Rate Thor the Darkworld..............Once and for all

[Doctor Octopus]

Average. If the villain Maelkith was better it would be a good movie.

 

[mace1]

In the genre as a whole? I wouldn't say so. I'd say average is mediocre, evenly matched between good and bad elements so there's just as much reason to avoid a movie as to see it. A 5-6/10 movie basically.

This is actually an improvement overall because 10 years ago I'd have said an average superhero movie = a bad movie, 4/10 or lower....more reasons to avoid it than to see it.

I rank TtDW along with TIH at a 7.5/10 which is bottom of the barrel for the MCU films, actually. So in that context I take back what I said about it being average for the MCU. It's actually slightly below average. Thor1 was average(gave that an 8/10).

If you rate thor 1 a 8 then you rate it great,not average.
A average movie would be a 3 star movie,so that would be 5.5/10-6.4/10

Here how it goes.

5.5-6.4 is 3 stars and just a good movie.

6.5-7.4 IS 3 1/2 stars A VERY GOOD MOVIE.

7.5-8.4 is a great movie and would be 4 stars.

8.5-9.4 is great movie and 4 1/2 stars.

9.4-10 is a excellent movie and is 5 stars


So you rated thor 2 7.5/10 a great movie and 4 stars.

If you think it's below average then you have to rate it below 5.5/10.

That's how the ratings and star system work from what i read.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

"Once and for all" is another meme isn't it? I hope you realize Thor: The Dark World will be rated infinitely as long as humanity continues.

 

[Visualiza]

^That's the thing; you can't really quantify the quality of a movie with a number. Doesn't really matter where you "read" it (or that you read it at all), because who should really be an authority on this sort of thing aside from the person assigning the ratings themselves? We all do it, but it's completely arbitrary, because there may be things that an overall lesser movie does better than one that would garner a higher rating. Other than that, can you honestly say that every movie that you'd rate a 7 is equivalent across the board? Going a step further, what the heck separates a 7 from a 7.1? My 7 will be different from your 7 which is different from kedrell's 7.

 

[kedrell]

If you rate thor 1 a 8 then you rate it great,not average.
A average movie would be a 3 star movie,so that would be 5.5/10-6.4/10

Here how it goes.

5.5-6.4 is 3 stars and just a good movie.

6.5-7.4 IS 3 1/2 stars A VERY GOOD MOVIE.

7.5-8.4 is a great movie and would be 4 stars.

8.5-9.4 is great movie and 4 1/2 stars.

9.4-10 is a excellent movie and is 5 stars


So you rated thor 2 7.5/10 a great movie and 4 stars.

If you think it's below average then you have to rate it below 5.5/10.

That's how the ratings and star system work from what i read.

That may be how it works for you but that's not how my system works. I use the RT model. 6/10 is the cut off for positive and negative. When I put a film under that 6/10 it means I think the film doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to make a full viewing worthwhile(though there may yet be some nuggets of goodness lost in the mess that can as individual pieces be ok or even great sometimes).

From there the 6/10 range is passable to ok;

7/10 range is decent to good;

8/10 range is good to very good;

9/10 range is great;

10/10's basically don't exist....I've only given one in my entire life out of hundreds if not thousands of movies seen. It basically means a movie is perfect, I can't find any flaws and I also loved it at the same time.

So no, my rating of 8/10 for the first Thor movie merely indicates that I think it's solidly good. Exact same rating I gave to GotG, actually.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't give half points, so I just work on a 10 point scale since it is what this site uses.

I don't think a film needs to be perfect to get a 10. That's a standard that just isn't achievable. But there is a class of film that you recognize as an all-time classic. Like a Hall of Fame of sorts. That group of films (The Godfather, Casablanca, etc.) are your top tier of films ever made and the ones I give a 10. I have only ever given a 10 to one superhero film (The Dark Knight). Basically, if I think about a film and my first thought is 'yeah, it is one of the greatest movies ever made' it gets a 10.

5 is average, but I don't give positive reviews for average. 6 and up gets the old 'thumbs up' from me.

There is no 0.

1-4 are bad movies in varying degrees. 4 is merely below-average. To get a 1, I basically have to be offended by the film.

 

[Lilbaz]

I do find that funny on this site. That people rate so many things a 10. I'd probably only rate about 5/6 films a 10. Non of them would be superhero films/tv shows. Empire Strikes Back would be the closest Sci Fi film for me. That is partly due to nostalgia.

 

[The Question]

This movie had problems, this cannot be denied. The pacing was a little wonky, the villain was absolutely dreadful, it did a pretty awkward job balancing the sic-fi and fantasy/religious elements just like the first film did, and it ultimately felt kind of aimless.

HOWEVER!

The performances we got out of Hemmesworth, Hiddleston, and Hopkins were amazing (as usual), everything involving Thor and Loki sharing screen time was an absolute joy to watch, the writing for Loki and Thor was the best in the whole film, the funeral scene was truly beautiful, and the ending fight scene was creative and actually gave the female lead something to do instead of being a damsel.

Also, despite my earlier complaints about the awkward blending of the sic-fi and fantasy/religious elements, I really dug that the Asgardian fighters were flying longboats. That was awesome.

All of this made the film intensely enjoyable to me despite its flaws, so it all averages out to, well, average for me.

The only valuable through line in all of the Thor films is the family stuff with Thor, Loki, and Odin, and I hope that Ragnarok will focus on that entirely.

 

[mace1]

Another example what i was talking about.


Episode29

Warners and DC can throw as many conspiracy theories around as they want. The proof is in the product.

Plus, as I've stated before, if anyone looked at all closely at GL's average RT score, it's not that bad. 4.5/10. Basically 2+ stars. Those aren't vicious reviews, they're just unenthusiastic ones.

As you could see this person knows that 4.5/10 translate into 2/ 1/2 stars

This really means so-so i think or average on the rating system,but i think average in the poll could mean just good since in poll i do not see good,just very good unless the poll is flawed.
It could still mean good but weaker.
That one i will have to look up again.


Source-
The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=20648397&highlight=mace1#post20648397

 

[kedrell]

I understand but I only used the system as far as the overall RT score goes as a loose model. I'm aware of the average scores but I never used them. I don't like to parse things down to the single decimal point. I can go as low as quarters of a full number, like .25, .5, .75, etc. but that's as far as I go.

 

[mace1]

Anyway i thought thor 2 was a good film 3 stars,at most 3 1/2 stars or very good,but i gave at it a strong 3 stars for now so i voted in the poll average,because that's what i think the thread starter meant and i did not see good ,just very good,but if he means average below good ,then i guess it's too late to change my vote.

If his very good includes just good then hopefully he could reply to me so i could know more clearly and my vote could change to very good.

I WAS NOT TO GOING VOTE until i was sure what he meant by average.

 

[mace1]

My post reply to you is gone.
I think i delete it by a mistake.
Don't reply to this,is a just a short sum up of what i wrote from above to you but it was deleted for some reason.

Typing man of steel rotten tomatoes in google you will see 3 stars and 57%,meaning in the reviews for rotten tomatoes it is rotten so for the review system it is considered a bad film i guess but that's still considered a good film if you look at the stars RT still gave it.
Open the link RT link for the average score.

It got 6.2/10 for the average score, meaning just good,not very good and that will translate to 3 stars but a stronger 3 stars.

If you type superman 2 rotten tomatoes in google as well it will have 4 1/2 stars and 89% meaning it is considered a great movie but if you open the link and see average score it will have 7.5/10 and that translates in the star system to 4 stars,a great film.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, I think there should have been a choice between 'average' and 'very good' with the label of just 'good'. That's how I'd classify the movie.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

It was a pretty mediocre film. Definitely in my bottom 3 of the MCU films. Iron Man 3 being the lowest, then Thor 2, then Iron Man 2.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Crap movie, other than the performances of Hemsworth and Hiddleston. Easily Marvel's worst film. Bad story, bad direction, bad performances other than the aforementioned actors... Waste of money seeing it in the theater.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I saw it in the theater three times.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I love this movie,to me it is objectively a good movie that I personally enjoy A LOT. I'm sure Ragnarok is going to be amazing though,I can feel it XD. To me it gets FAR too much hate it does not deserve.

-That new Marvel logo was amazing to see for the first time.
-The cast is great
-The visuals are spectacular
-The action was great
-It was quite creative in some spots
-The costumes and make-up are fantastic
-Loved the family dynamics
-Dat funeral
-Thor/Loki relationship is always a joy to watch
-The humor was pretty on par with the first one IMO
-The whole escape plan was great
-I actually think Thor was very well characterized and actually showed growth compared to the first movie
-Kurse was Bad@ss
-The first act dragged a bit
-Malekith was underdeveloped
-Would have liked more Sif/W3
-Don't really mind Darcy

Agree on just about all of this.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I saw it in the theater three times.

Hey, if you really liked it, more power to ya. I hope Ragnarok is better. I think it will be.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Here's my take on this movie:

They nailed the main characters to a tee. It's like Thor and Loki jump off the page. Their relationship continues to evolve. We understand Loki more and yet he's as ambiguous as ever. The scene on the skiff in Svartalfheim between the brothers was terrific. We see Thor's dauntless spirit but also his doubt. Thor grows wiser and shrewder in this than he ever did in the comics but still retaining his bravado and his signature Thor-isms. "With all that power I thought you'd hit harder" "I've come to accept your surrender" etc. etc. We see Thor making questionable choices that reveal flaws in his personality but he's still heroic. He pulls off a plan no one thinks will work and doesn't accept defeat.

I enjoyed the adventure and the fantasy and the expansion into other worlds within the Marvel universe. I like the growth of the mythology and the Dark Elves' race, history and language. I loved Kurse and thought he was extremely menacing. I loved the prison breakout, the invasion of Asgard followed by Thor's conspiracy among his friends, his uneasy alliance with Loki and the exciting escape to Svartalfheim. I loved the humor and I loved the multiple concurrent plot lines. I thought the final battle sequence with Malekith through the portals was very creative and entertaining. I loved the strong female characters like Frigga, Sif and Jane. I loved the funeral scene in Asgard and the introduction of questions like where is Frigga's soul. I loved the epic moments like the ferocity of the ancient Einherjar against the Dark Elves, the kursing of Algrim, Kurse's stare down with Loki, Heimdall taking down the Dark Elf ship and Thor leaping from the balcony to grab his hammer and burning the face off of Malekith with lightening. I loved that I got to see Thor be Thor for an entire movie. There's a lot to like about this movie.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I hope Ragnarok is better. I think it will be.

I do too. I'm counting on it actually. I'm positive that Marvel is unhappy with the lukewarm reception of Thor 2. Feige's comments during the big Phase 3 reveal said as much.

Ragnarok is easily my most anticipated MCU Phase 3 movie.

 

[Erzengel]

The "worst" MCU movies are Hulk, IM2 and Thor 2. However, I'd still consider them average at worst.

But whatever nitpicks they have, these are still miles better than say Green Lantern, Wolverine Origins, FF movies, etc.

I wouldn't put them on the same level as those.

 

[Loki882]

Here's my take on this movie:

They nailed the main characters to a tee. It's like Thor and Loki jump off the page. Their relationship continues to evolve. We understand Loki more and yet he's as ambiguous as ever. The scene on the skiff in Svartalfheim between the brothers was terrific. We see Thor's dauntless spirit but also his doubt. Thor grows wiser and shrewder in this than he ever did in the comics but still retaining his bravado and his signature Thor-isms. "With all that power I thought you'd hit harder" "I've come to accept your surrender" etc. etc. We see Thor making questionable choices that reveal flaws in his personality but he's still heroic. He pulls off a plan no one thinks will work and doesn't accept defeat.

I enjoyed the adventure and the fantasy and the expansion into other worlds within the Marvel universe. I like the growth of the mythology and the Dark Elves' race, history and language. I loved Kurse and thought he was extremely menacing. I loved the prison breakout, the invasion of Asgard followed by Thor's conspiracy among his friends, his uneasy alliance with Loki and the exciting escape to Svartalfheim. I loved the humor and I loved the multiple concurrent plot lines. I thought the final battle sequence with Malekith through the portals was very creative and entertaining. I loved the strong female characters like Frigga, Sif and Jane. I loved the funeral scene in Asgard and the introduction of questions like where is Frigga's soul. I loved the epic moments like the ferocity of the ancient Einherjar against the Dark Elves, the kursing of Algrim, Kurse's stare down with Loki, Heimdall taking down the Dark Elf ship and Thor leaping from the balcony to grab his hammer and burning the face off of Malekith with lightening. I loved that I got to see Thor be Thor for an entire movie. There's a lot to like about this movie.

Aww, that's an adorable picture of Thor hanging out with his good friends and comrades, The Warriors Three. Maybe in Ragnarok, he'll actually get to team up with them properly, or interact with them in any meaningful way. Because thus far, they've gotten next to nothing to do in these movies. How is it in a movie that spends so much more time on Asgard, the Asgardians somehow get LESS to do than in the first movie. Heck Hogun gets written out of the movie entirely after like two minutes of screentime. And ironically, those two minutes give him more characterization than either of the other two or Lady Sif since we actually learn something about him (he's not native to Asgard, where's he's from, and he has a family of his own). Marvel, that's just pathetic on your part. But no, we instead need to give more screentime to Jane Foster's comedy squad, ugh.

 

[First Avenger]

Agree on just about all of this.

We pretty much see eye on eye on this movie,pal .

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Aww, that's an adorable picture of Thor hanging out with his good friends and comrades, The Warriors Three. Maybe in Ragnarok, he'll actually get to team up with them properly, or interact with them in any meaningful way. Because thus far, they've gotten next to nothing to do in these movies. How is it in a movie that spends so much more time on Asgard, the Asgardians somehow get LESS to do than in the first movie. Heck Hogun gets written out of the movie entirely after like two minutes of screentime. And ironically, those two minutes give him more characterization than either of the other two or Lady Sif since we actually learn something about him (he's not native to Asgard, where's he's from, and he has a family of his own). Marvel, that's just pathetic on your part. But no, we instead need to give more screentime to Jane Foster's comedy squad, ugh.

Well I won't argue there. I also would love to see far more of the Warriors Three. The one thing I did like in the Dark World is that Thor had a special moment with each one of them individually and apparently was the director's intent. But yeah definitely need more of the team dynamic and just more of them in general. When the Thor films are the shortest films in the MCU I don't see how they can possibly fit in everything though. And I find it ironic that people around here complain about the Earth scenes and the comedy squad but it was the closing act that won some stingily given praise from critics who otherwise disliked the movie.

Both Thor films have been overly edited down IMO. I'm generally positive towards how Marvel is handling Thor but if Ragnarok short changes Thor with yet another film with a short runtime, I will likely start to join the voices of dissent. But I'm pretty confident Feige is going to reward the faithful with an outstanding final chapter. When you have films like Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy being released in the same year, Age of Ultron on the horizon with an amazing trailer, a release slate that includes the likes of Black Panther and Captain Marvel, and hearing all the people involved gush about working on the "troubled" production that is Ant-Man, it's pretty hard to be down about what Marvel is doing.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

We pretty much see eye on eye on this movie,pal .