Star Trek (2009) | REVIEW

Director : J.J Abrams.
Writers : Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci.
Cast : Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, John Cho, Eric Bana, and Leonard Nimoy.
Rating : Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
Runtime : 127minutes
Tagline : The Future Begins.

This Flick Is About...
James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), whose father had perished in an ambush by a rogue Romulan ship captained by Nero (Eric Bana), is led to join the Starfleet on board the USS Enterprise and follow the footsteps of his late father. There, he meets a Vulcan named Spock (Zachary Quinto) and conflicts emerge between the two because of their different conditioning. But the issues on board the Enterprise must halt as the team are met by an enemy who is far more dangerous, and far more familiar, than they would have imagined.
---------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW

I've never been a Trekkie, or for those of you who don't know what that means, a fan of Star Trek. I'll probably never be a Trekkie. And I don't think it's justified or decent of me to say that I'm a Trekkie just because I watched the latest movie in the series decades after the lore began. There are people out there who have redecorated their homes to look like the USS Enterprise so those are the real Trekkies.

What I am, though, is a person who thoroughly enjoyed the new Star Trek movie by J.J Abrams. I've never watched a full episode of any Star Trek series, I've never had one 'Trek action figure, I've never read a comic even remotely related to Star Trek, and I don't know anything about its mythology. Stuff like "Resistance is Futile", "Where no man has gone before", "James T. Kirk", "Enterprise", "Nemesis", "Spock", and "Sulu" ring a bell and somehow I know they're related to Star Trek, but how and in which way has always been beyond me. So this review is from a complete layman's point of view. From a non-fan, if you will. If there's any continuity error or something I missed, it's only because I've never been attached to the series as a fan.

The things that got me interested in this movie were the fantastic trailers and J.J Abrams. I began enjoying Abrams' work ever since Lost began about 5years ago. For those of you who have not seen Lost, I suggest you rectify the situation as soon as you can. It is, to me, the best show on television in terms of writing and quality, and besides the soap opera with steel chairs that is Monday Night Raw, Lost is awesome. And Spongebob. And Nitro Circus. And Punk'd. Back to topic, I've always enjoyed Abrams' work. Cloverfield was amazing, I don't care what people say. So when I heard Abrams was behind the new Star Trek I was excited, naturally. And Abrams didn't disappoint.

Star Trek is one of those few movies that can be enjoyed by those who have loved Star Trek for eons and those who have never been a fan, like myself. It has a good plot, a structured storyline, a good cast, and the visuals are off the hook. The cinema is the best place for Star Treak, unless you have a HD 120" Plasma TV alongside a 13.1 DTS enabled sound-system in your hometheater setup.

And while this was an attempt to get more people into the Star Trek fanbase, there are some nods in there that only Trek fans will understand and that's awesome because it shows that this isn't a whoring out of great material just to make a couple of extra bucks. No, this is a movie that took effort, great writing, and a lot of money to make, with the fans in mind. Leonard Nimoy returns to play an older version of Spock, and how great must that have felt for the fans who have watched Nemoy play the character in numerous versions all these years.

I hate to say it, but what I love most about Star Trek is the visual eye-candy. Great story aside, the visuals are phenomenal. There are only a handful of directors in Hollywood that can visualize scenes, scenarios, and sequences with such profound imagination and perfection, and JJ is one of them. He knows what looks great and what looks real. And he knows how to make real look great. He doesn't do cheesy, he doesn't do playful bombarding of colors to make it look cool. The guys behind Star Trek literally visualized what the black holes, the warp speeds, Earth, and especially Nero's ship would look like and let me tellya'; Nero's ship is scary! Steven Spielberg can do real and great (Jurassic Park). Michael Bay (hate him all you want) can do realistic and great (Transformers) (although I'm not sure if that's completely him or a team of people who abide by his every order, all he has to do is blow s**t up), David Slade, Robert Zemeckis, and the Wachowski Bros can do real and great. I would say Peter Jackson but Lord Of The Rings isn't in the modern world so it wouldn't be fair. What I'm saying is it takes creativity to produce scenes and visuals like the ones in Star Trek. The camera angles, the movements, the cinematography, and the CGI is amazing.

The soundtrack was handled in the best of ways. Nothing over the top yet nothing too subtle. Perfect. Michael Giacchino handled the score, and needless to say I've enjoyed his work for some time now too, even before I knew who he was actually. Michael is quite a name in the videogame industry with such titles like Medal of Honor and Call Of Duty, and if any of you were lucky enough to have played Chaos Island : The Lost World (strategy) about 10years ago, you should know that he composed the score for that game too. He's also the guy behind the soundtrack for Lost and Alias. The guy has a perfect sense of where to rise, where to dip, where to slow down and where to quicken the pace. He understands that music is as important to the film as the visuals. Compose the wrong music and you could damage the scene so horribly that it could portray itself as something completely different.

As for the technical side of things, there's nothing much to say. It's awesome.

Acting is good. I wouldn't say these guys are the best of actors but they do their jobs really well. Karl Urban is a nice addition to the cast. My only issue lies with John Cho as Mr.Sulu. I know Mr.Sulu is a huge character in the Trek universe, so why cast Cho? Sure, he plays the role well, but I know too many people (including myself) who see Harold whenever I look at him. You know, as in Harold & Kumar. He may not be comedic relief in the movie, but by just looking at him you're thinking of too many hilarious antics on the road to White Castle that you can't help but not take the man seriously. Speaking of comedic relief, Simon Pegg is a great addition to the set.

While Star Trek did great among critics, some fans were not too happy with the 'alternate timeline' issue. J.J. Abrams and the crew decided that they would incorporate a way to make this Star Trek a fresh start so that no one could scream "canon!". It detaches itself from all other Star Trek movies and creates its own timeline as an alternate reality, therefore changing a lot of history. Some fans loved the fact that they could look forward to all-new adventures, while others were devastated by the fact that all those decades of what they knew might just end up being obsolete. So there's an issue there, but looking at the ratings and the boxoffice income, I doubt it's much of a big deal. "Alternate reality" is a safe way of saying "you can choose the one you prefer".

So that's that. I cannot really comment on what the story missed or what it had because I can't relate to any source material. For me it was a great movie, very enjoyable by anyone and everyone who loves a good time at the movies. You don't have to be a Trekkie to love this flick; it's just awesome as it is. There's great nods to the Trekkies of old, new intros for the newcomers, and just action and adventure all-around.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Star Trek gets a 4.6 out of 5.0. My only concerns are with casting John Cho, and that lil' bits and pieces were not explained well enough and seemed to only cater to the ones who knew stuff about Star Trek...or maybe that's just me. Visually stunning scenes, great score, decent cast, fun movie for everyone, Trekkie or otherwise.

WHO SHOULD THEY PLAY? | #3

Alright, in my last WHO SHOULD THEY PLAY? post I mentioned Alexander Skarsgard and how he should take on the role of Marvel's hammer-wielding superhero, Thor, only to find out a couple of hours later that he actually is in the running to play Thor! Talk about a weird, awesomely-coincidental moment right there! What are the odds, right? Check out IMDB or any other Skarsgard-related page and you'll probably see those rumors, too.

Anyhow, here's #3.

Jason Statham. Venom. Awkward casting, don't you think? For some reason I think it's perfect and just what Marvel needs. For some reason Sony Pictures has decided to roll out a Venom spin-off movie that will involve only the titular anti-hero character and no Spider-Man. Well I'm sure there will be a cameo of some sort but still, this feels wrong all over. After the massive
&*^%-up that was Spider-Man 3, who wouldn't be weary of Sony and their idiotic tactics to milk the Spidey cow of all it's money? They literally screwed the character (Venom) in Spider-Man 3, gave him less than 15minutes of screen-time, have the guts to roll out Spider-Man 4 (due 2011), and have the sack to actually consider a Venom movie?! Is that compensation due to the intense guilt they feel for ruining a massive fan-favorite? Nah...

Nevertheless, I'd say a good Venom flick should have Jason Statham step into the shoes of Eddie Brock aka Venom. Now I know Topher Grace played Venom previously but as much as I didn't mind him in the role of Eddie Brock, he's still a scrawny lil' kid who wouldn't have even been considered for the part if Tobey Maguire wasn't also timid-looking and scrawny himself. Since Tobey won't be playing a part in the Venom movie, why not do the titular character some justice and let a man with some abs and who actually goes to the gym a lot play Venom? Eddie Brock has always been ripped in the comics.

Plus most of Venom's scenes will be CGI / greenscreen / motion capture / etc. All Statham has to do is play Brock well enough. And, Jason Statham has never really tested the waters in the superhero genre yet so it'll be a good opportunity to show a lil' extra acting skills and roleplaying styles. He has the facial features, he's got the appropriate torso, and it'll be something different for moviegoers and fans alike; Jason Statham as Venom. Why? Why not? I think it'll be pretty cool. I'm not a fan of Jason Statham. To be honest I don't like most of the movies he's been in. But he fits as Venom for some reason.

How awesome would scenes of Venom jumping rooftops and swinging ala Spider-Man be? Jason Statham / Eddie Brock is running on rooftops, taking giant leaps from one top to the other. His hyper-sensory "spider-sense" is tingling and the symbiotic suit takes over...mid-air! Within seconds Eddie Brock is transformed into the psychotic dual-minded monster known as Venom! They are now Venom, leaping off a skyscraper, webbing walls as they literally swing and soar through the city, evading cop attacks and dishing out violent, vigilant justice to evildoers. Sweet!

Seven Pounds (2008) | REVIEW

Will Smith is one of those rare people that have a special quality to them in no matter what they do. He made good music, he's a great actor, and from what we know he's a really fun person to be around. When I heard that he and director Gabriele Muccino (Pursuit Of Happyness) were going to reunite to make Seven Pounds, I was really happy. The ending of Pursuit Of Happyness was spoilt for me because of some Reader's Digest article that they had to write about it and how it was based on a true story, but nevertheless, I still enjoyed it.

Then I heard a lot of bad reviews about Seven Pounds and how it isn't like Pursuit Of Happyness and how it's not at all what they expected. I was disappointed, but I have learnt to always, always check out a flick for myself before judging it prematurely or based solely on the opinions of others. Not because I don't trust them, but because expectations vary and the liking of a movie is ultimately subjective. Here's what I think of the film.

This Flick Is About....
--------------------------------------------------------
An IRS agent named Ben Thomas (Will Smith) with a fateful secret embarks on an extraordinary journey of redemption by forever changing the lives of seven strangers. He goes all-out to hand pick these strangers and tests them in various ways, watches them, just to see if they are deserving of the extraordinary sacrifices and gifts that he's willing to give and do for them.
---------------------------------------------------------

What shines out in most Will Smith movies is Will Smith's ability to absorb his character and become that role. He may look the same across different films, but the character and approach is totally different. Smith has a charm unlike any other actor and I think the reason why he's the highest paid in Hollywood is because he's highly bankable. He is watchable by not only adults but teens, tweens, boys, girls, youngsters, middle-agers, husbands, wives, grandmas, and grandpas. Everyone can enjoy a Will Smith movie. It's also normally always family friendly with little swearing, hardly any nudity, and sensual (not sexual) scenes. There's more lovemaking than all-out rampant "doggy-style-ing". I'm not judging other flicks that incorporate this in their movies *cough cough horror flicks cough cough*, but what I'm pointing out is that his films have quality pouring out of their pores. Movies with Will Smith sell because of Will Smith and how it's normally always a great flick. And most of the time it isn't some lame no-brainer that he's in; it's always a deep story with all the aspects of a beautiful film and anything anyone from any age group could ask for. So there was Hancock, big deal, it's just his way of having fun!

In Seven Pounds, Will Smith portrays Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who "tests" people to see if they deserve the "gifts" that he has in store for them. And when you see these "gifts" it will touch you emotionally and provoke your thoughts, believe me. And since we're on the topic of acting chops, Rosario Dawson does an A+ job portraying Emily Posa as well. And a notable mention is Woody Harrelson as the blind customer service representative, Ezra.

On to the story. To me it's an awesome story. It's suspenseful, it's deep, and it shows genuine human emotion. A lot of people think that acting is the equivalent of lying and therefore there is no real human emotion involved. That's probably true when it comes to a lot of movies. And that's also why a selected few make it to the top and stay there as evergreen titles. They show real human emotion even if it's acted out. That isn't easy to do yet it's all over the place in Seven Pounds. It's in a lot of scenes and indirectly tells you what Smith's character is going through.

What about the soundtrack? Soundtrack's great. It's a shame when movies integrate music that doesn't belong to the visuals but this flick does nicely with the score. Very soothing at times, and at times very sentimental. It helps carry the feelings from the characters across and to the audience. I couldn't help but notice some elements of the Troy soundtrack in there but that's not saying that it didn't work. It worked perfectly.

So why didn't Seven Pounds make bank? Why didn't it become a major hit? Why didn't people like it?

Here's the problem, I think. Many people tend to expect the wrong things from the wrong movies. It's the reason why people complain beyond need about Transformers being an absolute no-brainer. I ask, what else can you expect? What else would work in the same scenario? When studios declared that Seven Pounds would be the re-teaming of Will Smith and Gabriele Muccino, many expected another Pursuit Of Happyness, with the underdog story and the similar movie flow. The idea is to let go of those expectations. Not the expectations of seeing a good movie, but the expectations of seeing the same movie. Watching the film without relating anything to Pursuit Of Happyness might help because it clearly isn't a sequel in any form. Don't expect Ali from I Am Legend and don't expect Pursuit Of Happyness from Seven Pounds, get what I mean? Trust me, doing that makes one enjoy a movie much more!

Make no mistake, I'm not asking anyone to accept certain loads of crap that come out of Hollywood. Spider-Man 3? X-Men 3? Ghost Rider? These are movies that were, how do you say, &&^%^ed-up. Like I said, always expect a movie to be decent. People shouldn't settle for crap because that's why studios keep making them, but don't expect actors to always play their roles in a certain way or directors to direct in a certain way.

That being said, Seven Pounds does have a downside; the way it's taken. It uses an unorthodox style of filmmaking and editing because it's one of those "we see one drastic scene in the beginning and then a whole flashback begins leading up to that scene again" type of movies. It doesn't follow the traditional timeline. There's the "now" and then some flashbacks. The problem arises when the movie moves without a point for a while. We see Ben Thomas doing all these things but we don't know why. And that's okay for a while but then it starts to get not only confusing but also a bit frustrating. There should always be a destination point. People should know where the movie is headed. Yes, the motives are revealed step by step throughout the flick and by the end you understand the entire picture perfectly. What I'm saying is, the revelations start to show after a little too long.

There is, of course, another problem. Seven Pounds aims very much towards the heart at the expense of the mind. What may seem emotional, heart-warming, and touching at first might turn out to be not too logical when analyzed. There are a lot of loopholes when it comes to thorough explanations and "do-ability" of certain deeds. You'd have to watch it to understand what I'm talking about. There are dozens of good questions that could be asked about the movie's plot and how he got this person to do this and how "that would never fly in the real world", and the people behind the movie would probably never be able to answer. So take note, skip the logic in some parts. Enjoy it for what it is; emotions and drama.

All in all, Seven Pounds is a wonderful movie. I've always loved Will Smith's films and this one's no different. Seven Pounds has a great story, great actors, and all the emotion you expect from a movie such as this. My opinion? Go watch it whenever you get a chance. It might not be Ali or Pursuit Of Happyness, but it's good nonetheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Seven Pounds a 3.8 out of 5.0. The movie only falls short in terms of audience understanding of the movie's build-up and the logic that's misplaced in certain agendas. Otherwise, it's a great movie, I don't care what "the critics" or "good moviegoers" have to say. My principle has always been that a film should be enjoyed thoroughly before it's dissected into bits. Watch it, enjoy it, and maybe analyze it later. Don't look for the slightest faults in real time when it's playing on the screen during your first viewing. How can anyone enjoy anything that way, seriously?

Till' next time, all!

Disney Returns To 2D!

And I couldn't be happier. I'm a sucker for good ol' fashioned Disney 2D animation. Some of the best animated motion pictures I've seen are all in 2D, and only a couple of 3D animations stand up to those cartoons of old. I've watched Beauty & The Beast so many times I can remember the scenes in perfect sequence to this day. And what about Peter Pan, Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Aladdin, and the grandmaster of Disney's 2D flicks, The Lion King? All instant classics, all loved to this day. Which brings me to my topic.

This holiday season, Disney returns to its roots and brings one more magical fairy tale to life on the big screen. The Princess & The Frog tells the tale of a prince who is cursed to remain a frog until a beautiful princess gives him / it a passionate, lusty kiss. Okay maybe not so lusty unless you get The Princess & The Frog Unrated, Uncut, Uncensored, but still...a kiss. Instead of telling the age old story, Disney goes a step further and shows us what happens after the kiss. You wanna' know? Watch the first trailer above.

Also note that this happens during the Jazz Age in New Orleans so expect some jazz musicals, voodoo, and singing crocodiles. Princess Tiana is also Disney's first ever African-American princess. These guys really pay attention to people around the world. There's a Middle Eastern princess, a gypsy, I'm not sure what Pocahontas is, a lioness, and now their first African-American princess. Nice.

Anyway, enough talk! Enjoy the trailer. It gave me goosepimples. Especially the opening montage. It's so nice to see Disney and their 2D again. Hopefully there's more to come. :)

Contact (1997) | REVIEW

Beautiful, emotional, gripping, and out of the ordinary; these are the core elements that make Contact what it is. Based on the Pulitzer-prize winning book of the same name, Contact is a portrayal of the human spirit and the will to discover the true meaning of our existence, and if we are truly alone in this endless universe. Before I even start this review I'm going to recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it before. Contact is something that you definitely want to watch one way or the other.

This Flick is About...
Dr. Arroway (Jodie Foster) has always been obsessed with finding life apart from that on Earth. When her SETI program at Puerto Rico is halted by Dr.Drumlin, the financier, she and a small team decide to move to New Mexico to pursue their mission independently. After years of searching and while on the brink of certain failure, Arroway discovers a transmission hailing from Vega, a zone 26 lightyears away from Earth itself! This leads to a chain of events; conflicts and discoveries all revolving around what may be the grandest discovery of our generation.
-------------------------------------------------

While the plotline above may sound like this movie is all about "little green men", I assure you that it's not. Director Robert Zemeckis knows exactly what he's doing and the result is a fascinating film about the will to endure, curiosity of the unknown, human relationships, and the constant clashes between theories of science and the existence of God. Every issue is beautifully tackled and interpreted in a way that seems seamless and whole. Nothing seems rushed or forced down. The runtime for the film spans a whole 150minutes and every minute is used to its fullest potential. There are no empty moments and boring, unnecessary talk. There's no violence or sex or nudity for the simple sake of promotion and marketing.

Hence, Contact is a movie's movie. It can be enjoyed by those who adore casual movies. At the same time it can be analyzed to the core by film students who demand that their "test subjects" offer a storyline with depth, character development, expositions, conflicts, reversals, and resolutions. Contact it not just the common man's movie, it's also a critics' movie; a movie that was marketed well, hyped-up, and promoted nicely amidst other giants like Titanic and The Lost World : Jurassic Park in the same year, making itself a bleeding target for the sharks cum critics in the business, yet comes off as such a wholesome piece of work that even critics cannot help but admit that Contact definitely "connects".

When it comes to acting and performance, Contact delivers very nicely. Jodie Foster does a great job at pulling off a confrontational, passionate astronomer while Matthew McConaughey is perfect for the role of Palmer Joss, a man who holds a "Masters in Divinity" yet isn't the average priest you see in churches. He's a charming, open-minded believer who insists that some things in the universe cannot be explained or proven. For instance, God. Other supporting actors include James Woods, John Hurt, and William Fichtner (who does a wonderful job at playing Arroway's teammate, Kent, who is blind yet has a remarkable sense of hearing).

While I've never been a major fan of Mat McConaughey, I've enjoyed some of his roles to a great degree. While his role as Van Zahn in Reign Of Fire is probably the one I like most, there's just something about him that fits perfectly into Contact. He brings a balance to it and the way he pulls of his character as Palmer Joss is great. There's that confidence of knowing for sure yet he doesn't come off as arrogant or pompous. Something worth watching out for.

When it comes to music, score, and sound effects, Contact is amazing. Audio is delivered in stunning DTS whereas the music is emotional, riveting, suspenseful, and acts like a perfect soulmate to the visuals; they complete each other is all I'm saying, I don't care how corny it sounds. A movie like Contact demands a well-planned, thoroughly prepared score. Sound effects need to be realistic if not hyper-real, and anything otherwise could jeopardize the film to a massive extent. The composer on board is Alan Silvestri, a person whose music I have enjoyed for many years now. Yet for Contact, we don't really feel Silvestri's signature touch, which is all the more amazing. It simply proves that a person like Alan Silvestri is versatile and works according to the current case.

When it comes to CGI it's hard to judge. I remember thinking when I first watched it all those years ago that it wasn't the best of visuals, even bad at some points. I watched it again recently and as you can expect, some instances have bad CGI implementation and this just damages the scene and breaks the believability of the audience. What surprises me is that back in 1997, movies were already integrating graphics and visuals that were so breathtaking that they stand as benchmarks even up to this day! Titanic, anyone? Or how about The Lost World? It would have been great if more attention was given to the CGI in Contact, but maybe that's just the budget acting as a restraint. Nevertheless, there are some visuals in there that are worth taking a look at and if they all fail, the acting and plotline alone are enough to save the day.

Speaking of CGI, it was interesting to see a very familiar name in the end credits when I watched the DVD recently. "Additional effects By WETA Digital, New Zealand". And after more than a dozen names roll up it says "and Peter Jackson." For those of you who don't know, Peter Jackson is the director of this trilogy called The Lord Of The Rings. You might have heard of it. ;) And WETA were the ones behind the effects and visuals. While this comes as an interesting piece of information, it also explains the crappy CGI in some scenes. While Lord Of The Rings had amazing visuals because of the extensive miniatures, some CGI in it was bad. Some.

Another bothersome part about the movie is John Hurt. The man is beyond corny in this movie. I'm not sure what or why, but every time he appears on screen the movie feels like it's taken a diversion into "Cheap Land". It's like there's a road of pure quality and Contact is on it when suddenly there's a detour and it falls into "Almost Failure Lane", then finds it's way back onto Quality Road again. Watch it and see if you can relate with me on this topic.

There's not much more to say about Contact. You have to watch it in case you haven't already. It's a beautiful movie. It has everything from character study to proper, well-planned development, an interesting story arch, good music, great acting, and characters that you genuinely care for.
------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Contact a 4.2 out of 5.0. Its shortcomings lie in CGI and some minor corny instances. Otherwise it's a thought-provoking movie which can be interpreted in numerous ways yet enjoyed by those who just want to watch a movie for fun. It works both ways. Contact is so good that it has been compared to some of Steven Spielberg's work, particularly Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, which is saying a lot. And the person who made this comparison is none other than Roger Ebert, the so-called master critic. When it comes to good films, Contact stands as one of the elite. It may not be a landmark movie, but it's definitely worth a watch for anyone who loves an extraordinary story.

Who Should They Play? | #2

Okay, a post ago I had the first Who Should They Play? article up and a number of you seem to agree with me on the Rodrigo Santoro playing Prince Of Persia bit. So on to the second article.

Many of you may not know Alexander Skarsgård and I didn't either before True Blood, a series about vampires and how they coexist with humans in the near future. Kind of like Watchmen, only this time it's bloodsucking undead beings instead of the regular masked vigilantes.

Anyway, Alexander Skarsgård would be the best damn person to portray the Norse God Thor on screen. Marvel has confirmed that Thor will make his on-screen debut in 2011 as another segment in the "Avengers saga". So it will be Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Ant-Man, and Thor that will ultimately form the mondo-blockbuster pinnacle of superhero movies, The Avengers. There's already a rumored Avengers 2, too.

Alexander was born in Sweden in 1976. What's awesome about that photo is that he definitely looks the part and could definitely pull off the accent. Plus he isn't as famous as Robert Downey or Edward Norton which is a good thing. There were rumors of Daniel Craig and Brad Pitt being offered the role of the hammer-wielding superhero but they turned it down; a fact that I am so happy about. Great actors, yes, but I'd rather look at Thor as Thor and not see Pitt in there somewhere. Also, there were huge rumors stating that Triple H would play Thor and that Marvel and the WWE superstar were in good terms after Blade : Trinity. That rumor has since been put to rest and other options are being looked into. Thank God! Wrestling fan I may be, but wrestlers should keep their acting chops confined to the ring.

So there it is. If I were to cast Thor, I'd pick Alexander Skarsgård. :)

UPDATE Wow. You wanna' know what's crazy? Crazy is when I mention Alexander Skarsgard should play Thor out of sheer instinct only to find out for myself a couple of hours later that the man is indeed the frontrunner for the role! I'm not even sure how I missed this, but his page on IMDb states "Thor" as the first movie, with "rumored" in brackets. Wow. Talk about a "what are the odds" coincidence, right? Looks like Marvel and director Kenneth Branagh have the same person in mind. :)