The difference between absurd humour and comic vulgarity. 

Charlie's Country

An aging Indigenous hunter goes about his daily business (David Gulpilil as Charlie), peacefully reacting to impositions which have radically transformed his life.

He remembers the old school ways dating back for many a millennia, and is somewhat vexed by colonial laws which often prohibit related freedoms.

Regulations manage so much of what he's traditionally trying to do, that it's like his way of life's been outlawed to his habitual astonishment.

He makes a reasonable case simply stating that it's his land, simply being annoyed by the lack of work or the lack of interest in his culture.

While viewing the film and intently listening to his passionate music, it seemed like a monstrously depressing  history, that there was so much spiritual harmony to be freely nurtured that was generally overlooked by covetous Europeans.

Imagine free spiritual exchanges had won the day with interactive correspondence respectfully matriculating, and these songs and dances were also consistent components of the greater Australian (or Canadian) scene.

And that the cultures were really interacting with mutual respect across the land. And there had never been any lost generations. No chilling grand historical barbarism.

That's the problem with uniform exposition it antiseptically sterilizes so much life, and takes vast vivacious versatile vistas and obtusely replaces them with bland monotony.

It's not even that bland monotony should be overlooked if anything it should be give a different label, and treated with mutual respect that doesn't enrage its anger-prone proponents (note: Russia is invading other countries again and Italy just elected a government that reveres Mussolini).

If one ring rules them all it really does bind them in darkness, with no grand multivariable recourse sleep takes hold with soporific blindness.

I just sort of like trying this and that there are so many different styles available out there, it's as simple as flipping through channels on the TV, or just surfing around on the radio.

I had developed this latently in my youth but Montréal really helped it bloom, I can't think of a better place in Canada and Québec to learn to ensconce yourself in diversity.

Charlie just wants to peacefully live according to the ways his people have for millennia, and while attempting to confidently do so, keeps running into violence.

This leads to a sense of desperation which is worst case if treated with alcohol.

Would you understand if someone took your country away?

Why do you expect Indigenous Peoples to?

Thor

The mighty god Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been cast from Asgard by his despondent father (Anthony Hopkins as Odin) after having behaved recklessly, thereby derailing his people's age old truce with the unfortunately named Frost Giants (of Jotunheim). Sent to Earth to learn what it means to lead, Thor struggles with both his mortal form and newfound feelings for resilient scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).

I may be exaggerating the struggle somewhat.

Back in Asgard, the jealous and deceitful Loki (Tom Hiddleston) takes advantage of both his brother's absence and father's collapse to place himself upon the unoccupied throne.

Thor's hammer Mjolnir has also been sent to Earth but a spell has been cast upon it which ensures that it can only be retrieved by one who is pure of heart.

Can Thor make the necessary sacrifices in order to be able to wield his hammer once again, or will Loki's pact with the Frost Giants bring about a chilling end to centuries of uninterrupted peace?

The introduction of S.H.E.I.L.D works well to establish a terrestrial dimension within Thor's divine ambitions, but watching as slick and cool government organizations commandeer a scientist's life work in the interests of the greater good gave me somewhat of a stomach ache.

Out of all of Thor's secondary characters, Foster's assistant and mentor forge the most lasting impression due to the ways in which they juxtapose cheeky disengaged spontaneity with shrewd weathered experience, Foster charging confidently and prudently through their generational centre (Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis and Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig). Heimdall's (Idris Elba) embodiment of vigilance and loyalty, made all the more durable by his formidable intelligence and strength, like a domesticated Grizzly Bear, also works well.

The scenes wherein Loki enacts his treason do not work well and their development pales in comparison to those within which Thor comes of age.

Which aren't that great either.

Cain and Able meets Superman II in order to dislodge the Hammer in the Stone?

Thor entertains but lacks the depth of Iron Man or even Iron Man 2. The plot is generally predictable and there are few scenes which inspire even the slightest misgivings about what will happen next. Generating such misgivings is tough to do, but exceptional films find a way to make their universe so enthralling that they briefly transport us to another realm within which we sincerely care about what will happen due to its captivating multidimensional focus (this is where manufactured randomness and bizarre observations can work well if they don't seem manufactured).

I liked Thor's principal message and it is deep, but it lacks the fantastic lightning strike required to generate thunderous applause.

I guess the difference between Thor and a film like Fast Five is that while watching Fast Five I wasn't expecting to encounter such a strike. Hence I was content to just sit back and be entertained.