Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 2

[Loki882]

I don't 'weak' is the right word,maybe not more fleshed out (but in the end,who really cares *do I need to know about Hitler;Stalin* to understand that they are evil?)?

Malekith isn't a real life person with an established life. He's a fictional character and film is a storytelling narrative. So yes, I want there to be more to his motivations than simply "I'm evil." It's REALLY lazy and cheap writing. Those kinds of characters are boring and uninteresting, and it was a waste of Eccleston's talents.

 

[Loki882]

Like I said earlier, Taylor had access to Joss Whedon. The man who probably has MORE power against Marvel than anyone else (sans RDJ) at this point. Whedon came to his set! Once things got heated, why didn't he talk to Joss? It seems like the cast members did that and got more money out of the deal. Taylor could have done the same if he attempted to.

Whining after the fact doesn't change the fact that Shane Black is less experienced than Taylor as a director, yet he won these battles. Obviously Taylor was willing to roll along with far more than people think.

Shane Black is an established Hollywood writer with several classic movies on his resume, and he's buddies with RDJ. And just because Taylor knows Whedon doesn't mean that Whedon can bail him out. Marvel doesn't seem like the type of company to compromise their goals for anyone, even Whedon. Marvel has already told some prominent people to get lost when there was a disagreement. Plus, Whedon might simply be too busy at the moment. You can't possibly make judgments about Taylor because of what happened with Black, that's stretching things.

 

[Feenix]

Malekith isn't a real life person with an established life. He's a fictional character and film is a storytelling narrative. So yes, I want there to be more to his motivations than simply "I'm evil." It's REALLY lazy and cheap writing. Those kinds of characters are boring and uninteresting, and it was a waste of Eccleston's talents.

It's not. It worked for the Joker. He is just evil. Malekith wasn't just "evil", he wanted revenge as well, he was motivated by something. He's more than just evil, he could potentially be justified.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Shane Black is an established Hollywood writer with several classic movies on his resume, and he's buddies with RDJ. And just because Taylor knows Whedon doesn't mean that Whedon can bail him out. Marvel doesn't seem like the type of company to compromise their goals for anyone, even Whedon. Marvel has already told some prominent people to get lost when there was a disagreement. Plus, Whedon might simply be too busy at the moment. You can't possibly make judgments about Taylor because of what happened with Black, that's stretching things.

Yes I can because other directors have been able to work with Marvel and win battles against them. Why is it the likes of Whedon and such can (prior to Avengers, Whedon was a cult-favorite TV figure and not much more), yet Taylor being unable to win battles is somehow not his fault? People here are assuming all the blame should go to Marvel, but at the end of the day, Marvel doesn't always win their battles with directors either. Marvel has told a lot of prominent people to get lost, this is true. But, last I checked, people all got raises (much to Marvel's dismay) and other directors succeeded where everyone keeps saying Taylor failed. That, to me, begs the question: Why did Taylor fail? No director at the time Marvel hired them was in a prominent position of power. Favs had a bomb prior to IM1. Whedon had many failed TV shows (that didn't make it outside the 1st season), Branagh never had a giant BO success to his name, etc. etc. etc. While Shane Black had street credentials as a WRITER, as a director, he had no clout.

I think people are far too quick to blame Marvel. Is it all Taylor's fault? No. Is it all Marvel's fault? No. It takes 2 to tango guys. Stop acting like Taylor doesn't deserve credit for Thor: The Dark World's failures, but deserves it for all its successes. If Taylor felt so strongly about his views, maybe he should have walked or sought an ally of power. Others have done it to Marvel and it has worked in those cases.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Once again, I am a fan of Thor: TDW personally. But, if people are going to assign blame like they are for it's failures (and I agree, it has some in regard to the story), then that is a 2 way street. Not just a case of Marvel being the "evil empire" of studios. Marvel is very involved in the process, yes. But, they're not ruining the product like FOX was under Rothman. We're not seeing mandated 90 minute runtimes and films with no style and no substance. Could Thor 2 have been a great movie? Most certainly it could have. But, even with some of the material Taylor mentions, I think it would still have some of the same flaws.

 

[Loki882]

It's not. It worked for the Joker. He is just evil. Malekith wasn't just "evil", he wanted revenge as well, he was motivated by something. He's more than just evil, he could potentially be justified.

No, The Joker at least had an interesting ideology and was entertaining. Malekith was just boring and lame. The "revenge" motivation never really came across in the movie, he never acted like he was obsessed with it. Maybe if they'd kept his backstory and how Bor slaughtered his family, then it would have worked better. As it stands, he's a terrible villain.

 

[Feenix]

No, The Joker at least had an interesting ideology and was entertaining. Malekith was just boring and lame. The "revenge" motivation never really came across in the movie, he never acted like he was obsessed with it. Maybe if they'd kept his backstory and how Bor slaughtered his family, then it would have worked better. As it stands, he's a terrible villain.

Says the person who thought Zod was a good villain.

And no. He made reference to his people numerous times and wanting to make the Asgardians suffer as his people suffered.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree that Malekith had a motivation. His people ruled the 9 Realms before Asgard and he sought to reclaim their past glory. It came across in the film effectively. Yes, he came off as a cold villain, but that seemed to be a trait of his race. Not a product of him being evil for the sake of evil.

 

[Son of Coul]

Agree on all counts. To hear him talk is to realize that he's used to TV where he's trying to fit his entry into a mold rather than make the mold his own.

Pretty much. Marvel had a specific reason for each director (Whedon-dialogue/ensemble, Branagh-Shakespearean influence, Johnston-pulpy 1940s tone/period piece, Black-slick noirey dialogue/80s action godliness).

And for Taylor all they said in every interview was "Well, Game of Thrones looked nice." The fact that all interviews with the crew just detailed the aesthetic over the story had me a little concerned, and they were somewhat validated. Not to sound like I'm hating, it is a very fun movie at times.

 

[First Avenger]

8.5/10

 

[Vartha]

8.5/10

...that's it? lol No comments? lol

or wait were you grading the conversations above? lol

 

[Rowsdower!]

6/10

Thor: The Dark World is lucky to have Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston in its lead roles, because that's about all it has going for it. All of the "realm convergence" stuff seemed like convoluted nonsense to me, and the rest of it? The villain was weak (literally and figuratively), overall story felt like it went nowhere and visuals, while pretty good, didn't "wow" me like I hoped they would. The chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman is still good, though she seemed like she'd checked out of it a bit this time.

The other characters are barely memorable... Odin just comes off like a cranky old bastard this time around. And all these people who keep suggesting that Jaimie Alexander should play Wonder Woman must be watching different different movies than I am because I don't see much talent there at all.

Like I said before, Hemsworth and Hiddleston are what saves Thor 2 from being a bad movie. They're both perfectly cast in their roles and play off each other really well. They are definitely what will bring me back for Thor 3.

 

[First Avenger]

...that's it? lol No comments? lol

or wait were you grading the conversations above? lol

Sorry I didn't have the time to do a proper review XD but overall I loved it.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

*To preface this review, I want to say I only saw this film once, and I like to see a movie a few time before I feel I can accurately assess it.*

I would give this movie a 6/10, and think it’s probably the worst MCU movie so far. Now, to go into detail:

Pros: Everything about this movie looked fantastic. Aesthetically, everything was better this time around. The set design, the costume and prop design, and the special effects. Visually, the movie looked great. I don’t know much about camera work or cinematography, but I loved the way it was shot. It felt kind of minimalist to me, as there wasn’t too much movement which can be very disorienting with a special effects heavy movie like this, with lasers and spaceships everywhere (I’m looking at you, JJ Abrams). Everything about this movie looked and felt…immersive, which is by no means an easy thing to do. It was clear to me that this is Alan Taylor’s strength. In this regard it was far superior to the first, which felt small at times, and looked a little ridiculous at other times.
I also for the most part liked the story. It was a hodgepodge of science fiction mumbo jumbo that was overly convoluted, but that works for a movie like Thor. It doesn’t really have to make sense. Marvel continues to embrace the wackiness of their characters, which is really needed if they are going to keep things fresh. It works for something like Thor who is probably the most difficult property to adapt. The tone of the movie was fun. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, while also never delving into camp or slapstick. The final fight was fun, with Thor and Malekith teleporting all over the place. And again, this all looked really, really good.

Cons: I thought this script needed tons of work. It felt to me that it was written by a committee of different people, which was probably the case. I thought it was very disjointed at times, jumping around somewhat incoherently, so the pacing of the movie was off. The dialogue also felt unnatural to me, and after Whedon’s fantastic dialogue in the Avengers, this stuck out like a sore thumb. And finally, the performances were just really dry in this movie, all of them. Thor, Loki, Odin, Malekith…there was something missing from every performance in this film. They felt lifeless, and I think this is where Branagh’s strengths lie. Odin banishing Thor, Loki finding out he’s not Odin’s son, Thor not being able to pick up the hammer, those scenes all felt like they had more weight to them than anything in this movie. And I think that comes from Branagh’s stage background, where he is more used to directing actors to get larger than life performances out of them. Alan Taylor is probably more used to being “hands off” than most film directors are, as working in television you are not the highest man on the totem pole, the writer is. So you are given a script, and you film it as it is written, while trying not to be too invasive or heavy handed. Well, I think he was given a very disjointed script, and it showed. The pacing and the dialogue in this movie just felt strange. If I had to compare it to anything, I would actually compare it to the Star Wars prequels, which look really good but are terribly written, though those movies are far worse than this.

Final thoughts: This movie felt like the polar opposite of the first movie to me. Where the first movie succeeded, this movie failed, and where the first failed, this movie succeeded. So people who did not like the first one will probably love this one. I for one really liked the first Thor, so I thought this one was disappointing. It’s a shame the script was so poor this time around, because I love the idea of hiring veteran television directors. It makes me even more excited for Cap 2, because everything I hear about those directors sounds great, and I thought the screenplay for the first Cap movie was one of Marvel’s best.

 

[BoredGuy]

I disagree, Studio's always win in these types of battles so what was Taylor supposed to do? He didnt really have a choice.

My beef here with Marvel is why even bother hiring the Game Of Thrones guy if you arent going to let him do his thing. As someone said Taylor added many great things to this movie, like how Asgard and the Asgardians were portrayed, but then the rest of the movie comes across as typical MCU fare, lots of humour, poor villain, no real threat to the hero.

Why not hire some random guy if Marvel are pretty much going to co-direct the movie themselves. They hired Taylor because he was controllable IMO, because he didnt have the reputation to push back when they wanted something changed. Again, why even bother? If you watch Taylors GoT episodes, they are amazing, and again it comes down to wasted potential with TDW. The movie could, and SHOULD have been better than it was.

Again though, the bolded part supports my point.
The only thing he brought to the film was a visual flair, no actual vision
Yes the studio owns the rights, so they'll win in arguments, but had Taylor had any real idea of where he was taking the story, Marvel would be a lot more willing to budge on some things, such as runtime, or they wouldn't argue with him at all.

On Cap 2, everyone, Feige especially, keeps talking about the vision the Russos have for the story, and I guarantee you we won't hear any rumors of fights in the editing room between them and Marvel

 

[TeeKay]

Malekith isn't a real life person with an established life. He's a fictional character and film is a storytelling narrative. So yes, I want there to be more to his motivations than simply "I'm evil." It's REALLY lazy and cheap writing. Those kinds of characters are boring and uninteresting, and it was a waste of Eccleston's talents.

Seems like somebody wasn't paying attention. Malekith wasn't just simply 'evil' just for the sake of it. What gave you the impression he was just evil? He watched his family and race being slaughtered and wiped out by the Asgardians. He wanted revenge, Frigga didn't die for nothing. Not only that, he wanted to bring back the universe to darkness before the light came along, so he needed the Aether to destroy the universe and rebuild his homeworld. Before there was light, there was darkness and in that darkness dark elfs ruled. He wanted to restore the worlds the way it was before the nine realms were created, that's why their technology was more advance, they been before the sky fathers although they weren't as strong they dependent more on their knowledge and technology.His motivations are not far off from Zod's in MOS. Zod just had more screentime than Malekith. That is all.

And for what it's worth, I find vaguely inscrutable, mysterious villains perfectly acceptable. Our inability to understand them fully makes them all the more menacing, and makes the motivations of the hero that much more striking. What motivation does Hannibal Lecter have, really, other than being crazy and wanting to eat people? His motivation in innately-unknowable madness, yet he's considered a great movie villain--and rightly so.

 

[First Avenger]

^completely agreed,I don't get all the Malekith hate.

 

[Loki882]

Seems like somebody wasn't paying attention. Malekith wasn't just simply 'evil' just for the sake of it. What gave you the impression he was just evil? He watched his family and race being slaughtered and wiped out by the Asgardians. He wanted revenge, Frigga didn't die for nothing. Not only that, he wanted to bring back the universe to darkness before the light came along, so he needed the Aether to destroy the universe and rebuild his homeworld. Before there was light, there was darkness and in that darkness dark elfs ruled. He wanted to restore the worlds the way it was before the nine realms were created, that's why their technology was more advance, they been before the sky fathers although they weren't as strong they dependent more on their knowledge and technology.His motivations are not far off from Zod's in MOS. Zod just had more screentime than Malekith. That is all.

And for what it's worth, I find vaguely inscrutable, mysterious villains perfectly acceptable. Our inability to understand them fully makes them all the more menacing, and makes the motivations of the hero that much more striking. What motivation does Hannibal Lecter have, really, other than being crazy and wanting to eat people? His motivation in innately-unknowable madness, yet he's considered a great movie villain--and rightly so.

Well, if those Malektih scenes were actually IN the movie instead of being cut for no reason besides "pacing", even though this movie had serious pacing issues regardless, maybe it would have been more convincing. You're projecting your own beliefs instead of what's actually in the film itself. His complete lack of anything even vaguely resembling some small semblance of an interesting personality didn't help either. I could have bought his "revenge" motive more if he even once came across as being remotely upset about his people or family, but he didn't. Again, Hannibal Lecter at least had interesting character traits and an entertaining personality, Malekith had neither. As for "inscrutable mysterious" villains, I often times find that to be a convenient excuse/cop out for being either too lazy or uncreative to actually give your villain any depth. There's not goddamn reason why they couldn't have given Malekith, or Sif, or the Warriors 3 SOMETHING interesting to do. I'm so freaking tired of hearing filmmakers justify a lack of good characterization or development by claiming that the "pacing" would be hurt, it's such complete and utter ********.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yeah... Where in the film do we even get clued in to any of the backstory Re: Mal's family? Where? The film was not particularly well thought out or executed when it came to it's villains.

 

[cherokeesam]

Yeah... Where in the film do we even get clued in to any of the backstory Re: Mal's family? Where? The film was not particularly well thought out or executed when it came to it's villains.

From the very start. That's what the prologue was about --- Bor raiding Svartalfheim, Malekith's plan to stop him backfiring, and in the end of that sequence Malekith basically kills off his own race, then blames it on Bor and the Asgardians.

Which makes the whole revenge angle --- already hackneyed as it is --- utter bull****, because Malekith is the one who's responsible for the death of his own family, and most of his entire race. How Algrim stuck with him after that, or *any* of the other Dark Elves, is beyond me. Dude committed genocide on his own race and blamed it on the Asgardians. Go figure.

 

[Rowsdower!]

From the very start. That's what the prologue was about --- Bor raiding Svartalfheim, Malekith's plan to stop him backfiring, and in the end of that sequence Malekith basically kills off his own race, then blames it on Bor and the Asgardians.

Which makes the whole revenge angle --- already hackneyed as it is --- utter bull****, because Malekith is the one who's responsible for the death of his own family, and most of his entire race. How Algrim stuck with him after that, or *any* of the other Dark Elves, is beyond me. Dude committed genocide on his own race and blamed it on the Asgardians. Go figure.

Yeah, that's how I saw it too. Malekith was essentially just a coward concerned with self-preservation. He's also kind of an idiot too; Frigga tricked him with her hologram of Jane but if he would have taken another five minutes and looked around a little more he probably would have found her. Overall, he was a really dull villain.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't 'weak' is the right word,maybe not more fleshed out (but in the end,who really cares *do I need to know about Hitler;Stalin* to understand that they are evil?)?

Actually yes, Hitler and Stalin had historically-driven motivations. Just knowing that they're "evil" does not inform how they came to power, who supported them and why, why they had the success level they did in their plans, and why and where they ultimately failed and succeeded.

Here's two versions of history circa 1941:

1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbour because they are evil cowards.
2) Japan had no internal oil supplies, the US was refusing requests to negotiate, and they needed to acquire some pacific territories to acquire oil. So they bombed Pearl Harbour as an (ultimately failed) attempt to buy enough time to consolidate the pacific.

Let me know which version you find more interesting, the relatively trivialised description, or the motivation-driven explanation.

It's not. It worked for the Joker. He is just evil. Malekith wasn't just "evil", he wanted revenge as well, he was motivated by something. He's more than just evil, he could potentially be justified.

No, the Joker was not "just evil" in the Dark Knight. He had a point and he fit the themes of the movie.

He emerges in a coherent manner: Batman is winning the fight against the mob, and thus they are becoming more desperate and resorting to more extreme tactics, and thus they empower a maniac, that makes sense.

And as the mob had to respond to Batman, Batman has to respond to the joker. This is a villain that just won't stop. The entire movie he gets worse and worse. He goes from the trivial act of robbing a bank, to moving in on the mob meeting and showing up with an explosive vest, to crashing the Wayne fundraiser, to the scene in the prison. Batman goes nuts in the interrogation room, and the Joker just won't budge. He just keeps laughing. Because of that Batman ends up compromised and uses the cell phone trick, and ends up having to kill Harvey. The Joker has a real impact on the world and on the other characters (Batman, Rachel, Harvey, the mob, etc), whereas Malakeith had no impact on Thor, Jane, Loki, etc.

The Joker is also intelligent. He predicts that Batman goes to Hong Kong, and he does. He ends up taking over the mob. He figures out that Batman loves Rachel Dawes. He figures out that he would rather keep Batman alive and even help protect his hidden identity ("If this man is still alive in one hour, I'm blowing up a major Gotham hospital"), whereas in the early part of the movie he just said "give me half your money to kill Batman". Oh yeah, and by burning the money, he shows that he's evolved as a character.

Finally, he has great lines and an actual philosophical point:
“If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”
That isn't "just evil", it's a relevant and cogent diatribe about the distribution of power in society, that speaks both to contemporary America and Gotham as constructed in the Nolanverse.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think Taylor heavily implies in his interviews he is not happy with the movie overall, its not hard to read between the lines with both the answers he gives and him laughing while giving, which is often pointed out by the interviewer in the articles. I really do hope we get the DC of this movie, the way Taylor spoke I think it was more than Malekiths back story that was cut out but hopefully we will see one day.

I think it's hard to judge since he seems so upfront about some things, so why wouldn't he be about others? If he does hold back on some, where is the line drawn? Saying that he loved scenes that were cut means very little since that happens all the time, even when the director has full control, so that can go two ways. His famous criticism of the mid-credits scene also involved him saying that it's the only part of the movie he doesn't want the credit for.

I would also not take those little points in written interviews over the several audio/video interviews he's done where we can hear the tone ourselves.

 

[Mjölnir]

From the very start. That's what the prologue was about --- Bor raiding Svartalfheim, Malekith's plan to stop him backfiring, and in the end of that sequence Malekith basically kills off his own race, then blames it on Bor and the Asgardians.

Which makes the whole revenge angle --- already hackneyed as it is --- utter bull****, because Malekith is the one who's responsible for the death of his own family, and most of his entire race. How Algrim stuck with him after that, or *any* of the other Dark Elves, is beyond me. Dude committed genocide on his own race and blamed it on the Asgardians. Go figure.

Then you forget that the Asgardians kill all the dark elves that remain. It didn't stop at that battle when the Aether was captured, Odin says that he killed them all. Asgard believes the dark elves to be extinct.

Malekith was therefor obviously doing that horrible thing in order for some elves to survive so there was any chance left of future victory. Algrim keeps following him because he realizes that Malekith was strong enough to take the only option that was left, which Algrim also reminds Malekith of in the movie.

 

[TeeKay]

Well, if those Malektih scenes were actually IN the movie instead of being cut for no reason besides "pacing", even though this movie had serious pacing issues regardless, maybe it would have been more convincing. You're projecting your own beliefs instead of what's actually in the film itself. His complete lack of anything even vaguely resembling some small semblance of an interesting personality didn't help either. I could have bought his "revenge" motive more if he even once came across as being remotely upset about his people or family, but he didn't. Again, Hannibal Lecter at least had interesting character traits and an entertaining personality, Malekith had neither. As for "inscrutable mysterious" villains, I often times find that to be a convenient excuse/cop out for being either too lazy or uncreative to actually give your villain any depth. There's not goddamn reason why they couldn't have given Malekith, or Sif, or the Warriors 3 SOMETHING interesting to do. I'm so freaking tired of hearing filmmakers justify a lack of good characterization or development by claiming that the "pacing" would be hurt, it's such complete and utter ********.

Eh that was in the movie. It wasn't cut, it was in the prologue. You've just proved my point that you weren't paying attention.

You're projecting your own beliefs instead of what's actually in the film itself.

I'm not. It's all in the movie dude, in the prologue and even Odin explains it. PAY ATTENTION I don't know how any of that was hard to comprehend. This sought of thing happened with Killian too where people didn't pay attention when he was explaining his motives. But whatever.