Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (9834.1)
    Saw this yesterday: it's irritating that the 2D version is so hard to track down, especially given how the cinemas here charge like wounded fucking bulls for 3D sessions. Anyhow, though there are some quibbles to be had, on the whole it was a fun film and the 2 hrs fairly raced past.

    I think they could and should have made better use of language than they did. A review by someone largely unfamiliar with the comic suggested that since they'd tap Branagh to direct, the Asgard scenes should have come across as more Shakespearean, which amused me given the comics have them generally speaking in a much more formal manner/meter. It's a good idea, but I can see how people might have trouble with the idea.

    In which case there should have been a line/exposition that the Asgardians either are fluent in all languages or that it's a property of Bifrost that like the TARDIS it gives you the gift of speaking and understanding the language of where it takes you. A scene with the exiled Thor conversing in fluent spanish with someone, for instance.

    My only other complaint is that the exile was FAR too brief. Falling for Jane and learning his Important Life Lesson takes only a couple of days, and that just isn't satisfying. There really needed to be a sense of weightiness to the exile, of the mighty and arrogant thunderer struggling to learn sorely needed humility and earning the love of the brilliant mortal into whose orbit he has been thrust. Similarly, Jane felt underutilised as a character.

    That aside, I liked the way they played Loki here. He's so often the cackling villain that understatement suits him well, as does that sense of loss and rage as his identity is destroyed and he struggles to rebuild it in the only manner he knows how. I was expecting him to embrace his lost ice giant herritage, but the fact he didn't and instead sort to ground himself in the world he'd grown up in was a nice twist.

    I'm a little thrown by the post credit sequence. Is Skaarsgard's character meant to be familiar to us? I mean, he clearly seems to be referring to Bruce, but why is it him that Fury shows what I presume to be the Cosmic Cube to, and why does it sound like he's been a mole in Jane's group?

    Also, nice Hawkeye cameo.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2011
     (9834.2)
    BUT HOW IS TADANOBU ASANO IN IT?
    (he's pretty much the only reason I want to watch the film. Have had a crush on him since Ichi the Killer)
    • CommentAuthorJamie Heron
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2011 edited
     (9834.3)
    The fact that there was a relationship at all was what seemed odd to me. Hardly developed at all and suddenly he's promising to return to her? And she's out looking for him? Probably to do with the timing of it all, but yeah, that part of it was off.

    As to the ending, that character was being possessed by Loki, which means he is essentially a mole in Janes group (they find out that Thor is returning, Loki freaks out and tries to knock the Hulk his way??) but I think the only reason they mentioned Banner earlier on was so you get an idea for how serious SHIELD is if you haven't seen any of the other movies. And suddenly I get where you're going with the mole thing, maybe Fury just contacted him because Fury knew he'd been around crazy shit by now, and trusted him? Gah, now I'm confused, thanks!

    @oldhat: Well he's there, and he fights, and uh, that's about it. Him, Volstag and the other one? And Lady Sif. They don't do much except look pretty and fight, and get saved by Thor. THe lot of them seemed more like comic relief to be honest. That or cannon fodder.
  2.  (9834.4)
    The Warriors 3 & Sif are there basically to serve as the illustration of Thor's change in attitude. Act I they get hurt and Thor's not that concerned because he's having so much fun killing giants (though one would read into it that he's covering their escape and is confident of their ability to extract themselves rather than just being a heedless jerk), Act II they get hurt and Thor's now all self-sacrificing nobility to save them
  3.  (9834.5)
    Yeah, that's true, but as characters they seemed slightly less developed than Jane's intern (who's name I can't even remember!) Not that this was a bad thing, they're there, and they're fun to watch, and as you say, they help Thor develop as a character, but it would be nice to get a bit more out of them.

    WHo am I kidding? I loved the movie a lot, but I guess I'm just bitter that Idris Elba didn't get more screentime...
    • CommentAuthorTAL
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2011
     (9834.6)
    I saw it today. It looked good and I enjoyed what it was. Having never read a Thor comic, it didn't really mean much to me.
  4.  (9834.7)
    Yeah.... I'm saying it was shit. The relationship developed out of nowhere, Loki had a personality transplant halfway through, they referenced him as a "trickster" but NO ACTUAL TRICKSTERING OCCURRED, The film took place in less locations than fingers on my hand, the 3D effects were rubbish, and the whole film felt like "THE AVENGERS IS GONNA BE AWESOME.... oh shit... we forgot about Thor, what shall we do? I know let's do (insert crappy idea here that fulfils all necessary criteria for it to be passable and to set the scene for the Avengers).... yeah it looks about right, we'll do that. And there's some Ice Giants. OK get who you can and we'll go for it"....

    /rant over.
  5.  (9834.8)
    I really realy liked it.
    • CommentAuthorGordon
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2011
     (9834.9)
    Saw it at the weekend and it turned out to be a lot better (and a lot funnier!) than I expected it to be. Hemsworth makes for a great and very endearing Thor and there's some exciting action scenes. It won't shake up the genre, but it's an enjoyable way to spend two hours and a lot better than the putrid dross that was Wolverine, Iron Man 2 etc.
    • CommentAuthorRyan C
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2011
     (9834.10)
    I have a 5 year old nephew who is crazy for Marvel. He sat through Iron Man 1 & 2(even saying he felt Iron Man 1 was better) just fine but I previewed them in the theater before sitting with him at home. This would be a hard question for adults but is there any reason, besides violence and language, that is is PG-13? Basically, is there any truly horrific monsters that could cause nightmares? He can handle robots fighting but truly disgusting monsters could keep him up at night. Thanks for your help.
    • CommentAuthorPablo
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2011 edited
     (9834.11)
    I liked it a lot. It was good fun. It does have some issues, probably related to the script, but the movie's propped up pretty well by the charm of all the characters and actors involved.

    I have a 5 year old nephew who is crazy for Marvel. He sat through Iron Man 1 & 2(even saying he felt Iron Man 1 was better) just fine but I previewed them in the theater before sitting with him at home. This would be a hard question for adults but is there any reason, besides violence and language, that is is PG-13? Basically, is there any truly horrific monsters that could cause nightmares? He can handle robots fighting but truly disgusting monsters could keep him up at night. Thanks for your he

    Well, the most common monsters are the frost giants. To give you a bit of an idea of how they look, here's Colm Feore as their king:



    They don't all look exactly like that, I think the rest are a bit softer in appearance. But he's the one who appears the most, and he does it a lot.
    • CommentAuthorRyan C
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2011
     (9834.12)
    Thanks so much! That's no worse than his dead beat Dad so we should be fine. Looks like I'm seeing Thor.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCat Vincent
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2011 edited
     (9834.13)
    I enjoyed it well enough - the BIGNESS of it felt like the right scale for a war of gods, though Ken Branagh really needs to lose his Dutch Angle fetish!

    Trouble is, I saw Hanna straight after, which blew it away.
  6.  (9834.14)
    I thought it was o.k. but was lacking something alot of the Marvel films have nailed, the personality. I thought Loki was awesome,
    I have a full review on my blog blog if anyone cares to read more. Cant wait for the Avengers.
  7.  (9834.15)
    OK, so I read plenty of Marvel comics but I actually really dislike Thor. I'm not a fan of all the Norse/Viking mythological stuff, generally speaking, and I also don't care for muscle-bound freaks, so I think that's why I don't like Thor.

    Having said that, I thought the movie was pretty darn good. Here's what I didn't like:

    1) I agree with previous commenters in this thread: his exile should've lasted longer. The extremely brief bonding moment with Skaarsgard's character in the bar also could've used some work.
    2) There was a sense of "weightiness" to the fighting and weapons, but I never felt like anyone was ever really getting beat up due to a lack of damaged clothing/makeup. Also, the Thor/Loki fight toward the end was pretty weak...they had to cut the camera to make the action go by quicker like in Carradine's Kung Fu TV show. They were trying to fight in those crazy bulky costumes and I don't think it worked.
    3) I also agree that we could've seen more of Loki's trickster side. I know his personality from the comics, but someone unfamiliar with the comics wouldn't have a good idea of that side of him.

    Without saying a bunch of "me too!" stuff that other people have already mentioned, these are some things I liked:

    1) There are some beautiful women in this movie and they never go out of their way to do that cliched "look at me do something sexy" thing. Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings, and Jaimie Alexander are all beautiful. Also, Rene Russo isn't in the movie much but she's still got it...I might rewatch The Thomas Crown Affair now...
    2) Even though Loki's trickster stuff wasn't showcased very much, I thought he was a very well-done character and Tom Hiddleston should be applauded.
    3) Marvel is doing a good job tying the characters' movies together in preparation for The Avengers without it seeming like they're trying too hard. A government entity would've shown up to investigate the hammer anyway, so having it be SHIELD doesn't seem out of place.

    Well, I won't drone on any more. I liked it...still could've been slightly better but it's much better than some of Marvel's other offerings like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Iron Man II.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNeila
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2011
     (9834.16)
    I just saw Thor and liked it a lot. I'm a fan of Norse mythology, and don't know a good deal about the comics so it was interesting to see the more comic book versions of the characters. I liked that they had Odin's horse in it, albeit briefly. I loved the bit where Thor's friends are looking through the window/door at him, "we found you! :D"
    •  
      CommentAuthorFauxhammer
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
     (9834.17)
    I was a major Simonson-era Thor fan, and this movie pressed all my buttons. Loved it.
  8.  (9834.18)
    I was completely surprised how they managed in a very minimalistic manner to completely make Thor a thousand times more masculine than Wolverine.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOOP
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
     (9834.19)
    It was good fun. Stringer Bell as Heimdall? Genius.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVaehling
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
     (9834.20)
    Totally agree on the 'more exile' part, just to see more of Thor's goofiness. That really sold the character for me. Also, the drama would have worked better.