Phase 1 of the Marvel Project is all done and dusted, a phase which started on a massive high with the first Iron Man (arguably the best solo Marvel superhero film to date), and ended on one with Avengers Assemble (the best Marvel film, in my opinion). Marvel Films did what was seemingly impossible, and did it unbelievably well. So, like millions of others, I waited with bated bread for Phase 2 to kick off. Iron Man 3 rolled around and
heh. It wasn't an awful film and the Tony Stark character took an interesting turn, but it didn't live up to the success of his first two outings and the Marvel standard as a whole.
Which brings us on to the next step of Phase 2 – Thor. The first film was one of the big surprises of the genre. While his other superhero friends are steeped in some level of reality, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is from an entirely different world, so the task of bringing him into 'our' world and making it believable was a tough one. But they did it, and the result was a thoroughly entertaining film that took advantage of the character's supernatural elements. With the sequel, directors Alan Taylor and James Gunn (taking over from Kenneth Branagh) decided to amp the supernatural side up even more.
While the first movie introduces us to Asgard, Thor's home planet, The Dark World is set almost entirely in the alien world. This time, Asgard is under threat from an even darker foe hell-bent on literally destroying the entire universe. The epic plot allows the film to explore Asgard with much more detail, and we gain a better understanding of how the world works. Expectedly, we're treated to some gorgeous CGI and special effects, making it fun to watch. The fish-out-of-water formula is also subverted as Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is now in Asgard, essentially playing our eyes and ears. Unfortunately, that formula isn't as successful as it was in the first movie. Watching Thor try to make sense of Earth is genuinely hilarious, but we don't quite get that with Foster. Funnier than that is seeing Foster's Earth friends go about their business (Kat Dennings, in particular, is very funny).In fact, the scenes in Asgard, as a whole, aren't overly amusing. That is, until, one Tom Hiddleston enters the fray.
As Loki, Hiddleston is once again sublime. That scathing sarcasm, the wry smiles, his excellent diction and tone; everything about the performance is a pleasure to experience. It is by no means an exaggeration to suggest that he steals every scene he is in. My favourite scenes were the ones that he was in – just waiting for him to say something, and knowing it was going to be gold. And it pretty much always was. The character's journey in the film is also very gripping, and sets us up nicely for whatever might come next. Loki is to Thor what Iago is to Othello: he is the actual main character, he is the one we want to see. And just like people have argued that Shakespeare's play should be called Iago, I would strongly argue that the film should have been named after Loki.
Where we have a problem is that, when Loki isn't on screen (and his screen time is crucial but limited), the film just never seems as engaging. I found myself missing the character, and wishing he was ever-present. I won't reveal any spoilers but will say the ending makes up for that longing, but that doesn't stop the film suffering because of it.
This is, overall, why the sequel just doesn't work as well as the first film. And it isn't just the lack of Loki's presence; other characters I wanted to see more of were used sparingly. Kat Dennings, as mentioned before, was one of those characters; and Stellan Skarsgard was another. Instead, we saw a lot more of Anthony Hopkins (boring and uninspiring), Idris Elba (strong presence but also boring) and Christopher Ecclestone (who is completely unrecognisable but actually quite good).
Don't get me wrong, The Dark World is not a bad film. It's much better than Iron Man 3, and there is enough excitement and good action to stop you getting bored. It just isn't as engaging as the first one, that's all. Sadly, Phase 2 of the Avengers Project has started with a bit of a whimper; we can only hope it gets better from here.
Which brings us on to the next step of Phase 2 – Thor. The first film was one of the big surprises of the genre. While his other superhero friends are steeped in some level of reality, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is from an entirely different world, so the task of bringing him into 'our' world and making it believable was a tough one. But they did it, and the result was a thoroughly entertaining film that took advantage of the character's supernatural elements. With the sequel, directors Alan Taylor and James Gunn (taking over from Kenneth Branagh) decided to amp the supernatural side up even more.
While the first movie introduces us to Asgard, Thor's home planet, The Dark World is set almost entirely in the alien world. This time, Asgard is under threat from an even darker foe hell-bent on literally destroying the entire universe. The epic plot allows the film to explore Asgard with much more detail, and we gain a better understanding of how the world works. Expectedly, we're treated to some gorgeous CGI and special effects, making it fun to watch. The fish-out-of-water formula is also subverted as Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is now in Asgard, essentially playing our eyes and ears. Unfortunately, that formula isn't as successful as it was in the first movie. Watching Thor try to make sense of Earth is genuinely hilarious, but we don't quite get that with Foster. Funnier than that is seeing Foster's Earth friends go about their business (Kat Dennings, in particular, is very funny).In fact, the scenes in Asgard, as a whole, aren't overly amusing. That is, until, one Tom Hiddleston enters the fray.
As Loki, Hiddleston is once again sublime. That scathing sarcasm, the wry smiles, his excellent diction and tone; everything about the performance is a pleasure to experience. It is by no means an exaggeration to suggest that he steals every scene he is in. My favourite scenes were the ones that he was in – just waiting for him to say something, and knowing it was going to be gold. And it pretty much always was. The character's journey in the film is also very gripping, and sets us up nicely for whatever might come next. Loki is to Thor what Iago is to Othello: he is the actual main character, he is the one we want to see. And just like people have argued that Shakespeare's play should be called Iago, I would strongly argue that the film should have been named after Loki.
Where we have a problem is that, when Loki isn't on screen (and his screen time is crucial but limited), the film just never seems as engaging. I found myself missing the character, and wishing he was ever-present. I won't reveal any spoilers but will say the ending makes up for that longing, but that doesn't stop the film suffering because of it.
This is, overall, why the sequel just doesn't work as well as the first film. And it isn't just the lack of Loki's presence; other characters I wanted to see more of were used sparingly. Kat Dennings, as mentioned before, was one of those characters; and Stellan Skarsgard was another. Instead, we saw a lot more of Anthony Hopkins (boring and uninspiring), Idris Elba (strong presence but also boring) and Christopher Ecclestone (who is completely unrecognisable but actually quite good).
Don't get me wrong, The Dark World is not a bad film. It's much better than Iron Man 3, and there is enough excitement and good action to stop you getting bored. It just isn't as engaging as the first one, that's all. Sadly, Phase 2 of the Avengers Project has started with a bit of a whimper; we can only hope it gets better from here.