GHOSTBUSTERS Doesn't Quite Answer the Call

GHOSTBUSTERS Review:

- No other movie this summer was the subject of more controversy than Ghostbusters. A remake of a beloved classic is always going to push the buttons of fans of the original - but the vitriol towards Paul Fieg's franchise reboot took on especially ugly tone - as a contingent of fans zeroed in on the new movie's all-female cast as the subject of their scorn. There's a lot to unpack here, for better or worse. So let's take a step back and look at the context in which this new Ghostbusters came to be. The thing is - personally, I don't like remakes and reboots, and wish Hollywood would produce less of them. Sure, you occasionally end up with a great movie - but even in those cases, you wonder if the material would have been better served creatively if it was allowed to be its own thing. Surely, there must be someone out there who has a wholly original take on supernatural crime-fighters that would not be beholden to what has come before. Then there's the issue of the Ghostbusters franchise itself. I'll be honest, I've never been 100% onboard. The fact is, the first movie is a really fun, funny example of genre-blending - mixing the snarky comedy of 70's/80's-era SNL with the high-concept, big-budget event-driven filmmaking that, at the time of the original film, was reaching its nadir. But as much as I enjoy Ghostbusters, it was never a movie that, for me, screamed "franchise." Maybe that's partly due to the disappointing second film. Maybe it's because, in general, comedies tend not to work as franchises. Maybe it's because it's now been decades since the original film, and Ghostbusters, in 2016, felt more like a piece of 80's nostalgia than a living, breathing fictional universe. Point being: whether the new movie was a sequel, remake, reboot, whatever - it would have taken something really cool, really creative, to get me that excited for more ghost bustin'.

But here's the flip-side: if you take the view that Hollywood will inevitably remake everything, then the extension of that is that, hey, they might as well do so in a way that's new and different and perhaps more inclusive of women and minorities than the original source material. So even if the idea of more Ghsotbusters never really excited me that much, period ... well, it's still cool that there are girls who will be getting four new jumpsuit-clad heroes of their own with this new movie.

But all of that meta-baggage aside, there's still the basic question of: is the movie good? And as far as Paul Feig's GHOSTBUSTERS goes, the movie is ... sort of okay. Ultimately, this is a movie that is 100% carried by its funny, uber-capable cast - an all-star lineup of some of the funniest females on the planet. Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, and most especially Kate McKinnon elevate the movie and bring it to life by sheer force of will. Because, unfortunately, the script here is pretty inert, and the jokes tend to fall flat more often than they hit. But McKinnon, in particular, kills despite that, crafting a memorable character by constantly giving us little, outside-the-script moments that make us laugh, smile, and pretty much love everything about her insane and insanely-awesome character of Holtzmann. Holtzmann wins us over with each successive wild-eyed glance, mischievous smile, and gun-licking quirk. She's the best thing in the movie, and a testament to McKinnon's ability as a comedic performer. She's been SNL's MVP for the last few years, and should easily and quickly make the post-SNL transition to bonafide movie star. She's the real-deal.

But especially now, as I write this with the benefit of hindsight, I think back and am sort of amazed at how little of GHOSTBUSTERS has stuck with me in the weeks since I originally saw it. Really, the main takeaway for me was, to re-state the obvious, that Kate McKinnon was/is awesome. But that aside, what else does the new GHOSTBUSTERS really have to offer?

Certainly, it does not give us a memorable villain. Neil Casey's squirmy Rowan is utterly forgettable, and his convoluted evil plans make little sense. There are very little emotional stakes in the Ghostbusters' fight with him, and he's just sort of ... lame. At least the movie occasionally dazzles from a visual perspective, giving us some cool-looking ghosts for our heroes to do battle with. But even there, the film provides some short bursts of inspired visuals (like Holtzman's climactic slo-mo ghost-battle late in the film), but at times, it also feels a bit flat and less atmospheric than it should. I'm not asking for Crimson Peak here (okay, I guess I sort of am), but the movie almost never feels genuinely *creepy* in the way I wanted it to.

It also, sadly, struggles with comedy. Like I said, the movie's funniest moments are the ones that feel improvised - that feel like off-script stuff thrown in by McKinnon, etc. But the overall joke writing here is somewhat flat. There's no "cross the streams" moment that will be quoted for the rest of time immemorial. Weirdly, the movie also seems to put some major restraints on its talent. While McKinnon gets to be the breakout weirdo, and Lesli Jones gets to be Lesli Jones (a good thing, no question), Melissa McCarthy and Kristin Wiig both seem underserved by the script. They play straight-women to an extent that is sort of surprising. Wiig's Erin Gilbert is a tightly-wound professor who's long repressed her obsession with ghosts due to the level of professional embarrassment it caused. So of course, it's only a matter of time until she cracks and comes out of her shell, right? Not really. Other than one sorta-funny dance scene, Wiig spends the whole movie playing a pretty boring character. Trust me, I am all for Wiig playing more nuanced, subtle characters. I was a giant fan of her work with Bill Hader in the movie Skeleton Twins, for example. But this is GHOSTBUSTERS. This is not the movie in which I want a restrained Kristin Wiig - or a Wiig, for that matter, who barely even gets off a great comedic line of dialogue for the movie's entire running time. Surprisingly, it's Chris Hemsworth - as the Ghostbusters' dimwitted secretary - who gets the movie's most over-the-top and consistently funny lines. Hemsworth is great here, no question. But mostly, his stuff feels tangential to the main movie. As funny as he is, the movie would have been better off devoting less time to Hemsworth's antics and more time to its leading ladies, to its plot, and to its villain.

I don't want to undermine that, on one level, this version of GHOSTBUSTERS is a success simply in that it presents a mostly pretty-fun comedic romp starring some very naturally funny and charismatic women. Perhaps there is a net positive here in that girls will watch this movie and find the same sort of kick-ass, lovably weird role models that a generation of guys found when the original movie was released. Maybe that's enough. But I'm also not sure that this movie is really good or funny enough to leave that same sort of cultural impact in its wake. Time will tell, I guess. But if this movie is not the touchstone that Feig and co. wanted it to be - well, that's okay. Girls don't need a dusting-off of a decades-old franchise to be their touchstone. Someone out there will create something new and different and better that will be that thing. It's only a matter of time.

My Grade: C+

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON is Entertaining But Largely Emotionless Would-Be Epic

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON Review:

Minor Spoilers Ahead ...

- The first Avengers film was a fairly awesome culmination of "Phase 1" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It delivered a satisfying team-up of Marvel's finest, and it felt like a well-earned payoff to much of what had come before. In contrast, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON feels like an aimless, overstuffed midpoint in this grand Marvel experiment. It's plenty fun - there's entertaining action, lots of Joss Whedon's trademark quippy dialogue and humor, and a breakout, damn-cool new character in the android hero The Vision. But the whole affair is oddly emotionless. The film seems so intent on cramming a universe worth of characters and subplots into its two-and-a-half-hour running time that most of its major arcs feel rushed. What makes that particularly disappointing is that AGE OF ULTRON has the ingredients to be a movie with real thematic heft. This could have been the ultimate Marvel version of Frankenstein, with Tony Stark as the prideful mad-scientist at its center. But what we get is the movie equivalent of what comics fans are all too familiar with - the mega-crossover that promises world-changing epicness but instead boils down to a lot of sizzle without much steak. Of course, if this were comics, we'd have about three dozen tie-ins and crossover books to provide substance that helps to flesh out the main arc. But what we get is one movie that has to do it all - tell a great standalone story, pay off the last half-dozen Marvel movies, set up the next "phase" of this universe ... and the list goes on.

There's at times a sense then that this movie was pushed out of the Marvel/Disney factory with little motivating its existence other than a dutiful sense of obligation. Given that, it's perhaps a minor miracle that the film is as good as it is. But for every too-clever Whedonism that hits, and every nerd-out moment that causes audiences to applaud, there's a lot of zooming from Point A to Point B that to some extent drowns out the movie's best bits. As we know, Marvel has a plan. But it's also important that its films don't feel like mere parts of a plan.

Despite what I just said, there's not that much back-story you really need to know to dive into AGE OF ULTRON. There's some follow-up to Winter Soldier, with The Avengers now working in a post-S.H.I.E.L.D. world and having their own distinct HQ. And the film opens in media res with the team infiltrating one of the remaining Hydra facilities, where some evil Nazi types make a last stand by unleashing "the twins" - Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - on their foes. From there though, the film quickly transitions to its main focus: Ultron. A super-advanced AI created by Tony Stark, the program created to be a global protector decides that the only way to create true peace is to ... wait for it ... destroy humanity. So the James Spader-voiced program creates a humanoid body for itself, takes control of an army of Iron Man 'bots, recruits mind-controlling Scarlet Witch and speedster Quicksilver as his henchman, and decides to go all-in on the whole supervillain thing.

From the get-go, things seem to barrel forward without much time given to proper build-up. We've seen a lot of films about artificial intelligence of late, including a great one in Ex Machina. There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined from an AI created to bring peace developing an appetite for destruction. But for all of the long-term plotting we've seen in these Marvel movies, Ultron's turn to the darkside is remarkably sudden. Not only that, but his evolution from non-corporeal AI to wise-cracking, one-liner-spouting, evil-scheming robo-Spader is nearly instantaneous. Spader adds an amusing smarminess to the character, but ultimately, Ultron falls mostly flat as a Big Bad.

And a huge reason for that is one that could have easily been fixed, and one that seems like a huge miss for the film: this should have been, first and foremost, Tony Stark's story. Stark stubbornly created Ultron - a villain who goes on to wreak massive havoc - and yet AGE OF ULTRON just barely scratches the surface of what this all means. For one thing, the movie should have built to a climactic showdown between creator and monster. But amidst all the chaos of the film, Stark is too often sidelined. And what of the emotional toll that creating Ultron might have / should have on Stark? There's barely a hint of real weight in the film. Ultron should have been Stark's greatest failure - an epic mistake of hubris that forces him to re-evaluate everything. But that character arc is either ignored or being saved for another movie. AGE OF ULTRON does have a couple of big scenes of tension among the Avengers that seem to set the stage for continued drama. But by film's end, all is pretty much forgiven. It's not just a matter of waiting for Civil War or what have you. AGE OF ULTRON suffers for not following a clear character arc for Tony and with regards to his relationship with the rest of the team.

The film's clutter also severely hampers the introductions of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Again, it's odd - because their back-story is yet another thread that ties back to damage caused by Stark that has come back to haunt him. But even with their anti-Stark agenda, the twins' motivation for allying with the obviously evil-with-a-capitol-E Ultron seems pretty shaky. It's why their eventual turn to the side of the heroes feels weightless and rushed.

One more aspect of the film that seems awkwardly shoehorned in: a romantic subplot between Bruce Banner and The Black Widow. Without any real hints of a budding romance in previous films, the mild sparks between the two feel a bit contrived. But what's worse is that some fun flirtatious moments abruptly become full-on rainbows-and-unicorns soul-mate stuff. Before the two have even gotten physical, there's awkward talk about kids and families and how their romance can never be. One step at a time, you crazy kids.

There's a lot in the film that feels like unneeded filler, especially when the meat of the story - the Stark vs. Ultron stuff - seems to struggle to get the screentime it needs. There's an extended detour to the safe house of Hawkeye that feels extraneous (though it's always nice to see Linda Cardinelli, who plays the never-before-seen Mrs. Clint Barton). There's a whole thing about Thor bathing in a mystical pool so as to conjure a vision of the Infinity Gems that could have probably been cut out. There's a trip to Marvel U mainstay Wakanda (no Black Panther cameo ... sorry fanboys) that feels like an extended tangent. These are the kinds of stories that in the comics would have probably had their own tie-in miniseries. But here, they're just bloat.

Writer/director Josh Whedon has always excelled at peppering his sci-fi epics with great little character moments. And AGE OF ULTRON is no exception. The movie's most fun sequence involves a fancy-dress party in honor of an Avengers victory that's capped off by a hilarious test-of-strength among earth's mightiest mortals to see who among them can lift Thor's enchanted hammer (and there's a great, surprising payoff to the scene later in the film, too). Whedon kills with his banter - and that's no surprise, but it's still remarkable how well he pulls this stuff off. AGE OF ULTRON is chock full of killer one-liners and asides. There's a freaking Eugene O'Neill reference tossed in there, and it's great. Whedon nails those little moments. But what AGE OF ULTRON needs more of are the truly epic, truly memorable, truly fist-pumping BIG moments. There's nothing here as applause-worthy, for example, as the Hulk "puny god!" line from the first Avengers.

What comes closest though is Vision. If there's one thing that's undeniably awesome in AGE OF ULTRON, it's him. I'm not sure if it was always the plan for Paul Bettany's Jarvis to evolve into The Vision, but if so - kudos - as it unfolds to perfection. The character just looks cool - like something straight out of an Alex Ross painting. And Whedon steps up to the plate whenever Vision is on-screen - majestically filming him like a creature out of sci-fi dreams. We don't get to see Vision take form until late in the film, but man, we're left wanting more.

When it comes to action, AGE OF ULTRON mostly delivers. It has some of the most epic action of any Marvel film to date. Some of it is pretty rapid-fire and videogame-y, but mostly, Whedon delivers some fairly spectacular, comic-book-brought-to-life battles. There are some great moments in which the characters deliver XBOX-worthy combo-attacks to their enemies. And the Hulk vs. Mega-Iron-Man battle does indeed live up to the trailer-induced hype, giving us a hero vs. hero smackdown that trumps any overhyped pay-per-view boxing match by a country mile. What Whedon also takes care to do is to make sure that the action always includes a truly superheroic element of getting civilians out of harm's way and saving lives. Many criticized Man of Steel for neglecting to show Superman's efforts to save the innocent in the midst of his destruction-causing battles. AGE OF ULTRON, in contrast, is incredibly concerned with the idea of heroes saving people as being their defining characteristic. In many ways, it's a theme that's defined this era of modern Marvel movies. But in AGE OF ULTRON, it's one of the ways in which the film inspires true awe and wonder despite whatever other flaws it may have. It's fun to see the Captain America ideology of selflessness permeating through the broader team - even if the Tony Starks of the world miss the forest for the trees.

AGE OF ULTRON delivers plenty of spectacle and explosiveness. But it's also a messy film - one that seems to be pulled in so many directions that its obvious thematic through-line feels trampled-on and obscured. Creator vs. creation, father vs. son, man vs. machine - these are weighty themes that should and could have produced multiple epic, chill-inducing moments. But the film seems content to breeze by a lot of the big moments in the name of cramming in everything and the kitchen sink. Think of comics. They speedily direct the reader from panel to panel, and then deliver the big, dramatic moments with jaw-dropping full-page splash pages. AGE OF ULTRON feels like a big comic composed of 180 12-panel pages. On paper, this is the blockbuster to end all blockbusters. But in practice, this one was lacking the jaw-dropping moments that truly make a big movie like this an epic and a classic. The movie checks all the boxes - it's entertaining and fun and full of Whedon-powered wit. Is it the ultimate Marvel epic that we've been waiting for, however? Nope - for that, looks like we've got to keep on waiting.

My Grade: B+

THOR: THE DARK WORLD Is Cosmic Craziness That Ushers In Marvel's "Phase 2" Era

THOR: THE DARK WORLD Review:

- And now we get to the fun part. I mean, let's face it, we all love superheroes, but I could live without another origin story anytime soon. Especially when said origins tend to be told in such a by-the-book, cut-and-paste manner on the big-screen. But man, Marvel seems to have a lot of ambition these days. They've moved firmly into "Phase 2" of their Marvel Cinematic Universe plan, and they are going boldly into the fringes and not looking back. THOR: THE DARK WORLD has a lot of the familiar elements that have made Marvel movies so popular and accessible: the light and bouncy tone, the mix of epic action with liberal doses of humor, the blending of fantastic fantasy with street-level authenticity. In short, the Marvel movies are emulating the formula that made Marvel comics so successful back in their Stan Lee-written heyday. But now, we're getting to the Jack Kirby of it all. The larger-than-life stuff, the cosmic stuff, the flat-out weird stuff. The kind of stuff that, until now, has still largely been confined to the pages of comic books - a format blissfully unconstrained by budgetary concerns and delightfully conducive to the sorts of mind-melting ideas that emanated from the mind of Kirby, Jim Starlin, Walt Simonson, and the other iconic writer/artists who made superhero comics into cosmic space-opera on an epic scale. So yes, THOR: THE DARK WORLD has quippy dialogue, inventive action, and a much better-developed romance between its leads than we got in Part 1. But I have to confess, what endeared it to me so much was that, above all else, it seemed to be about big and weird and cosmic ideas in a way that most live-action superhero movies have not yet dared to approach.

All that said, I don't want to act like this movie is the second coming of superhero movies. It's still got a couple of issues that, ultimately, keep it a step behind the best Marvel movies like The Avengers and (in my opinion) Captain America. But before I dive into what doesn't work, let me talk about what does ...

First and foremost - Chris Hemsworth. Before the first Thor was released, I think I and many others wondered how the character could translate to screen without seeming like a big, goofy joke. I think about 80% of the answer to that question lies with Hemsworth. He pretty much is Thor, and not only that, but he's slowly but surely been developing as an actor (case in point: his excellent turn in this year's Ron Howard film, Rush). His Thor is larger-than-life and Olympian, but also believably human. And he glides rather effortlessly between charged-up superhero action, Shakespearean melodrama, self-deprecating comedy, and more earthbound romance.

Not far behind Hemsworth in the "Franchise MVP" category is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. You couldn't have THOR without Hemsworth, but THOR would be a lot less awesome without Hiddleston, who simply kills it in this sequel. If anything, you're left wishing that the movie didn't take so long to get Loki involved in the story. Here's the thing about Hiddleston - Marvel movies, and superhero movies in general - have had their share of stars-playing-villains who still, at the end of the day, felt like movie stars playing comic book villains. Hiddleston, to an even greater extent than Hemsworth, pretty much IS Loki in these films, and that full-scale transformation is even more pronounced here than in Part 1. The guy seethes with such otherworldly villainy that he alone helps you buy into THE DARK WORLD's general cosmic craziness. Hiddleston sells it because he's so darn believable as Loki that he, in turn, lends a credibility by osmosis to all of the other gods and monsters in the film. I never would have expected this, but Thor vs. Loki is now the best hero/villain rivalry in the entire Marvel MCU.

Overall, I think THE DARK WORLD makes better use of its supporting cast than the first film did. Natalie Portman gets a larger and more filled-out role here as Jane Foster. She's much more pivotal to the story than before, and her rleationship with Thor is less the annoying schoolgirl crush of Part 1, and more of a genuine-seeming affection that puts her on more equal footing with the God of Thunder. Sir Anthony Hopkins is once again a lot of fun as Odin, and Rene Russo actually gets some substantive (and, surprisingly kick-ass) moments as Thor's mom Frigga. Meanwhile, Jamie Alexander makes the most of warrior-woman Sif's limited dialogue - in only a few key scenes, she establishes an "it's complicated" status with Thor that lends the character an air of tragic bad-romance. And as for everyone's favorite broke girl, Kat Dennings - she seems less annoying and more funny than in the first movie, working well as genuine comic relief. Stellan Skarsgård is also quite funny this go-round as nutty professor Erik. While it's a shame he doesn't get more dramatic moments (given the actor's chops) it's still fun to see him rant and rave like a crazy person and share a great moment with Stan Lee (appearing in his now-customary cameo, True Believers). Finally, I'll mention the great Idris Elba as Heimdall. It seems odd to have such a fantastic actor in such a minor role, but hey, Elba makes Heimdell super badass in his brief appearances.

One note on Portman though. Look, I'm a huge fan - she kills it in movies like Black Swan and is a top-notch actress. But one thing about Portman ... I just don't know if she's at her best in these types of comic-booky roles. Her default mode of acting is super-serious and intense. That works well in a dark drama like Black Swan, or even in a comedy that makes fun of her seriousness, like Your Highness. But she doesn't necessarily nail the sort of slightly self-aware quippiness needed to knock it out of the park in a Marvel movie like Thor. And so, as in the first film (and as in other pulpy sci-fi fare like Star Wars), she feels a bit wooden here. Like I said, Jane Foster is written better and has more to do than in Part 1. But if I had to point to one actor who just feels a bit out-of-place amid the epic comic book hamminess of Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Hopkins, etc., it'd be her.

So Portman's Jane Foster is sort of a mixed bag, but overall, it does feel like this movie is much more chock full of substantial female characters than the previous film, and as compared to most Marvel movies. Less substantial, however, is the movie's big bad - the dark elf (yes, you heard me) named Malekith, played by Christopher Eccleston (unrecognizable behind transformative makeup/costuming). Malekith is a visually-cool villain - a monstrous, otherdimensional creature who leads an army of raygun-wielding evil warriors that look like Kirby drawings come to life. Awesome in concept, for sure. But the problem with Malekith is that he's just sort of there. We know that his realm was destroyed thanks to a magical MacGuffin known as the Aether, and that he now seeks to reclaim the Aether and use it to cause major destruction (to further complicate things, the Aether has been absorbed into Jane's body, making her invulnerable, but also slowly killing her). The thing with Malekith is that all he really needs is an extra scene or two to really sell his appetite for cosmic destruction. And I've heard that these scenes may exist, but were cut for time - in which case I'd be very eager to see them as originally shot. Because, hey, sometimes having an evil dark elf who just wants to %$&@ $%&# up is fine ... 'nuff said (to quote Stan The Man). But just a little something to make this dude pop as a character would have gone a long way.

Luckily, there's more than enough conflict and intrigue between Thor and Loki - who must forge an uneasy alliance to take on Malekith - to make up for Malekith's lack of personality. Hemsworth and Hiddleston are the engine that makes the movie go, and, by having him in the background for much of the film, THE DARK WORLD builds him up into that much of a greater (and cooler) potential threat.

Where THOR gets sloppy is in its plotting. There are a metric ton of cool ideas in this movie, but a lot of it feels sort of fast and loose. I talked about Malekith being sort of a nebulous character, and about the Aether being your typical sci-fi movie MacGuffin. But there are lots of other things that stand out as feeling not-fully-thought-out. One example I'll toss out there: the use of Loki's (admittedly cool) illusion-creating powers. While this ability leads to some cool moments, it also feels overused - to the point where something happens, and then you immediately expect it to be revealed as an illusion. Another example is a cliffhanger-y element of the ending that is sorta cool, yet also feels like a bit of a cheat. Who knows if and when the how's and why's of the reveal will be explained, but I was left with a bit of a feeling of the movie not quite playing fair with us. Overall, THE DARK WORLD packs in so many characters and plot points that it's no wonder it elicits the occasional "huh?". The fast pace is a blessing and a curse - giving the film a sugar-rush sensibility, but also a feeling of giving potentially great moments and scenes short shrift.

At times though, there were moments that truly wowed me. A viking-like Asgardian funeral scene - rife with eye-popping imagery and looking like a fantasy painting brought to life - may actually be my favorite scene of the film. Conversely, the final battle between Thor and Malekith's forces is pretty imaginative - with Portal-esque location-warping hurtling Thor and his adversary from place to place in a flurry of action-packed, dizzying jumps. Director Alan Taylor does a great job with the action, infusing the CGI f/x-fests with a degree of old-school fantasy feel, with moments that evoke the iconography of classic 80's fantasy films. Whereas the first film sometimes felt flat visually, this one has much more comic book grandeur, and the fantasy worlds of Asgard, etc. seem full of life and fully-realized.

The movie perhaps feels a little more disjointed than it should thanks to some oddly-placed post-credits scenes, with one in particular feeling like it should have simply been the last few minutes of the movie. But the other post-credits scene - a prelude to Guardians of the Galaxy, of sorts - left me giddy from its sheer cosmic weirdness. This scene helped reinforce the sentiment I expressed at the beginning of the review - that Marvel's "Phase 2" was ushering in an era of full-on Kirby comic-book weirdness, an era in which the kinds of things that fans thought they'd never see outside of the comics are actually materializing on screen. Now, I don't just say that from the fanboy perspective of "look, an obscure character from the comics is appearing!" I'm not even enough of a Marvel geek to be able to say that credibly. But I do say it from the perspective of a fan who's been growing weary with superhero films - adapted from stories that tend towards the weird and out-there - becoming increasingly cookie-cutter and generic and bland. What I love about these stories is the imagination, the weirdness, the colorfulness, the subversiveness, and the idea that anything can happen. For Lee, Kirby, Shooter, Simonson, and the like - there were never any limits. The universe itself was the canvass. And to see these movies get to that point, embracing all this stuff (I'm still traumatized from the second Fantastic Four movie's "cloud" Galactus) ... it's incredibly cool.

So yeah, THOR: THE DARK WORLD's got flaws, and it feels overstuffed at times, and its main villain is undercooked. But its got an infectious sense of fun that won me over. The more I thought about it, the more I liked it, flaws and all. If this is the beginning of the new anything-goes, post-Avengers era of Marvel movies, then hell, alls I can say is "excelsior."

My Grade: B+