Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 2

[Visualiza]

It didn't seem that way to me. In my view it looked as if the revelation was too much for Odin and that he ended up going into Odin sleep just like he did in the first film. It was too much for him to handle. Loki probably hid him somewhere in the meantime.

I doubt it. This film seemed to go out of its way to draw a line in the sand between Loki and Odin. Loki quite clearly revealed his hatred of Odin, while Odin revealed his underlying resentment of Loki. With that said, I doubt he fell into sleep again; I think the only possible explanations are that he's dead, to satisfy Loki's hatred, or in captivity as some sort of last ditch bargaining alternative should his plans unravel...again.

 

[warriorking]

Yea, but everything with Loki is a slight of hand... so I think most who pay attention or understand his character expected him to have faked his death. I certainly grinned knowing it wasnt real.

And I agree that Odin dying at Lokis hand off screen would be a problem. Thats the problem when you hire these thesbian serious actors. How are you supposed to keep them coming back to these "silly comic book films" time and time again.

Money my friend, Money...
Seriously though, it depends on whether they get along with the cast and directors.
Hopkins seems to be having a good time with both, so I look for him to return in Thor 3...

 

[KDM1986]

Personally when that guard came to tell odin he found a body. When odin looks at him and says Loki, I think he knew it was loki in the guards form. That's why loki in guard form smiled.

 

[conan69]

What puzzles me is that this is yet another mediocre film celebrated as being among the genre's best.

IMHO this film falls WAY short of the charm and fun of the first Thor.

I agree with alot of Viualiza points, especially how this movie ignores some of the dynamics of the first. Seems I disliked it way more than most. Helmsworth is a great Thor, but I kind of feel that if you take away Loki, this film would have almost nothing.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

IMHO this film falls WAY short of the charm and fun of the first Thor.

I agree with alot of Viualiza points, especially how this movie ignores some of the dynamics of the first. Seems I disliked it way more than most. Helmsworth is a great Thor, but I kind of feel that if you take away Loki, this film would have almost nothing.

 

[Feenix]

What puzzles me is that this is yet another mediocre film celebrated as being among the genre's best.

In your opinion. I quite liked the movie, way more than IM3 or MOS.

 

[Visualiza]

In your opinion.

You don't say? Thanks for pointing that out.

I quite liked the movie, way more than IM3 or MOS.

Good for you, but that wasn't my point. You can like the movie all you want, but that doesn't speak to whether or not it's an average film. I'm a sucker for Van Damme's actioners from the 80s & 90s, but I won't prop them up as examples of stellar cinema.

I like /= superlative. It's ok to make the distinction; not every film we enjoy has to be elevated to masterpiece status.

 

[BoredGuy]

Very true^

And, conversely, many masterpieces are far from enjoyable to watch

 

[warriorking]

Regardless of one's opinion of the movie, The good news is we will see a Thor3.

 

[jmc]

It feels like no one ever really stays dead at times within the MCU doesn't it?lol I mean Bucky, Coulson, and Loki all had death scenes but they all made it back somehow.lol

Which kinda makes any future deaths hollow. I know fans have complained for years about superhero films killing off characters but there's a reason for it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

and even if a character "dies" there is always "Hel" where they can return

 

[Human Torch]

I actually thought they might kill off loki , only to bring him back via Hel in Thor 3. I knew he wouldn't "really" be dead

This was pretty much my reaction as well.

 

[Human Torch]

I'm actually curious to hear some people weigh in on this, but do you guys think that they should have kept Loki dead after he was supposedly killed by Kurse? Or does it work out better, story wise, that he actually survived and was alive in the end?

I loved the cliff hanger.It's the perfect hook for the next movie.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Which kinda makes any future deaths hollow. I know fans have complained for years about superhero films killing off characters but there's a reason for it.

Agreed. In the specific case of Coulson, undoing his death makes the whole thing in Avengers useless.

But I feel most of times it goes the opposite way, where fans swear for their lives this or that character (I remember Dr. Octopus, Ras al Ghul and Two-Face) weren't actually dead. And they were.

I loved the cliff hanger.It's the perfect hook for the next movie.

I don't know how it was perfect, considering Loki have come back every single time so far. To me it screamed, okay, more of the same again.

Not that Loki isn't a great villain, but as a cliffhanger it was fa from original or expectation-defying.

 

[Human Torch]

Agreed. In the specific case of Coulson, undoing his death makes the whole thing in Avengers useless.

But I feel most of times it goes the opposite way, where fans swear for their lives this or that character (I remember Dr. Octopus, Ras al Ghul and Two-Face) weren't actually dead. And they were.








I don't know how it was perfect, considering Loki have come back every single time so far. To me it screamed, okay, more of the same again.

Not that Loki isn't a great villain, but as a cliffhanger it was fa from original or expectation-defying.

Hiddleston is about 50% of the franchise (or in the case of Avengers,the Thor storyline) success.

And I was barely expecting him to return in the sequel,much less take Odin's place.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Hiddleston is about 50% of the franchise (or in the case of Avengers,the Thor storyline) success.

And I was barely expecting him to return in the sequel,much less take Odin's place.

You think Loki is 50% of the franchise but you didn't think they were keeping him? And that he would go after the throne as it has been his goal since we first saw him in Thor 1?

 

[Feenix]

You don't say? Thanks for pointing that out.



Good for you, but that wasn't my point. You can like the movie all you want, but that doesn't speak to whether or not it's an average film. I'm a sucker for Van Damme's actioners from the 80s & 90s, but I won't prop them up as examples of stellar cinema.

I like /= superlative. It's ok to make the distinction; not every film we enjoy has to be elevated to masterpiece status.

You're the one who called it mediocre. Your basis for calling it that is what? Your personal opinion?

To the bolded part, I know that, but you're making it sound like you believe it to be an average, mediocre film and that's the way it is. If someone sees it as a masterpiece, that's their prerogative. You have no right and no basis to say otherwise.

 

[SuperBatman]

The Thing is if you call off Loki you are killing off Marvel's most popular Villain in the Movie world. Well unless you count Magneto but t Loki is the most popular Villain because none of the other villains have really stood out that well as Loki has.

 

[Human Torch]

You think Loki is 50% of the franchise but you didn't think they were keeping him? And that he would go after the throne as it has been his goal since we first saw him in Thor 1?

I knew they would involve him somehow (probably from Hel,as I stated earlier.)but I didn't expect them to make the next film focus on him.Perhaps a limited role,similar to what he had in this film.

 

[Marvolo]

Nope. I'm right there with you. What puzzles me is that this is yet another mediocre film celebrated as being among the genre's best. It pains me to say it, but Ethan Hawke was right, especially after this season of superhero flicks.

Anyway, one of my main issues with the film is that it lacks the personality, charm, and wit that the rest of Marvel's catalogue has been rife with thus far. This isn't the first film in the MCU to have a fairly generic plot, but it is the first to feature such flaccid characters, dialogue, and interactions. This is the area where I've been forgiving of these films in the past, as they never failed to deliver on the character front, but with this film, I can honestly say that the only two characters I gave a damn about were Loki and, surprisingly enough, Frigga. Rene Russo did an excellent job considering her small amount of screen time(I'd say the same for her in Thor, btw, her role just wasn't quite as pivotal in that film).

Also, with regard to the characters, many of the relationships from the first film were either butchered or tossed aside. Selvig's paternal relationship with Jane was dissolved completely, while Thor and Jane's romance felt very matter-of-fact and obligatory, completely lacking the charm and chemistry that was previously there. Oddly enough, Darcy and her buffoon of an intern somehow managed to fill that particular void, having more charm, wit, and tension than that of the two leads, but therein lies the problem - I'm not interested in seeing a Darcy romance, so it didn't resonate with me at all. The Thor/Loki subplot was exceptional, but every other relationship, Thor/Odin, Thor/Warriors Three, was glossed over in this film; it was about as soulless as it could get.

I also didn't like how trivial the important events of the film seemed. The 9 realms are at war, the universe is on the brink of extinction, and it was all very ho-hum with the way it was presented. The former itself could have made for a very compelling film in its own right, but again, the entire affair was swept under the rug as if it were just another walk in the park for Thor & his amazing friends. I attribute this directly to the lack of build up and tension, which falls squarely on the shoulders of Taylor. Everything was thrown right in front of the audience without the proper build up; from the Aether possessing Jane(a weak pretext for their reunion and getting her to Asgard), to Malekith's awakening(straight outta nowheresville), the invasion of Asgard, and that sad excuse of a plan by Thor and Loki. That was the epitome of awful writing - let's march right up to the villain's doorstep and hand him the MacGuffin he's been searching for all along. Not to mention the fact that Malekith was keen enough to sniff out the Aether to the point where he knew that it had possessed Jane and tracked it to Frigga's chambers...so after he's deceived he leaves to search for it...where exactly? They shouldn't have written themselves into such a corner in the first place, but I point to this as it simply highlights the pinheaded writing of the plot as a whole. Malekith, for all his huffing and puffing, was about as insignificant as a headlining villain could get. Talk about criminally underutilized, his look and demeanor was excellent, it would have been nice if the audience was given a reason to care about him in the first place. I'd compare him to Vanko, in that the character was well acted, menacing, and intriguing enough at first, but simply wasn't given much as the film went on.

It wasn't all bad, as I said before I enjoyed the interactions that Loki and Thor had, as well as Frigga's contribution. The climax was well done, and the way they disposed of Malekith was pretty clever if nothing else. For as lukewarm as the plot was, Loki's deception is potentially earth-shattering, depending upon how Feige & Co. decide to move forward with it. I do, however, think that it revealed a bit of a plot hole, in that Loki couldn't have known that Thor was going to save the universe, effectively securing his little coup d'etat(especially after that fiasco on Svartalfheim). The whole universe being destroyed thing would have really spoiled his day in the sun after all, and about the only way I think this could be explained away is if this entire little adventure was an elaborate illusion by Loki(awful idea). That wouldn't exactly justify the existence of the Aether, but enough on that.

In spite of my criticisms, I don't think it was a bad film, just a very average one. The humor was well done, the action well shot and choreographed, and the rest of it was entertaining enough to sit through...it was just all kinda ho-hum. Not exemplary by any means, unless of course the example to be illustrated is mediocrity on an inflated budget.

This perfectly sums up my thoughts on this film. Thank you for taking the time to post it.

Im hoping someone can clear this up for me. After Loki dies a huge cyclone starts moving across svartalfheim. Was that created by Thor and his anguish? If so I wish they would have let that moment breathe more before the goofy cave scene. The music and visual of Thors grief taking form and tearing across the landscape was heartbreaking but like a lot of moments in this film it was over way too quick. Ya know? Nothing too long but show the storm forming over thor as he grieves pull out wide as it grows with the music swelling then it starts tearing up the place and pull out to space and show it engulfing the whole damn planet and the music fades off to a somber single piano note. Or something like that. Really drive it home.

 

[DA_Champion]

Nope. I'm right there with you. What puzzles me is that this is yet another mediocre film celebrated as being among the genre's best. It pains me to say it, but Ethan Hawke was right, especially after this season of superhero flicks.

Anyway, one of my main issues with the film is that it lacks the personality, charm, and wit that the rest of Marvel's catalogue has been rife with thus far. This isn't the first film in the MCU to have a fairly generic plot, but it is the first to feature such flaccid characters, dialogue, and interactions. This is the area where I've been forgiving of these films in the past, as they never failed to deliver on the character front, but with this film, I can honestly say that the only two characters I gave a damn about were Loki and, surprisingly enough, Frigga. Rene Russo did an excellent job considering her small amount of screen time(I'd say the same for her in Thor, btw, her role just wasn't quite as pivotal in that film).

Also, with regard to the characters, many of the relationships from the first film were either butchered or tossed aside. Selvig's paternal relationship with Jane was dissolved completely, while Thor and Jane's romance felt very matter-of-fact and obligatory, completely lacking the charm and chemistry that was previously there. Oddly enough, Darcy and her buffoon of an intern somehow managed to fill that particular void, having more charm, wit, and tension than that of the two leads, but therein lies the problem - I'm not interested in seeing a Darcy romance, so it didn't resonate with me at all. The Thor/Loki subplot was exceptional, but every other relationship, Thor/Odin, Thor/Warriors Three, was glossed over in this film; it was about as soulless as it could get.

I also didn't like how trivial the important events of the film seemed. The 9 realms are at war, the universe is on the brink of extinction, and it was all very ho-hum with the way it was presented. The former itself could have made for a very compelling film in its own right, but again, the entire affair was swept under the rug as if it were just another walk in the park for Thor & his amazing friends. I attribute this directly to the lack of build up and tension, which falls squarely on the shoulders of Taylor. Everything was thrown right in front of the audience without the proper build up; from the Aether possessing Jane(a weak pretext for their reunion and getting her to Asgard), to Malekith's awakening(straight outta nowheresville), the invasion of Asgard, and that sad excuse of a plan by Thor and Loki. That was the epitome of awful writing - let's march right up to the villain's doorstep and hand him the MacGuffin he's been searching for all along. Not to mention the fact that Malekith was keen enough to sniff out the Aether to the point where he knew that it had possessed Jane and tracked it to Frigga's chambers...so after he's deceived he leaves to search for it...where exactly? They shouldn't have written themselves into such a corner in the first place, but I point to this as it simply highlights the pinheaded writing of the plot as a whole. Malekith, for all his huffing and puffing, was about as insignificant as a headlining villain could get. Talk about criminally underutilized, his look and demeanor was excellent, it would have been nice if the audience was given a reason to care about him in the first place. I'd compare him to Vanko, in that the character was well acted, menacing, and intriguing enough at first, but simply wasn't given much as the film went on.

It wasn't all bad, as I said before I enjoyed the interactions that Loki and Thor had, as well as Frigga's contribution. The climax was well done, and the way they disposed of Malekith was pretty clever if nothing else. For as lukewarm as the plot was, Loki's deception is potentially earth-shattering, depending upon how Feige & Co. decide to move forward with it. I do, however, think that it revealed a bit of a plot hole, in that Loki couldn't have known that Thor was going to save the universe, effectively securing his little coup d'etat(especially after that fiasco on Svartalfheim). The whole universe being destroyed thing would have really spoiled his day in the sun after all, and about the only way I think this could be explained away is if this entire little adventure was an elaborate illusion by Loki(awful idea). That wouldn't exactly justify the existence of the Aether, but enough on that.

In spite of my criticisms, I don't think it was a bad film, just a very average one. The humor was well done, the action well shot and choreographed, and the rest of it was entertaining enough to sit through...it was just all kinda ho-hum. Not exemplary by any means, unless of course the example to be illustrated is mediocrity on an inflated budget.

Outstanding post.

*******

I did not know of Hawke's comments.

 

[DA_Champion]

Why do you guys think marvel only makes weak villains? Is it a narrative strategy to focus on building the heroes, because they are owned by Disney, or because the best villains in the marvelverse are property of fox and Sony?

 

[Endeavor]

Why do you guys think marvel only makes weak villains? Is it a narrative strategy to focus on building the heroes, because they are owned by Disney, or because the best villains in the marvelverse are property of fox and Sony?

Depends on what you mean by weak villains?
I thought Obadiah Stane was a scary mofo, just to provide one example.

 

[Crimson King]

I don't think Marvel only makes weak villains. Malekith was no more cliche than Zod.<==For the record, I didn't like either of those two.

Loki doesn't strike many as a weak character. Neither did Stane. I agree that the rest are mediocre at best, but I don't think it's a part of some strategy. I chalk it up more to various writers either understanding what makes a good villain or not.

 

[jmc]

Why do you guys think marvel only makes weak villains? Is it a narrative strategy to focus on building the heroes, because they are owned by Disney, or because the best villains in the marvelverse are property of fox and Sony?

I've had this discussion with Marvel fans before and many if not most admit that the rogues gallery in the Marvel universe, at least the non X-men or Spider-man ones, aren't nearly as rich as they are on the DC side. This is why I think there was such a blow up over The Mandarin, it looked for all intense and purposes that they elevated one of those villains to an A-list level - but it was literally a joke. I'm not quite sure what their strategy is for villains, it seems to me they're not worried about it which seems odd. A hero is only as good as the villain he comes up against.