THOR (By Chuck)

Thor - the next installment in the buildup to the Avengers movie in 2012 - has loads of promise, with director Kenneth Branagh at the helm. This movie has a promising plot of a son making a foolish decision and being sent to exile to learn from his mistake. Unfortunately this plot fell short in it's execution.

Upon being cast down to earth, Thor's weapon of choice Mjǫlnir (myol-neer) is also sent to earth with an enchantment that doesn't allow anyone to move the hammer, unless they are "worthy." At one point Thor gets hold of Mjǫlnir but hasn't learned his lesson yet and is beyond rueful when he is unable to move his hammer. From this point on Thor never really gives us much of a reason to feel bad for him, and this is where the execution of the plot really left me... bored, to be honest. Thor really never really seems too concerned about getting back to Mjǫlnir or overcoming the reason for his banishment. He's actually more interested in teaching Jane (Natalie Portman) about Asgard and the finer points of intergalactic travel (worm holes.)

I want to say I was at a disadvantage not knowing anything about Thor, but I didn't know a thing about Iron Man and I felt that Jon Favreau educated me about Tony Stark and Stark Industries, the origin story of Stark/Iron Man. On top of having Iron Man plainly laid out for me, I was genuinely entertained with not only a gripping plot and story, but smart, witty and at times snarky dialogue. Thor left me waiting for the dialogue, action, and storyline to get better... but it just never happened for me.


In short, I think I could benefit from a 2nd viewing of Thor, but my knee-jerk reaction is to say that most would probably benefit from a discounted matinee, waiting 'til the dollar theater, or even RedBox. I give Thor 2.5/4 stars.

Blu-Ray vs DVD

I was in Blockbuster, not too long ago and there was a video playing that had a side-by-side "comparison" of DVD vs Blu-Ray quality. The DVD images looked so fuzzy that I thought the DVD images were an exaggeration. I was sure DVD's I'd seen in the past had never looked this terrible before. (these are the same images from the video that I saw in BlockBuster http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/bdreviews/cars.htm)

Well, DVD's I'd seen before really never did look that bad, not until I got an HDTV and a Blu-Ray player that display DVD images in a manner that was not intended for DVD. DVD's are designed for and best seen on a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) set... you know the TV's that were the norm, before 3 inch thick wall-mount TVs were the only thing available at Best Buy. CRT's are not designed to show the same amount of detail that an HDTV is designed to show you.

For the sake of those that are not familiar with the technology of what high definition is doing to a DVD, imagine this: The Blu-Ray Player and the HDTV are trying to show you an entire image, but it can't, because DVD doesn't have 100% of the information it needs to display the entire image, therefore the display process has to "guess" or compensate for missing information, which is why DVD's - when viewed via Blu-Ray and an HDTV - look, well frankly, awful. And until you see a side-by-side comparison of DVD & Blu-Ray, honestly, you probably are not going to notice too much of a difference and will continue to ask yourself why there is such a craze over Blu-Ray when DVD "looks" just fine.

So, because I didn't believe DVD's were as absolutely terrible looking as the BlockBuster demo was suggesting. I decided to provide my own comparison that has not been enhanced or altered with any software of any kind. In fact, unlike others that are fancy enough to have software on their computer to generate other screen shot comparisons, I used Disney's Enchanted and took the following 2 pictures with my Nikon 5 MP camera. My player is an LG Blu-Ray player and the TV is a 40 inch HD Toshiba running 1080p, which translates into: this model of TV is able to show an image at the highest available quality that man can currently record and produce.

(click on the image to see full detail)


At first glance you might think that there isn't a difference... well get your face a little closer to the monitor. Overall I think it's obvious which looks better, but to point some things out, first of all, make sure you are not looking at the thumbnail above and you have the full size image open in another window:

-The high rise buildings in the upper left.
-The reflection of the tress in the water, the edges are very soft and blurry on DVD and very crisp and defined on Blu-Ray.
-Shadows in Amy Adams hand are very defined, while they are very soft and almost make you feel that you are looking at something out of focus, on the DVD side.
-Right behind the right side of Amy Adams hand on the DVD side you just assume there are people in a boat. On Blu-Ray you can tell there is a boat with people in it.
-On DVD the trees on this shot look like a big green blurry mess, while on Blu-Ray you feel like you are actually looking at trees.

After this comparison if you are still determined to not "jump on the bandwagon" think of a couple of things:
-Just as reel-to-reel was replace by that ultra-large and clunky VHS machine, which was replaced by DVD, so too has (not will) has the Blu-Ray player replaced DVD. It's just simply technology advancing and not something that you have to be a fan of to be a reason to get HD and Blu-Ray technology. Just get it, because it's replacing old technology.
-Get an HDTV and Blu-Ray Player sooner than later so you are buying your movies now in HD, instead of later. Might as well make the transition into HD and Blu-Ray now so you can enjoy HD quality now, instead of later. You'll regret having a library of movies that look grossly blurry.