The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 3

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah, we can.

 

[Adamantium Man]

if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.

Anyone who denies that Hiddleston as Loki oozed charisma immediately disqualifies themselves. It's like claiming the movie was shot in black-and-white. So, yeah, I'm ignoring it.

 

[GhostPoet]

if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.

No, I despise the critics system in general. Positive or negative. I think as soon as the internet became popular they lost their usefulness. Now they just take up space.

 

[moe]

Ebert sometimes fails to understand the movie he's viewing. Some comments I find utterly ridiculous are:







Is he for real? I know he compares Thor to other comic book movies, but I honestly think the guy doesn't know how to separate films - particularly for what they were looking to achieve.

So many utterly stupid comments in his critique. Reading some more, I see he obviously missed how The Destroyer died and he's complaining that it didn't attack the Golden Gate Bridge ..... huh? Why would it do that? Thor was in New Mexico.

The best is he lumps Obadiah Stane in as one of the greatest CBM villains of all-time. Rigghhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

the points he raises are valid. why is that hard to grasp? The Destroyer stuff aside.. the comments about thor and loki's characters are point on.

 

[Chewy]

if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.

I like Ebert. But that review is hilarious.

He talks about Loki being bland and then says Obadiah Stane is an all-time classic comic book movie villain. And says the New Mexico town was made with CGI!

 

[moe]

Anyone who denies that Hiddleston as Loki oozed charisma immediately disqualifies themselves. It's like claiming the movie was shot in black-and-white. So, yeah, I'm ignoring it.

Loki was intelligent... not charismatic... charisma would have been having Thor's followers become his allies... charisma is blinding people from the truth with your charms...

he was terrible in terms of charisma... he made Sif and Warriors Three even more suspicious... it was the opposite... being cunning and sly is different from being charismatic.

Have you ever watched Big Brother (Reality TV Show)... well back when it was decent.. there was a player named Dr. Will (or dubbed Dr.Evil) that lied and charmed his way to the end... he would tell absurd lies, charm the other players... go into the diary room and tell the audience he was lying... no one suspected him and they all voted for him... only to find out upon leaving that he bamboozled them... that is charm and charisma. he never won a single competition... not one... he won a reality tv show and 1/2 a million dollars by simply lying and charming his fellow players... never himself having any power but using other peoples... loki fails at charisma...

 

[Chewy]

the points he raises are valid. why is that hard to grasp? The Destroyer stuff aside.. the comments about thor and loki's characters are point on.

No they aren't. They absolutely are not.

Thor to begin with is not an interesting character. The gods of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology share the same problem, which is that what you see is what you get. They're defined by their attributes, not their personalities. Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on. Thor is a particularly limited case. What does he do? He wields a hammer. That is what he does. You don't have to be especially intelligent to wield a hammer, which is just as well, because in the film Thor (Chris Hemsworth) doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in Asgard.

There is nothing in that paragraph that is point on.

 

[Chewy]

Loki was intelligent... not charismatic... charisma would have been having Thor's followers become his allies... charisma is blinding people from the truth with your charms...

he was terrible in terms of charisma... he made Sif and Warriors Three even more suspicious... it was the opposite... being cunning and sly is different from being charismatic.

Have you ever watched Big Brother (Reality TV Show)... well back when it was decent.. there was a player named Dr. Will (or dubbed Dr.Evil) that lied and charmed his way to the end... he would tell absurd lies, charm the other players... go into the diary room and tell the audience he was lying... no one suspected him and they all voted for him... only to find out upon leaving that he bamboozled them... that is charm and charisma. he never won a single competition... not one... he won a reality tv show and 1/2 a million dollars by simply lying and charming his fellow players... never himself having any power but using other peoples... loki fails at charisma...

The whole point is that Loki isn't charismatic. Thor is, Loki isn't. He wishes he were but he's not. That's the entire point of his arc in the movie, he wishes he measured to Thor and goes to extremes to prove he can but ultimately he'll never be Thor.

 

[moe]

No they aren't. They absolutely are not.



There is nothing in that paragraph that is point on.

How is that not true. Greek gods and Norse gods are represent one key element... Thor is the film is similar...he wields the hammer and his intelligence is minimal at best... he has sudden shift in that department but its more about become calmer then about gaining wisdom.

its a fun movie... but nothing to dwell deeply into.

 

[Chewy]

How is that not true. Greek gods and Norse gods are represent one key element... Thor is the film is similar...he wields the hammer and his intelligence is minimal at best... he has sudden shift in that department but its more about become calmer then about gaining wisdom.

its a fun movie... but nothing to dwell deeply into.

Nope, his intelligence is never minimal. Patience, sure. But he is well aware that he doesn't fit in amongst his surroundings on Earth. He is never once portrayed as stupid.

Whether you should dwell deeply or not is not relevant in terms of Ebert's review being absurd.

 

[moe]

The whole point is that Loki isn't charismatic. Thor is, Loki isn't. He wishes he were but he's not. That's the entire point of his arc in the movie, he wishes he measured to Thor and goes to extremes to prove he can but ultimately he'll never be Thor.

yes. which is what i said... intelligent but not charismatic... he is like a poor makes Casey Affleck from The Assassination of Jesse James... they play a similar role.

 

[El Payaso]

if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

Absolutely.

But I have read him saying ignorant crap many times now. And the only thing more useless than his reviews is to discuss them.

 

[moe]

Nope, his intelligence is never minimal. Patience, sure. But he is well aware that he doesn't fit in amongst his surroundings on Earth. He is never once portrayed as stupid.

Whether you should dwell deeply or not is not relevant in terms of Ebert's review being absurd.

I am talking about the intelligence he showed before being banished... intelligence means analyzing an action before taking it... thor fails to do that... but allows his emotions to cloud his judgement.

 

[Chewy]

yes. which is what i said... intelligent but not charismatic... he is like a poor makes Casey Affleck from The Assassination of Jesse James... they play a similar role.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the character doesn't leave a lasting impression. Ebert says he didn't think anything of Loki 6 minutes after the movie was over, and uses the lack of charisma as a reason. I suppose charisma is the only character trait worth mentioning or portraying on film?

 

[Chewy]

I am talking about the intelligence he showed before being banished... intelligence means analyzing an action before taking it... thor fails to do that... but allows his emotions to cloud his judgement.

No, that is not what intelligence is. Intelligence has to do with analyzing and understanding the world around you. Many, many intelligent people allow their emotions to cloud their judgement. That is a very human trait.

 

[moe]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the character doesn't leave a lasting impression. Ebert says he didn't think anything of Loki 6 minutes after the movie was over, and uses the lack of charisma as a reason. I suppose charisma is the only character trait worth mentioning or portraying on film?

The thing about loki is that he sends mixed signals and he doesn't really achieve anything of caliber... Joker killed of several key figures in Gotham, destroyed Harvey Dent and killed Rachael... his actions you can remember... but loki's biggest crime is failing to destroy the planet of the frost giants... had he done something drastic like killed odin or allowed the frost giants to do it... than that would be lasting... but right now... its kinda like, well everything he tried failed and all is well.

so i guess in that sense he is quite unremarkable.. but is Tom's performance is very good. I enjoyed it... Loki as a villain was nothing remarkable.

 

[Chewy]

The thing about loki is that he sends mixed signals and he doesn't really achieve anything of caliber... Joker killed of several key figures in Gotham, destroyed Harvey Dent and killed Rachael... his actions you can remember... but loki's biggest crime is failing to destroy the planet of the frost giants... had he done something drastic like killed odin or allowed the frost giants to do it... than that would be lasting... but right now... its kinda like, well everything he tried failed and all is well.

so i guess in that sense he is quite unremarkable.. but is Tom's performance is very good. I enjoyed it... Loki as a villain was nothing remarkable.

What did Luthor accomplish in any of the Superman movies? What did Stane accomplish in Iron Man? What did Ock accomplish in Spider-Man 2? All had plots that failed, like Loki's. Yet Ebert lists them as classic comic book movie villains while at the same time condemning Loki. There's an incongruity there.

 

[Franklin Richards]

As unremarkable as Iago or Judas or Keyser Soze. Not all villains need to twirl their moustaches. Such a heavy handed, ham-fisted approach is not better by any means.

I call ********.

 

[moe]

What did Luthor accomplish in any of the Superman movies? What did Stane accomplish in Iron Man? What did Ock accomplish in Spider-Man 2? All had plots that failed, like Loki's. Yet Ebert lists them as classic comic book movie villains while at the same time condemning Loki. There's an incongruity there.

true. i guess he just didn't enjoy Tom's performance...because with loki, it comes down to whether you enjoyed the performance... ebert's probably has seen way too many movies and his neurons no longer want to erase older memories to replace new ones so they only perform that task when he sees something he loves.

 

[Batz]

My review (with some spoilers) :

http://retcon-nation.blogspot.com/2011/05/thor-review.html

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Roger has been hit or miss for years now. Sometimes he writes good clear reviews and whether he liked the movie or not doesn't matter. But other times he's completely off the mark and veering off into nonsensical territory and you wonder if he actually watched the thing.

 

[The Morningstar]

I agree. I've read a few of Eberts reviews in the last couple of years and actually sat there, scratched my head, and genuinely questioned whether he even watched the movie.

I haven't read his review of Thor yet, but what is he saying about Loki? I honestly don't know how anyone in their right mind can not be impressed with the Loki character. It's just extremely nonsensical.

 

[Tony Stark]

I normally like Ebert's reviews and generally tend to agree with him on movies 85-90% of the time. This review is just strange thought because there is no indication from the review that he actually watched the movie.

He didn't like it? OK, I can live with that, he didn't like the original Spider-man either. But from his review it's clear that any movie based on Norse/Greek or Roman mythology is going to be bad because they're not interesting characters? Despite what he thought of Thor, that is flat out wrong.

Oh well, life goes on.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I saw it today and loved it, I had never read a Thor book before and only know the character from The Avengers and the odd appearance in other characters books/toons, so I can't vouch for source material faithfulness but as a movie I thought it was great.

I felt the balance between Earth and Asgard was perfectly balanced from both a visual and storytelling standpoint, which was a big key to the film's success. The other was the casting which was flawless, especially Thor himself, Hemsworth is undoubtedly going to be a big star and made Thor every bit the hero god he should be, and Hiddleston was superb as Loki, one of the most interesting of recent villains, a sneaky, manipulative trickster with a viscous streak and a genuine grudge.

The central relationships between Thor and Odin, Loki and Jane were all really well played, they felt tangible and the chemistry between the actors brought each dynamic to life.

The costumes and sets were excellent, the depiction of Asgard was stunning, it just felt like a magical place, a futuristic Camelot if you like, and the Frost Giants planet was conversely fearsomely bleak and foreboding.

The action was decent without being outstanding, however the heart heroism and even humour of Thor's journey, along with the magic of Asgard really captured me, great stuff!

8.5/10

 

[WildcatNC]

if he would give it a positive review you all would like him.

you can not accept positive reviews and ignore negative reviews from teh same critics.

We can when he comes off as completely ignorant of what he's talking about. He's been generally out of touch for a while now and needs to give it up. Its not just about this movie either.

If he had made criticism that even remotely made sense you could take it seriously. His rambling was very off base and showed that he didn't even watch half the movie, nor even give it a chance from the outset.