The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 1
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
- Status
kedrell
Fork&SpoonOperator
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 21,379
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 33
So what he's saying is that Thor is good because of Brannah's past? That's a very objective opinion of him.
I...really don't know for sure. But you may get more of a sense of where he's coming from if you listen to the extended clip I posted. Then again, you might not. I enjoyed that review but didn't find it all that coherent to tell the truth. Which kinda makes me wonder why I enjoyed it at all, but then it's just fun to see him go off on something, good or bad. His Sucker Punch review was hilarious I thought.
Tony Stark
Armored Avenger!
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 11,648
- Reaction score
- 467
- Points
- 73
From my understanding, Ebert no longer attends critic screenings. He has special arrangements with the studios and the Chicago Tribune to have private screenings due to his illness.
My guess is that they just haven't had a chance to get him the movie yet. I'd be shocked if he doesn't get a review in for this one.
BigThor
God of Thunder
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 19,100
- Reaction score
- 748
- Points
- 73
t:.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 57,823
- Reaction score
- 66,921
- Points
- 218
Wow, A.O. Scott at the New York Times really hated it. Actually, it seems to me like he hates Marvel's whole franchise plan and is taking his anger out on Thor. 
Chewy
REDACTED
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 13,000
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Yeah, he's done it before. In his "review" of a certain Bat-themed superhero's 2008 film...Wow, A.O. Scott at the New York Times really hated it. Actually, it seems to me like he hates Marvel's whole franchise plan and is taking his anger out on Thor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/movies/24supe.html
Gamma Burst
Superhero
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 8,628
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Some people to just want to hate.
Wolvieboy17
Anthropomorphic Clock
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 12,061
- Reaction score
- 922
- Points
- 73
Meh, who cares? Reviewers all review films from different viewpoints anyway. Some people don't even like the concept of Superhero films, so that informs their viewpoint. But people who like that particular reviewer would probably either not like them as films either, so they can trust the review, or they do like them and would recognise his biased.
Reviewers ARE allowed to be subjective, it's all par for the course. I know for these films, the reviewers I tend to listen to are fans or people who's viewpoints I trust and like.
Reviewers ARE allowed to be subjective, it's all par for the course. I know for these films, the reviewers I tend to listen to are fans or people who's viewpoints I trust and like.
BigThor
God of Thunder
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 19,100
- Reaction score
- 748
- Points
- 73
Wow, A.O. Scott at the New York Times really hated it. Actually, it seems to me like he hates Marvel's whole franchise plan and is taking his anger out on Thor.
Well he can keep on hating it imo, it's still gonna be a well recieved film and with over 124 million dollars internationally it looks like it's gonna to be pretty successfully.
We see how much his "hate" affected Dark Knight...lol
Brian Braddock
R.I.P. '96 Y.N.W.A.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 15,646
- Reaction score
- 259
- Points
- 73
So what he's saying is that Thor is good because of Brannah's past? That's a very objective opinion of him.
That's not what I got from it - I interpreted it as Kermode asking the question 'why are some people so shocked that Ken [not only took the movie but also] knocked it out of the park given that some of his past movies have shown similiar elements'.
Basically saying that if anyone was going to do Thor well, it was going to be Branagh.
Figs
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,630
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 31
Did Thor have more or less SHIELD involvement than IM2?
I ask because some critic was saying it's just a commercial for the Avengers. I ****ing hate hyperbole and exaggerations, much like when people were saying that about IM2. IM2 may not have been all that great, but it wasn't a big advertisement for the Avengers.
I ask because some critic was saying it's just a commercial for the Avengers. I ****ing hate hyperbole and exaggerations, much like when people were saying that about IM2. IM2 may not have been all that great, but it wasn't a big advertisement for the Avengers.
Duker Jay
Sidekick
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,416
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Neither was Thor. SHIELD is there and there is some significance to plot but I think it comes about organically. To some degree, you do need that background knowledge of who SHIELD is before you see this movie but I have a feeling that people seeing this are going to know (most likely already having seen Iron Man and the rest).
So, no. Not an advertisement for the Avengers. Really, SHIELD's role seemed much more minimal than in IM2 but maybe that's just me.
elgaz
Sidekick
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,673
- Reaction score
- 1,198
- Points
- 103
I thought it was on a par with IM2 to be honest.
But it's important to note, SHIELD in Thor are there for the purpose of investigating Thor himself. It's role is not blatantly suggesting anything to do with the Avengers or making that their primary focus - any hints or suggestions at that are kept to a minimum.
But it's important to note, SHIELD in Thor are there for the purpose of investigating Thor himself. It's role is not blatantly suggesting anything to do with the Avengers or making that their primary focus - any hints or suggestions at that are kept to a minimum.
The Guardian
Forever In Darkness
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2000
- Messages
- 5,621
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I got my ticket for the midnight tonight, I can't wait to see this!!!
up:
up:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 57,823
- Reaction score
- 66,921
- Points
- 218
Peter Travers was a fan:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/thor-20110505
I like this because despite his shameless quote-****ey ways, Travers is probably the critic I find myself most often agreeing with.
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/thor-20110505
I like this because despite his shameless quote-****ey ways, Travers is probably the critic I find myself most often agreeing with.
rashad
Hype Board Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,978
- Reaction score
- 285
- Points
- 73
Yeah the Rotten's are coming in more frequently with every Fresh one.
Ponyboy
Serenity now!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,062
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 58
Are you kidding? He loves shirtless man hunk cinema fodder.
Mr. Earle
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13,929
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Shield wasnt about the Avengers in IM2 either and yet people still insist they were.
JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON EVERYONE!
Shield had a supporting role in both movies. Its just that IM2 didnt handle its plot lines well enough. Thor did, although to be fair it was a very straighforward story. Shield had nothing to do with IM2's failure.
But hey: LETS JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON AGAIN!
Yes, i'm mad.
Oh, ok then.
Whiskey Tango
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 25,209
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 31
Peter Travers was a fan:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/thor-20110505
I like this because despite his shameless quote-****ey ways, Travers is probably the critic I find myself most often agreeing with.
Color me surprised, I expected Travers to blast this one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
