I started reading comic books at the age of seven. Twenty five years later I sold the last of my comic book collection. Among my collection was a large run of “The Mighty Thor” comics. I even had a few of the early appearances in Journey into Mystery. Thor was never one of my favorite superheroes, mostly due to all the “thee’s” and “thou’s” in his speech.  In the 1980’s writer/artist Walt Simonson took over the Thor title at Marvel and pretty much remade the character. He lost his hammer (Mjolnir) for awhile and he lost his alter ego.  This is the character that most represents the Thor we see in the movie.

So if you are hoping to see the original origin story from the 1960’s you can forget it. But there is an homage to that origin, which I will not spoil for you. Anyway, on to the movie…

I liked “Thor”. I will not say I liked it as much as “Iron Man”, but it was better than “Iron Man 2″. Chris Hemsworth did a very decent job as the Norse god of thunder, with the right amount of humor and arrogance readers of the comic book can appreciate.  Anthony Hopkins, as Odin, was also very good in his limited role. The weakest link in the movie is the Jane Foster character played by Natalie Portman. I guess ever since “Spider-Man” grossed over 400 million dollars domestically, Marvel has decided that all their superhero movies need a love story. I think as far as “Spider-Man” goes, it was crucial to the story, as it is in the comic book. But for “Thor”, this was mostly a waste of screen time.

Natalie Portman is a great actress and I have loved her in most of the roles I have seen her in going back to “Leon: The Professional”. But she is completely miscast in this role. I guess it didn’t help that Kat Dennings, who plays her assistant Darcy in the movie, stole every scene they were in together. I would rather have seen Kat Dennings as Jane Foster. But that is not a huge mark against the movie.  This was also one of my favorite Stan Lee cameos since they started making Marvel Comic book movies.

Most of the movie takes place in Asgard, which is the home to the Norse gods, for all you uninitiated.  The realm of the gods did look spectacular, and I especially liked the Rainbow Bridge and Heimdall. The movie should appeal to anyone that loves Norse mythology even if they never read a Thor comic book in their lives, as so much of the movie takes place in that world. Tom Hiddleston did a good job as Thor’s nemesis Loki, although I did not like how they messed with his origin. Loki is the god of mischief in Norse mythology, and in the comic book he is always butting heads with Thor.

So what is missing from this movie? Why is it not as good as “Iron Man”? I think what made “Iron Man” a great movie was the personality that Robert Downey Jr. brought to Tony Stark. Chris Hemsworth played the role well, and he did have some funny lines, but I guess the problem I have with “Thor” is the same problem I have with Superman: just too damn powerful. There was not really a moment in the movie where I felt the character was in any real peril. And of course when your father is Odin, you have a pretty good backup there, don’t you?

But the movie overall was enjoyable and is just another prelude to “The Avengers” movie due out in 2012. Speaking of the Avengers, one of my favorite parts of the movie was the cameo of another Avenger. Look for it; it was pretty cool.

PS: Make sure you stay past the credits for another Avengers teaser.

<<<Click here for more images>>>

Usually, it is easy for me to point out at least one thing that went terribly wrong in a movie. Maybe the plot is full of holes, or that one character actor was phoning it in, or someone was horribly miscast. “The Town” from director Ben Affleck is an exception to this rule.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not comparing this to Citizen Kane nor Casablanca, but the movie is just solid all around. All the actors did a commendable job, even Affleck himself, who is no Lawrence Olivier, was very good as armed robber Doug MacRay.  While I am not always impressed with actor Ben Affleck, as a director this man has true talent.

Of course Ben has been acting for a very long time. I can still picture him as the teenage bully O’Bannion in the very underrated Dazed and Confused (1993). Maybe it’s all the time as an actor that makes him such a good director. Maybe his time as an actor makes it easier for him to get a truly great performance out of his fellow actors. Whatever it is, it shines in “The Town”.

The Town is Charlestown, a community in Boston that has produced more bank robbers in the US than any other community, if you are to believe the opening scenes.  Doug MacRay has grown up in this environment, so of course he is a bank robber. Maybe if I have a complaint it is that the movie does not surprise me in any way. Everything runs along pretty true to form. Even though you can probably already guess how the movie is going to end, the journey getting there is very enjoyable to watch.

I liked that the police in the movie are not inept, or corrupt, as in many films that portray a criminal as the hero. The action scenes are exciting, reminiscent of the gunfights in Michael Mann’s “Heat”. The romantic scenes are believable, especially the first time MacRay meets Rebecca Hall’s character, Claire Keesey in a Laundromat. Of course, Keesey has no idea that this is the guy that robbed the bank she was working at the day before and took her hostage for a short time, and the scene works well, with just the right amount of humor.

Jon Hamm, who you might remember from…well, nothing, since none of his previous roles on the big screen have been very memorable, plays FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley, and makes an excellent counter point to Affleck’s MacRay.  Hamm plays it straight with just the right amount of intimidation without turning the character into a stereotype. I especially liked his scenes with Blake Lively’s character Krista Coughlin. Speaking of Lively, her performance was especially good in this movie.  I am not sure if her presence in the movie was enough to warrant award consideration, but if she gets a nomination, I would not be surprised.

The movie is definitely worth the price of admission.  I think a September release was the right move, as it is not quite flashy enough to be a summer blockbuster and is more oriented to the adult crowd who is just looking for a well acted movie with a good story.

Iratefilms was fortunate enough to meet with director Adam Del Deo, co-director and producer of the recently released, Every Little Step.  This film explores the dramatic impact A Chorus Line has had on generations of artists and follows the auditions and lives of several aspiring cast members of the 2006 revival.

We met Adam at the Shore Club in South Beach to find out more about his process and how he enjoyed making this film.

Aceman: Why did you make this documentary?

ADD:  We were granted exclusive access to the original interviews by Michael Bennett’s estate, the iconic nature of A Chorus Line was compelling material, to be able to examine the hopes and dreams of dancers struggling to make it to Broadway.  We tried to mirror the original concept, following the lives of the dancers in a more direct fashion.

Aceman: Is it an Insider’s look at a Broadway show?

ADD: Every Little Step is both an insider’s and outsider’s look at a Broadway show, easily comparable to American Idol, except these dancers are ultimately auditioning for roles that will rarely make them famous or make them rich.  There is an interesting element there, when you have people putting forth so much effort just for a chance to make it onto the show – onto Broadway.

Aceman:  How much time were you filming?

ADD: We shot for about a year, and we had over 500 hours of footage to pour through.

Aceman: How do you like working with a co-director?

ADD:  It’s wonderful working with my partner.  Jim and I don’t divide up the work beforehand, we play it by ear – we debate on what the show is and how we want it to ultimately come out.

Aceman: What was the biggest surprise during the filming?

ADD: It was definitely when Jason Tam came in for the “Paul” audition.  They had been searching for such a long time, there were a total of 3,000 auditions for all the roles and we filmed every one.  But when Jason came in, it was immediate.  We had full access from the actor’s entry to the audition to the creative management team and we filmed all the feedback from the auditions that the dancers were not privy to hear.

Aceman:  What’s next?

ADD:  We have been thinking about exploring a series developed around the entrepreneur spirit, the businesses that start in garages and turn into something amazing.  But, we really haven’t set anything in stone yet, just thinking aloud.

Rick Swift: How does making a documentary like “So Goes the Nation” compare to making a documentary on a Broadway show?

ADD: The shooting is about the same, but the texture is different, obviously the types of people you run into in a political campaign vary with dancers vying for a Broadway role.

Aceman: Do you like Directing more or Producing?

ADD: I like both actually, there are more commercial things to worry about as a producer, but you have to find a balance for each without compromising the soul of the film.

We thanked Adam for his time and wished him luck in all his future endeavors.  If you are passionate about theatre and a Broadway aficionado, you must check out Every Little Step.

I have always been a fan of the Disney nature films. When I was a kid, I loved watching the Wonderful World of Disney when they had their nature specials on TV.  I was hoping the new nature movie Earth, from Disney Nature would bring back those fond memories.  It didn’t really happen.

I had a hard time deciding whether I liked this documentary or not. My first impression was that it was not anything special. After all, we see these types of documentaries every day now on The Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. Not that the big screen didn’t enhance the more spectacular shots, especially some of the photography of enormous flocks of birds, but it just wasn’t that much better than TV.

The American version of this movie is narrated by James Earl Jones, who of course does a wonderful job. If he just had some actual informative things to say, I think it would have made the film much better.  Maybe the film is aimed at young children, and the writers thought they had to dumb down the narration, I don’t know. I just didn’t need to hear James Earl Jones say “get down!” while a bird was doing its mating dance. Maybe that is just me.

I also did not expect to have déjà vu when watching the polar bear sequences. I was hoping that the movie would use completely original photography, but it did not. I had seen it before.

So much for what I didn’t like . . . 

On the bright side, there were some truly spectacular scenes. The super slow motion shots were especially fantastic. One scene where a great white shark is hunting a seal was particularly memorable. But most of the kill shots were removed from the movie making it much more kid friendly.

So if you are really interested in viewing wildlife in their native habitat, go rent Planet Earth (the series that the movie was based on). But if you want a night out with the kids who love animals, Earth should not disappoint them.

So what is a forty-something, straight, movie loving male doing giving a Zac Efron movie 3 ½ stars? Two words: Thomas Lennon. Don’t get me wrong, it was a fairly decent twist to the adult/teen switch story. I can’t say any of the acting was terrible, although Michelle Trachtenberg definitely phoned it in. And I liked the sub-plot of the father helping his son thing too, and Sterling Knight, who played the son, was actually pretty good.

I know, I know, I really can’t believe I actually liked this movie either, but I did. Thomas Lennon, who played the nerdy-kid-who-grew-up-to-be-a-rich-techno-geek, stole every scene. And ok, maybe I am quite the geek myself because his house (filmed on location at George Lucas’ actual place) was incredible, filled with movie memorabilia, and a bed made out of a landspeeder! How cool is that?!?!

Anyway, back to the movie…

No huge surprises here, nothing earth shattering, just a fun enjoyable family movie. This was the first time I have seen Zac Efron in a movie, and I can’t say the kid can’t act. He’s got the look, he’s got the walk, he’s got the attitude, and he has decent comedic timing, not that I am about to go rent all 3 High School Musical movies or anything, but he does get a passing grade.

If the movie had been filled with just a few less stereotypes, had just a little less creepy 17 year old/middle age woman romance thing going on, and maybe a little more Thomas Lennon, it would have popped up to the 4 star category. But these days, we live with what we get. So, if you are on a date with a nice girl (or guy), or want to take your not too young kids to a funny family type movie, I would recommend 17 Again.

Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) catches his teen aged neighbor, Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) trying to steal his mint condition 1972 Gran Torino as an initiation into a gang and the teen’s mother punishes him by making him Walt’s personal handyman for a week. Walt, who just wants people to stay off his lawn, grudgingly gets to know his Hmong neighbors in this new movie directed by Clint Eastwood.

The first job of any movie should be to entertain the audience. Eastwood has definitely fulfilled that requirement with this movie. Story aside, just watching Eastwood in Gran Torino was entertaining enough. I don’t think you really see this kind of acting any more, where a mere glance, or in Clint’s case a growl, says so much. This performance reminded me of the legendary Spencer Tracy, whose facial expressions could tell the story without ever uttering a word.

All the actors in this movie were very good, under the direction of Eastwood, but the real find was Ahney Her, who plays Bee Vang’s sister, Sue Lor. Her, making her feature film debut, was so natural in her performance, stealing every scene. I look forward to seeing Her in her next movie (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

The social commentary of Gran Torino did not distract from the story at all, a testament to Eastwood’s direction. Some might call Eastwood’s character of Walt Kowalski a racist, but I don’t see it that way. Obviously, he is prejudiced, as he has seen his neighborhood turn from predominantly white to predominantly Asian. Saying Kowalski is old school is an understatement. A retired Ford autoworker and Korean War veteran, who just buried his wife, this character is a dying breed. I think it took courage to play Kowalski so politically incorrect. I can’t remember a character who uttered so many racial slurs coming across so lovable.

Personally, I find myself very sensitive to any racial slur, but for some reason, Eastwood was able to pull this off without coming across as completely offensive. Sure, sometimes he uttered his slurs with venom, but other times it was just his way of talking. He is from a time where people earned their nicknames from their physical defects. A time where mentioning someone’s race was par for the course, when you described them. Maybe we are all just too sensitive to the power of words these days, I don’t know.

Go watch Gran Torino. You won’t regret it.

Who knew there was a version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? in India? I certainly didn’t. Slumdog Millionaire takes us on a journey of a street kid who finds his way onto the show and is one question away from the grand prize when the show ends and he has to come back the next day. As he walks out the studio door, he is arrested for cheating and has to explain how he knows the answers to these questions. The answers are found in his life story, which turns out to be both touching and dramatic.

I really liked this movie. Also, it’s a movie that I think over time, I will like even more. Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Trainspotting) was able to use the flashbacks to tell the story of an orphaned kid on the streets of Mumbai without it looking cumbersome or distracting. Dev Patel, who plays the present day Jamal Malik is a fresh new face, and hopefully, will keep finding work in Hollywood as well as Bollywood.

While the story captured my attention right away, the photography of the movie, filmed on location, was very moving. We really don’t know what poverty is here in the good ole USA. The slums of Mumbai make our ghettos look like Beverly Hills. Boyle was able to show us this world without ever seeming to preach to us. This just happened to be the life our lead character led. Yes, it is part of him and of course it influences his life, but the scenes of extreme poverty are never gratuitous nor self-serving.

In the end, the surprise of this movie is the love story between two unlucky young people who seem destined to remain apart. I really cared for these characters, and even now, I wonder what happened to them after the credits rolled. This is a sign of a good movie. I can’t say I ever had that, wait, this is just a movieÂť moment. Do you know what I mean? When you are taken out of the moment and shown back to your chair by a bad actor or poorly directed shot. This movie was well made from start to finish. I highly recommend it.

“You can’t spell families without lies”

That had been the mantra of Brad and Kate (Vince Vaughn and Reece Witherspoon) as they came up with elaborate lies each year to stay away from their families during the holiday season, but when the airport gets fogged in, Brad and Kate get sucked into visiting both of their divorced parents on Christmas day.

Four Christmases is a funny family movie. I found myself laughing out loud on several occasions. Going into the movie, I wasn’t sure how well they were going to play against each other, but Vince Vaughn and Reece Witherspoon showed great chemistry and comedic timing on screen together. Vince Vaughn plays Vince Vaughn, as he does in all his movies, but the Vince Vaughn character works well in this movie. Overall, all the performances were very good, something that you would expect with no less than 5 Academy Award winners in the movie.

The thing that is unusual about this Christmas movie is that the whole”meaning of Christmas” thing was not really stressed in the film. The movie was more about family than Christmas, and the holiday is just used as a vehicle to get the lead couple into these four family dichotomies. And when I say family, of course what I mean is dysfunctional family. You have to wonder how Brad and Kate are not more screwed up after seeing where they come from. But it does make for some funny moments, and I guess it makes us all feel a little better about our own semi-dysfunctional families.

If you decide to go see the movie, be on the lookout for a cameo by Peter Billingsley (Ralphie in A Christmas Story) all grown up now.  Billingsley is executive producer of the movie, and has been friends with Vince Vaughn since they both appeared in a CBS Schoolbreak Special together back in 1990.

While I doubt the movie will crack many people’s top ten lists for 2008, it is a solid comedy and well worth your time. Go see it!

The life of a street cop in New York City must be a hard one. You see things that no human being should ever have to see. And you have to pick sides. So when Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell) strays a little or maybe more than a little, will his brothers in blue (and in law) back him up, or uphold the law? This movie takes the whole good cop/bad cop thing and kicks it up a notch. There are some shocking scenes, but I never thought the violence (or threat of violence) was merely gratuitous. That is a sign of a very good movie.

Jon Voight plays the patriarch of an Irish-American family of NYPD officers. His two sons, played by Noah Emmerich and Edward Norton are also cops, one (Emmerich) a captain. And his daughter is married to a cop (Farrell), who works in Emerrich’s precinct. The movie takes place over a few frantic days after 4 cops are killed in an arrest gone bad.

Director and co-writer Gavin O’Connor was able to blend in a very believable home life for these policemen. This can be a difficult thing to do for an action movie and is an indication that the writing was top notch. My only complaint about the directing is that the first 15 minutes of the movie plays more like an episode of ‘Cops’ filmed mostly with hand held cameras that shook way too much for my tastes. Another tribute to just how good this movie was written is that my irritability factor soon diminished as I fell deeper into the story. Maybe O’Connor thought the ‘realism’ of the hand held camera would draw the audience into the scene more? I don’t know, but it was a miscalculated effort in my opinion.

Hand held scenes aside, the movie was fantastic. Colin Farrell and Edward Norton were very good, and so was lesser known actor Noah Emmerich (Jim Carrey’s best friend in The Truman Show). But Jon Voight’s performance was Oscar worthy. I would be surprised if he is not nominated for this role.

One last thing, if you don’t speak Spanish, you might be a bit lost during some of the scenes where the criminals speak Spanish for the most part, and there are no subtitles. I am not sure why the choice was made to omit the subtitles, and since I do speak Spanish, I almost missed that fact until my non-bilingual friend mentioned it. But don’t let that sway you, you will enjoy this movie.

You can’t go home again. That is the biggest message I got from watchingLeatherheadsÂť on DVD. 

I am a big fan of the old romantic comedies of the 1930s and 1940s. Frank Capra is one of my favorite directors. And I applaud George Clooney for attempting to recreate that special time in Hollywood, but in the end, it just did not work. 

The movie itself is a respectable comedy. I thought it had some funny scenes and the performances were admirable. George Clooney did his best, but he does not quite measure up to Clark Gable or Cary Grant. Renee Zellweger was charming, but she was no Jean Arthur or Barbara Stanwyck. John Krasinski did show plenty of boyish charm, but Jimmy Stewart he was not. For example, there is a scene set in a sleeper car on a train, and while the dialogue is snappy and the timing impeccable, it just felt false, like a caricature of ‘realscrewball comedy’. Âť By the way, I hate that term.

To me, the biggest obstacle for a movie like this made today is the obvious comparisons to the old stars, the old scripts, and the old directors. When Capra filmed his movies, he was not trying to capture a certain feel. He just did what came natural. Leatherheads just did not feel natural. Which is too bad, but as I said in the beginning, you can’t go home again. But maybe that is just me.

One of the things I love about DVDs are the Bonus Features. I always watch them. I find the art of making movies fascinating, and I hope that some of these bonus features can give me some insight into the work itself. These Bonus Features were mostly boring. The deleted scenes should have remained deleted, and the ‘making of’Âť feature was not so much about how the movie was made as to what it cost. The only interesting part was a Visual Effects Sequence that showed a scene from the movie in a split screen with the original film on one side, and the computer enhanced version on the other side. You would not think that a movie set in the 1920s would not require much CGI, but surprisingly, it did. It makes me wonder exactly how much of every movie these days are CGI and how much is real. I guess it doesn’t matter, as long as the CGI is done well, remains invisible to the viewer, and is not a distraction.

I would recommend skipping most of the bonus features and just watching the Visual Effects one. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.