertaining and exciting. There's this scene with Thor that is beyond glorious. The epic battle scene from the trailer is missing though. The film is also visually beautiful and has a pretty good soundtrack --not as good as Guardians of the Galaxy's though.

And as I'm writing this, I realise Avengers: Infinity War isn't as bad as I first thought. Sure, it feels incomplete, more of a set up for the next Avengers movie than a movie, but it's still pretty fun and entertaining.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

I'm a sucker for Marvel and I'd watch anything they make. Those terrible movies with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garden and whoever played the Punisher are the proof.  What I'm trying to say is that's pretty obvious I was excited for Thor: Ragnarok. However, this time there wasn't just the fact that it's an MCU flick, but especially the fact that Taika Waititi directed it. Last year, he left me speechless, in a very good way, with Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and that's the real reason why I was really looking forward to seeing this. And once again he left me speechless. This indeed is the most entertaining, exciting and fun Marvel film since Deadpool.

Set after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron and picking up when Thor: Dark World left, first Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds out that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has taken over Asgard; then a new menace arrives, Hela (Cate Blanchett), the ruthless goddess of death who wants to steal the throne and rule Asgard, he gets imprisoned on the other side of the universe and finds himself in a deadly gladiator contest where he has to face an old friend of his, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), in order to survive and save Asgard.

It's a rather simple plot, a little predictable at times and it doesn't always make a lot of sense but it does have a few aces in the hole and the pace is just perfect which makes it very compelling.

And that's because of the direction Thor: Ragnarok took. Instead of being another dark-toned family drama like the previous Thor movies, Waititi's film relies more (like only) on humour. I'm sure many will complain about this, maybe saying that the dark tones were the only thing separating the Thor movies from the rest of the Marvel movies that all look the same (DC fanboys are so going to say this), but it works here. The humour is spot on (very close to Deadpool's): the jokes never feel forced and there are plenty of funny moments. This film is basically like a buddy-superhero movie with some sibling rivalry.

All that comedy though kind of throws away Thor's development achieved with the previous movies. Thor isn't indeed the serious God anymore, but he a funny guy. But this change is more than welcomed as Chris Hemsworth does comedy way better than drama. Seriously, I had no idea he could be so funny. The reason why I liked this Thor better though is that for the first time the God of Thunder is shown in all of his strength. Without the hammer.

The humour isn't the only charming side of Thor: Ragnarok. The visuals are just as charming, which makes of this one of the most beautiful to look at Marvel movies. The film is an explosion of vibrant colours, the photography and editing are stylish and the locations are just stunning. The CGI could have been better though. While it's great during the action, sometimes the background looks a little flat.

Just like the characters since there's no development whatsoever in here. I'm still trying to understand what the writers were trying to do with Hela's henchman played by Karl Urban. That character was such a mess. It's not like Tessa Thompson's alcoholic Valkyrie was that better. Or Cate Blanchett's Hela. Blanchett is very charismatic and her presence is just perfect for Hela, but the character itself wasn't that strong which is pretty common with Marvel. She did get more screen time than most Marvel villains though.

Worth of a mention are Benedict Cumberbatch who reprises his role of Doctor Stranger and Jeff Goldblum who plays Grandmaster, the host of that gladiator contest I mentioned above. The first has a hilarious cameo at the beginning of the film, the latter, although his performance reminded a lot of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, is very amusing.

VISUAL SPOILERS!! Marvel Update: Production Start Date For Cap 2 And Spyshots Of Crazy Mayhem From The Set Of THOR 2!!

Awesome updates for all of us Marvel fans! Keep in mind that the imagery below for THOR 2 contains action scenes from the actual production being filmed - Don't look at the photos if you want a pristine viewing experience. You have been warned.

Chris Evans has told Collider that CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER starts production in March 2013 which seems to give plenty to time to get it in the can.

I can't wait to see what surprises Joss Whedon will have as he continues his magic touch on all things Marvel. I'm hoping to hear more from Anthony and Joe Russo about where they will be taking the character and how Bucky Barnes is expanded upon.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER is slated for a April 4, 2014 release.

---

And we have some very exciting behind-the-scenes spyshots from THOR: THE DARK WORLD has hit the interwebs. Not more of the same location shots, but some gritty action! Love it.

THOR: THE DARK WORLD is slated for a November 8, 2013 release.

Have a look!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Sources: Collider | DailyMail | JustJared

New Spy Shots From THOR: THE DARK WORLD!

Click to enlarge

We have some pretty cool new spy shots from the outdoor set of THOR: THE DARK WORLD which is shooting in Bourne Wood, England. This fictional village has four pillars surrounding a group of yurts (huge portable tents).

THOR: THE DARK WORLD will be shooting on location here until sometime in September.

Here's how Marvel's Kevin Feige described the movie's storyline:
"We’re going to take Thor literally to other worlds -It will primarily be the journey of that character, of he and Jane Foster and how the new dynamic with his father is working out, as well as what are the broader stakes for The Nine Worlds."

THOR: THE DARK WORLD stars Chris Hemsworth, Christopher Eccleston, Idris Elba, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jaimie Alexander, Kat Dennings, Mads Mikkelsen, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, Tom Hiddleston and Zachary Levi.

The movie is slated for release on November 8, 2013.

Source: SuperHeroHype

MARVEL UPDATE: Malekith Has Been Cast In THOR: THE DARK WORLD And More Details About GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

After Mads Mikkelsen had to step away from the role of Malekith The Accursed (very sad about that - very big fan of his work), Marvel went after non other than Doctor Who - Christopher Eccleston for the role.

According to Deadline, Eccleston has signed on so it's a done deal. Malekith often aligns with Loki so it'll be interesting to see two super villains in tandem against Thor.

Malekith is one evil character. Here are his abilities as per Wikipedia:
Malekith has all the normal attributes of a member of the race of dark elves, although his abilities are as a result of above-average development. He possesses superhuman intellect, strength, speed, stamina, durability, agility, and reflexes. As a dark elf, Malekith also has the ability to manipulate the forces of magic for a variety of effects, including teleportation, energy projection, physical malleability, flight (by transforming into mist), illusion casting, and the ability to change the shape and appearance of other beings or objects. Malekith has a vulnerability to iron, which disrupts or cancels his magical spells.

THOR: THE DARK WORLD is slated for November 8, 2013.

Source: Deadline



*** AND ***

Apparently Chris McCoy has been tapped to rewrite Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. The thrice appointed Black List director will empirically inject his own brand of comedy into what has already been written for the feature by Nicole Perlman (CHALLENGER) and maintain what we have come to expect and love from a Marvel tentpole.

Remember that we are in the post AVENGERS era now and entering Marvel's phase two which will ultimately lead up to THE AVENGERS 2. The big question for me is whether Marvel will bite the bullet and introduce Thanos (the guy at the end of THE AVENGERS credit scene) in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or wait and have him devastate in THE AVENGERS 2.

You're witnessing art in motion here guys! The creatives at Marvel have been waiting forever to get these titles on the big screen and they are literally exploding with enthusiasm. Can't wait to see the results if THE AVENGERS are any indication of things to come!

Here's what to expect for characters in the movie:
The character lineup will include Drax the Destroyer, a human resurrected as a green warrior with the sole purpose of killing Thanos (the villain in the Avengers final-scene tease); Groot, a giant tree-man; Star-Lord, a gun-toting half-human/half-alien intergalactic vigilante; Rocket Raccoon, a genetically engineered animal with a knack for guns and explosives; and Gamora, the last survivor of her species who was saved by Thanos to be his assassin but now battles him.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is slated for an August 1, 2014 release.

Source: THR

THOR 2 Will NOT Feature Thanos But Another Major Villain Plus Loki!

THOR 2!!! Yes. And another major villain! Mads Mikkelson perhaps? I think that's the safe bet as he is confirmed to be joining the production as a villain - and you don't get much better than him really. I am a big fan of his work - you could see his raw talent going as far back as PUSHER. He can say so much with just a look - he doesn't even have to verbalize.

So some questions! What villain will Mikkelson be playing? Will he be teaming up with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who is definitely in the sequel? Some have been speculating that Mads will be playing The Executioner. Hmmm.

One thing is for sure: Thanos will NOT be worshipping death in this movie. Producer Kevin Feige spoke about the super villain and THOR 2 to Empire: "No, future, future. But there will be a major new villain. A major, major new antagonist..."

I have to agree with Marvel's line of thinking here. Keep the uber villain until THE AVENGERS 2 and keep bringing out the rich library of antagonists from Marvel's vault. And I certainly want these villains to be authentically from Marvel and not newly created villains. Why on earth would you do that? 

So what else did the super producer have to say about THOR 2? Says Feige: "We're going to see the other side of Asgard. It's not all polished and golden in this film. And the events of Avengers will have affected Thor for sure. His relationship with Loki will continue to evolve, and the biggest part is Natalie and Thor returning with Jane Foster."  

Mads Mikkelson in VALHALLA RISING

THOR 2 is looking exceptionally bright with the addition of Mads. Man I love how Marvel casts their movies! Joining Mads will be Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Jaimie Alexander and Ray Stevenson. 

Marvel will begin shooting the production this summer in London and it is being directed by Alan Taylor (GAME OF THRONES). You can set aside theater time in your calendar for the movie starting on November 15, 2013.

Sources: CBM | Collider | Variety

Marvel's THE AVENGERS: May 4, 2012!! Mark Ruffalo Is THE HULK!

YES! This is the news we have been waiting for (other than official confirmation that THE AVENGERS will be shot in native 3D)! Today at Comic-Con, director Joss Whedon walked on stage at the tail end of the CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR panel with the entire top line cast for THE AVENGERS armed with a release date - May 4, 2012!!

Who are THE AVENGERS? Robert Downey Jr. as IRON MAN, Mark Ruffalo as THE HULK, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Chris Evans as CAPTAIN AMERICA, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Chris Hemsworth as THOR, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye and Clark Gregg as Coulson.

I don't have to say that this movie has the potential to be the all time greatest comic adaption. Better than SPIDER-MAN (my personal fav). Better than BATMAN (Ok, maybe not TDK!). Better than SUPERMAN. What a cast!

I have a few requests for Marvel and I would like to hear yours too! First, native 3D. Second, I want to see the Hulkbuster Iron Man armor. Third, make the darn thing LEGENDARY. How about you?

Photo courtesy of FirstShowing

New THOR Photo: Hemsworth With Mjolner!

THOR photos are coming fast and furious now! Here we see Chris Hemsworth as Donald Blake (THOR's second self) trying to pick up the famous hammer Mjolner. He can't move the weapon at this stage according to /Film and their handy dandy comic consultant Harry Hopkinson.

I am beginning to see why Marvel went with Hemsworth for the role. Hope he pulls it off.

Official storyline:
Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment present the epic adventure, “Thor,” which spans the Marvel Universe from present day Earth to the realm of Asgard. At the center of the story is the mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth), a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. Thor is cast down to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and is forced to live among humans. A beautiful, young scientist, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), has a profound effect on Thor, as she ultimately becomes his first love. It’s while here on Earth that Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth.

THOR hammers theaters nationwide on May 6, 2011.

Marvel Jumps Into 3D With Both Feet! THOR And CAPTAIN AMERICA Going Stereo!!

Well it's about time! I fully thought that IRON MAN 2 could have raked in an extra 25% minimum if it went to screens in 3D, but oh well.

Click images to enlarge. This is the first official image of Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Anthony Hopkins (Odin) and Tom Hiddleston (Loki).

Officially, it will be THOR being the first entry with CAPTAIN AMERICA coming after in 3D. Marvel is a company who meticulously maintains it's intellectual property (although some will say the current X-MEN comics are off somewhat - too many monthly titles and Wolverine is in practically ALL of them), so it is no surprise that they are going 3D with their future projects.

What will be a surprise to many is that these first two movies will be converted 3D. Yes, in spite of the slap in the face we got from TITANS and AIRBENDER many still have supreme confidence in 3D conversion. So do I. I know it can be done right. But the time and money NEEDS to be spent. It sounds like Marvel is doing it the right way.

Kenneth Branagh on 3D (LATimes): "We came to feel that in our case 3-D could be the very good friend of story and character for a different kind of experience," Branagh said, taking a break from post-production. The filmmaker said the terminology of the 3-D process initially made him cringe -- at first, it was "math and physics and way over my head," he said with a chuckle -- but then he started to pulse with the unexpected artistic opportunities. "It's another draft of the story that can reveal itself in a different way," he said. "I had a healthy degree of skepticism up front ... I've become somebody extremely excited about working with possibilities of doing it this way. A pretty careful conversation is what we've been having for quite some time about what we know has to be the most sensible decision: Is it led by story? Can this offer a different type of experience and exploit what we have in the story? It absolutely can ... we travel very long distances in the movie and the opportunity to export and exploit the journey of the hero is really offered up as a great potential enhancement here."

THOR is due to hit theaters May 6, 2011.

With CAPTAIN AMERICA, Joe Johnston investigated native 3D briefly but decided against it...--

(From LATimes): Johnston did a one-day test shooting with a 3-D rig -- as opposed to shooting in 3-D and converting -- and said it was "a nightmare" due to bulky gear, calibration issues and restricted filmmaking options. He said he's a firm believer, though, in the conversion approach if done right and he's enthused to move forward. "It's a new challenge and it's exciting," Johnston said.

Personally, it sounds like he didn't want to mix and match cameras for the various shots he has, nor take the time to truly get into shooting in 3D. A one day test? Not likely to get you to change your shooting style. You can easily use REDs or FUSION cameras for larger scenes and something like a SI-2K or even an ALEXA for more intimate shots. So sounds a bit like a cop out with an easy target to blame. To each their own though.

What both directors had better watch is to ensure their movies have a balanced 3D style to them. THE LAST AIRBENDER suffered horribly from this as the converted scenes were practically flat while the CG scenes popped like a champagne bottle (Remember those warship hulls sticking out at you?). I hate seeing movies like that almost as much as a generally bad conversion like CLASH OF THE TITANS.

CAPTAIN AMERICA is slated for a July 22, 2011 release.

I have a good feeling about them though. If Marvel can follow the conversion success of ALICE IN WONDERLAND or even the partial scenes from previous HARRY POTTERs, they should be fine.

Marvel is all about spectacle. If you think these turn out well, wait until AVENGERS. That movie is truly the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all of this work. That project should be conceived and shot in native 3D and I will push for that at all costs. Native 3D and of course that we need to see the Iron Man Hulk Buster suit too :-) I have a little surprise coming up about that suit. More about that in an upcoming post in a month or so.