Tron: Legacy

Ultimately, a watchable film with neat visuals and interest from a nostaglia point of view, but kind of lame otherwise. I think it was trying to be the next Matrix or something. Lots of odd pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo that never seemed to make a whole lot of sense to me. But, hey some neat action sequences, and nice to see good old "Flynn" (Jeff Bridges) again.

2.5 stars

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Pt 1

Yeah I agree with Neil on this. It isn't bad, but I kept thinking how much these Harry Pottermovies are just a re-hash of Tolkien, Lewis, etc. Lots of elements that are reminiscent of those earlier classic fantasy works.

2.75 stars

The Town

Pretty standard heist film built around a love story. Didn't buy into the love story because it was unrealistic. Big problem for movie.

Two stars because it is not as bad as Jonah Hex.

Jonah Hex

I may have seen all of the good movies from 2010 already. This one had potential, but unfortunately just was not salvageable as even a B-movie. Ultimately, it is devoid of joy, and you actually find yourself liking the villains more. I'm actually writing this review during the last ten minutes of the movie.

On paper the movie could have been half-way decent. Malkovich as the bad guy, check. Setting is 1870's, and the main characters are all Civil War veterans, check. Elements of supernatural, and steampunk, check. Plot development, or any idea on how to create an actual story...Missing! I think that Playstation Western game I was playing has a better narrative to it with more character development. This one felt like an average video game, and a pretty bad movie.

One and a half stars out of five for the giant cannon that is in it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1

This movie was in bad need of some summary exposition at the beginning that worked so well in The Lord of the Rings. It has only been a few years since I read the books, and I was partly lost most of the time. I had a vague notion of what the main point was, but could not follow most of the major plot points along the way.

The original novel was able to pull this off, and I'm wondering if this section of the series is just too complicated with multiple quests going on, but framed as a detective story. They are trying to track down magical artifacts (for reasons I've forgotten) and in the process discover certain things about Dumbledore.

Also, what the book did was exploit the tension between the three main characters and their relationships with each other. The movie had to spend far too much time on the detective elements of the plot, that it did not really get a chance to do this.

That being said, the actors have all grown up very well, and were able to do a lot with not much help from the narrative. Also, the fight scenes are pretty cool, and if they should still be able to muster up the climax of the story, which will work well on screen if done right. Less detective novel, and more epic battle type stuff. It should be a lot easier to follow. So here's hoping that Pt. 2 will redeem Pt. 1.

3 stars out of 5.

Thor

Well, if Hulk is going to be in the Avengers, then Marvel is two out of three so far for the whole gang's origin movies. Hulk was a dud, but Iron Man and Thor are both solid. I thought this was almost as good as Iron Man. Had a little humor, some action, but not too much action, some romance, but not too much romance, and good character development.

I liked how they spent almost as much screen time on the villain as they did on the superhero, which I'm beginning to think is essential for any superhero story to work. Where are the X-men without Magneto, where is Superman without Lex Luther, Batman without Joker, and so on. Most superheros are defined by their villains, and not the other way around. In this regard, the villain of Thor is great in that he is probably one of the more well defined, and developed as a character. Not quite sympathetic, but very realistic motivations. All of this lets us really appreciate the heroic qualities in the main character all the more.

I also liked how they were not tied down to the original comic books, or the Norse mythology. It seems they put story first as a priority, without any sort of continuity issues with the myths either.

I would give it a solid 4/5. I'd like to know why Chris docked it a .1, unless he is using a different scale than me! Also, it's probably better than that, but I already heard good things from other people, and whenever that happens I do not like it as much as the original reviewer. Or maybe all of the original reviewers were docking the movie a .1 just for that reason.

Thor

3.9 stars, if not more.

I am excited for the future of Marvel movies. Thor did what it needed to do. It introduced this god-like mystical character to the Iron Man and SHIELD technological modern setting in a way that I thought worked. Not perfect, but overall I was satisfied. I thought it all hung together pretty well.

I liked the actor who played Thor. Thought he embodied the power and charisma of the character quite well. Also liked Natalie Portman's character, even, and all the other actors/characters. And of course Anthony Hopkins does a good job as Odin. The story and plot were sufficient, parts quite dramatic I thought. The action and fight sequences were all pretty good; some of them in fact were excellent. The movie had a nice balance of emotion and humor, as well.

I liked it! I can't wait for Captain America. Even more, I can't wait for the Avengers movie (next year?) when we will see Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and others all together (including Hulk I think? Hawkeye, too, is what I hear). Based on their past successes, I have increasing confidence that the marvel people know what they are doing, and that we have a lineup of some very entertaining movies ahead.