The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

[Figs]

Although I heavily disagree with a lot of what Ebert said, the main thing I call BS on is when he tries to say Loki is a subpar/bad villian and actually uses Lex Luthor as an example of a good villian. That was kind of laughable.

[Tony Stark]

One other point about Ebert's review. The 7-11 cups and all of that. They did that for all the other Marvel Studios films and just about every summer action flick out there, there is some kind of promotion. Why does he bring it up here?

I realize this is not an official review, as it's not even on his rogerebert.com site, but rather his blog as a response to why he didn't write a review. Perhaps that accounts for the strangeness. I'm not going to be too hard on the guy, because I admire his tenacity to keep doing what he enjoys doing despite facing great adversity in his life.

Still I'm not going to treat him the same as I would anyone else that wrote something as non-sensicle as that. If you didn't like the movie then lay out your criticisms, don't bring excess baggage that has nothing to do with the movie.

[WildcatNC]

Originally Posted by supraman

also saw this on another forum what do you guys think?

I missed that somehow before. THAT is ridiculous. I feel sorry for people like that. Like walking around completely free yet in chains, albeit mental chains.


Sad.

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by Figs

Although I heavily disagree with a lot of what Ebert said, the main thing I call BS on is when he tries to say Loki is a subpar/bad villian and actually uses Lex Luthor as an example of a good villian. That was kind of laughable.

Which again leads me to believe he didn't see the movie or perhaps slept through it.

What amazes me is how he missed such a superb acting job by Hiddleston. Playing someone who is the master of deception, is alot harder than playing an out and out psychotic.

[The Morningstar]

So what was his actual beef with Loki? That he wasn't just out and out evil?

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by moe

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.

Joker's ultimate goal was to kill the cruise ships with the victims pulling the trigger; that was his master plan, and he failed. Yes, he destroyed Harvey Dent by disfiguring him, but that wasn't intentional. When you think about it, all the villains in the superhero movies failed in the end, but this is why the heroes could save the day because the villains didn't succeed. This is why your criticism of Loki seems rather biased.

[The Morningstar]

I think to simply categorize Loki as a villain is doing the character a disservice and showing a lack of understanding. In both the way he was written and the way he was acted.

This is the origin of Loki, the villain, as much as it is the origin of Thor, the hero. This was Loki's fall, just as much as it was Thor's rise. Loki is just not an out and out villain yet.

Ergo, criticizing Loki for not being villainous enough and not really achieving anything with his villainy is asinine.

(I watched Matrix Reloaded the other day, sue me, I like that word )

[RockSP]

Originally Posted by dark_b

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.

Uh...yes you can.

I mean I personally don't care what any critic says about a movie. I see or don't see what I want to. But it's silly to think you can't agree with a critic about one movie and disagree with him about another.

[Mercurius]

Originally Posted by Figs

Although I heavily disagree with a lot of what Ebert said, the main thing I call BS on is when he tries to say Loki is a subpar/bad villian and actually uses Lex Luthor as an example of a good villian. That was kind of laughable.

I thought Ebert only had problems with understanding complex movies, like Mulholland Drive and Antichrist (his reviews of both are absolutely moronic), but now I see he has serious problems understanding ANY kind of movie.

[The Morningstar]

What was wrong with his review of Mulholland Drive? He gave it 4 stars. And that movie can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, so i don't know what you mean by him not understanding it.

[kedrell]

When a professional critic of his stature lowers himself to complaining about how well the film he doesn't like is doing on RT then you know he's kinda lost it and is just upset that most others liked a film that he didn't. I've never seen him do this before and it's a sorry comment on where he is now as opposed to where he used to be.

[Tony Stark]

He also gave a bad review to Star Trek, and his review was that it wasn't like the TV show. Sometimes his reviews are spot on and funny. His most famous being is review for the film "North" with a young Elijah Woods where he was famously quoted "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie." but he actually backed up why he hated it, with sound logical arguments.

His review of Star Trek seemed to confuse me, but he made a lot more sense than he made in this blog post. As I said, I'm a little skeptical on if he actually saw the movie. He writes a review on the total flop of a Mel Gibson movie that only made $100,000 in it's opening week, but he doesn't review Thor?

I think he didn't want to see the movie, didn't and didn't write a review, and this "review" is just a rant on why he didn't want to see the movie. Keep in mind this is not a review, it's not on his website even though it's on RT. This is a blog post.

[kedrell]

I don't mind Ebert not likeing a movie I do or vice versa. Dear God, if I had a dime for every time I disagreed with the man I'd have.....well, a s***load of dimes. He's entitled to his opinion.

What suprised me was bringing the RT score into it. That's just sinking to a new low for him.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I don't mind Ebert not likeing a movie I do or vice versa. Dear God, if I had a dime for every time I disagreed with the man I'd have.....well, a s***load of dimes. He's entitled to his opinion.

What suprised me was bringing the RT score into it. That's just sinking to a new low for him.

I agree. Why should Ebert care what other critics think? It just seems like he knew he is in the minority re: his opinion of Thor and so he rants about it. Seems to me he has become more petty and incoherent as years passed.

[Tony Stark]

What floors me is how he gives 3 out of 5 stars to Fast 5 and rants against this? Serioulsy? I mean I liked Fast 5, but Thor is superior in pretty much every way possible.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by dark_b

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.

Has nothing to do with it. He couldn't even keep elements of the story straight and his complaints about the characters being forgettable? Really? I mean REALLLLLY?

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by Adamantium Man

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.

Bingo ....

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by moe

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.

Only if you're blind and deaf Obadiah.

[The Morningstar]

After reading it, it's abundantly clear he's either basing this "critique" on the trailers (as the only things he actually goes into real detail about are seen in the trailers) or he wasn't actually paying attention to the movie.

Saying things like "Odin is there doing things what Odin does" or something like that is just... what?

Saying things like "why didn't the big robot thing blow up the Golden Gate Bridge", when it is made blatantly obvious that it is sent to destroy Thor is a true indication of how jaded the man is. His inherant bias is just blinding.

Also he keeps referencing the myths, completely oblivious to the fact this movie isn't based on the myths. And it's pretty obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about there either, saying that Asgard is a place on Earth.

His comments about Thor having no personality and just being a guy with a hammer? Seriously? Thor very much has a personality. He's an arrogant, war mongering, man child at the start of the film. Same with his comments about Loki. Forgettable? Really?

At the end of the day he's just a man with an opinion. If he slated the film, but actually did so in a professional, intelligent manner, I really wouldn't have a problem. I've disagreed with him many times on his thoughts of a movie. It's no big deal.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by Raiden

I agree. Why should Ebert care what other critics think? It just seems like he knew he is in the minority re: his opinion of Thor and so he rants about it. Seems to me he has become more petty and incoherent as years passed.

I've noticed that .... when he's in the minority his sharp tongue comes lashing out more. He protests too hard.

[hatebox]

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet. It's basically positive, once you read past the first half:

http://videogum.com/302042/verily-th...s/top-stories/

[The Morningstar]

I don't see how Loki, Thor or Odin are two dimensional characters... at all. I think calling Loki even three dimensional is an insult to the character.

But it was a funny review.

[J.Howlett]

Yeah, Ebert's off his rocker on that review.

Having seen the film a third time yesterday (I'm Thor's ***** right now), one thing caught my attention and frankly, it's very welcoming.

By name checking Bruce Banner in the film, this films pretty much puts the nail in the coffin, for me, on the Incredible Hulk being apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Because of the recast, this film technically introduces me to Bruce Banner. And I'm almost positive the Avengers will do a real introduction of Ruffalo as Banner within the film so general audiences know what the deal is.

So, I thank Thor for introducing Banner in the continuity from here on out.

Yeah, I'm that jaded about the recast. Frankly, it was dumb.

[dnno1]

Thor actually got a pretty good review from the US Catholic Bishops. That's surprising since he is a pagan god.

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Joker's ultimate goal was to kill the cruise ships with the victims pulling the trigger; that was his master plan, and he failed. Yes, he destroyed Harvey Dent by disfiguring him, but that wasn't intentional. When you think about it, all the villains in the superhero movies failed in the end, but this is why the heroes could save the day because the villains didn't succeed. This is why your criticism of Loki seems rather biased.

well ebert loved watchmen(as did i) and the villain won so lol