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

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by dnno1

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

I'm actually curious if the Pope liked it. He has seen other movies and commented on them.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by 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.

That seems to be the issue here with some of the reviews of Thor. There was nothing wrong with it from a plot or techincal standpoint. It was a beautifully shot film, with great acting, a rousing soundtrack, and an easy to follow plot. What more do people really expect or want in a movie like this?

It's obvious that many people are just bitter individuals that don't like to see other people happy and have personal biases that cloud their judgement. I spewed venom at Avatar for it's blatant, stupid political themes but I never, ever would deny it was a good movie. We live in a culture of haters and it's sad what we have become.

[Rock Sexton]

Ebert is getting reamed on his owned blog by 90% of the user comments. I love it.

I especially loved Jay Cool's comment: "You are and old man and a fool." Hahaha ..... Ebert actually responded to it in serious fashion too. What a tool.

LOL this comment on there by Richard Lee was good too ....

The vehement hatred that pours out of the computer screen; an almost unrelentless assault on the latest comic-to-film Marvel MacHero deemed too stodgy and one dimensional. Behold, Bile Man arises!

[Bren]

Just read it. A mostly big ball of rubbish, very little there that shows a proper critique of the film. I doubt he was paying attention at all.

The only thing I can understand (and even partly agree with) is about 'the end of the taming of the Thor'. Which was quite funny too.

[S.A.A.D.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really?

[blksuperman2]

Saw Thor this past weekend and I was really really impressed. I rarely see movies twice in the theater but I may see it again this weekend. I can't think of a single character that I didn't like. I almost wish they'd do another Thor movie before doing Avengers 'cause the cast was so spot on.

[A Necessary Evil]

Once again, ebert proves why i don't listen to him

[Project862006]

Hey Ebert Thor has a few Words For You:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Wolvieboy17]

Ebert is so outdated. The man lost all credibility in my eyes with his 'Video Games will never be art' article, where his argument was that a video game could never be classified as an art form because it's based ONLY on winning and scoring points. Seriously, thats like saying you only watch films to get to the end of them.

Really though, it hardly matters what he says. He's only renowned as a critic because he was the critical voice of a generation in cinema. He is no longer that voice and cinema and his views are largely outdated. What people want from cinema has changed and warped, and people like him judge everything from an old frame of view, claiming anything within that perview to be 'high art' and anything outside of it to be garbage. Idiot.

[Marvel]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

Ebert is getting reamed on his owned blog by 90% of the user comments. I love it.

I especially loved Jay Cool's comment: "You are and old man and a fool." Hahaha ..... Ebert actually responded to it in serious fashion too. What a tool.

LOL this comment on there by Richard Lee was good too ....

Honestly, the man is bitter at life and has every reason to be. I cut him slack based on that. He can't even eat any more and I find that profoundly sad. If he wants to lash out at a popular film, God bless him. Let him have at it.

[Figs]

You guys are taking the Ebert hate a bit too far. I didn't agree with his opinions on Thor, but I don't think he's that out of touch as some of you do.

I loved the movie, he obviously didn't, life goes on.

[S.A.A.D.]

Ebert ruining his reputation was his own undoing.

[Spade]

Okay movie with some good parts. Hiddleston stole the show; best portrayal of a Marvel villain to date. I liked the camera moves, until the topside/under transition and tilted shots got as overused as slow mo in a Snyder movie. The only memorable Earth scene was after the credits. Asgard was beautiful, but its living spaces felt empty. The Warriors Three were better at what they did than all the other forced attempts at humor and romance. Hawkeye deserved more to do.

Slightly exceeded my expectations with how well Loki turned out. Don't know if I'd watch it again, but it was a fun flight at the theater, and I'd suggest it to others.

[Wolvieboy17]

I'm not criticising Ebert as a Thor fan being defensive, i've just found him increasingly more and more ignorant of anything considered popular by Gen Y. He seems to have a problem with anything I like, across video games, tv shows and movies, and i'm not one of those mindless consumers, I put just as much care and thought into each thing I watch, play and read as he does. Sure i'm not a 'renowned critic' like he is, but as a critic he needs to be objective. The problem with any critic or journalist getting recognition or becoming a known figure, is they begin to editorialise more and more because they're playing to an audience rather than stay objective in your assessments. Roger Ebert has been ruined by his own status. It's not just his fault, it's like every time he writes a review on a big movie, other websites will post "This is what Roger Ebert has to say" and it's like his writing has become more self conscious of that fact.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Figs

You guys are taking the Ebert hate a bit too far. I didn't agree with his opinions on Thor, but I don't think he's that out of touch as some of you do.

I loved the movie, he obviously didn't, life goes on.

I agree, though I can't help but think that Ebert's outdated, especially considering his belief that Video Games isn't art (which I find really insulting).

[Wolvieboy17]

Totally agree Parker. To dismiss an entire media form as invalid is just shameful for a critic. It was nothing personal or subjective, he was posing it all as fact. Not only have I played many brilliantly games with immersive worlds and narratives but i've also watched web series that are infinitely more refined as art forms than many of the 'films' we've had to endure in recent years. Hell, i've even seen some contemporary art in my time that is less like art than some video games.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I like Roger Ebert, but i've hated his opinions on certain films and his opinions on the horror genre. I guess he's never heard of seeing a horror film for agood time, and nOT just for a gripping story. I don't like his opinion on Thor, but that's just the way it is, I guess.

[Mercurius]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can give it 20 stars, if I don't understand rat's ass, it means nothing.

He couldn't understand the mirror structure of the first in the second part, the relationship of dream and reality. A really poor review. Lynch's movie is not a surreal thing, it is a very precise mechanism of correspondences.

E. isn't intelligent, he's just a man who watches everything. It doesn't make you automatically a good, or particularly sharp critic.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just got back from seeing this and thought it was brilliant, I think it is the most enjoyable Marvel movie yet and possibly the best as well.

The acting was pretty damn good accross the board, Hemsworth and Hiddlestone REALLY impressed me and though I know little of the character and his world, I am now interested to learn more, which surely shows that the movie did its job.

Thought the action was great, although The Destroyer fight was over far too quickly for my liking, I would have preferred a fully powered Thor to throw down a bit with it before he actually finished it off, but that was seriously my only dissapointment with the movie, I really hope we get a sequel to this as I cant wait to see more from character and I dont think even Avengers will satiate that want.

9/10.

[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.

[Rock Sexton]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ya it saddened me to hear Selvig give that line about Banner .... I could hear the flushing sound in regards to all that happened with TIH.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

TIH still felt in continuity with that line to me, he said the scientist was never heard from again, so TIH was probably happening at the same time as Thor.

[moe]

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.

no, i said that his actions left no lasting effects... not that he succeeded as a villain... which is true. he was a pretty average villain and was helped in large part due to the fact that thor was acting like a prepubescent child at the start of the movie... he just had to have his candy.

[J.Howlett]

Jamon,

It's not whether or not TIH is in continuity or not, because technically it is. But, for anyone who saw the recasting of Banner as sort of Marvel's acknowledgment that they're discarding TIH, name checking Banner in Thor is basically his first introduction in the Marvel Cinematic Universe....

Recasting Banner isn't the same thing as recasting Rhodey.

Basically, you can accept TIH like most fans have or you can ignore it and choose this film and the Avengers as his proper introduction, because of the recasting.

Personally, I don't like the film so having Selvig name check him was perfect.

For my money, the Marvel Cinematic Universe goes Captain America The First Avenger (if it works as a film), Iron Man, and Thor...leading to the Avengers. And yes, I left out Iron Man 2 for a reason.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by J.Howlett

Jamon,

It's not whether or not TIH is in continuity or not, because technically it is. But, for anyone who saw the recasting of Banner as sort of Marvel's acknowledgment that they're discarding TIH, name checking Banner in Thor is basically his first introduction in the Marvel Cinematic Universe....

Recasting Banner isn't the same thing as recasting Rhodey.

Basically, you can accept TIH like most fans have or you can ignore it and choose this film and the Avengers as his proper introduction, because of the recasting.

Personally, I don't like the film so having Selvig name check him was perfect.

For my money, the Marvel Cinematic Universe goes Captain America The First Avenger (if it works as a film), Iron Man, and Thor...leading to the Avengers. And yes, I left out Iron Man 2 for a reason.

I think with TIH footage shown at the end of IM2 along with the Thor after credits scene shows that TIH is in continuity, really sucks Norton wont be back though.