The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 2

[TX85]

A lot of critics don't understand just how ***** and cheesy this movie could have been if the execution was off by a little.

The effort had to be staggering...but I guess some critics can't appreciate that.

People just love to focus on the all negatives they can find in the current form and not think about what IF since it could have been done in so many ways!

Of course the movie or any movie could be even much better in so many ways(although it's all opinions anyway and no such thing as bad or good),But a movie like this could have easily been the f'n opposite on what we saw and even way beyond off than the comics or even the mythology!!

 

[Marvin]

If we are going to see the genre elevated, we can't commend producers for simply not messing up. If that's the case I see a lot of success in marvels future.

What bothers me about the negative reviews is how these people refuse to see the gifts of Hemsworth and Hiddleston. In fact nearly everyone turns in a great performance in this film.

Relax dude, these "performances" may be solid but they are hardly daniel plainview. CH oozes charisma but that's about it...then again, the material was limiting.

I dare say Hiddlestons performance was at least on par with Ledger's as Joker, or at the very least Nicholson's....no he was infact better than Nicholson.

I say nay, maybe if you address this comparison in a week later than thors opening it might seem different.

Even the background performances from Russo, Stevenson, Asano, Dallas and Alexander were excellent.

again someone like Stevenson has done FAR greater work, but then again hes' had more to play with in the past...and that's the whole point. This film didn't really give these character all that much to do...it was a limited vision

This was by far the most difficult CBM to make, with the only close 2nd being the original Superman. But while Superman was able to have three individual segments of Krypton, the farm scenes and Metropolis, Thor had to seemlessly merge Asgard with the Earth scenes. It handled it marvelously (no pun intended).

You need to define you criteria a little more.

People saying this movie "played it safe" don't have a clue what they're talking about. This could have been a total joke, instead it will be one of the most memorous films of 2011, and one of the top 5 CBM's of all time.

The film was ambitious in some areas, but I do think marvel had too much riding on it to really go for "it"
I'm sure the asgardians could have really pushed the shakespere dialect if not for fear of losing the young audience. This needs to be asked.

HOW MUCH BETTER THAN SAY..HELL BOY WAS THIS?
-faithful
-ambitions
-visual
etc.

cause by the way some of "us" fans are reacting in relation to that I'd say a whole lot.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The single criticism that this film hasn't recieved, despite people who may not like it as much as others is Hemsworth and Hiddelston. I haven't heard a single negative thing towards either of them.

 

[marcvader]

Absolutely loved Heimdall. His voice and manner in which he delivered his lined was really cool.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree ... as I posted in the tom hiddleston is loki thread

Spoiler

odin never intended for loki to take the throne of asgard but the throne of jotunheim because he is the prince of that world .. however the fact that odin lead him on all his life that he could be king of asgard was pretty bad considering his father laufey king of that world left him out in the cold to die , it was almost saying here you can have the seconds . do you really think odin could see past who he was ... I think he did love him but deep down he could not get past the fact that he is laufey son and a frost giant ... it really is sad ....now its gonna bite odin in the ass because in the comics so I am told loki takes control of jotunheim anyway but not in the way odin intended he causes more war rather than peace, he should have been honest with him from the start .

Spoiler

Agreed. Odin sought to use him to further his own goals, and it backfired on him. Loki is very to blame for what he did and who he became, but Odin had a hand in it by breeding that competition of wanting the kingdom in Thor and Loki at a young age.

Like I said in my review, I felt very sorry for Loki in this film. I am a younger brother myself, and that feeling of being overshadowed or lesser is very prevelant as you grow up. I juggled a lot of love/bitterness toward my brother for years, and Hiddleston brought those parts of Loki very much to life.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Heimdall was awesome. I had no problems with the actors, the script and director let them down though.

Believe me, if I hated the movie I would have said so but all I saw in the theater was an unsubstantial hot mess of a movie. It's decent to me, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm glad that the movie wasn't awful like the trailers lead me to believe that it would be but I'm not going to praise or damn a movie for only being "okay" to me. I will praise the actors though, particularly Hemsworth, Elba and the guy who played Loki.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Before I begin with my review I'll first start off saying that I've only been familiar with Thor through his various cartoon appearances and that silly 80's Hulk TV movie so I'll be comparing the movie against other MARVEL comic films only.

Ok while I don't know much about Thor I understand some changes were made since I think in the comic it's actually a human Donald Blake that stumbles upon the hammer and transforms back and forth into Thor, right?

I can only sum up the movie like this, it's sweet and nice and will probably entertain 5 year olds but my tastes lean more towards epic scale action battles, if you're expecting action like in Spider-Man and Iron Man then you won't expect much watching Thor.

I can rank the film right up with Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider in that yeah you'll have a good time but you'll be left wanting more, and a bit of a surprise that it got a PG-13 rating when there wasn't anything really that extreme for kids and the fights were more comic book style.

Didn't stay for the credits but is there a post credit scene?

 

[bunk]

That's what it was. Did it ever present itself as more? That is generally the first beat in a relationship, is it not?

Exactly. This seems like a strange sticking point for people to have. There's never any indication that Thor and Jane have anything but a serious crush on one another by the end of the movie.

 

[TerryTate]

I dare say Hiddlestons performance was at least on par with Ledger's as Joker, or at the very least Nicholson's....no he was infact better than Nicholson.

Wow ... just, wow.

And this exactly what I'm talking about.

Though par for the course from someone who last year said Iron Man 2 > Iron Man after its release, and then seemingly has subsequently re-nigged on that asinine statement.

I don't know whose a bigger clown with a statement like that ... you or the Joker.

Dios Mio this one is a looney

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Why would Thor miss her so much or care when she was threatened by Loki if it was only a crush?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Wow ... just, wow.

And this exactly what I'm talking about.

Though par for the course from someone who last year said Iron Man 2 > Iron Man after its release, and then seemingly has subsequently re-nigged on that asinine statement.

I don't know whose a bigger clown with a statement like that ... you or the Joker.

Dios Mio this one is a looney

He can have that opinion. Sorry if this offends you.

I felt it was in the same ballpark, also.

 

[BigThor]

Before I begin with my review I'll first start off saying that I've only been familiar with Thor through his various cartoon appearances and that silly 80's Hulk TV movie so I'll be comparing the movie against other MARVEL comic films only.

Ok while I don't know much about Thor I understand some changes were made since I think in the comic it's actually a human Donald Blake that stumbles upon the hammer and transforms back and forth into Thor, right?

I can only sum up the movie like this, it's sweet and nice and will probably entertain 5 year olds but my tastes lean more towards epic scale action battles, if you're expecting action like in Spider-Man and Iron Man then you won't expect much watching Thor.

I can rank the film right up with Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider in that yeah you'll have a good time but you'll be left wanting more, and a bit of a surprise that it got a PG-13 rating when there wasn't anything really that extreme for kids and the fights were more comic book style.

Didn't stay for the credits but is there a post credit scene?

Iron Man and Spider-Man 1's action scenes weren't really all that impressive, I'll say the Frost Giant battle eclipses anything in both of those films.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Of course lots of real relationships start off with base sexual attraction. So the big kiss before Thor went off to fight Loki was just a spontaneous act of lust? That's it?

I've seen romances in other superhero movies. And as forced or minor as it usually is, those romances move way beyond that within a single movie. Give me a reason to care and get into it now, not a year or more from now (whenver we'll see Jane Foster again).

This isn't the same argument as the people who say that it was "rushed" or "awkward." This is saying that I would've enjoyed the movie more if its romance had a bit more substance to it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Before I begin with my review I'll first start off saying that I've only been familiar with Thor through his various cartoon appearances and that silly 80's Hulk TV movie so I'll be comparing the movie against other MARVEL comic films only.

Ok while I don't know much about Thor I understand some changes were made since I think in the comic it's actually a human Donald Blake that stumbles upon the hammer and transforms back and forth into Thor, right?

I can only sum up the movie like this, it's sweet and nice and will probably entertain 5 year olds but my tastes lean more towards epic scale action battles, if you're expecting action like in Spider-Man and Iron Man then you won't expect much watching Thor.

I can rank the film right up with Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider in that yeah you'll have a good time but you'll be left wanting more, and a bit of a surprise that it got a PG-13 rating when there wasn't anything really that extreme for kids and the fights were more comic book style.

Didn't stay for the credits but is there a post credit scene?

I'm more than a little shocked at the response this is getting on this website and others. To each her/his own though. Then again I'm trying to figure out what was so great about The Incredible Hulk.

EDIT: I also thought that Thor's action scenes were terrible. Not just okay like some movies but down right terrible. Not that the action scene makes the movie because if that were the case TDK would have been a bad film.

 

[Chewy]

Why would Thor miss her so much or care when she was threatened by Loki if it was only a crush?

Because he would rather Loki not kill the woman he has a crush on?

And he missed her because he had a crush on her. It's not like he's freaking out about it, just thinking about her and talking to Heimdall about her while he goes about his life on Asgard. Just as she is going about her previous work, which happens to coincide with figuring out the Bifrost and finding Thor again.

 

[TerryTate]

Anyone is welcome to their opinion.

Already saying the guy who played Loki, who was bland as can be in Thor

Had a performance on par with Heath Ledger's Joker? An instant classic, one regarded as top cinematic villain OF ALL TIME. Won an Oscar in the process.

Really?

No one outside of a few fanboys would dare make such a claim.

I mind as well say Hemmsworth's performance as Thor is on par with DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.

That's how utterly ridiculous it would sound.

 

[Chewy]

Of course lots of real relationships start off with base sexual attraction. So the big kiss before Thor went off to fight Loki was just a spontaneous act of lust? That's it?

I've seen romances in other superhero movies. And as forced or minor as it usually is, those romances move way beyond that within a single movie. Give me a reason to care and get into it now, not a year or more from now (whenver we'll see Jane Foster again).

This isn't the same argument as the people who say that it was "rushed" or "awkward." This is saying that I would've enjoyed the movie more if its romance had a bit more substance to it.

But it would have been unrealistic for the relationship to be any deeper than it was after only a few days. It was just a fun flirty start to a relationship as a side story in the movie. It resonates because there's a palpable chemistry between the actors and it feels genuine.

 

[TerryTate]

I'm more than a little shocked at the response this is getting on this website and others. To each her/his own though. Then again I'm trying to figure out what was so great about The Incredible Hulk.

EDIT: I also thought that Thor's action scenes were terrible. Not just okay like some movies but down right terrible. Not that the action scene makes the movie because if that were the case TDK would have been a bad film.

Guy above just said the no name actor who played Loki had a performance on par with Ledger's Dark Knight Joker ...

But easily better than Nicholson's Joker.

 

[DigificWriter]

There's a genuine level of mutual attraction on the part of both Thor and Jane that goes beyond the 'crush' stage, but said attraction is still only in its infancy by the time the film ends, that kiss notwithstanding (although, as I've previously noted, it really has no more overall significance than a 'first long kiss on the second date' [to quote a line from Kenny Chesney's "The Good Stuff"]).

I'd also like to point out that people keep trying to quantify something as unpredictable as love and attraction into a preset formula that is predictable and fits into a certain 'box', which is, quite frankly, impossible to do. The relationship is left in its earliest stages by the time the film ends, but the stage is clearly set for it to continue at some point down the line.

TerryTate, you're free to disagree with the assessment that Hiddleston gives a performance as Loki that is on par with and as memorable as Heath Ledger's Joker, but to act like said assessment is delusional or ludicrous really crosses a line into insult and mockery, and is essentially saying that you're better because you wouldn't make such a statement/assessment. The person who posted said assessment is as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours, but I don't see/haven't seen them insult you because of your viewpoints.

For my part, I really liked Hiddleston's performance and the way that the character was written, because it was believable, understandable, and fairly tragic, which are all elements that come from the mythology and mythological motifs upon which Stan Lee and Jack Kirby drew when creating the characters of the Thor comics.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I thought both Hemsworth and Lokiguy were great in their roles. They made the movie for me. Hemsworth in particular even made the humor work.

Now about Ledger... who the hell cares if Lokiguy was better or not? Do we always have to go through this ****storm?

 

[Son of Coul]

This was by far the most difficult CBM to make, with the only close 2nd being the original Superman. But while Superman was able to have three individual segments of Krypton, the farm scenes and Metropolis, Thor had to seemlessly merge Asgard with the Earth scenes. It handled it marvelously (no pun intended).

People saying this movie "played it safe" don't have a clue what they're talking about. This could have been a total joke, instead it will be one of the most memorous films of 2011, and one of the top 5 CBM's of all time.

Booyah

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Anyone is welcome to their opinion.

Already saying the guy who played Loki, who was bland as can be in Thor

Had a performance on par with Heath Ledger's Joker? An instant classic, one regarded as top cinematic villain OF ALL TIME. Won an Oscar in the process.

Really?

No one outside of a few fanboys would dare make such a claim.

I mind as well say Hemmsworth's performance as Thor is on par with DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.

That's how utterly ridiculous it would sound.

It's so ridiculous that I couldn't even respond to it. Now I thought that the guy gave a good performance but it's nowhere near Ledger levels. That is fanboy hyperbole speaking...IMHO.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Anyone is welcome to their opinion.

Already saying the guy who played Loki, who was bland as can be in Thor

Had a performance on par with Heath Ledger's Joker? An instant classic, one regarded as top cinematic villain OF ALL TIME. Won an Oscar in the process.

Really?

No one outside of a few fanboys would dare make such a claim.

I mind as well say Hemmsworth's performance as Thor is on par with DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.

That's how utterly ridiculous it would sound.

Once again, you're entitled to your opinion. Stop being a snob.

 

[Chewy]

I thought both Hemsworth and Lokiguy were great in their roles. They made the movie for me. Hemsworth in particular even made the humor work.

Now about Ledger... who the hell cares if Lokiguy was better or not? Do we always have to go through this ****storm?

Apparently. Different characters with very different styles so they can't be directly compared but people around here love to compare things.

 

[Chewy]

Guy above just said the no name actor who played Loki had a performance on par with Ledger's Dark Knight Joker ...

But easily better than Nicholson's Joker.

Fame = talent?