Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simply stating that isn't necessarily interesting in and of itself. You'll notice that the weakness of the villain is a general complaint, it's not a particular idiosyncratic complaint coming from me alone.

Have you read Thor comics or materials before? If you had you might have been willing to accept more, as you would already be invested in the characters, possibly including the Dark Elves.

You can't just point the finger at a viewer and state "you need to care, you need to care"... you have to make the viewer care. That means make Malakith interesting.

So what exactly were you expecting from Malekith? Another sympathetic villain?:whatever: The more I think about it, the more I like him and I'm glad he's not a sympathetic villain like we've been getting recently from these CBMs. He's straightforward evil and wants to destroy the universe and make it dark again because that's the way he likes it and he's willing to destroy everything in his path to achieve that. I'm certain Odin explains this at the start of the movie.

I wrote:
I'm really tired of comic book movies, lazy imagination, and coloured smoke.

It's a specific reference to Thor 2, Green Lantern, and Fantastic Four 2. I thought that coloured smoke was dead after Green Lantern, where everybody mocked it, but they brought it back here.

I'm sorry I didn't specify that I meant those 3 movies, I thought it was obvious... "coloured smoke".

Sorry, I didn't catch that. Fair enough.:up:
 
Last edited:
I have only watched the avengers twice, and I was not overly captivated by it the second time (first time was good) so it's normal I forget minor plot details.

I remember that Loki took control of Hawkguy's mind and two other characters. I might have remembered Selvig being there if I had recognised Selvig, but I didn't since I saw Thor 1 after watching the avengers, several months later, so he was just another extra to me.

If you need fine memory of the plot of the avengers to get a scene in Thor 2, then that's really bad.


Well, those with memories and interest in the shared continuous universe like that sort of thing. I like the consequences of earlier marvel movies effecting later things. Now though you've made ME feel superior for remembering stuff I consider pretty basic that you include in fine details.
 
The movie suffered a couple of technical problems early on, but overall its a fun ride and a satisfying entry in the genre. This movie was far superior to the disaster porn Man of Steel and more fun and interesting than The Wolverine. I do not think it was good as IM3. I know the purists are gonna complain about Mandarin and all that, but just technically speaking it wasn't as good.

When I say technical problems, I mean that the transitions from scene to scene were pretty rough, until they hit midway through the film.

The performances were great, and even though Malekith was your generic bad guy, he was far more interesting in the movie than he ever was in the comics. But the highlight of the film was Hiddleston, who I love the fact that he has had a different take on the character in each film he's been in.

There's some great humor in the film, and it's just a fun ride. I'm sure everyone is going to complain about character "x" not getting enough screen time, but the movie centers around Thor, Loki and Jane, everyone else is window dressing, and it works.

Hopkins was good in this film, but his role is really diminished in this. I really wished they had played up more the "old bastard" Odin in this, because it's a different take on the character from the first film.

8/10
 
So what exactly were you expecting from Malekith? Another sympathetic villain?:whatever: The more I think about it, the more I like him and I'm glad he's not a sympathetic villain like we've been getting recently from these CBMs. He's straightforward evil and wants to destroy the universe and make it dark again because that's the way he likes it and he's willing to destroy everything in his path to achieve that. I'm certain Odin explains this at the start of the movie.



Sorry, I didn't catch that. Fair enough.:up:
A character perhaps? Not a plot device to a film with a pretty shallow plot?

Sympathy isn't what was necessary. Some screen time and character work is what I think was missing sadly. Also, how they treated him in the final confrontation wasn't exactly great.
 
So what exactly were you expecting from Malekith? Another sympathetic villain?:whatever: The more I think about it, the more I like him and I'm glad he's not a sympathetic villain like we've been getting recently from these CBMs. He's straightforward evil and wants to destroy the universe and make it dark again because that's the way he likes it.

I'm going to write this post where I take my time to explain myself, then I'm going to go take a break.

First, there was a sympathetic villain(s) in Thor 2, it's Loki, presumably the villain of Thor 3 or Thor 4. The villainy in this movie was split into villains, as it's been the case for many movies since The Dark Knight pulled it off with Joker and Two-Face. Unfortunately, the formula has not been successfully replicated since: Bane/Talia, Khan/Marcus, Malakith/Loki, etc etc were all far less interesting and had far less synergy than Joker/Two-Face. In my original review, I argued that this was one of the problems in this movie, lack of focus. They're focused on setting up Thor 3 rather than telling the story of Thor 2. I didn't spend $18 on a movie ticket (they cost that much in Australia) to see Act 1 of Thor 3. I wanted to see Acts 1, 2, and 3 of Thor 2.

Malekith does not need to be sympathetic as you point out. But he needs to have motivations that are shared with the audience, and he needs screen time. If he's just a psycho for the sake of being a psycho, show him be a psycho. You're saying that you like him as straight-up evil... well unfortunately he is not straight-up evil. He wants to restore his universe of "the darkness", that is quite noble actually, that is inherently sympathetic, he loves his world, he is loyal to his world, and he wants to bring it back, how is that unsympathetic? However, we don't know his world. Therefore, as it is, he just just a pointless character who exists only because the plot demands that there be someone for Thor and Jane to defeat.

Someone pointed out that Malekith cannot be explored because the darkness is by definition unexplorable. If it is true that the writers lack the creativity to write Malekith, then they should have written another villain, I'm sure that dozens of villains are available. Further, there are other options to showing "the darkness". They could have shown him rejecting this world, hating it for whatever reason. They showed nothing, nothing that made sense. He had a spaceship in an asteroid belt that makes no sense, because that would not last 5,000 years. They showed his spaceship, his one remaining asset, attack the capital of Asgard, which again makes no sense because he wouldn't make a suicide assault in that situation, and Asgard should easily defeat him. It's like if a unit of Nazis, the last remaining Nazis of a defeated army, walked out of a time machine and took on Washington DC. It's not going to work.

Nothing adds up. Malekith is just a vessel for the plot. A weak villain would then be OK in some situations: if you decide the villain is not a priority, and decide to focus on other priorities. The first IM movie is a good example: Iron Monger was a weak villain who had no motivation other than power. However, there was a payoff in that they focused on building up Tony Stark and Iron Man instead. In this case, the weakness of Malekith -- his lack of screen time -- was given to offensive sidekicks like Erik Selvig, to the guy on Earth who wants to date Jane, and to Loki, the villain of Thor 3. Therefore, nothing is gained by making Malekith weak. Therefore, the weakness of the villain in Thor 2 is a weakness of the film since it is not compensated by strength elsewhere.
 
A character perhaps? Not a plot device to a film with a pretty shallow plot?

Sympathy isn't what was necessary. Some screen time and character work is what I think was missing sadly. Also, how they treated him in the final confrontation wasn't exactly great.

Malekith had clear enough motivations. Yeah he seemed like a plot device but DA doesn't seem to understand his motivations., that's what we were discussing here. I don't know why people can not understand this. But to each their own :woot:. I would have preferred he had more screentime but nonetheless he didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie.
 
Malekith had clear enough motivations. Yeah he seemed like a plot device but DA doesn't seem to understand his motivations., that's what we were discussing here. I don't know why people can not understand this. But to each their own :woot:. I would have preferred he had more screentime but nonetheless he didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie.
Clear motivations doesn't mean that it is suddenly compelling. He wants to send the universe back into darkness, to a time when his people ruled the universe. Fine. Where do you go from there? That is what separates quality storytelling, substance. There is little substance to be had here.

Then of course after the slaughter of many of Thor's fellow Asgardians including his mother and brother, Thor seems to hold very little ill will towards Malekith while they Buster Keaton the finale.

Loki was the only character that really felt like he had an arc here, and he didn't even have the amount of screen time I was expecting.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to write this post where I take my time to explain myself, then I'm going to go take a break.

First, there was a sympathetic villain(s) in Thor 2, it's Loki, presumably the villain of Thor 3 or Thor 4. The villainy in this movie was split into villains, as it's been the case for many movies since The Dark Knight pulled it off with Joker and Two-Face. Unfortunately, the formula has not been successfully replicated since: Bane/Talia, Khan/Marcus, Malakith/Loki, etc etc were all far less interesting and had far less synergy than Joker/Two-Face. In my original review, I argued that this was one of the problems in this movie, lack of focus. They're focused on setting up Thor 3 rather than telling the story of Thor 2. I didn't spend $18 on a movie ticket (they cost that much in Australia) to see Act 1 of Thor 3. I wanted to see Acts 1, 2, and 3 of Thor 2.

Malekith does not need to be sympathetic as you point out. But he needs to have motivations that are shared with the audience, and he needs screen time. If he's just a psycho for the sake of being a psycho, show him be a psycho. You're saying that you like him as straight-up evil... well unfortunately he is not straight-up evil. He wants to restore his universe of "the darkness", that is quite noble actually, that is inherently sympathetic, he loves his world, he is loyal to his world, and he wants to bring it back, how is that unsympathetic? However, we don't know his world. Therefore, as it is, he just just a pointless character who exists only because the plot demands that there be someone for Thor and Jane to defeat.

Someone pointed out that Malekith cannot be explored because the darkness is by definition unexplorable. If it is true that the writers lack the creativity to write Malekith, then they should have written another villain, I'm sure that dozens of villains are available. Further, there are other options to showing "the darkness". They could have shown him rejecting this world, hating it for whatever reason. They showed nothing, nothing that made sense. He had a spaceship in an asteroid belt that makes no sense, because that would not last 5,000 years. They showed his spaceship, his one remaining asset, attack the capital of Asgard, which again makes no sense because he wouldn't make a suicide assault in that situation, and Asgard should easily defeat him. It's like if a unit of Nazis, the last remaining Nazis of a defeated army, walked out of a time machine and took on Washington DC. It's not going to work.

Nothing adds up. Malekith is just a vessel for the plot. A weak villain would then be OK in some situations: if you decide the villain is not a priority, and decide to focus on other priorities. The first IM movie is a good example: Iron Monger was a weak villain who had no motivation other than power. However, there was a payoff in that they focused on building up Tony Stark and Iron Man instead. In this case, the weakness of Malekith -- his lack of screen time -- was given to offensive sidekicks like Erik Selvig, to the guy on Earth who wants to date Jane, and to Loki, the villain of Thor 3. Therefore, nothing is gained by making Malekith weak. Therefore, the weakness of the villain in Thor 2 is a weakness of the film since it is not compensated by strength elsewhere.

Great post.:up: I will agree though he needed more screentime. I had no trouble understanding what he wants, it was pretty straightfoward. Get the Aether and destroy the nine relms and return them to darkness. He kinda grew on me but yeah, he's a villain Thor needs to bash around, my point still stands on that. But hey if you didn't like him, fair enough.:woot:
 
Ugh, in theater waiting for movie to start. My wife, three friends and I got here early and what do you know, 7 ****ing teenagers sit in front of us. Smaller theater room amd two of the aisles are all DBox seats so we don't have any options to move unless we sit in the very back. These dumb girls better shut up when the movie starts. FML, as i'm typing this an 8th friend joined them.
 
Ugh, in theater waiting for movie to start. My wife, three friends and I got here early and what do you know, 7 ****ing teenagers sit in front of us. Smaller theater room amd two of the aisles are all DBox seats so we don't have any options to move unless we sit in the very back. These dumb girls better shut up when the movie starts. FML, as i'm typing this an 8th friend joined them.
Oh friend, I feel your pain. When I went today, in a wide open theater, people just started sitting all around us. Luckily, not a lot of distractions during the film.

Worst experience, this group of teens that laughed so loud at everything in the Hobbit, I missed a bit of dialogue.
 
Clear motivations doesn't mean that it is suddenly compelling. He wants to send the universe back into darkness, to a time when his people ruled the universe. Fine. Where do you go from there? That is what separates quality storytelling, substance. There is little substance to be had here.

Then of course after the slaughter of many of Thor's fellow Asgardians including his mother and brother, Thor seems to hold very little ill will towards Malekith while they Buster Keaton the finale.

It's the same question I asked myself with Zod as well as Malekith. They had more or less the same goal (Zod was a little more fleshed out) yeah where do you go from there but we know at the end of the day, these villains aren't going to win, so I don't think that's a question we should be asking ourselves. I didn't really care for either villains because I was more interested in their henchmen (Faora and Kurse). I thought the final battle was done nicely imo. But yeah I agree with your overall assesment here, Malekith was a weak point in this movie and I have said it many times but after rewatching the movie he kinda grew on me.:yay:
 
Ugh, in theater waiting for movie to start. My wife, three friends and I got here early and what do you know, 7 ****ing teenagers sit in front of us. Smaller theater room amd two of the aisles are all DBox seats so we don't have any options to move unless we sit in the very back. These dumb girls better shut up when the movie starts. FML, as i'm typing this an 8th friend joined them.

Loki fangirls I presume?I feel your pain too bro. :funny: lol Have fun :')
 
Ugh, in theater waiting for movie to start. My wife, three friends and I got here early and what do you know, 7 ****ing teenagers sit in front of us. Smaller theater room amd two of the aisles are all DBox seats so we don't have any options to move unless we sit in the very back. These dumb girls better shut up when the movie starts. FML, as i'm typing this an 8th friend joined them.
I was lucky to catch a fairly early show today, the place was less than a quarter full and me and my kid had the whole row pretty much to ourselves with no one in front of us. I refuse to go to a later show because of crowding and noise. :(
 
Malekith was no more shallow than General Zod, only in this film he wasn't the main villain. Amazing how some people will rag on one thing in a film and be completely silent when the same accusation is made in another film.
 
It's the same question I asked myself with Zod as well as Malekith. They had more or less the same goal (Zod was a little more fleshed out) yeah where do you go from there but we know at the end of the day, these villains aren't going to win, so I don't think that's a question we should be asking ourselves. I didn't really care for either villains because I was more interested in their henchmen (Faora and Kurse). I thought the final battle was done nicely imo. But yeah I agree with your overall assesment here, Malekith was a weak point in this movie and I have said it many times but after rewatching the movie he kinda grew on me.:yay:

Yeah, you beat me too it, but maybe to develop his character when the Aether was hidden from him, he should have yelled "I WILL FIND IT!" at the top of his lungs.

Again, I'll repeat what I said from my review, Malekith was far more interesting in this film than he was in the comics.
 
Well, one of the girls told her friends that when the movie starts they need to shut up. Things are looking better, not to mention she started talking about Algrim the Strong.
 
Yeah, you beat me too it, but maybe to develop his character when the Aether was hidden from him, he should have yelled "I WILL FIND IT!" at the top of his lungs.

Again, I'll repeat what I said from my review, Malekith was far more interesting in this film than he was in the comics.

I see what you did there.:funny:

The more I think about it. Zod and Malekith aren't that much different from each other:

Zod=Malekith
Faora= Kurse
Codex=Aether
Both their motivations was to destroy in order to rebuild their homeworlds.

About Malekith, what is his main goal in the comics anyway? I only watched him in an episode of EMH where he stole the ancient winters casket and wanting to freeze all the nine relms
 
Last edited:
That's what he did in the comics, he stole the casket. Kurse actually is the one that kills him in the comics.

Yeah Zod and Malekith are pretty similar in these films. I just found Zod to be completely annoying and bordering on stupid. I actually liked Eccleston's subdued performance in this. Yeah it's a pretty thin character, but I thought he did a good job with not a lot of script. Where I felt Michael Shannon had William Shatner train him for the role. :)
 
That's what he did in the comics, he stole the casket. Kurse actually is the one that kills him in the comics.

Yeah Zod and Malekith are pretty similar in these films. I just found Zod to be completely annoying and bordering on stupid. I actually liked Eccleston's subdued performance in this. Yeah it's a pretty thin character, but I thought he did a good job with not a lot of script. Where I felt Michael Shannon had William Shatner train him for the role. :)

So they just swapped the casket with the Aether?:wow: eh I felt for both villains, especially Zod when he was giving that speech that he was made this way and his sole purpose was to protect Krypton. It was a brilliant way of looking at the character but needed more fleshing out. Hated that scene where he kept saying I will find him like 3 times and then screams it out ugh. Malekith sacrifices his home world and his people, I mean he watches his race get slaughtered by the Asgardians. He needed more screen time IMO. My favourite scene involving him was when he was walking out if the ship like a boss inside the throne room and throwing those elf grenades. Such a badass moment.:D and I love that Thor is responsible for roasting the other side of his face.:funny: I presume that's not how it happened in the comics?
 
Yep pretty much a swap of Casket/Aether. I understood that because they didn't want to bring back the relic from the first film.

I won't argue that he could have used more screen time. The one disappointing thing for me is how unimpressive the opening prologue is compared to what it was in the first film. I like Alan Taylor, but sorry Branagh is clearly the better director and it really showed in this movie, the editing was a little sloppy too.
 
Malekith was no more shallow than General Zod, only in this film he wasn't the main villain. Amazing how some people will rag on one thing in a film and be completely silent when the same accusation is made in another film.

I disagree. I think Zod had many more character scenes in MoS than Malekith got in this one. Zod had that speech about not having anymore people. He had all those scenes with Jor-El/Jor-El's essence. I think those helped Zod get more fleshing out than Malekith did. That said, I felt Malekith worked for what he was: a plot device. This film wasn't focused around him much at all. He was a fairly standard villain that served the needs of the characters that actually had story arcs: Thor, Loki, Jane Foster, Odin, etc. Malekith was a tool to challenge those characters on some level and change them going forward and to introduce the Aether. Thematically speaking, he was unimportant overall.

I don't say this as a critique or list it as a flaw. This is merely an observation.
 
Last edited:
Yep pretty much a swap of Casket/Aether. I understood that because they didn't want to bring back the relic from the first film.

I won't argue that he could have used more screen time. The one disappointing thing for me is how unimpressive the opening prologue is compared to what it was in the first film. I like Alan Taylor, but sorry Branagh is clearly the better director and it really showed in this movie, the editing was a little sloppy too.

I agree, but that said, Taylor did some things right in this film. In Thor, we saw like 4 rooms in ALL of Asgard. This film made Asgard feel bigger and more grand. This film also had better overall action scenes. I liked what Branagh did in the 1st film, but compare Thor vs Destroyer and Thor vs Kurse? The Kurse action scene was better, and this can be said for most of the action scenes as well. I would agree Branagh is a better director overall, but Taylor did add elements to the franchise that were needed in TDW.

Still want to watch TDW a few more times before I decide which Thor film I liked more.
 
Malekith was no more shallow than General Zod, only in this film he wasn't the main villain. Amazing how some people will rag on one thing in a film and be completely silent when the same accusation is made in another film.
The Zod/Jor-El mirror, his genetic make up and the general Generalness of Zod makes him a far more realized character, which is ironic. He was crafted into the man he, and yet he has more room for character.

Malekith doesn't have any scene like Zod talking to Kal-El as he is strapped to the medical slab.
 
Just got back from seeing the film, I'll just say I thoroughly enjoyed it and will post a review once I gather my thoughts.
 
I see what you did there.:funny:

The more I think about it. Zod and Malekith aren't that much different from each other:

Zod=Malekith
Faora= Kurse
Codex=Aether
Both their motivations was to destroy in order to rebuild their homeworlds.

About Malekith, what is his main goal in the comics anyway? I only watched him in an episode of EMH where he stole the ancient winters casket and wanting to freeze all the nine relms

lol nice comparison, pretty much spot on
though dark elves are much more intimidating imo

The Zod/Jor-El mirror, his genetic make up and the general Generalness of Zod makes him a far more realized character, which is ironic. He was crafted into the man he, and yet he has more room for character.

Malekith doesn't have any scene like Zod talking to Kal-El as he is strapped to the medical slab.

Obviously MoS is a longer movie and had more scenes with Zod, surprisingly the first half of MoS is what i enjoyed the most, which is opposite for TDW since the second half was better. Malekith could have used a little bit more dialogue but still i thoroughly enjoyed him as a villain more than Zod imo.

not to bring up any old arguments, but i feel that Alan Taylor had a longer movie in mind and may have changed throughout the process of making the movie
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,391
Messages
22,096,730
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"