Thor Movie Reviews

I was worried that Helmsworth wouldn't look Godly enough as Thor, because of how he's show in the comics, but he really did a brilliant job, even with his accent. His hair was a bit crap though.

I really like the SHIELD agent's attitude and role and I think he's been great since Iron Man. He's actually better than Mace Fury.

Destroyer looked magnificent, as did the rainbow bridge and Asgard in general.

I didn't like some things, of course. To me most of the armour looked really bad, especially Heimdall's. It just looked like it was made from plastic, or car bodies. So did Odin's and Sif's for that matter.

I was disappointed in how slim Volstagg was. They didn't go far enough with the weight and I don't know why. It's basically his whole character. They could have done Hogun better. He was Hogun the token Asian instead of Hogun the Grim. Same with Heimdall really, although the actor was great. Hogun was just bland.

Normally I hate boring ol' Hopkins, but he was pretty good for a change.

Another thing that irked me a little was the lack of helmet. It was only in that one scene. In the comics, if Thor's helmet was knocked off in a battle, you knew crap was about to hit the fan. I'd have liked to have seen that.

Weird things that struck me- Why was Portman a physicist? In the books she's a nurse. It's like she was just some whole other character. Still, she was good and so were her sidekicks.

Loki was ok, but the Frost Giant king was brilliant. He pretty much stole the bad guy role.

My complaints are minor, I liked it quite a lot and hope they do another. I can't wait from Captain America and then the Avengers. I'm interested to see how they all react together.
 
There were meant to look cheesy, if you read J. Michael Straczynski's thor arc (although he's left Marvel to go and work for DC), thor rebuilds asgard in the state of oklahoma after ragnarok and you see all the asgardians walking around some hick town going about their business and it's super cheesy haha.
 
DuneMuadDib said:
What do you mean?
Loki is a frost giant in the comics too, that's straight out of the source material. The only difference in the movie is his father Laufey wasn't slain in the battle Odin found him in.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? I honestly wasn't aware of that. Silly me. Forget that bit of negativity from my ignorance then (y)thumbsup:thumbsup
 
The GF and I went today. I wasn't sure what to expect but I definitely enjoyed it. There was a perfect blend of comedy and seriousness, IMO, to make it plausible but not hard to sit through. Does that make sense?

Anyway, this was a definitely must for me in the theaters as seeing Thor being a bad*** was awesome!! I wouldn't mind seeing it again :)
 
We just got home from seeing Thor and all I can say is.... OH MY GOD!!!!

Absolutely loved it. I said it from the beginning, but Kenneth Branaugh was a BRILLIANT choice to direct. The performances he got out of the actors were all top-notch. I am seriously looking forward to seeing what comes next.
 
One thing that I was kind of worried about before I saw the movie was how they were going to handle the "magical" aspects revolving around Thor and Asgard etc.
Most superhero films tend to have a logical scientific explanation for the supernatural. I wasn't sure how Thor was going to handle this, but then Natalie Portman cited Arthur c Clarke...Magic is simply science undiscovered.
(Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
Great explanation without having to delve into too many details.
 
I saw it last night. And im going to be honest, I didn't like it. Heres why.

Tht thing about this movie is that it wasn't really an origin story in the typical sense. Thor, for all intents and purposes was always Thor. He always had his powers, always knew why he had them and how to use them, and even always had his costume.

The entire plot of the movie is that his father does not believe he is repsonsible enough to wield them, so he takes them away until he has matured enough to earn them back. Fair enough.

However this means that the plot is entirely absed around Thor growing into a hero worthy of his powers, essentially making the whole film about characher development. Once again this is fair enough. The problem is for a film whose premise wraps around the development of the main character, there is little if any character development.

We never see Thor progress, develop, or learn why his actions in the beginning of the film were wrong. He is just suddenly different at the end. The only time that he is explicitly told what he is doing is wrong is when he is instructed by Natalie Portman not to smash coffee cups when he is done with them.

Which brings me to my next point. We are set up to believe that Thor's romance with Natalie Portman is the catalyst that bring's about this change. Once again it is a decent enough premise, but we are never shown enough of the two of them together to really believe that there is a romance there. All we see is two attractive people who knew eachother for 2 days, most of which was spent with Ms. Portman thinking that Thor was an inebriated, mentally ill, homeless man. There is really only a brief scene where the two of them bond, and even that is cut short.

Why does he love her? Why does she love him? With the little we saw of them in the movie, it doesn't appear to be more than two attractive people who are upset at the end that they never got the chance to do it. We are basically expected to believe that becuase they are young, attractive, and know eachother; they must be in love.

Instead, what we get in place of development are countless CGI battles featuring Thor's friends, who are a bunch of cartoons; and Loki. Loki is a tough one. On one hand he is supposed to be the films villian, but on the other he never does anything particularly villanous for most of it. In fact its hard to argue with most of his logic. We are led to believe that Loki was wrong for alerting Odin when Thor mindlessly went off in search of a battle early in the film, but that seemed to be the most level headed thing that anyone did in this movie. Thor was an overeager ass looking for a fight, and that selfishness could have easily ignited a war between the two planets (in actuality it did, we just never hear about it again after the fact). Thor was not fit to be a king, and his banishment was clearly the best thing that could have happened to him.

Loki's evil plan is also to use a mystic relic to kill off the enemies of his race, but that also seems to be a fairly levelheaded decision given the level of agression they have shown. And we as an audience are expected to feel tension when thier lives are at risk? The same people who have previously attacked Asthguard twice, tried to kill Odin, and that Thor was more than eager to kill with his bare hands earlier in the film? You can see how the audience would be conflicted here.

Overall this was a film whose plot was entirely based around character development that we never see, a love story that we also never see, and a villian whose motivations are the most justifiable out of any of the characters.
__________________
 
ShadowX81 said:
I saw it last night. And im going to be honest, I didn't like it. Heres why.


We never see Thor progress, develop, or learn why his actions in the beginning of the film were wrong. He is just suddenly different at the end. The only time that he is explicitly told what he is doing is wrong is when he is instructed by Natalie Portman not to smash coffee cups when he is done with them.

Which brings me to my next point. We are set up to believe that Thor's romance with Natalie Portman is the catalyst that bring's about this change. Once again it is a decent enough premise, but we are never shown enough of the two of them together to really believe that there is a romance there. All we see is two attractive people who knew eachother for 2 days, most of which was spent with Ms. Portman thinking that Thor was an inebriated, mentally ill, homeless man. There is really only a brief scene where the two of them bond, and even that is cut short.

Why does he love her? Why does she love him? With the little we saw of them in the movie, it doesn't appear to be more than two attractive people who are upset at the end that they never got the chance to do it. We are basically expected to believe that becuase they are young, attractive, and know eachother; they must be in love.

Overall this was a film whose plot was entirely based around character development that we never see, a love story that we also never see, and a villian whose motivations are the most justifiable out of any of the characters.
__________________
Click to expand...

And THAT was my biggest problem with the thing. As I said before, it moves in and around attractive distractions - two separate movies going on at the same time, neither allowed to deliver because of time constraints. Typical Marvel movie. There was nothing significant between Thor and Portman that brought one to believe his character had truly learned a lesson or changed in any way. There are romantic comedies that spend the entire sum of thiier running time trying to change one character's shortcomings - and this movie tried to show that while dipping it's hand in other pots as well - and to me, TO ME, it failed. I can see how some would like it - there are some good scream matches and battle scenes, but the meat and potatoes of a movie focusing on the hero's broken moral compass all coms down to the exchanges he or she meets that alters or fixes the problem.

I also missed (though I see why they ditched it) Donald Blake. Thor had the same lesson to learn in the comics, but Odin's punishment of placing his son in the body of a surgeon who is also handicapped was much more satisfying to me. But I can see how that would lead to a journey whereas the movie was more of a simple discovery.
 
Again, for a comic book movie...it was satisfying. If you were looking for more depth and character development, you would of course be left wanting.
 
MooCriket said:
Again, for a comic book movie...it was satisfying. If you were looking for more depth and character development, you would of course be left wanting.
Click to expand...

Shadow has alot of great points...for a film that would deserve an Oscar. But for a fun all around movie that caught my attention and never let go until after the credits, it (the entire filming crew) did it's job very well. I was too concerned about the origins/Donald Blake scenario, but with the newer reevisioning of Thor they decided to run with, it seemed to fit in more naturally. The Donald Blake thing is more of a CW show slated with Supernatural or Gossip Girl.
 
MooCriket said:
Again, for a comic book movie...it was satisfying. If you were looking for more depth and character development, you would of course be left wanting.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't ware we were grading on a curve. So there's not just "Was it a good movie?" there's also "Was it good for a comic book movie?". Gatcha.

Giving a movie an out because it's based on a comic book character (well, Thor is not just a comic character, I know) that springs from years and years of material to grab from -- well, that is just plain silly. Pixar gives their characters and the situations they encounter plenty of depth - as opposed to Dreamworks or the other companies producing garbage like Hoodwinked - but yet, you can say those are just cartoon movies for kids. A movie is a movie - the construction of any film depends on those in charge - and I'm saying it was handled poorly - that's all. My opinion. But no film deserves a "get out of jail free" card because of subject matter - you wouldn't have favorites then. There's Empire Strikes Back and there's Episode 1.
 
Jet, I agree with your points and fully understand what you are saying. I just went into this not expecting much because it was after all a comic book character. Maybe that is why I was able to enjoy the film and leave satisfied or maybe due to so much past dissapointment, I have lowered my expectations to the floor.

I won't deny the fact that I would have loved to have seen a film that met the criteria you listed.
 
Jet Beetle said:
Sorry, I wasn't ware we were grading on a curve. So there's not just "Was it a good movie?" there's also "Was it good for a comic book movie?". Gatcha.
Click to expand...

You honestly think this would be achievable with a fanboy film?
Come oooooooonnn...:lol

It is what it is. 114 minutes chock full of nerdgasms.
 
I don't buy this "it doesn't have to be great if it is about a superhero" ecscuse. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and the first X-men were also superhero films. All good film with developed characters.
 
I don't go into a comic book movie thinking it's automatically going to be B Level filmmaking. Look at Nolan's Dark Knight. A level craftsmanship in every department.
 
I saw it.

It was lacking something. But was enjoyable.

Loved the production design, was Kirby come alive for me. Especially the skies in Asgard. Makes me want to see the Negative Zone and Annihilus.

And Natalie somehow seems even more beautiful in this, if that is in fact possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Laspector
Paper Girls
Replies
0
Views
336
Laspector
Laspector
Wakeem
Is Star Trek Dying?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
10,867
publiusr
P
Astrobeej
MOTORAMA cards
Replies
1
Views
550
annanake
annanake
Sluis Van Shipyards
Are there young male action heroes in 2024?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
10,028
batguy
B
J
Help figuring out if this is a movie prop
Replies
3
Views
688
justanothere
J
Back
Top