Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Dark World blows Iron Man Three out of the water, visually. It's not even close. Alan Taylor = chess, the rest of the MCU directors = checkers.

I thought the cinematography in the movie was pretty weak. Maybe it's because i saw it in 3D, I just recognised "fake" way too often. Was any part of Asgard not done in front of a green screen?

I've also seen some beautiful movies this year. Oblivion and Gravity are magnificent in the cinematography department. Man of Steel, Elysium and Pacific Rim also look much better than T:TDW. A case can be made for Star Trek into Darkness.

But if you're only comparing this movie to other MCU films, as half the people in this thread seem to, then you will have different standards.
 
Last edited:
Was any part of Asgard not done in front of a green screen?
The sets were shown in some of the promos; looked huge and damn impressive. In some you could see the green screen at the end of the corridors and the like.
 
I thought the cinematography in the movie was pretty weak. Maybe it's because i saw it in 3D, I just recognised "fake" way too often. Was any part of Asgard not done in front of a green screen?

I've also seen some beautiful movies this year. Oblivion and Gravity are magnificent in the cinematography department. Man of Steel, Elysium and Pacific Rim also look much better than T:TDW. A case can be made for Star Trek into Darkness.

But if you're only comparing this movie to other MCU films, as half the people in this thread seem to, then you will have different standards.

Plenty of shots were made with sets, so I guess the effects were pretty good if you can't tell the difference. ;)

And as a side note, you're not not alone in having brought up Hemsworth's voice as a main point in a review. One that's on RT has done that as well (well, I've read less than a handful so more might have done it). You were polar opposites in opinion though. :)
 
So what do you give the film again I'm sorry your post kinda through.me for a loop. Also can you tell is what all you liked and/or disliked about it if you don't mind.
10 of 10 for a comic book movie and 8 of ten for a scifi/action movie...just for the non comic bookfans;-)
so id say most moviegoers will like it...maybe not to the love/hate degree as certain fans around here but: its action packed, good visual fx, a tad humor and character development. its not too serious and not yet too humoristic..well balanced i'd say...since iron man me thinks marvel has found a very good recipie for movies ...for me overall its like a mixture of man of steel and iron man 2
 
Mjölnir;27150249 said:
Plenty of shots were made with sets, so I guess the effects were pretty good if you can't tell the difference. ;)
A mixed set can look just as fake, and indeed that was the case here. But I admit my problem could be the 3d... on the other hand, gravity was beautiful.

And as a side note, you're not not alone in having brought up Hemsworth's voice as a main point in a review. One that's on RT has done that as well (well, I've read less than a handful so more might have done it). You were polar opposites in opinion though. :)

You're not alone in bringing up Bale's Batman voice, many have a polar opposite opinion though :yay:

Hemsworth's fake voice in the movie fits in well with the comedic tone of the film.
 
Last edited:
A mixed set can look just as fake, and indeed that was the case here. But I admit my problem could be the 3d... on the other hand, gravity was beautiful.

Then it's usually pretty obvious which parts are digital and which are real, if you get a fake look out of it.

I haven't seen Gravity yet but I'm very interested in it, although also a tad worried about that I heard it doesn't handle physics well.

You're not alone in bringing up Bale's Batman voice, many have a polar opposite opinion though :yay:

Hemsworth's fake voice in the movie fits in well with the comedic tone of the film.
Hemsworth's voice isn't even remotely as special as the Batman voice so very different expectations on people bringing it up.

I'm siding with the other guy on that one.
 
Watched the movie and will rate it 7-7,5-10.
+
Great visuals;
Pleasant soundtrack;
World building;
Thor&Loki+Frigga+Heimdal(characters and actors are great);
Elves presented as formidable warriors and advanced species (I am huge elven fan);
Evans! He was soo good, so in-his-skin while played comedic role.

-
Film looked like some stitched together monster -each part can easily go in different place;
Romantic line-awful, I expected it to be bad but it tuns out to be horrible-sometimes there were no hint that characters are even know each other;
Jane Foster, her red colored hallucinations were hilarious (I hoped that ship will fall on her and Thor-he will be fine and she would be crushed for good-no luck);
Earth-boring, pseudo-scientific stuff;
Mental illness played for laughs, again;
Plot all-over-the-places;
For people who do not read prelude comic-so much stuff will not make sense;
No time for Warriors 3+Sif but sooo much time spent on Darcy+minion.

So in conclusion: Stuff that I care - royal family, Asgard, elves -were handled well and I loved it- everything else- is just a clear void in my head, unpleasant and cold. I am done with Foster-she should begone from franchise or recast let Portnam swallow her oscar.

This movie will be lucky to stay over 70% on tomatoes. Really, really lucky. I just hope it will get enough money to have a sequel.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if anyone has asked yet but are the action scenes actually filmed in a coherent manner with long established shots or is it that hyper-edited shaky cam crap where you have to squint to make out what's going on?
 
I'm sorry but... I don't understand what you're saying at all.

Read the post he wrote before, it had a censored word/phrase. The reason is because he used a phrase that happens to also be the name of a rival website. He then proceeded to write the censored word in a particular way so one could read it and added a " lol" there as it was whimsical he got censored for it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Balanda, for ease, his post in question.

now where is whedon bashing the movie because of the one mjolnir joke?
anyhow...************** a 10...a scifi action movie for others id say a 8 of 10
 
Apologies, bad usage of words. You are more accurate with what you've labeled them as of course, though I guess my issue is that the trailers for The Avengers and Iron Man 3 somewhat hinted at a much more darker/serious film(s) than what we eventually got, which I guess was the idea in the first place from the minds of the promotion/marketing department.lol

It's no big deal just a misunderstanding, I tthink we all thought IM3 was going to be.much darker from the trailers. However I never thought The Avenger was going to be very dark due to the fact that Jods When was the director.

The Avengers had the perfect balance of humor and seriousness in my opinion, while IM3 could've been a bit darker although I still love the film.

I'm not sure if anyone has asked yet but are the action scenes actually filmed in a coherent manner with long established shots or is it that hyper-edited shaky cam crap where you have to squint to make out what's going on?

Very good question, no one's complained about it yet so hopefully the action is shot in a coherent manner.
 
Just realized i never posted my review.

I gave it an 8.5/10. I pretty much loved it. Like most, malekith could have definitely used some more fleshing out. He wasnt a very interesting villain. An extra 5-6 minutes dedicated to him could have helped quite a bit, so that had me scratching my head.

I loved the visuals, the action was awesome..At one point you have a LOTR type battle setting and tropes and then the next you have Star Wars type action complete with futuristic lasers and all..and then some good Hand-to-hand before being topped off by some good ol' superhero flying heroics.

The cast brought their A-game, Hemsworth was on point. I mean the guy IS Thor but Hiddleston steals the show. Loki is every bit as awesome as the early reviews made him out to seem, and they made sure not to overuse him.

I want to marry Rene Russo.

Kurse...f*** yes. Mr Eko brought the business. i wish he was the main villain in this.

Warriors 3 did their thing and deserved to have some more time dedicated to them.

I actually liked Darcy in this. but there was literally no need for that intern.

The movie gets really funny at certain points, but i feel all the talk about too much humor was waaaaay overstated. After the movie ended, i was like 'thats it?' It don't think it had any more humor than The Avengers to be honest. There was one moment where i though the humor was badly placed but this movie wasn't some laugh-fest..far from it.

Dat cameo!!!

Overall, a very enjoyable movie. just pure entertainment. Take your girl, take your kids to go see this. its a hell of a time at the theatre.
 
^ I figured the humor was blown out of proportion, I remember The Avengers being labeled a "laugh fest" and a kiddie movie when it came out. Presently most people would agree that the humor was fairly balanced and entertaining is a more fitting word than "kiddie".
 
^ I figured the humor was blown out of proportion, I remember The Avengers being labeled a "laugh fest" and a kiddie movie when it came out. Presently most people would agree that the humor was fairly balanced and entertaining is a more fitting word than "kiddie".

You mean his opinion is more valid than any negative ones? It's not blown out of proportion, it's a matter of opinion. You might find the humour to be perfectly fine, someone else doesn't. Once again I see this bias in here.
 
You mean his opinion is more valid than any negative ones? It's not blown out of proportion, it's a matter of opinion. You might find the humour to be perfectly fine, someone else doesn't. Once again I see this bias in here.

The general consensus is that some of the humor is misplaced, but some people down right call the film a "comedy".

Which seems like a huge over exaggeration, no bias here just common sense.
 
The general consensus is that some of the humor is misplaced, but some people down right call the film a "comedy".

Which seems like a huge over exaggeration, no bias here just common sense.

When the comedy takes away from the sense of tension and even sacrifices much needed screen time from the villain and characters such as Sif, then yes, calling it a "comedy" in a way to describe it makes perfect sense.

Just common sense (see I can do that too).
 
yeah, calling The Avengers or Thor TDW 'comedies' is akin to calling the first Terminator a pure love story. Yeah there are strong undercurrents of it but at no point did i think it took over the overall narrative or tone of the movie.

And i think this bears repeating. If the funny moments in this or the Avengers bothers you to the extent that it ruins the film for you, then man..you should probably hop off the marvel studios train at this stop.
 
^ I figured the humor was blown out of proportion, I remember The Avengers being labeled a "laugh fest" and a kiddie movie when it came out. Presently most people would agree that the humor was fairly balanced and entertaining is a more fitting word than "kiddie".
It was. It still is. The amount and type of humor, the way it is used is the same as in every other MCU movie. Or in Raiders or Star Wars for that matter.
I sometimes wonder what those people who claim that IM3 or TDW had too much humor would say if Raider of the Lost Arc came out today.

Cheesy, misplaced one-liners and you never feel real danger for the characters, because humor! that coat-hanger joke was the worst! it completely took away the tension. :o
 
Oy, so many people with so many opinions of this movie! I can't wait to see it this Friday. Big ups to anyone who has seen it before then (even the Thursday Nighters).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"