Doctor Who: Under the Lake / Before the Flood

The second of this year's two-part Doctor Who stories is much more of a classic tale than the first, in the traditional "base under siege" mold. After the series' massive and chaotic opener, what did the Hurds make of this change of pace?

Matthew:
Watching this first episode, I realised how much I enjoy the Doctor exploring new locations and slowly discovering what's going on. Seeing him creep around an empty base, just as confused and uncertain as we are, is way more interesting to me than when he already knows the situation, like he did with Davros. Likewise, the slower pace and single location let us get properly invested, rather than jumping from space to school to medieval parties.

And yet, at the risk of seeming like a hypocrite, I did think this episode was maybe a little too slow. It might just be the lack of resolution going into the cliffhanger, but the story seemed very slight to me - like not a great deal actually happened. Did you two feel that, or did this work for you?

Amy:
I really enjoyed Under the Lake. It was more of a monster of the week episode than a huge epic adventure. It reminded me a little of The Impossible Planet in some ways: A base at a difficult to get to location with a small crew of people, which is a format that works well. Especially if the other characters are interesting, which I thought they were. I enjoyed the Doctor's handy flashcards.

Overall, I really enjoyed it and don't really have anything negative to say about it! Apart from I still think the sound is off and I really hope the sonic sunglasses aren't here to stay.

David:
Obviously, I really enjoyed Under the Lake as well. It would be hard not to, with its claustrophobic, tension-dripping atmosphere. The episode was a clever homage to the great sci-fi horrors like The Thing and Alien, and was intelligent and well-crafted enough to never feel like a parody or an imitation.

It's always interesting to see the Doctor come across something he's not encountered before, and his excitement about the possibility of real ghost was palpable (even if the crew didn't share his enthusiasm).

This episode built on the strengths of last week's one, focusing on telling a simple story well, with a healthy focus on characters. After all, a horror movie only works if we care about the people in danger, and they made us care, even before the Doctor showed up. Is that the benefit of having a double episode, or are the writers just more confident with Capaldi now? Time will tell, I'm sure.

So what did everyone think of episode 2?

First just let me back up what you two said!

I'm a big fan of the way Capaldi doesn't fuss about or dwell on death, and I thought the flashcards were a great way for Clara to try and deal with that. Likewise, his excitement about new and unusual things - even dangerous ones that are killing everyone around him - is always a joy. I do think this story went a little too far with it's big "kiss it to death" speech, though. Ghosts with an earworm seem quite tame compared to much of what he's faced before, so I never quite bought it.

As for the second episode, I'll try to stay positive for now, and say that I really enjoy the new fourth-wall-breaking openings that we see here and in Listen. That was really fun, and letting him rock out over the opening credits was just awesome. Other than that, the design of the Fisher King looked amazing, but I thought his great design was wasted in this episode because (positivity ends here) everything else about this episode is rubbish.

I agree that the second episode wasn't as good as the first but I wouldn't say it was rubbish. I didn't like that the Doctor kept going on about "the rules". The rules only ever seem to apply when it's convenient to the plot when in many other episodes there doesn't appear to be any rules! I still enjoyed the characters and the setting and it didn't suffer from an overly complicated and convoluted plot, which has been a problem in other episodes.

I actually wasn't too keen on the design of the Fisher King though!

If last week’s episode was The Thing, then this week’s episode was The Thing (prequel), carefully ticking off all the boxes to make sure past events lined up with what we knew about the future. There was even an axe! But like The Thing and The Thing, the original is always going to be better.

That said, I actually enjoyed Before the Flood. Sure, it wasn’t as good as the first part of the story, but there was plenty about it that I liked. I agree that the opening and the design of the Fisher King (very StarCraft II) were very strong, but I was also a fan of the way it balanced the two timelines and the interactions between the characters in the present and the past. This episode continued the strong character work set up in the first episode and kept you caring about the whole crew. (Side note: What is it with Moffat and killing of Doctor fangirls? First Osgood and now O’Donnell!)

Along with the flashcards last week, this episode was also a good reminder of how callous the Doctor can be when he needs to be, allowing people to die to test a theory and valuing Clara’s life over everyone else. While the Doctor has never been afraid to make difficult decisions, after angsty Tennant and Smith, it’s refreshing that Capaldi is so pragmatic about the whole thing. The solution to the episode was obvious from about half way through (of course it was going to be him in the capsule) and the confrontation with the Fisher King seemed to be over before it began, but I still enjoyed it. The moment with the axe and Cass was really effective (and very reminiscent of Ben Affleck’s Daredevil), the lingering question of the bootstrap paradox was well done and the characters were fully formed and worth investing in. If only there’d been more Fisher King…

One bugbear I did have was that the Doctor’s impending death and his acceptance of his impending death. It seems to have been a really reoccurring theme for the last few seasons. We always get teased that this will be the big one, the proper one, and then, after accepting his fate, he finds some way to wriggle out of it. As a plot device, it’s wearing pretty thin. Although I must admit that faking his own death and putting himself in cryo (while a little Jack Harkness) was a much more satisfying workaround than pulling a handy Life Model Decoy out of nowhere à la The Wedding of River Song.

What's funny is that I don't necessarily disagree with anything either of you have said. The setting and the characters did continue to work for me, the split-timeline was a great approach that I'd love to see the show do more with, and I agree that Cass' Daredevil moment was really well handled (though couldn't she just have, y'know, turned around?).

But that's all surface stuff, and I felt like the episode was using it as a crutch - if you go any deeper it all starts to fall apart. Like you said, the totally-for-realsies fakeout death is played out by now, and the nebulous Rules of Time are even moreso. But then there's also the super-disappointing use of the Fisher King, the totally unfunny stuff with the undertaker, the complete waste of the new environment (imagine if that town hadn't been deserted), and that weird Father's Day loop that didn't achieve anything.

Even Capaldi's matter-of-fact attitude to death - which is usually my favourite thing about him - seemed almost callous and unfeeling here, which is not the same thing. He's used death to test theories before, of course (see Mummy on the Orient Express), but only when he can't do anything to prevent them. Here he puts up a token "stay in the TARDIS" objection but, beyond that, doesn't even try to stop O'Donnell running off alone to what he knows is probably her death. In fact, if we accept that he only let her run off to test his theory, then the Doctor directly causes her death by putting her name next on the list. He did that after she'd already died, of course, but also after he decided to break the Rules - paradoxes be damned!

And yet, the entire Bootstrap Paradox only seemed to be there to explain why nothing the Doctor Ghost did made any sense. It was a really stupid, nonsensical way to send a message to the future (and a dangerous one too, since it both unlocked the saferoom and got O'Donnell killed) but we're supposed to let it slide because the Doctor was just acting out the stupid plan he'd already seen, not making up the stupid plan himself. Then the epilogue goes out of its way to smugly point out the paradox, despite how stupid it is, and despite that fact that we never needed it explained any of the times the show has used it before. It's the entire plot of Blink, for goodness sake!

But the worst thing, for me, was when the Doctor started casually throwing around the word "souls" - and going on about how mystic and sacred and pure they are. In other words, Doctor Who suddenly got all religious on us which (as well as just generally bothering me as an atheist) flies directly in the face of the whole last series, where the myth of life-after-death was revealed to be nothing more than a Cyberman trap. Just like in Army of Ghosts, come to think of it.

Basically, I hated Before the Flood. I thought it was a mess of a story that misused its characters, insulted its audience, wasted its villain, and never actually paid off any of its main ideas - yet it seemed convinced that it was being really clever. I did enjoy Under the Lake, and I can see what you two enjoyed in the second part too, even if I didn't. I think that this probably would have worked a lot better as a regular one-part episode but, as it stands, this one simply wasn't for me.

Doctor Who: The Magician’s Apprentice / The Witch’s Familiar

It's that time of year again, folks! The UK's best TV programme is back on our screens! But enough about The Great British Bake Off - we're here to talk about Doctor Who.

Series 9 promises to be an interesting and unusual experience, as two-parters not only return for the first time in three years, but actually make up every single episode. It's more in keeping with the original series' classic multi-part stories, but will it work for our more modern sensibilities?

To find out, we've gathered a small herd of Hurds - David, Amy, and me, Matthew - to go over the episodes each week and share our thoughts. Join us below, as we take a look at the first two-parter of the series.

Matthew:
I was planning to start by asking what we thought of the last series and of Capaldi so far, but I feel that will almost certainly come up anyway. But where to start instead? There's just so much going on in these episodes - tanks and planes and invisible planets - that it's hard to pick one.

So let's just start at the beginning, with what I thought was easily the best scene in either episode: a strange warzone with spaceships fighting bows and arrows, super-creepy mines, and one hell of a reveal at the end. I loved this opening - what about you two?

Amy:
I really loved the opening too! There were so many interesting ideas with the hand mines and the spaceships and the wooden bows. I thought it was great! I was disappointed when that isn't what the episode was about though. The interesting warzone was forgotten about and not really explored, sadly.

David:
I thought the opening was great as well - really creepy, really atmospheric and grabbed you straight away. All things that Moffat excels at. And then the Doctor turned up in the nick of time, just like he always does, offering wise words, rambling speeches and a tiny glimmer of hope, just like he always does. It was classic Who.

And then came the reveal. Davros hasn't been seen since 2008, yet the mere mention of his name is enough to send shivers down your spine. That right there is the sign of a great villain. And here he is as a child. A genius twist and a brilliant pay-off for the standout scene in the episode. It's just a shame it peaked so early.

It was a truly amazing setup - to the point that I assumed it was setting up the whole arc of the season, rather than just these first two episodes. I was actually a little disappointed that we reached adult Davros so soon - although I did appreciate seeing the contrast between the two versions. I also think I like this old and tired rendition of the character much more than the crazy, ranting, over-the-top "Daleks' pet" that we saw in 2008 (although that guy does make a brief comeback in the second part). I just sort of wish he had more to do, or more impact on the story. Like Amy said, the first episode sort of forgets what it's supposed to be about.

It doesn't just forget about the warzone though. There were loads of really good, interesting ideas that weren't explored and weren't really explained and didn't really hold that much relevance to the plot; the planes stopping, the planet being invisible, the medieval guitar. It just seemed to have too many ideas all shoved together. As for the plot, I'm not really sure I could tell you what it was. It's almost as if it's trying too hard to be epic and galactic that it forgets the storyline.

Another thing, and I don't quite know if it's the fault of Doctor Who or the BBC or someone else, is that the sound was really strange. The music was really loud and often a lot louder than the dialogue. There were quite a few times when I found myself desperately straining to hear. At the risk of sounding like a moaner watching Jamaica Inn, Davros mumbled a lot and I couldn't really hear a word he was saying!

The first episode was good, don't get me wrong, but it just never seemed to gel. It suffered from what I think is Moffat's biggest weakest - throwing a load of great ideas at the wall and not bothering to see what sticks.

Man made of snakes? Great. Missy back? Great. Planes freezing? Great. Invisible Skaaro? Great. The Doctor throwing an epic party? Great.

All great ideas, but not a single one given the care and attention it needed. Of all the great ideas, the much discussed opening was the one that was give time to breathe, and as a result, was the only part of the episode that truly worked.

Like I said, still a good episode, with lots of good parts, and plenty of great ideas, but it just didn't seem to work as an episode.

I completely agree. The first episode really summed up my feelings about Capaldi's entire run so far. I enjoyed it at the time but looking back, with the exception of a couple of stellar episodes (namely Listen and Orient Express), what I remember enjoying are individual moments or ideas rather than entire episodes or arcs. The whole run has felt kind of disjointed and unfocused, and The Magician's Apprentice really drove that feeling home and made me fear the worst for the series to come.

The second episode, on the other hand, seemed much more assured and comfortable with what it was doing. There was much more of the things that worked the first time, like regretful old Davros and Missy being delightfully sadistic, and those ideas were actually given enough time to breathe.

I agree that the second episode worked a lot better than the first. There were still a few things left unexplained though I think, like how is Davros alive? Didn't he die in that fire at the Medusa Cascade? And Missy not being dead was very briefly glossed over, which I know is kind of an in-joke, but I still feel like it should have been explained a bit more. I also don't really think the snake man was quite used to his full potential.

Although Clara is growing on me, I still think there are inconsistencies in her character. Sometimes she's really clever and works things out really quickly, things that even experts at UNIT can't work out or how Missy and her transported, and yet she couldn't think of a way to let the Doctor know it was her in the Dalek? She just kept saying "I am Clara Oswald" even though it had been clearly established that it didn't work. We know Clara Oswald is in the Dalek's vocabulary (as is "weird" which I found odd) so why not try "Clara Oswald is alive" or "I travel with you" or "Danny Pink".

I half expected her to say "soufflé" actually - it definitely needed an Asylum callback. And while I agree the drama felt very manufactured, I still loved that moment. After two episodes siding with Missy (even though she vapourised those UNIT guys) it was good to have that final betrayal. I am kinda loving Missy in these episodes.

Incidentally, I think this is the first time that we've seen the Master leave present-day Earth since the programme came back. That's something I've been hoping for and I look forward to more of it in the future. Loved that her first ever meeting with Davros amounted to a (literal) poke in the eye for anyone expecting it to be a big moment.

I really liked this second part - it took what worked the first time, and ditched all the unnecessary stuff. I was worried at first, but Moffat managed to turn it around and deliver what might be his first really solid Dalek episode.

I must admit, though, that the final scene of child Davros didn't hit anywhere near as hard as it needed to, in order to pay off that amazing opening. I wanted to see the Doctor properly change something - something timey-wimey to spin this series off from - but what we got felt like a damp squib.

I have to confess to quite liking the ending. You're right in that it didn't hit as hard as the gut-punch of an opener, but it won me over by simply being another instance of Doctor Who using time travel correctly, and I'm always a sucker for that.

I thought the second episode was a totally different story to the disappointing first, and showed off Moffat's biggest strength - waiting to see which great idea sticks, and then basing an entire episode around it. In this case, a quiet and heart-felt conversation between Davros and the Doctor. Might not sound all that exciting for a two-part series opening (especially not when compared to episodes like The Impossible Astronaut / Day of the Moon), but it worked. It really worked.

Overall, I did enjoy the first episode, but it just feels like it's trying too hard. I definitely think the second episode was much better. The Doctor showing his compassion only for it to be his weakness, as always, and then him outsmarting Davros because he'd worked out the plan all along, was great! I would have liked to have seen more of the battle ground and that war, but overall I hope the the series is on the same level as the second episode and not the first.

Hex Dimension Review: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

I've been shocked and surprised at the general response to Peter Jackson's final Hobbit film. I liked the first two more than most (but less than some), but I can definitely understand the issues that a lot of people had with them, even if I don't entirely agree.

But this one? This one I loved. From start to finish, there and back again, I loved every single second of it. To see Five Armies facing the same kind of backlash as the first two feels like absolute madness.

To find out what's different this time, and why it worked so well for me, click below for my full review!

Hex Dimension Review: Interstellar

It's been a while since I reviewed something in earnest, beyond my brief weekly titbits for Hex Picks. Quite honestly, there just hasn't been much out that's tickled my fancy. But now there's finally something meaty in cinemas - Christopher Nolan's first ever full-on space movie, no less - and Hex Dimension kindly let me be the one to tackle it. I've even whipped up a new Review colour-scheme to celebrate!

Nolan is most famous for his Batman films of course but, much as I love Batman Begins, it's always been his other work that really appeals to me. The Prestige and Inception - both produced in the gap between Batmans - are such brilliant and intelligent movies, and Interstellar looked set to follow that trend. To find out whether or not it actually did, hit the rather pretty link below.

Edge of Tomorrow Review

Way way back in early June, when the Earth was still young, you may remember that I promised to review the then-current movie Edge of Tomorrow. Well, let it never be said that I don't keep my promises, because here, barely a month-and-a-half late, is that fabled review!

Normally I would act coy about what I thought, to try and get you to click the link below, but this time I'm just going to say it: Edge of Tomorrow is the best film of the summer so far. Chances are it's not playing anywhere near you, because late review is late, but if you do somehow manage to find a showing then this thing is shockingly good and well worth your time. If you want to know why it's so good... you'll have to click the link below. Because I'm coy like that.

Read the review here!

How to Train Your Dragon 2 Review

How to Train Your Dragon is a film that basically came out of nowhere, to very little fanfare, and unexpectedly turned out to be one of my favourite movies ever. It's just one of the most beautiful, emotional films out there - and it probably doesn't hurt that it's about actual dragons. I love it to bits.

And now there's a sequel! It's a DreamWorks property so of course there's a sequel. The only question is whether that sequel is any good. To find out, why not check out my latest review at Hex Dimension - where I'm stealthily taking over as the go-to animation guy...

Read the review here!

Hex Demented

So, it finally happened. After managing to write a couple of normal, reasoned pieces for the Hex Dimension, I've slipped back into my old ways and written a couple of preposterous rambling essays too. It barely took a month!

The first of these is a review of Sanctum 2 - but it's also a comment on the Wii-U and asymmetric gaming - but it's also a treatise on gaming as an aspect of marriage! It sounds pretty stupid and it probably is, but it's still less rediculous than my second piece, which is a review of a film that doesn't even exist. It's basically Spider-Man fan-fiction. You should read it!

In slightly less demented news, we're continuing our weekly recommendations. Here's some of our favourite comics and books and, if you want to see me completely embarass myself, you can also read my defense of Michael Bay in this week's action movie picks.

Thats it I'm afraid. Just realised this is the first post in a month. I'll try to be more thorough from now on and link to every Hex piece when it goes up, rather than three weeks later. Next up is a piece on Agents of SHIELD and, as always, you can subscribe for more.

A Few Minor Updates

Hello everyone, I'm back!
Just wanted to throw a quick update out there before I get properly back into things. Hex Dimension have got a lot of cool stuff going on at the moment, and I wanted to highlight some of it.

First up is our new recommendation features. Every week the team get together and each write something about the stuff we've been watching, reading or playing. For me, with my notoriously low writing-speed and tendancy to go on a bit, these bitesized recommendations are a godsend, and I'm having a lot of fun with them.
You can check out the first three posts here: dealing with books, films and games respectively. I've written stuff for two of those, but I'm not gonna tell you which.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is the new Hex Dimension newsletter. Now you can keep up-to-date with all the site's best content in one handy weekly email! There really is some awesome stuff on this site, and I hope you'll check it out.
For your regular helping of deep-fried geek, you can sign up right here.

That's it for Hex-related stuff, but I'm sure there's something else I wanted to mention. What was it? Hmm. I think it was something pretty major...

Oh well, I'm sure it'll come back to me.

The Lego Movie Review

Do you want to see a grown man explode with joy over a film about little plastic bricks?
If so, you've come to the wrong place.

Not that I didn't do that - that is exactly what I did. And you can read all about in my review over at Hex Dimension!

Read my review here!

NerdTech in 2014

Frequent visitors to this blog (all four of you) have probably noticed that there's not been a lot going on since November, and that what little has been happening has been happening late. The reason for this, as I'm sure my friends (all two of you) know, is that I am getting married.

It turns out, shockingly, that weddings are a hell of a lot of work. We've barely had any time for ourselves amid all the paper-folding, food-tasting and horrendous arguments about shoes. Any free time we have had we've mainly spent panicking that we were forgetting to do something else. Blogging, let alone going to the cinema, has been out of the question, if only because we haven't had the energy. Like a black-hole, this event is swallowing up every moment of our lives, and nothing can escape its pull.

However, as we approach the event horizon of that black-hole - the terrifying 22nd of March - time itself is beginning to warp and bend. We keep finding extra hours here and there, and we even rediscovered something called a "weekend". With most of the big stuff either out of the way or yet to begin, I can finally sit down and write some of the things I've wanted to write all year. I still don't have time to really do them justice (I am an incredibly slow writer) but hopefully I can get a few of the main ideas across.
So here, without further ado, is a taste of the blogs I might have written if I wasn't so blissfully in love:


Most Interesting Film of 2013

This is something I started last January as a companion piece to my Film of the Year stuff. I gave the award to Prometheus, an insane contradiction of a movie that I haven't stopped thinking about (or loudly deriding) since.
You might think, based on the number of pieces I've written about it, that Man of Steel would be the equivalent film of 2013. And you'd be dead wrong. Being interesting is the one thing Snyder's punchfest can't be accused of - it's just way too boring.

No, the 2013 award actually goes to Star Trek: Into Darkness. I only wrote about this film once, when I gave it a very positive review, but my feelings since then have become a bit more complicated. Its clear, on reflection and certainly on a second viewing, that this film simply doesn't make sense.
There's a bunch of reasons why - ranging from a dumb character reveal that doesn't actually affect the story, to a violent disregard for Star Trek lore and, indeed, science - but the main problem is that there are people in the torpedoes.

There are people in the torpedoes.

Everything that stems from that is just nonsense. Why Khan puts them there is nonsense. Why Marcus puts them on the Enterprise is nonsense. How the Enterprise is supposed to fire them with no fuel-compartment is nonsense. Why everyone expects them to use all seventy-two is nonsense. Why anyone would want them to use all seventy-two is nonsense. It's all nonsense.

But the interesting thing - the reason it gets this award - is that, somehow, Into Darkness still works. The film thunders along at such a pace that you don't notice this stuff at all, and even if you do notice, it doesn't detract from the enjoyment. It's a film with serious problems - deep, core, fundamental problems - yet it plays perfectly, every time. I have no idea how that dichotomy works, or how it's even possible, and that puzzle is what's so interesting!
What is clear is that, while JJ Abrams may have an unhealthy fascination with unopened boxes and incompetent writers, he's a bloody magician of a director.


The Year of the Doctor

2013 was the year I fell out of love with Doctor Who. But, after the excellent anniversary episode, it won me back. After such a rocky year, though, I was very wary that the Christmas episode - not to mention Matt Smith's final appearance - could easily go in either direction.
Happily, The Time of the Doctor was far more in line with November's offering than with the lacklustre series before it. Like the anniversary, I felt it was a fitting end to a particular era and a respectful nod to the history of the programme.
Also like the anniversary, we finally got a few answers about longstanding questions. Not least of which was the actual Question. The explanations of the Silence, both as a species and as a religion, were also pretty damn clever and never felt like the handwaves they probably were.

The only real problem I had (other than Clara continuing to be Clara) was that this episode completely altered a Fixed Point in Time. That's pretty much the cardinal sin of Doctor Who. We'd seen the Doctor's grave on Trenzalore - very very important things had occurred there - and now it never existed. That planet should have been crawling with Time Reapers long before the credits rolled.
But even that, huge bugbear that it is, wasn't enough to bother me when the rest was so good.

As for Matt Smith's big ending, which I've heard quite a few people complain about, I thought it was pretty spot on. I would have loved it even more, though, if they'd been ballsy enough to end it with the explosion. If that shoe had been Capaldi's, as we all thought it was going to be, it could have been almost as perfect as Eccleston's farewell (I don't think they're ever going to top that). But I understand that we needed our last moments to be with Smith as he was during the series, not buried under Prometheus makeup - and at least it wasn't as obnoxious as all the fanservice bollocks we got with Tennant.
Speaking of the makeup, I've heard a lot of complaints that the defeat of the Daleks was anticlimactic - that it was just an old man yelling at the sky. Well, yes, that's exactly what it was. That's exactly what it always is. The Doctor is, and always has been, just an old man shouting defiantly at the stars.
That's exactly what Doctor Who is about; and that's why I love it.


DreamWorks' Daddy-Issues

Over Christmas, I saw Kung Fu Panda 2 for the second time, and came to a shocking revelation about DreamWorks Animation:

Shrek is a film about an ogre breaking free of fairytale convention to rescue a princess and defeat a prince. Shrek 2 is about Fiona's parents.
Madagascar is a film about the institutionalisation of zoo animals, and how unsuited they are to their natural habitat. Madagascar 2 is about Alex's parents.
Kung Fu Panda is a film about a group of lost souls, who all just happen to be kung fu masters, coming to accept themselves in different ways. Kung Fu Panda 2 is about Po's parents.
How to Train your Dragon is a film about one single friendship leading to peace and understanding between two eternally warring races. I'll give you one guess what How to Train your Dragon 2 is about.

Mr Katzenberg, sir? I think you may need help. It's obvious that you have some deep-seated issues regarding your parents, and I worry that this hangup is doing more damage than good; both to you and to your films. With Kung Fu Panda 3 looking like it will also focus on Po's parents, I urge you to speak with somebody. With time and counselling, perhaps you can escape from this repetitive (and frankly lazy) storytelling cul-de-sac.


Sherlock and the Mystery of the Missing Mysteries

Now, this is where things get interesting.
I didn't like series three of Sherlock very much, and I wanted to write a piece explaining why. The thing is that, unlike the other stuff I've mentioned, I actually did write this one. I just didn't write it here.

In a shocking twist of fate, I have been assimilated into the Hex Dimension; the same sinister hivemind that consumed my brother and a bunch of my friends. I put up a fight for a while, but the offer of a larger audience - of more people to shout my grumpy opinions at - eventually won me over and I quietly succumbed to the beast.
So when I finally did write about Sherlock, and what bothered me about this latest series, I did so at Hex Dimension.

Read it here!


Onwards and Upwards

You've probably noticed that my stuff tends to ramble and meander and generally go on for too long. This is a particular problem with the wedding swallowing up all my time, but it's an issue all on its own, too. Hex Dimension has a tight framework of style-guides and word-limits which, frankly, is something I probably need in my writing, and certainly need right now. Not to mention that it just feels great to be part of a bigger, busier, more vibrant site.
As a result, I'm hoping to keep writing for Hex. I'm working on a couple of pieces about gaming (something I've never really written about on this blog) and I'll be reviewing The Lego Movie in a few days (squee!).

That doesn't mean this blog is ending, though. While I'll be posting short opinion pieces and reviews to Hex, anything that's too long or too ranty or simply too personal will still be posted here on NerdTech. On top of that, Mangaphobia will not be going anywhere (I'll be writing about Death Note after the wedding) and I'll endeavour to post a link to anything I write elsewhere.

In the meantime, though, all the action is over at Hex Dimension. The site has a great new look, a great team of writers, and tonnes of stuff on comics, games, TV, books, and any and all things nerdy. I'm enjoying it there and I hope you will too!

Come and join us!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

The second Hobbit film is such a massive improvement that, now we've seen the film it leads into, the first one will either seem much better than we remember or much worse.
I actually really like An Unexpected Journey - it was one of my favourite films of last year - but there's no denying that it doesn't even come close to the heights of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Desolation of Smaug still hasn't reached those magnificent peaks, but it at least feels like it's in the same mountain-range.

Where Journey, with its multiple extended intros, tried to ease us back into Middle Earth gently, Desolation plunges us straight into the world of the original films. I knew where we were before the title card even came up - we know this place, we've been here before, we recognise that guy with the carrot.
By the end of this opening flashback, I was already more immersed and invested in this world than I had been for the whole first movie. Last time felt like visiting an old stomping-ground - this one feels like coming home to family.
It's not just a matter of familiarity - though that's certainly a part of it - it's more about tone. New locations like the dwarf city of Erebor or the elf halls of Mirkwood feel more like Lord of the Rings than anything in Unexpected Journey. Even though we've never seen them before, the flooded slums of Laketown have the same tactile feel as Edoras in The Two Towers. It feels like the same world, in a way that Goblin Town never quite managed.

This new depth stretches to the characters, too. My big complaint last year was that I felt nothing for any of the thirteen dwarves - they were so weakly characterised that I couldn't tell most of them apart. In Desolation, as the group begins to argue and split (much like the Fellowship) each dwarf gets their own distinct character-moments and traits.
Did you know Oin is a medic? Or that Gloin is hoarding money for his family? Neither did I, but we do now!
We even gain some real insight into Thorin, who was just a bare archetype in Journey, as we see him struggle with his legacy. Richard Armitage was always great in the role, but this time he actually gets time to breathe and explore who this dwarf is.

New characters, like Bard the Surprisingly Welsh Bowman and Stephen Fry's slimy Laketown mayor, also feel more fleshed out and real, despite lacking the oh-so-drawn-out introductions of the first film. Evangeline Lilly is excellent as a new character who wasn't even in the books, melodramatic subplot and all, and Orlando Bloom is actually pretty great returning as Legolas. Though he clearly looks older, it's fun to see him as a younger elf, totally prejudiced against the race who would produce his best friend.

But the most important new character, of course, is the dragon. Chances are that's what you came to see - whether you're a full-on Tolkienite or just a casual film fan, this is the big one.

First, a caveat: I hate when films give dragons two legs. I hate it. They look awkward and they walk stupidly and they don't have the regal, powerful quality that dragons are supposed to have. Technically, they're not even dragons; they're wyverns - an entirely different species!
Everything from Harry Potter to Skyrim gets this wrong and it annoys the hell out of me. But it really looked like the Hobbit would be the one to break the cycle. Tolkien said Smaug had four legs, and he has always been represented that way - in fact, we see a drawing of a four-legged Smaug on Thorin's map in the first film, and in the Erebor flashback we actually see his forelegs!
Yet, at some point between the release of the first film and this one, they changed his design. Smaug is a wyvern now, with rediculously long pterodactyl arms that look even more stupid than usual. As he lumbered gracelessly around on his wing-joints I was hugely disappointed and annoyed.

So please understand that it is a big deal when I say, despite all this - despite not strictly even being one - Smaug is the single greatest dragon ever committed to screen.
Smaug, as Bilbo himself says, is stupendous. The effects are stunning (as you'd expect from Weta) and, beyond the insulting lack of legs, the design is pretty much perfect. His face is beautifully expressive, with horns and spikes that bristle and flatten with his mood. It's rare for a dragon to give a performance at all, but we've certainly never seen one this good. At least some credit goes to Benedict Cumberbatch, who not only voiced but also motion-captured the part, and his excellent work clearly shines through Smaug's reptilian features. He's proud and vain and greedy and jealous and just wonderful.
Smaug, like Gollum before him, becomes just another character in this film. You forget that this towering monster isn't real; and that's incredible.

His first scene - a tense standoff with Bilbo atop his mountain of treasure - is the film's standout moment and, were it not for Gravity, would be easily the best sequence of this, or any year. It's perfect - ripped straight from the minds of anyone who's read the book - and if Desolation had ended there, as it easily could, it would have been a perfect movie.

Apparently someone decided that the film had to end with an action scene, though, because there's a whole half-hour after this that feels unnecessary and tacked-on. The dwarves battle Smaug through what looks like the droid factory from Star Wars: Episode II. The scene is messy and chaotic, with nothing properly explained, and it ends in a way that's completely bizarre. It didn't need to be here and it really undercuts the fear and wonder of that treasure-hoard scene. For me, it spoiled the whole film a little, which is a shame because it got everything else so right.

What compounds this is that the rest of the movie's action is excellent. When they're fighting orcs and giant spiders early on it's fast and frantic, but it's always clear and structured. There's some really good stuff with the elves too, with Legolas getting a lot of great action gags.
The centrepiece is an incredible sequence where the dwarves, in barrels, tumble down a raging river. First they're chased by elves, then they're attacked by orcs, and it's always finding ways to keep the action fresh and inventive. Heads are stepped on, axes are passed back and forth, and the least-likely dwarf unexpectedly steals the show. There's so much going on but, despite the manic creativity, we never get lost - the execution is spot on. The whole sequence is pure joy from start to finish.
Chances are that the barrel scene was envisioned as the ending of the first movie, back when they were only planning two. Tight and thrilling - what an ending it would have been!
Unfortunately it now only serves to highlight how the Smaug fight, presumably a rushed addition to tie up this new middle film, feels sloppy and underdeveloped. The last twenty minutes really don't do the preceding film justice.

But that's the only chink in Desolation's armour; the single hole in Smaug's diamond waistcoat. Otherwise, this movie is impeccable.
Peter Jackson has a stronger grip on his tone this time, delivering a much more solid experience and a far more textured world. The action is terrific (with that one exception), the characters are finally compelling, and the dragon - dear sweet gods, that dragon - is everything you ever dreamed.

NerdTech's Film of the Year 2013!

It's been one year, give or take, since this site randomly turned into a movie blog for no reason. The first stuff on here was the 2012 Film of the Year awards so, naturally, we're marking our first anniversary with the 2013 awards!

The rules are the same as last year: this is not the best films of the year, it's the films that had the biggest effect on me - be that emotional, exciting, hilarious or terrifying. The best film I saw this year, objectively speaking, actually is on this list - but, because it's an intentionally subjective list, it barely made it into the top 3.
Gut reactions are the order of the day.


5: Iron Man 3 - Shane Black

It's been a pretty crappy year for blockbusters. Star Trek was fun but, in retrospect, indefensibly stupid; Man of Steel was a boring, self-serious mess; and GI Joe was just plain terrible. Even Pacific Rim, much as I loved it, peaked too soon and sagged at the end. Thank Odin, then, for Marvel.

Of their two offerings this year (three if you count Agents of SHIELD) Iron Man 3 was the clear winner. Shane Black made a superhero movie that breaks all the rules and never does what it's supposed to; at once both a part of the Marvel universe and its own crazy thing.
Iron Man, the guy in the suit, is barely in it - his biggest villain, likewise - and somehow that's actually to the movie's benefit. Black's film goes out of its way to be different, and the result is a fresh and unusual take on an overplayed genre. Even if it did upset a few people.

Many franchises this year split their fanbase down the middle, and Iron Man was no exception. Man of Steel and Star Trek both delighted and disgusted fans in equal measure. But where they caused divisions with their plotholes and problems, Iron Man 3 did it on purpose, with a pitch-perfect reveal that flipped everything on its head.
It's that mischievous nature - true to the comics yet completely subverting them - that earns it a place on this list. The fact that it also has a great script, brilliant action, and is often really funny is just the polish on this shiny metal suit.

Read the full review here!


4: Monsters University - Dan Scanlon

I can't say I was thrilled when I heard that they were making a prequel to one of my favourite films. Prequels tend to be a Bad Idea - I can't think of the last one that actually lived up to the original (X-Men: First Class maybe, but that's actually more of a reboot).
And, if we're being honest, MU can't match the pure magic of Monsters Inc. either. But it's different enough and funny enough and, as it hits its final act, clever enough that it never actually matters.

At first glance it's a pretty generic collage movie story, but the specifics of the film and its world make it far more unique and, more importantly, flat-out hilarious. Every moment of the film boasts a joke of some kind - be they tiny visual puns in the background or huge set-piece gags - and every single one lands.
It's Pixar's funniest film but, in true Pixar fashion, they don't let that get in the way of the great characters and their surprisingly heartfelt story. If nothing else, it's great that it keeps surprising us, even though we already know how it ends.

It's quite possible that Monsters University would have made this list merely for being the funniest film of the year but then, in a final act as dramatic as it is unexpected, it cements itself as one of the year's absolute best.

Read the full review here!


3: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Peter Jackson

For a number of reasons - including Christmas, and something you'll see in a moment - I still haven't finished my review of The Hobbit. Because I don't want to spoil that review, which will be up first thing next year, I'll keep this brief.
Just know that, even though I've given it the same ranking, Desolation is the film we all hoped An Unexpected Journey would be - a lighter, less serious tale than Lord of the Rings, but still recognisably set in the same world. Middle Earth is alive again, and everything from the characters to the locations has the depth and texture that the first Hobbit seemed to lack.

But none of that is why it's on this list. It's on this list for Smaug, and that's all you need to know.

Full review soon!


2: Gravity / Rush - Alphonso Cuarón / Ron Howard

This second position was originally going to go to Gravity alone; but then I crashed my car. Suddenly I'm jumping out of my skin every time I see break-lights, and Rush is very much at the forefront of my mind.
Since then I've been trying to rank them properly - to figure out which is better - but it's an impossible choice. Rush is probably the better film, but Gravity is the more powerful experience, and they both work so perfectly. In the end I've decided to cheat: my number 2 goes to immersive, beautiful, terrifying white-knuckle movies. Both of them.

They're very different films, of course. One is a true story that spans years, with a bunch of characters and a lot of talking; the other is a very fictional day-long story, with barely four characters and minimal dialogue. Also one of them happens in space.
But, as I'm lumping them together, they're actually more similar than they might appear. Both films are about their characters' single-minded determination to reach a goal - being World Champion and not dying respectively - and the horrific events that get in their way. By dragging us intimately through their stories, and by getting incredible work from the actors, they both make us care and feel for characters we normally wouldn't, either because we know nothing about them or because they're kind of awful.
The biggest similarity, though, is that they're both just flawlessly executed. Even though Howard uses a thousand shots where Cuarón might use three, every single one of those shots is necessary, meaningful and stunning to look at; and every one propels the film at a breakneck pace. Neither director wastes even a moment.

Despite their huge differences in story and style, these two share a spot because they're both transportive, breathless, powerful movies. And they both scared the shit out of me.

Read the full Gravity review here!
Read the full Rush review here!


1: Wreck-It Ralph - Rich Moore

All my favourite animated films seem to centre on unlikely friendships. Sully and Boo, Lilo and Stitch, Wall-E and Eve, Hogarth and the Giant, Hiccup and Toothless, even Wallace and Gromit. It was probably inevitable that Ralph and Vanellope would jump straight onto that list, too.
What wasn't inevitable is that they would do it with such style.

I don't just mean that it looks gorgeous - though it certainly does, with brilliant design work and ingenious game-like animation - but also the flair with which it pulls off its story. We're rapidly plunged into not one, but a whole handful of worlds, each with their own rules and textures. Characters feel fully-rounded from the first moment they appear. The main villain is somehow set up without us even knowing that there's meant to be one.
It's all just so clever and assured!

Cleverest and most assured of all, though, is how emotional things get. It's very funny the entire time - the whole cast is made up of comedians - and yet it choked me up again and again. That central pairing, for whatever reason, grabbed my heart as only animated odd-couples seem to do.
Often that emotion would come at the expense of scale but here, even at its most quiet and private, this film is never afraid to go big. When it all reaches its tremendous, apocalyptic climax everything, from those intimate emotions to the wonderful designs to tiny ideas we didn't know were important, collide to create an ending both huge and wonderfully personal.
The defining moment of the cinematic year, for me, was when a big dumb guy holding a cookie chanted a totally meaningless mantra, and somehow made it mean so much.

Wreck-It Ralph was the first new film I saw in 2013 - and nothing topped it. Honestly, nothing even came close.

Read the full review here!

Frozen Review

Walt Disney Animation Studios, reborn from the ashes of the early two-thousands, still haven't figured out how to make the songs work. Tangled came the closest, but neither The Princess and the Frog or now Frozen quite capture the magic of the old classics.
I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but the songs don't gel with the rest of the action the way they did in, say, Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast. It might be as simple as the type of music; where Tangled has a fairly traditional feel, Princess had its jazz thing and Frozen is more of a modern pop musical - it's no coincidence that one of the leads is Idina Menzel from Wicked. It might also be a pacing issue; Frozen crams all its songs into the first half, leaving the second half feeling kind of empty, and the last song we hear is a jokey comedy number which just doesn't seem right somehow.

It's clear, though, that Disney is truly passionate about keeping the animated musical alive, long after it was declared dead, and that is a wonderful thing. Maybe they haven't nailed it yet - there's bound to be a few hiccups in this early stage - but they've come damn close, and the fact they're trying at all is a triumph in itself.
Besides, while the songs may not blend seamlessly with the rest of the film, they're still great songs. There's a couple I'll be humming well into next year.

Their real strength, though, is how earnest and heartfelt they are. Every number, bar the aforementioned comedy one, crackles with emotion and really lets us into the hearts of the characters. What we find there isn't always obvious, either. A cute song about building snowmen suddenly becomes incredibly poignant, an even cuter song about snowmen is surprisingly bittersweet, and a duet combines the excitement of one character with the dread of another. The single best sequence in the entire film is when we're expecting one kind of song but get the complete opposite - it's just so unexpected and powerful!

That's sort of Frozen's entire philosophy; to be moving in unexpected ways. We have the traditional Disney setup of a princess with no parents, a handsome prince, a magical curse. But the unexpected part is that there's two princesses, sisters Elsa and Anna, and every part of the story - both the warmth and the conflict - comes from their relationship. Except for one snivelling ambassador, there's not even a villain, and it's amazing how well that works.

When they were younger the sisters were extremely close, as you'd expect, but one day Elsa, the oldest and heir to the throne, suddenly shut herself away and they've barely spoken since. The reason, unbeknownst to Anna, is that her sister can magically manipulate ice and snow. When, as children, those powers almost got Anna killed, Elsa became a recluse to keep her sister safe and try to repress the magic. All Anna knows is that her best friend suddenly shut her out and she misses her deeply.
When Elsa's secret is eventually revealed, in the most explosive and public way possible, she flees to the top of a mountain, accidentally trapping the country in an unending winter. This leaves Anna as the only one who can follow her up there and make things right - and that double meaning of "make things right" is basically the whole point. It's a quest to save the country, sure, but it's equally about saving their broken relationship.

While this sounds pretty heavy - and it is, particularly for Elsa - the film stays light and fun, with Anna almost hyperactive from being cooped up in a castle her whole life with no-one to talk to or play with. The side-characters help with this too, as Anna collects a small posse on her way up the mountain - Kristoff the hunky ice-farmer, Sven the reindeer, and Olaf the comedy snowman (he likes warm hugs) are all very funny and bounce off each other nicely.
While every character is important and has something to do within the story, including a handful of townspeople and the dashing Prince Hans, all of it's ultimately incidental to the central tale of two sisters. We never lose sight of the film's heart.

As a result it's a very touching film but, like Brave last year, the intimate focus leaves everything feeling quite small. There's only a few locations, and travelling between them seems to take very little time (Elsa's mountain must be quite a short one). But, like Brave again, the lack of scale allows for a very fine level of polish, and the emotions are anything but small. Though the finale in particular is technically tiny, it feels big - it's such an emotional moment for the sisters, and it staunchly refuses to take the obvious or traditional way out. It works brilliantly.

In the end, Frozen fully embraces everything that makes Disney musicals great, centring itself around a heartwarming family story, and balancing fun with genuine feeling. But, importantly, it always finds ways to mix those things up - from the number of princesses to the direction of the songs - becoming something unusual and special. This slightly subversive streak runs through everything, right down to the message of the film, which basically boils down to "most Disney movies have a stupid message." Add to that the only Disney song that will ever contain the word "fractal" and it's worth the ticket price already.

Gravity Review

Gravity opens with a deafening roar - a wave of sound that rises to drown out the world - and then suddenly cuts to silence. As planet Earth hangs there on the screen, hauntingly beautiful, you realise that you’re holding your breath. And so is every other person in the room. You won’t start breathing again for an hour-and-a-half.

I almost feel I should stop there. That’s all you really need to know about this incredible film: it is breathtaking in more ways than one, and it doesn’t let up for a second.

Gravity is a weird one. I don’t want to say much for fear of spoilers, yet it might be impossible to spoil. What actually happens is just a short list of events that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney’s astronauts go through in linear order. No reveals, no twists, not even much in the way of developments, just a fairly simple journey. The story really isn’t the point, so recounting it won’t spoil anything at all.
What can be spoiled is how this journey, and each event along the way, plays out. What makes this film so special is just how incredibly immersive the experience is. We are not watching them take this journey - we are taking the journey ourselves. For the duration of the film we are actually there, in space, feeling all of the awe and fear that comes with that.

Alfonso Cuarón, director of the superb Children of Men and the best Harry Potter film (Azkaban, obviously), has crafted one of the most powerful, visceral movies I’ve ever seen. Using his trademark über-long takes (that first shot of Earth is something like fifteen-minutes long), incredible dynamic camera work, and some of the best 3D since Avatar, this world swallows you up into its reality. Then it shakes you like a ragdoll. Because it’s not enough for Cuarón to simply put his audience into space, in a more immersive way than anyone ever has before, he has to put us through hell when we get there.

The voice of Houston’s Mission Control is provided by Ed Harris. It’s a wonderful nod to Apollo 13, but it should also give you some idea where this is going. Following the destruction of a Russian satellite, a deadly cloud of space-debris is sent hurtling round the planet towards our shuttle, currently docked with the Hubble Telescope. Things go very wrong very fast, and things continue to spiral breathlessly out of control for the whole rest of the movie.
Things fall apart and explode and tumble weightlessly, just out of reach. The astronauts spin off into the void and, worse, fall towards the planet itself. People run out of oxygen, they run out of fuel, they get tangled in wreckage and constantly - constantly - slammed into things as they fall apart. We feel every moment of it on a primal, emotional level; and, all the time, we’re painfully aware of that satellite wreckage, speeding back around the Earth to take another shot.

Everything Cuarón does is designed to pull us in and make this feel as real as possible, and that it certainly does, but there's two things that deserve special mention. First is his absolute dedication to silence in space. There is, of course, no sound in space, but most films ignore this because it feels weird. Here we see collisions and explosions, but the only sounds are ones the astronauts themselves would hear - distant vibrations through the objects they touch, dampened by their spacesuits. As well as making the world more real, it also adds to the sense of isolation and strangeness of the environment.
The second is Sandra Bullock's performance. Clooney's good too, but as the assured veteran astronaut he's basically just playing George Clooney in space. Bullock, though, is incredible as a medical doctor thrown into this impossible situation. She starts off vulnerable and helpless (as you probably would) but she slowly begins to fight back, determined to make it through. What sold it for me is how she slowly opens up - starting off quiet and dejected, but eventually talking to herself and grinning with adrenalin-fuelled madness. It's exactly how I get if I lock myself out of the house, and I totally bought it. Some have said she's not a very fleshed out character, but she doesn't need to be - because Bullock so inhabits this woman, and because we share her trip through hell, we intimately know her even though we know nothing about her.

There are problems. There's one sequence which doesn't really work, feeling too forced and pulling us out of the world, and there's a moment of symbolism that's beautiful and evocative but goes on for far too long. The most problematic is that, while the whole film frequently bends science for its own purposes, there's one crucial story-moment that hinges on some seriously dodgy physics. But that's more or less it - those are the only hiccups in this otherwise believable and completely immersive universe.

In my review of Rush I called it tense - "cripplingly so" - but Rush is a carefree romp next to Gravity. This film is pure white-knuckle terror; except in those few quiet moments of dread, while you wait for the next thing to go wrong. Those parts are somehow even worse. It's a phenomenal film with truly gorgeous visuals and one amazing central performance. It's not much of a narrative but, bloody hell, it's an experience. Gravity is atmospheric and gripping and unyieldingly intense, and once it has its claws in you it doesn't let go.
The crazy thing is that, as much ridiculous hyperbole as I'm using, I'm still selling it short!

You need to see this film. You need to see it in 3D. And you need to see it right now.

Thor: The Dark World Review

Dear Man of Steel,
I saw two different films this year that ended with godlike aliens hitting each other impossibly hard over and over again. One of them managed to keep this fresh and interesting, and had personal stakes for the audience to connect to. The other one was you.

Thor: The Dark World manages to keep its final battle entertaining and engaging, even though it's just a repetitive sequence of blows, by constantly changing the nature of the fight. It keeps shifting location, so the visuals never get stale and the fighters have to deal with their environment as well as each other - caught on a collapsing ledge or sliding down a building. The tone keeps shifting too, breaking the tension with funny moments, which makes the serious parts all the more impactful.
Even though the combatants are pretty much invincible, the fight has real peril and danger because there are human characters running around and helping, almost getting killed in the process. It's a battle over the fate of the world - nay, the universe - but it's the fate of these characters that we actually care about. That's also what the hero cares about, fighting to protect these people rather than just fighting to win.

What I'm saying, Man of Steel, is that Thor 2 does everything you didn't. I hope you're taking notes.

Before the ascension of The Avengers, benevolent god-king of superhero movies, the original Thor was the film that, to me, felt most like a comic book. These are silly films about silly people in silly costumes, and Thor's bombastic, over-the-top tone captured that perfectly. It's just so much fun, from its first frame to its last.
But a lot of people disagree. Thor usually gets ranked at the bottom of the Marvel pile for exactly this reason - people don't like that it's silly. So, when Marvel announced that gritty Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor would be at the (winged) helm of the sequel, and later when all the stills and footage looked like Lord of the Rings, there was a real danger that this light-hearted series had been turned into, well, you.
But rest assured, though it even goes so far as having "Dark" in the title, Thor 2 is every bit as light and breezy as its predecessor.

What Taylor does bring is a sense of realism that was missing from Kenneth Branagh's very operatic original. This is the same thing you were aiming for, Man of Steel, but Taylor understands that it needn't sap the joy out of the experience. The acting here is more naturalistic, and Asgard feels much more like a real place, but the movie still knows how to find enjoyment and humour in that - something you completely forgot. Though it does carve out a more believable world for itself, nested within the larger Marvel Universe, that doesn't prevent it from shoving the massive God of Thunder into a tiny car or having Stellan Skarsgård in his pants. Realistic doesn’t have to mean serious.

Yet The Dark World has its share of serious, too. The plot this time kicks off when Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster becomes the unwitting host of the Aether - an ancient, all-purpose alien superweapon. This is staggeringly convenient, of course, but it works because it immediately gives Thor, and us, a reason to heavily invest in what is otherwise a very bland McGuffin. Thor spirits Jane away to Asgard to figure out what’s going on, and the two quickly rekindle their romance because, in both cases, wouldn’t you?
The seriousness comes from the fact that Jane is slowly dying from exposure to the Aether, and that having it also makes her a target for the villains of the piece. They want to use the Aether to destroy the universe but, problematically, they’re also the only ones who can get it out of Jane. This all works to make her a more active part of the story than last time, as she finds herself at the centre of the conflict rather than watching from the sidelines.

For that reason and others, it’s a stronger and more propulsive story than the first Thor, rushing us through scenes and locations where the original often meandered. This is great in that everything feels very urgent and energetic, but not so great in that is skims over things that probably needed more explanation and depth - namely those villains.
The Dark Elves are a race who existed before the universe (somehow) and who now want to destroy that universe. They have awesome designs and technology, which leads to some brilliant action, but there’s barely anything to them. They feel both underused and underserved - especially their leader, Malekith. There's talk of his backstory and motivations, but there's nothing there we can actually latch onto. He basically boils down to angry guy with grudge. He's certainly no Loki - but the film ultimately gets away with that because Loki is Loki, and he's here too.

In a lot of ways this is actually Loki's movie. He has the strongest character journey, going from traitorous prisoner to untrusted ally and beyond. This is probably Tom Hiddleston's best performance yet, as this arc means he can play more than just the jealous prince. Loki gets to be a brother and a son; an enemy and a friend; wrong but also wronged. More than anything else, though, Thor 2 reminds us that Loki is the God of Mischief, not of Evil, and he gets to be far more of a trickster here than he has in the past.

Loki, like Jane, also has more to do. That’s something that applies to almost every character, actually. Even minor players like Kat Denning’s Darcy, Rene Russo’s Frigga, and Idris Elba’s awesome awesome Heimdall are far more involved in the story this time. Sif and the Warriors Three may be missing a member for some reason, and they may even have less screentime, but they feel more fleshed out and have a bigger impact on the plot. Everyone feels necessary and important.
The only person with less to do, weirdly, is Thor himself. Because the main arcs of the film aren’t his - they’re Jane’s and Loki’s - he sometimes seems to just be along for the ride. It’s never a problem, though, because Chris Hemsworth continues to embody the character so wonderfully. Whether he’s cheerfully destroying rock monsters or angrily confronting his brother, Thor is such a great presence that you don’t mind his reduced role.

Any other problems are similarly minor. An important scene involving Malekith's face is mishandled, and a subplot with Sif is implied but never takes off. There's also nothing that comes even close to that one blisteringly hot kiss from the first film. But these are tiny complaints, drowned out by the overwhelming positives - and when Hemsworth gets his shirt off, in a scene that’s somehow even more gratuitous than the first Thor, you’ll be willing to overlook all of them.

Thor: The Dark World is a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe but, far more than that, it’s a great continuation of the Thor series. It takes the groundwork of the original film and builds upwards in every way. The world and characters are both more fleshed out and more grounded; the story is more focused and polished, and gives every single character (except one) something to do; the action is bigger and better; and all the while it sticks to the world and the light-hearted tone established by its predecessor.

The reason I'm telling you all this, Man of Steel, is that the first Thor suffers from many of the same problems as you: characters are underdeveloped or don't have much to do, and the story is nebulous and unfocused. If Thor 2 can build on these problems to become something stronger, then I'm hoping you can too.
Of course, Thor still worked because it offset these problems with an abundance of fun and energy, where you opted for darkness and brooding. You can learn from Thor 2 here, as well. This world feels as real as yours, without having to sacrifice its sense of humour. It feels more real, in fact, because it's easier to relate to the people who live there.

Failing that, at the very least, please try to learn something from that final action scene. When I watch two space-gods repeatedly punch each other, I want to see variety and creativity, I want to see highs and lows, peaks and troughs, I want to feel real human stakes and, above all else, I want to enjoy it.
And that's exactly what The Dark World delivers.

Best wishes for the future,
Matthew


P.S. One last thing to learn from Marvel is that you should call your sequel Man of Steel 2, either with or without a subtitle. Dropping the numbers from their non-Iron Man films is the one slip-up Marvel have made thus far, and now is your big chance to exploit it. Who knows - being easy to arrange on a shelf might make all the difference!