Critics Reviews for T:TDW

[Rock Sexton]

Devin Faraci of BadassDigest loves the film. That tells me all I need to know, since he hate the first one so much.

Is there a better cut of Thor: The Dark World out there? It feels like there could be, but this cut is pretty damn fun on its own. As someone who truly dislikes the first Thor (I recently tried to rewatch the Blu and had to turn it off after 45 minutes because I was so irritated and bored), Thor: The Dark World kept me smiling and - more than once - cheering. Obviously much of the groundwork that made those reactions possible came from the first Thor, but Thor: The Dark World is a movie that understands why we like these characters, how they work and how to best bounce them off each other. It could have been ten minutes longer (it’s already clocking in at an hour and fifty minutes, to be fair), but I’ll forgive the overclocked pacing because the movie swept me so perfectly into a big, weird world. A big, weird world I’m excited to revisit in theaters.

For more of his review: http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/01/thor-the-dark-world-movie-review-a-cosmic-fun-too-fast-sequel/

 

[kedrell]

I agree with Faraci as much as I disagree with him so anything he ever says really doesn't help me much at all. I agree with Drew McWeeny a tad more though when it comes to AICN alum. But I've never found a reviewer I can agree with more than 2/3 of the time anyway.

 

[Mjölnir]

I have to say that I laughed when I saw a reviewer on RT say "hokum for overgrown kids, accessorized with daft dialogue" about TDW, only to then see that it was the kindest words he had for a superhero movie this year. Not a big CBM fan. t:

 

[kedrell]

You see to me when you get a guy like that who is clearly biased against the genre I end up wondering why he even bothered reviewing the film. Maybe he wanted to bring the RT score down, hell..I dunno. But as far as I'm concerned, if you are a paid professional reviewer you should go into every movie you see with an open mind and if you can't manage that then get another job, or at the very least recognize that bias within yourself and recuse yourself from having to do the review. Judges do it all the time when they have a conflict of interest in a case they are working on.

 

[Vartha]

What I don't get a lot of the time with these so called critics is WHY they even SEE a film if they don't like the genre?

 

[Mysteryman]

I dont think that they get to choose.
Its their job to see movies.
They are assigned movies to see.

 

[DOOZlovesBOOZ]

You see to me when you get a guy like that who is clearly biased against the genre I end up wondering why he even bothered reviewing the film. Maybe he wanted to bring the RT score down, hell..I dunno. But as far as I'm concerned, if you are a paid professional reviewer you should go into every movie you see with an open mind and if you can't manage that then get another job, or at the very least recognize that bias within yourself and recuse yourself from having to do the review. Judges do it all the time when they have a conflict of interest in a case they are working on.

There is so much awesomeness in this post! The reviewer should be aware of their biases and excuse themselves from the assignment. It is also partially the company's fault. They should recognize when one of their writers has showed repetitive ill-will to a genre and replace them with someone who is more objective.

 

[Vartha]

I dont think that they get to choose.
Its their job to see movies.
They are assigned movies to see.

like That has been mentioned above you should either excuse yourself from an assignment or at the very least make it known you aren't a fan of the genre you're about to report on.
Like I've said, I'd rather read reviews (good and Bad) from FANS of the Genre over any Critic

 

[Mysteryman]

Not all film critics hate the genre
Ebert was a fan of Superhero films for example

 

[DarthSkywalker]

like That has been mentioned above you should either excuse yourself from an assignment or at the very least make it known you aren't a fan of the genre you're about to report on.
Like I've said, I'd rather read reviews (good and Bad) from FANS of the Genre over any Critic

No matter the genre, these are films. Personally believe no matter the genre, films should be discussed on the basic levels of film.

 

[Vartha]

Yeah I know, I didn't say they were all bad, I said MOST don't like Superhero Films. I would still rather go by what the fans say

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah I know, I didn't say they were all bad, I said MOST don't like Superhero Films. I would still rather go by what the fans say

The fans, who tend to love things based on their own fandom? Isn't that just as disingenuous as one who doesn't necessarily like the genre?

 

[Vartha]

The fans, who tend to love things based on their own fandom? Isn't that just as disingenuous as one who doesn't necessarily like the genre?

Well I look at it like they KNOW about the characters or close enough to make a judgement over the film weather it's biased or not I would rather read between the lines on several fan reviews than a single critic

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well I look at it like they KNOW about the characters or close enough to make a judgement over the film weather it's biased or not I would rather read between the lines on several fan reviews than a single critic

Character is only one part of a film. How a film works on the basic levels is every bit as important when it comes to reviewing a film imo. Fan reviews dismiss these things all the time.

It is cool if they get the character right, but it the film doesn't work, that matters for me.

 

[Mysteryman]

If the critic is respectful to the film and fair to the character then ,I dont care if he doesnt have an encyclopedic knowledge of the comic book in question.

 

[Mysteryman]

Character is only one part of a film. How a film works on the basic levels is every bit as important when it comes to reviewing a film imo. Fan reviews dismiss these things all the time.

It is cool if they get the character right, but it the film doesn't work, that matters for me.

Agreed .
You said it better than I could .

 

[Vartha]

Character is only one part of a film. How a film works on the basic levels is every bit as important when it comes to reviewing a film imo. Fan reviews dismiss these things all the time.

It is cool if they get the character right, but it the film doesn't work, that matters for me.

That's why I read both sides of Fan reviews lol Besides in the end it's what I like in the first place, that I go and see.
Say for instance, I've yet to see The Wolverine because I didn't have the time to this summer. I might go rent it before buying it over going by a fan's review.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's why I read both sides of Fan reviews lol Besides in the end it's what I like in the first place, that I go and see.
Say for instance, I've yet to see The Wolverine because I didn't have the time to this summer. I might go rent it before buying it over going by a fan's review.

This is fair, but also foreign to me. I don't really use reviews to decide what I see. When it comes to reviews, I prefer the conversation on the film it starts more then anything.

 

[Vartha]

This is fair, but also foreign to me. I don't really use reviews to decide what I see. When it comes to reviews, I prefer the conversation on the film it starts more then anything.

Well it's basically a tool for me. If a film's in a theater, and I don't have alot of cash and it's a film people are saying it's something that needs to be seen on the big screen a few fan reviews will help me make a decision weather to spend that money or not

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well it's basically a tool for me. If a film's in a theater, and I don't have alot of cash and it's a film people are saying it's something that needs to be seen on the big screen a few fan reviews will help me make a decision weather to spend that money or not

 

[balanda]

Ebert was a fan of Superhero films for example

Ahahah, Ebert didn't like Thor. He really didn't like Loki "Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is dark-haired, skinny, shifty-eyed and sadly lacking in charisma... Will you be thinking of Loki six minutes after this movie is over?"

ETA: A fun excercise is searching for Thor: TDW reviews with the phrase "Loki steals" or "Hiddleston steals", as in, the show. Critics are being extremely positive about Hiddleston, usually very positive about Hemsworth, and mixed about Portman.

 

[jonathancrane]

http://www.duqsm.com/thor-the-dark-world-on-verge-of-perfection-but-falls-short/

While I listed my fan-review in the proceeding thread, as a professional critic, here is my review. Unlike my brethren, I loved T: TDW, because of its rich cinematic influences.

Spoiler

Director Martin Scorsese said that young filmmakers should “study the old masters, enrich your palette, expand your canvas. There’s always so much more to learn.”
This principle – studying what has been done and why it worked – is present in the newest Marvel film, Thor: The Dark World, released Friday.
While the film by director Alan Taylor does not reflect paintings from antiquity, it is built upon two rich traditions: science fiction and sword and sorcery fantasy, with a supplement of the spaghetti western. All of these influences result in the most visually unique film released by Marvel Studios.
Thor: The Dark World, released Friday, is set in the aftermath of The Avengers. While Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is being tried for his crimes, the Dark Elves (led by Christopher Eccleston) emerge from suspended animation, and set out to make the universe theirs once more. Their campaign is waged when the stars are literally perfectly aligned. Without divulging more, it is safe to say that the premises recalls the dark fantasy work by H.P. Lovecraft and Nigel Kneale, both of which have been considerably underrepresented in cinema, lately.
Bringing this cosmic tale of war and redemption to life is a cast consisting of performers from Thor, with a few new additions. The focus of the film lies primarily on Thor’s troubled relationship with his half-brother, Loki. Both Hiddleston and Hemsworth steal every scene in which they appear in. What enriches their performances is that they are built upon a classic cinematic model: the relationship between Tuco (Eli Wallach) and Blondie (Clint Eastwood) from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Both of these relationships are built on violent tectonic plates that shift from friendly to enemy at any given moments, thus leaving the audience unable to trust the trickster (Loki/Tuco.)
Thor: The Dark World is a beautiful film, from the perspective of design, color correction and visual effects. It achieves this by negotiating elements from preceding science fiction and sword and sorcery fantasy. For instance, the armor and space vessels of the Dark Elves is a satisfying blend of the work of artist H.R. Giger (who designed the space craft and creature in Alien,) and the production team of Return of the King (more specifically, their work on Mouth of Sauron and Black Gate of Mordor.)
This blending of science fiction and fantasy designs also extends into Asgard: the designers retained the fantasy tech derived from the artwork of Thor co-creator Jack Kirby, but added elements from sword and fantasy: the lighting and design of Asgard captures the mystery and beauty from King’s Landing on Game of Thrones, which Taylor directed before Thor: The Dark World. What is most striking is Svartalfheim, the destroyed home of the Dark Elves. Taylor refracted the nautical staple of a ship graveyard through the lens of science fiction, and created an ash-choked planet that is littered with broken starships.
The film, while visually appealing, does have its flaws. First, the humor in the film is occasionally overdone, thus undercutting the dramatic tension of a scene. While I know that the Marvel brand is associated with humor, there were a few scenes that could have been fine without a one-liner.
Secondly, Natalie Portman’s character lacked the vitality she had in the first Thor film. Determining the cause is impossible; it could be the editing, writing, direction, all, or none of the above. In each individual scene, Portman is fine, but when assembled together, they are missing some of the finish that is present in the preceding film. So, my criticism is not a reflection of her performance, but the material that she was supplied with.
My final criticism is a small one: the score. The music for Marvel Studios’ films has either been a hit (The Avengers) or standard (The Incredible Hulk). Sadly, Thor: The Dark World is the latter. Unlike previous superhero films – say The Dark Knight Rises – I did not walk away humming one of the suites, let alone remembered any of them. That is not to say that it is bad; it is that the score fulfills its purpose, but does not deliver anything memorable, which is a shame. One would have expected a film dealing with a villain trying to destroy reality would have been marked with an impressive score (see Murray Gold’s work for Doctor Who: The End of Time.)
Thor: The Dark World is a well-made film, with the exception of two minor flaws. Still, Thor: The Dark World is one of the best blockbusters we have been delivered this season

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Ahahah, Ebert didn't like Thor. He really didn't like Loki "Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is dark-haired, skinny, shifty-eyed and sadly lacking in charisma... Will you be thinking of Loki six minutes after this movie is over?"

ETA: A fun excercise is searching for Thor: TDW reviews with the phrase "Loki steals" or "Hiddleston steals", as in, the show. Critics are being extremely positive about Hiddleston, usually very positive about Hemsworth, and mixed about Portman.

Loki's best performance by far, IMO, was in Thor 1. Ebert, for all his popularity, couldn't have been more wrong, but saw him trying to be.

 

[Desiak]

I wrote a review for this film. Check it out. I thought it was great for the most part.
http://heroicreview.com/thor-2-the-dark-world-review/