The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Thor > Thor

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-12-2011, 01:42 AM   #26
Parker Wayne
I have an army, of Batmen
 
Parker Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 22,702
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Yeah, we can.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry78 View Post
Spielberg wanted to ground the myth of Lincoln in reality. "I wanted to say, what if this guy actually existed? What would it be like?"


Parker Wayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 04:01 AM   #27
Adamantium Man
Just Another Metal Person
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 374
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.
Anyone who denies that Hiddleston as Loki oozed charisma immediately disqualifies themselves. It's like claiming the movie was shot in black-and-white. So, yeah, I'm ignoring it.

Adamantium Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 08:27 AM   #28
GhostPoet
Side-Kick
 
GhostPoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,447
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.
No, I despise the critics system in general. Positive or negative. I think as soon as the internet became popular they lost their usefulness. Now they just take up space.

GhostPoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 08:57 AM   #29
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Sexton View Post
Ebert sometimes fails to understand the movie he's viewing. Some comments I find utterly ridiculous are:







Is he for real? I know he compares Thor to other comic book movies, but I honestly think the guy doesn't know how to separate films - particularly for what they were looking to achieve.

So many utterly stupid comments in his critique. Reading some more, I see he obviously missed how The Destroyer died and he's complaining that it didn't attack the Golden Gate Bridge ..... huh? Why would it do that? Thor was in New Mexico.

The best is he lumps Obadiah Stane in as one of the greatest CBM villains of all-time. Rigghhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.
the points he raises are valid. why is that hard to grasp? The Destroyer stuff aside.. the comments about thor and loki's characters are point on.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:03 AM   #30
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.
I like Ebert. But that review is hilarious.

He talks about Loki being bland and then says Obadiah Stane is an all-time classic comic book movie villain. And says the New Mexico town was made with CGI!

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:06 AM   #31
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamantium Man View Post
Anyone who denies that Hiddleston as Loki oozed charisma immediately disqualifies themselves. It's like claiming the movie was shot in black-and-white. So, yeah, I'm ignoring it.
Loki was intelligent... not charismatic... charisma would have been having Thor's followers become his allies... charisma is blinding people from the truth with your charms...

he was terrible in terms of charisma... he made Sif and Warriors Three even more suspicious... it was the opposite... being cunning and sly is different from being charismatic.

Have you ever watched Big Brother (Reality TV Show)... well back when it was decent.. there was a player named Dr. Will (or dubbed Dr.Evil) that lied and charmed his way to the end... he would tell absurd lies, charm the other players... go into the diary room and tell the audience he was lying... no one suspected him and they all voted for him... only to find out upon leaving that he bamboozled them... that is charm and charisma. he never won a single competition... not one... he won a reality tv show and 1/2 a million dollars by simply lying and charming his fellow players... never himself having any power but using other peoples... loki fails at charisma...

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:07 AM   #32
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
the points he raises are valid. why is that hard to grasp? The Destroyer stuff aside.. the comments about thor and loki's characters are point on.
No they aren't. They absolutely are not.

Quote:
Thor to begin with is not an interesting character. The gods of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology share the same problem, which is that what you see is what you get. They're defined by their attributes, not their personalities. Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on. Thor is a particularly limited case. What does he do? He wields a hammer. That is what he does. You don't have to be especially intelligent to wield a hammer, which is just as well, because in the film Thor (Chris Hemsworth) doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in Asgard.
There is nothing in that paragraph that is point on.

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:12 AM   #33
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
Loki was intelligent... not charismatic... charisma would have been having Thor's followers become his allies... charisma is blinding people from the truth with your charms...

he was terrible in terms of charisma... he made Sif and Warriors Three even more suspicious... it was the opposite... being cunning and sly is different from being charismatic.

Have you ever watched Big Brother (Reality TV Show)... well back when it was decent.. there was a player named Dr. Will (or dubbed Dr.Evil) that lied and charmed his way to the end... he would tell absurd lies, charm the other players... go into the diary room and tell the audience he was lying... no one suspected him and they all voted for him... only to find out upon leaving that he bamboozled them... that is charm and charisma. he never won a single competition... not one... he won a reality tv show and 1/2 a million dollars by simply lying and charming his fellow players... never himself having any power but using other peoples... loki fails at charisma...
The whole point is that Loki isn't charismatic. Thor is, Loki isn't. He wishes he were but he's not. That's the entire point of his arc in the movie, he wishes he measured to Thor and goes to extremes to prove he can but ultimately he'll never be Thor.

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:12 AM   #34
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
No they aren't. They absolutely are not.



There is nothing in that paragraph that is point on.
How is that not true. Greek gods and Norse gods are represent one key element... Thor is the film is similar...he wields the hammer and his intelligence is minimal at best... he has sudden shift in that department but its more about become calmer then about gaining wisdom.

its a fun movie... but nothing to dwell deeply into.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:14 AM   #35
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
How is that not true. Greek gods and Norse gods are represent one key element... Thor is the film is similar...he wields the hammer and his intelligence is minimal at best... he has sudden shift in that department but its more about become calmer then about gaining wisdom.

its a fun movie... but nothing to dwell deeply into.
Nope, his intelligence is never minimal. Patience, sure. But he is well aware that he doesn't fit in amongst his surroundings on Earth. He is never once portrayed as stupid.

Whether you should dwell deeply or not is not relevant in terms of Ebert's review being absurd.

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:15 AM   #36
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
The whole point is that Loki isn't charismatic. Thor is, Loki isn't. He wishes he were but he's not. That's the entire point of his arc in the movie, he wishes he measured to Thor and goes to extremes to prove he can but ultimately he'll never be Thor.
yes. which is what i said... intelligent but not charismatic... he is like a poor makes Casey Affleck from The Assassination of Jesse James... they play a similar role.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:16 AM   #37
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.
Absolutely.

But I have read him saying ignorant crap many times now. And the only thing more useless than his reviews is to discuss them.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:17 AM   #38
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
Nope, his intelligence is never minimal. Patience, sure. But he is well aware that he doesn't fit in amongst his surroundings on Earth. He is never once portrayed as stupid.

Whether you should dwell deeply or not is not relevant in terms of Ebert's review being absurd.
I am talking about the intelligence he showed before being banished... intelligence means analyzing an action before taking it... thor fails to do that... but allows his emotions to cloud his judgement.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:19 AM   #39
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
yes. which is what i said... intelligent but not charismatic... he is like a poor makes Casey Affleck from The Assassination of Jesse James... they play a similar role.
Sure, but that doesn't mean the character doesn't leave a lasting impression. Ebert says he didn't think anything of Loki 6 minutes after the movie was over, and uses the lack of charisma as a reason. I suppose charisma is the only character trait worth mentioning or portraying on film?

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:21 AM   #40
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
I am talking about the intelligence he showed before being banished... intelligence means analyzing an action before taking it... thor fails to do that... but allows his emotions to cloud his judgement.
No, that is not what intelligence is. Intelligence has to do with analyzing and understanding the world around you. Many, many intelligent people allow their emotions to cloud their judgement. That is a very human trait.

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:25 AM   #41
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
Sure, but that doesn't mean the character doesn't leave a lasting impression. Ebert says he didn't think anything of Loki 6 minutes after the movie was over, and uses the lack of charisma as a reason. I suppose charisma is the only character trait worth mentioning or portraying on film?
The thing about loki is that he sends mixed signals and he doesn't really achieve anything of caliber... Joker killed of several key figures in Gotham, destroyed Harvey Dent and killed Rachael... his actions you can remember... but loki's biggest crime is failing to destroy the planet of the frost giants... had he done something drastic like killed odin or allowed the frost giants to do it... than that would be lasting... but right now... its kinda like, well everything he tried failed and all is well.

so i guess in that sense he is quite unremarkable.. but is Tom's performance is very good. I enjoyed it... Loki as a villain was nothing remarkable.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:29 AM   #42
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by moe View Post
The thing about loki is that he sends mixed signals and he doesn't really achieve anything of caliber... Joker killed of several key figures in Gotham, destroyed Harvey Dent and killed Rachael... his actions you can remember... but loki's biggest crime is failing to destroy the planet of the frost giants... had he done something drastic like killed odin or allowed the frost giants to do it... than that would be lasting... but right now... its kinda like, well everything he tried failed and all is well.

so i guess in that sense he is quite unremarkable.. but is Tom's performance is very good. I enjoyed it... Loki as a villain was nothing remarkable.
What did Luthor accomplish in any of the Superman movies? What did Stane accomplish in Iron Man? What did Ock accomplish in Spider-Man 2? All had plots that failed, like Loki's. Yet Ebert lists them as classic comic book movie villains while at the same time condemning Loki. There's an incongruity there.

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:30 AM   #43
Franklin Richards
Banned User
 
Franklin Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Baxter Building
Posts: 23,030
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

As unremarkable as Iago or Judas or Keyser Soze. Not all villains need to twirl their moustaches. Such a heavy handed, ham-fisted approach is not better by any means.

I call ********.



Franklin Richards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:34 AM   #44
moe
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 550
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
What did Luthor accomplish in any of the Superman movies? What did Stane accomplish in Iron Man? What did Ock accomplish in Spider-Man 2? All had plots that failed, like Loki's. Yet Ebert lists them as classic comic book movie villains while at the same time condemning Loki. There's an incongruity there.
true. i guess he just didn't enjoy Tom's performance...because with loki, it comes down to whether you enjoyed the performance... ebert's probably has seen way too many movies and his neurons no longer want to erase older memories to replace new ones so they only perform that task when he sees something he loves.

moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 11:44 AM   #45
Batz
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 130
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

My review (with some spoilers) :

http://retcon-nation.blogspot.com/20...or-review.html

__________________
Not everything... not yet.

@reece_bird
Batz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 11:48 AM   #46
Whiskey Tango
Side-Kick
 
Whiskey Tango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 18,978
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Roger has been hit or miss for years now. Sometimes he writes good clear reviews and whether he liked the movie or not doesn't matter. But other times he's completely off the mark and veering off into nonsensical territory and you wonder if he actually watched the thing.

__________________

2007-2008 SHH Pro Football Pick 'Em Champion
Whiskey Tango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 11:53 AM   #47
The Morningstar
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The place in between...
Posts: 10,151
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

I agree. I've read a few of Eberts reviews in the last couple of years and actually sat there, scratched my head, and genuinely questioned whether he even watched the movie.

I haven't read his review of Thor yet, but what is he saying about Loki? I honestly don't know how anyone in their right mind can not be impressed with the Loki character. It's just extremely nonsensical.

The Morningstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 12:02 PM   #48
Tony Stark
Armored Avenger!
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a cave with a box of scraps
Posts: 7,774
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

I normally like Ebert's reviews and generally tend to agree with him on movies 85-90% of the time. This review is just strange thought because there is no indication from the review that he actually watched the movie.

He didn't like it? OK, I can live with that, he didn't like the original Spider-man either. But from his review it's clear that any movie based on Norse/Greek or Roman mythology is going to be bad because they're not interesting characters? Despite what he thought of Thor, that is flat out wrong.

Oh well, life goes on.

Tony Stark is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 12:02 PM   #49
Hunter Rider
Ronin
SHH! Administrator
 
Hunter Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Camp Manuel
Posts: 136,781
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

I saw it today and loved it, I had never read a Thor book before and only know the character from The Avengers and the odd appearance in other characters books/toons, so I can't vouch for source material faithfulness but as a movie I thought it was great.

I felt the balance between Earth and Asgard was perfectly balanced from both a visual and storytelling standpoint, which was a big key to the film's success. The other was the casting which was flawless, especially Thor himself, Hemsworth is undoubtedly going to be a big star and made Thor every bit the hero god he should be, and Hiddleston was superb as Loki, one of the most interesting of recent villains, a sneaky, manipulative trickster with a viscous streak and a genuine grudge.

The central relationships between Thor and Odin, Loki and Jane were all really well played, they felt tangible and the chemistry between the actors brought each dynamic to life.

The costumes and sets were excellent, the depiction of Asgard was stunning, it just felt like a magical place, a futuristic Camelot if you like, and the Frost Giants planet was conversely fearsomely bleak and foreboding.

The action was decent without being outstanding, however the heart heroism and even humour of Thor's journey, along with the magic of Asgard really captured me, great stuff!

8.5/10

__________________
thinkmcflythink.com
Movie fans, hop in your Delorean and check it out!

"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

Hunter Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 12:12 PM   #50
WildcatNC
I'm on a BOAT ***** !
 
WildcatNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lexington, NC
Posts: 3,077
Default Re: The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_b View Post
if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.

We can when he comes off as completely ignorant of what he's talking about. He's been generally out of touch for a while now and needs to give it up. Its not just about this movie either.

If he had made criticism that even remotely made sense you could take it seriously. His rambling was very off base and showed that he didn't even watch half the movie, nor even give it a chance from the outset.

__________________
Bi-Winning since 1978
WildcatNC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.