22 May 2011

Quick Fire Reviews of "Fast Five" and "Thor"

Ever since the 2001 release of "The Fast and the Furious" I have followed the series with fervor and an adoring affection for ridiculous fast car action films. However, when the announcement came about number five in the series, I wondered, "What the hell is there left to do?"  Thankfully, the writing/directing/producing team had the answers, which basically consisted of gathering the best characters from all the films, creating even bigger stunts (car through a train? yes please!), moving to an exotic location, and finally, adding Dwayne Johnson as Vin Diesl's arch-rival. Amazing.
        You can see the two sexy beasts facing off in the photo above-- an awesome realization of a dream as I was such a fan of "XXX" and "The Rock" as a teen.  "Fast Five" is my favorite of the series so far and I can't wait for the sixth. It's a full blown action film with a great cast of B actors that deliver one-liners with all the cheese expected in the fifth film in a series about criminals and cars.  I wish I could make lines like "Let's get some fresh air" sound like I'm about kick ass and take names.
       If you're curious about this film but haven't seen the series, the beauty is you don't have to watch all four films.  To understand who most of the characters are and the back story of the main three, you only need to watch 1 and 4 (those are the good ones anyway), then check out the trailers of 2 and 3. I HIGHLY recommend "Fast Five" for a trip to the theater and a snack of soda and popcorn.  

"Thor" is your typical first-of-the-series comic book film, introducing audiences to the character, his back story, and the initial archenemy.  There are some exciting action sequences, beautiful visuals-- actually I thought it looked better than "Tron"-- and an abundance of funny moments. Kenneth Branagh did a great job bringing the world of Norse mythology and Marvel writers to life in a well-paced and entertaining film.  And Chris Hemsworth has a nice bod. 
    If you liked "Iron Man 2" then you'll definitely enjoy "Thor" since it's much better and overall it's a worthwhile movie to see in the theater.


  1. I wasn't very inpressed with Thor. I thought it lacked pivotal moments. I didn't feel a climax (that sounds dirty) and the love connection was not formed well. There was no chemistry between Portman and Hemsworth. Totally worth seeing for that man though, but again, not enough shirtless scenes. What were they thinking? It felt too much like a back story in preparation for the rest of the characters and movies rather than a good stand alone movie. I was disappointed overall. But damn is that man sweet on the eyes.

  2. Obviously MEN were in charge of the production, otherwise Thor would have been naked the entire time. My apologies for the oh-so-short review... I began spacing out and didn't get into details. I think you and I may have walked into the film with different expectations: mine were LOW. In that case I thought the film highly entertaining, but nothing overwhelmingly interesting, nor will I be in line day 1 when the film comes out on DVD.
    I'm glad you didn't think there was chemistry between Portman and Hemsworth either! It was like watching a brother and sister kissing during the love scenes. Bleck. Hopefully they won't bring her back for "The Avengers" or any further installments of the series. It's worth a viewing; however I agree that you need to look at the film as back story and preparation for "The Avengers."

    P.S. Did you recognize Chris Hemsworth from "Star Trek?" He play Captain Kirk Sr. His eyes were amazing in that too.