The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread

[BigThor]

I kind of hope not. I just don't see any good coming from any marvel character doing something as silly as moving the moon or lifting the San Andreas Fault or an entire continent into space. That....that's s**t's just ridiculous.

Yeah, DC takes things too far in that aspect and besides, Marvel Studios don't really seem to be all that big on "strength feats".

 

[elgaz]

Just finished. AWESOME, loved it! Hemsworth completely owns the role

Ok, now I've got home and had time to think about the film, here's some more thoughts on it.....

In terms of storyline, it's very simplistic in a way, with obvious Shakespearean influences (the wise father and his 2 opposing sons - a format that's been used in countless other fables and stories). That's perhaps why Branagh was attracted to doing Thor in the first place. But with strong performances from all involved, clear motivations for all characters and the vast differences between the locations shown (the colourful, almost magical Asgard versus the dusty desert of New Mexico), he manages to surround the story with so much vigour and energy that you can't help but be absorbed by it.

I honestly couldn't say there were any bad performances in the film. I'll mention the Earth-based performances first. Portman is perfectly adequate as Jane Foster; I use the word adequate simply because her character is earth based, and a large portion of the movie takes place on Asgard - so she's never really given anything too meaty to play with other than to play potential love interest to Thor. What she does, she does well though. The casting of Stellan Skarsgard was a nice touch; he comes across very convincingly as a scientist and of course his Norse background is made use of in the film. Kat Dennings is really only there as light comic relief, but I was pleased to see that she's nowhere near as annoying a character as some of the trailers and TV spots may have implied. And of course, there's Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson) - doing his thing just as he did in Iron Man.

And then there's the Asgardian characters. Thor's warriors (Volstagg, Hogun, Fandral and Sif) all get an adequate amount of screen time and turn in varied and convincing performances. Rene Russo is underused in my opinion, but is as dependable as ever. She's got that MILFy queen look down to a tee . And then there's Idris Elba, who is fantastic as Heimdall - he brings a gravitas and sense of power to the 'gatekeeper' role which thoroughly convinces you that he is not to be messed with.

Which brings us to the 3 main characters, which is how I would class them. Anthony Hopkins can do stuff like this in his sleep, but he is perfectly cast as Odin nonetheless - powerful, wise and benevolent, he plays the character just as I imagined him. Tom Hiddleston is also perfectly cast as Loki; he has that cheeky, impish look about him which works perfectly as the mischievous Loki, and he manages to actually make us feel a little bit of sympathy for Loki despite his actions and intentions as the villain of the film.

And last but not least, there is Chris Hemsworth as Thor. Considering this is his first large role in headlining a summer movie ................... to me, he's just a revelation and completely owns the Thor role - the voice, the mannerisms, his physical power and size - all perfect. And asides from nailing the character, he also nails his arc perfectly - starting off as this hugely arrogant and swaggering warrior, who eventually learns - by helping those much less powerful than him - a big lesson in humility. Hemsworth is as perfectly cast as Thor, as RDJ was in the first Iron Man film - I just couldn't imagine anyone else doing it now.

Some reviews have complained that the Earth-based bits of the film are boring in comparison to the Asgard bits, but I found them fine - it injects some variety into the look and feel of the film, and also serves to highlight the vast differences between the 'realms' as depicted on screen. And to be honest, there's so much colour, majesty and spectacle going on in the Asgard scenes that the Earth scenes are almost needed just to calm things down again. Not that things ever stay calm for too long; there is a lot of action in this film, and I was sitting with a smile on my face every time I saw Mjolnir put to good use. Superman Returns this is not. A few weeks ago, fans were going crazy with questions - does Thor swing Mjolnir? Does he bring down lightning? Does he fly? Without spoiling too much .......................... you'll not be disappointed with Branagh's treatment of the character.

On the subject of Asgard, I should also add that that the special effects throughout the film are top notch - Asgard is truly a wonder to behold, and asides from one weak moment, there is very little on screen which comes off as obvious CGi. Big thumbs up to the FX people.

So all in all, I loved the film. I'll concede that from a storyline perspective it's not some innovative and complex masterpiece like you would find crafted by Nolan and his team; it's simple at heart. But you know what? That approach works perfectly, and as a story it fits with the character of Thor perfectly. It's a big, colourful, action-filled summer movie, and it's also a very, very good superhero movie. I'm itching to see Thor in the Avengers now. I'll give it a solid 9/10.

 

[TeenApeLives]

Awesome comments about the flick man, But about the simple storyline, I mean They all are simple when you think about it, it's just in the way they are told on screen. And one thing that I wish people would stop doing, and this is not a jab at you at all, but comparing Batman and marvel or DC and marvel in general. They ARE different. Also to compare The Dark Knight to every other comic book movie out there...First of all, and i know I will get **** for this, I am NOT a fan of the Dark Knight and to me it is NOT a comic book movie, it is NOT a super hero movie. It is a crime drama wrapped around a property. Batman is the only DC character I actually really like and these nolan films have taken all of the fun and adventure out of the character and the mythos. I'm a big fan of the Vertigo stuff though, very imaginative and out there and the movie adaptations have been pretty great, BUT Marvel is the studio that is doing it right, keeping the fun and super hero tone perfect. They FEEL like I'm reading one of their comics which is what I want out of my comic book film. This of course is just my opinon. Not here to start crap that's for sure. Bottom line...Can not WAIt for Thor and the rest of the CBM's this summer.

 

[Iceman]

Cool review Elgaz, all good to hear

 

[elgaz]

Awesome comments about the flick man, But about the simple storyline, I mean They all are simple when you think about it, it's just in the way they are told on screen. And one thing that I wish people would stop doing, and this is not a jab at you at all, but comparing Batman and marvel or DC and marvel in general. They ARE different. Also to compare The Dark Knight to every other comic book movie out there...First of all, and i know I will get **** for this, I am NOT a fan of the Dark Knight and to me it is NOT a comic book movie, it is NOT a super hero movie. It is a crime drama wrapped around a property. Batman is the only DC character I actually really like and these nolan films have taken all of the fun and adventure out of the character and the mythos. I'm a big fan of the Vertigo stuff though, very imaginative and out there and the movie adaptations have been pretty great, BUT Marvel is the studio that is doing it right, keeping the fun and super hero tone perfect. They FEEL like I'm reading one of their comics which is what I want out of my comic book film. This of course is just my opinon. Not here to start crap that's for sure. Bottom line...Can not WAIt for Thor and the rest of the CBM's this summer.

I understand what you mean. But just for the record, I wasn't subtly trying to compare Thor and The Dark Knight, or DC/Marvel, etc. I simply mentioned Nolan because of his track record of complex/detailed films, so he provided a good yardstick to illustrate my point. Thor does have a simple story - that's the truth, and is my observation. It's not a difficult film to follow or understand.

Thor was directed by Branagh, so at it's heart it has a lot of the influences he has had via his love of old English literature - and like much of them old works, the story of Thor is centred around basic family conflict. It's wrapped up in magic, science, other dimensions & realms, superpowers, etc .... but it's still family conflict at it's core. That's what motivates and drives the characters and the storyline. It's not a complaint - I think the film works better (and is more relatable) by focusing on the basic father/son/brother issues. I mean, Iron Man 2 is arguably a more complex film in terms of storyline, but it suffers badly for it and gets messy by bringing in too many characters and tangents. So on that point, I'm totally in agreement and I hope Marvel stick with the basics.

 

[Kent]

Just saw this. Quite liked it. Tom Hiddleston was fantastic. The action was very lacking except for the sequence early on, but it was such a strong movie in other aspects that it made up for it.

 

[uchiha_itachi]

I actually feel like I've just seen Avengers part I

Just because of the " Thor will return in The Avengers"

and then the after credits scene...**** YES!!!

Iron Man and Hulk feels like the Prequel films and now it feels like the Avengers arc has begun. BRING ON CAPTAIN AMERICA!!

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Teenape, do you know HOW CLOSE we were back during the Hulk TV movies to getting a Thor TV SERIES?

If they hadn't had Thor drinking the way he did, we would have had a series! THAT was how close we were.

As a Hulk fan, I say count your blessings.

I had to sit in theaters and listen to people saying, "Why is he flying?" and things like that during Hulk '03. We are also still stuck with a mute Hulk thanks to the TV show.

Thor can start fresh without the baggage.

 

[uchiha_itachi]

I do think Hulk needs more lines in Avengers

 

[Vartha]

As a Hulk fan, I say count your blessings.

I had to sit in theaters and listen to people saying, "Why is he flying?" and things like that during Hulk '03. We are also still stuck with a mute Hulk thanks to the TV show.

Thor can start fresh without the baggage.

Jeet I had to explain to a co-worker back with Ang's Hulk that the TV Hulk only looked like the Comic book Hulk in COLOR. I had to show her an old Comic (the Wolverine issue ) because she didn't believe me. lol

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Bought my tickets for the midnight showing today for next week!

 

[Vartha]

Nice!

 

[Mauser9910]

I posted a quick review in the poll topic. I'll just add that Jaimie Alewander was perfect.

 

[Raiden]

Yeah, DC takes things too far in that aspect and besides, Marvel Studios don't really seem to be all that big on "strength feats".

I think Hulk should display some amazing strength feat, but I don't really care too much for other superheroes to do likewise. And Superman in SR ended up just lifting one heavy thing after another, so while he may be strong he can also be quite bored.

 

[Weadazoid]

up to 95% on RT.

40 reviews 38 positive only 2 negative....


could we have asked for anything more????? this movie is going to open up like a monster...... it's already a huge critical success...and it kicks off the summer....



I know Marvel had bad luck with Wolverine, but critics weren't drooling over it and it had a Fox taint,....

 

[Lord]

Interesting film, enjoyable but not as good as the others.

 

[Lord]

Yeah, DC takes things too far in that aspect and besides, Marvel Studios don't really seem to be all that big on "strength feats".

That's why DC is experiencing problems on how to introduce its most cosmic characters. And the Marvel universe is easier to control since the characters are not as imortal.

 

[The Bruce]

The film was perfect. There's so much Thor greatness in it. Chris is more Thor than Rdj is Stark. The action is hard to see in 3d. Can't wait to see it again in 2D. Was walt simonson in the movie?

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, DC takes things too far in that aspect and besides, Marvel Studios don't really seem to be all that big on "strength feats".

Well I'd like some strength feats, but I never want them to exist simply to make us go 'Woah, that dude is STRONG!'. In other words, I don't want them to exist purely for their own benefit. They should exist in context of the story and be in line with established character traits.

 

[paulogonza]

for who saw the movie in 3d, is true there is no cap trailer in 3d sessions? because i go to see friday and buy 3d because dont have 2d, is true?

 

[ddddeeee]

I've seen it in 3D and 2D. 2D showing had the Cap trailer but not the 3D.

 

[Vartha]

ODD why would they do that?

 

[obin_gam]

Just got home and I enyojed it. Not as much as the first Iron Man, but it was a very good popcornflick!

3D sucked tho, I usually dont have any problem with seeing the picture clear as day when it comes to 3D movies, but this one seemed "just" out of focus in alot of scenes Too bad my country only got the 3D version. It distracted alot.

 

[Spidey 2007]

Yes, Id like to know more about what trailers they are showing in front of Thor. I want the new X-men to be attached along with the most recent Cap one.....

 

[Tony Stark]

Well the quote I gave didn't mention any distinction with regards to expected number of reviews and Wiki got that right from RT themselves. And in my searches I've seen loads of films that are very highly rated but don't have a certification or even consensus attached to them since they have less that 40 reviews. And these are films that've been out for a long time. For example: Predator(1987). Still no consensus yet, let alone a fresh certification. It's only got 37 reviews, 5 or which are Top Critics(but one isn't counted as either positive or negative so it's really only 4). And that came out a quarter of a century ago.

Yeah, it's hard to see any real thoght pattern there to the method. An 80's film is only going to have a limited amount of reviews, because now a day there's the blogosphere, and a much wider net to cast. I know there is something that critics have to do, to register with RT, so maybe the lack of certification on the older films, has to do with the fact that most of their registered reveiwers never wrote reviews for them? Again I'm just guessing, maybe someone knows for sure.

I know last year, it was very late before IM2 was certified fresh, and that had far more negative reviews by this point, than Thor has right now. So I'm expecting by early next week we'll know for sure.

Guys like Richard Roeper wait until the extreme last minute to post their reviews, and I expect alot of the American "top critics" won't have their reviews in until early next week.

I don't know how much you can project based on the current reviews, but I think that you can probably count on at least an 80% fresh rating, based on the fact that the reviews are coming in at a 6.8/10 average.

Alot of the reviews say this is better than IM2, and that was something like 74% fresh. I'm really hoping for 90% or better, but playing it safe now.