THOR Post Release - Page 2

Tell me about it.  Saw it opening night with the missus in 3D, just to see how it would go.  Then the next day with a friend, who we both decided to see it in 2D for comparisons sake.  Scoured the cinema chains website to see which theatres in the Sydney area were playing in 2D, found one.  Get there, and what do you know?  It's actually 3D . . . assholes.

Yeah, I'm really not happy (tm) because the same situation seems to be arising in my town, at least if advance ticket sales are to go off of.  I figured "in 2D in select theaters" meant that most big multiplexes would be showing it 2D on at least one screen, but it appears it means "showing in 2D only in theaters that aren't equipped for 3D."  Which is precisely none of the theaters in my metropolitan area that aren't "arthouse" theaters.  So does that make this movie the "breaking point" when big-budget blockbusters basically went "3D only?

 

 

 

rs.

 

 

Yeah, I had to watch it in 3D too. The most useless 4€ I've spent in a long time. Even when it is noticable it adds absolutely nothing to the experience.

Hollywood has killed 3-D. I knew they would, again. This is coming from the world's biggest 3-D apologist too.....well, outside of Mama Kate.

Edited by Agent Z - 5/3/11 at 2:31am

I kinda fail to see how they've "killed" 3D when it looks like the only way you'll be able to see the "big" movies in the theater this summer (and even a good chunk of the smaller ones) is if you see it in 3D.  Assuming profits go up, I doubt they're going to change the MO next year.

It "killed" 3D in the sense that it is slowly becoming a dissincentive rather than an added value to movie watching. If you want me to pay extra to watch your movie you better bring something in exchange.  For Thor and come to think of it every 3D movie I've watched, 3D has only meant that I had to pay extra so I could the movie with some stupid glasses on. Even for the flagship 3D movies such as Tron and Avatar, it added nothing except ticket price. I was initially open to it but I'm still waiting to be impressed. 

I would disagree on Avatar.  I thought the 3D in that one was impressive and should serve as the benchmark for 3D going forward.  Completely agreed on every other movie I've seen in 3D though, including Tron Legacy, and on the sentiment in general.  I'm just annoyed because I've been a die-hard theater-goer.  I enjoy the experience of sharing a movie with a few hundred other folks (and usually with a few close friends) and munching overpriced concessions while (hopefully) being entertained. Unfortunately shelling out for a ticket that's twice as expensive just, as you say, so I can wear some stupid glasses (over the glasses I already wear) for two hours is seriously pushing me towards "wait for the blu-ray" rather than let the theater chains and studios nickel and dime me further.

Went to an early screening and I have to say, I was underwhelmed by this.

 

I think that Hemsworth is quite good, but he deserves a better film.  I felt like the SHIELD/Avengers stuff detracted from this film.  SHIELD does not play a major role in the resolution of this film, yet they take up a major chunk of screen time that could have gone elsewhere.  If you're not going to have action happening during a superhero film, you had better have something compelling going on, and what I saw didn't do it for me.  I don't know why Skaarsgard was even here, Dennings was basically like a little frog going "ribbit ribbit" during scenes and trying to pass as comic relief, and I was really bummed with how they handled Jane Foster.  Women in films like this are usually reduced to ogling the hero or being kidnapped, but here was an instance where it actively annoyed me.  If it had been my decision, I would have cut out Skaarsgard and Dennings, reduced SHIELD, and focused a bit more on beefing up Jane and making her a woman who takes no shit, who isn't impressed by Thor's body or boasting, who doesn't get all giggly around him, who gets offended when Thor disrespects her, a woman worth changing for.  

 

I wish they'd had a woman who could go toe-to-toe with a god, not a giggly cheerleader hanging on the star football player's arm.  As it stands, he doesn't have to change to earn her love.  He's got her from the moment they meet, basically.  Where's the story in that?  I also wished they'd had Thor act douchey toward her at first.  She's a mortal, she's beneath him, and he should have acted like it initially (he is supposed to be an arrogant douche, right?), but he gets the googly eyes the moment he sees her.  Make these two earn each others' respect.  Don't even have a kiss before he leaves.  Just give us the possibility of what could be, make Thor want to come back to her to pursue something more, and then make him destroy that bridge.  That makes the ending so much stronger, and also adds to his arc.  There is no real moment where he realizes, "Hey, I'm a douche.  My behavior hurts people.  I need to change."  He's all charm and smiles right away.  It doesn't feel like there is real character growth on his part.

As far as the action scenes go, I was never really invested or involved in them.  The bit where Thor flies through that giant monster in his first fight was a nice touch, but the SHIELD raid was a waste, and by the time The Destroyer shows up, I had disengaged from the film completely.  In regards to Loki, I actually found him to be a sympathetic character.  Too sympathetic, to the point where the film resorts to Loki using cheap tricks and taunts to get me to dislike him.  He didn't want Thor on the throne?  Understandable, Thor's a douche.  He wants to please his dad?  Understandable, who doesn't?  He wants to wipe out the race of guys WHO WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED TO BE THE BAD GUYS AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THE FILM ASKS ME TO CARE ABOUT THEM AND THEIR IMPENDING GENOCIDE?  Understandable, he's protecting the kingdom.  And that final fight felt pretty anti-climactic to me.

 

It's not terrible, but I have no urge to go see it again this weekend.  On a final note, I saw the film in 2D and I don't think I missed a thing.

I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would. Was never a big Thor fan, but as others have mentioned, it was nice to see a super hero do super hero stuff and enjoy it. The frost giant fight at the start was the high point though.

 

Old Chris Hemsworth has come a long way since Home and Away.

 

The 3d is hopeless. I got frustrated early on with how dark it made everything, so I just took off the glasses for a majority of the running time (a lot of which is pretty much just plain old 2d...I didn't notice 'the blur' until there were establishing shots).

I saw this in 2D as well. But I was wondering about the 3D as well.

 

The "Darkening effect" on the print that 3D has. How prevalent is it in other 3D films? I first noticed it in AVATAR. Really took away some of my enjoyment of the film. The colours were fine in TRON LEGACY, even though I felt the 3D didn't add much to the happenings.

 Quote:

 

Although I disagree partly with your views on Loki's motivations, I was confused by this...at the beginning of the film, the Frost Giants forcefully assault Asgard with the intent of reclaiming a war artifact.  Why does Odin still want to establish a tentative peace treaty with them?  Thor and Loki were pretty much contending with an imminent threat that had stepped on their soil.  It's established early on in the film that Odin has no qualms over warring with other peoples over relevant issues, and trying to storm his realm sounded like a pretty legitimate reason to strike back for me.  Anyone have to answer to this, perhaps?

I thought it kinda had to do with Odins speech to his sons at the start...something like going to war doesn't make you a great king, but being prepared for one does...

 

..wow - this film contains some nice allegory to the 'War on Terror'...

Thor brought up that point actually. Odin's reply was that it was the actions of a few extremists, and not worth the cost of an all-out war.

So the powers at be at MARVEL where just happy with the 3D... It made me wonder...how were they happy?  or is it just a "good enough" attitude.

I still stand by my general point.

 

Having come from an early screening of Thor though, I will say that the 3-D in it is decent enough. There is a good sense of depth (much better than in Tron Legacy) and, at the theater I was in, the print was well-lit and the action easy to follow.

 

Still, beyond the pop-up book aesthetics (which is kind of endearing for a comic book vibe), there's no real purpose (or memorable moments) served by having Thor in 3-D.

 

As for the film itself, I found myself liking it much more than I thought I would. As superhero origin stories go, I never thought they could do a live-action Thor without it being total Flash Gordon-camp, but this works surprisingly well. Asgard looks incredible. Hopkins is really on, finally again. In fact, all of the cast really sells the hell out of some pretty generic superhero "fish out of water" conventions.

 

I also bought the connection between Thor and Jane. Sometimes, you are just smitten with someone, from the start. That doesn't invalidate their attraction to me, or their strength as characters. Considering the circumstances, if someone like Thor fell from the sky into my life, I would probably be attracted and giggling myself. See Doctor Who companions for this dynamic...

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I'll rate this just a bit below the original Iron Man for my favorite Marvel superhero film. The crowd I was with seemed to love it as well.

 

The Stan Lee cameo was hilarious too, right up there with his Iron Man 2 bit.

Edited by Agent Z - 5/3/11 at 10:40pm

I was really impressed with Chris H in this movie and look forward to what he'll bring to future roles of his. Every other aspect of this movie was a huge disappointment.
- to split the story up in 2 equal size parts meant they both felt like TV shows.
- Portman was terrible and so was the lovestory element. Fully unbelievable, that last kiss was so cringeworthy, why didn't they hold back a little and save the actual kiss for a future movie. Leave some tension man.
- the action and effects were piss poor. The lousy 3D that was completely pointless in this movie, made that first big action sequence almost impossible to follow for me. Also, there was no depht at all to the 3D and it even made some of the big sweeping CG tracking shots look like it was a small model of the world we were watching. I noticed that in the Transformers teaser the 3D felt far, far more relaxing to the eyes and convincing. It looked completely natural to the eyes and I think the 3D in that will match that of Avatar. It just goes to show the difference of shot 3D to conversion.
- all the SHIELD stuff was embarrisingly bad. i haven't read many comics but arent thwy supposed to be a somewhat competent operation?

But as I said, I really loved the lead so that gives me hope for The Avengers. Can't wait to see him and Downey Jr. bounce off eachother.

It's funny that you brought up Doctor Who, because Asgard in the film reminded me of Gallifrey, and the Asgardians the Time Lords. Thor and Loki even had a Doctor/Master (Tennant/Simm era) vibe going.

No, they're really not.

 

To be more specific, they're only competent when it's a comic book that focuses solely on SHIELD, and even then it's usually only a select handful (Nick Fury and his most trusted subordinates) that really come across as particularly good at what they do. Half the time SHIELD is usually fighting itself in its' own series to boot (corruption from within/coup attempts, etc...).  So yeah...track record not so good.

 

Most of the time, SHIELD is basically just a plot device that allows for easy cannon fodder for the bad guys to blow up to establish how "serious" the threat is before the superheroes swoop in and save the day, and provides a built-in government agency that can be either ally or antagonist for the heroes depending on the situation.  They're often portrayed as partially corrupt, to boot (though that might be more difficult in the movie-verse where they seem much smaller than the monolithic multinational organization that exists in the comics, where the excuse is that they're "so big that not even Nick Fury can keep a handle on all of it").

 

They're basically a comic-book version of the police and the military all rolled into one, and in a comic-book superhero universe, the genre itself forces the police and military to be ineffective at handling the primary "super" threats or else there isn't any reason for the superheroes to be around.

 

Of course, all that goes for the classic SHIELD of the old-school Marvel comics...currently I don't think SHIELD even exists in the comics and there's a whole series going on that's establishing some funky Da Vinci Code-esque "ancient conspiracy" backstory for them, too, so....dunno if any of that's ever going to make it onto movie screens, but currently SHIELD is kaput.

 

 

Just came back from watching this in 2D.

 

And yeh was ok.

 

I think the movie needed more of Thor as a mortal/man/regular dude, and possibly less in Asgard (which although CG heavy looked very veyr cool from a design perspective). But Thor was kind of average to above-average overall.

 

But also kinda funny intentionally and unintentionally, like when he gets re-united with his hammer he also magically gets his cape and armour back. Which looks as good as cape and armour can look (i.e. borderline ridiculous), yet they all stand in awe of his new threads.

 

 

I guess I'm the only one here who really dug the look of the armor, even on Earth?  Call me crazy, but I bought it just as much, if not more, than Batman's armor from the Nolan films.

 

Really taken aback by some of the mixed reactions.  Dug the hell out of the movie and thought some more people here would too.

To be fair, a lot of us haven't seen it yet (doesn't open till Friday).

I think in the recently-opened joinshield.com website, if that is movie canon, they establish that, yes, this silly concept will be treated as part of the Marvel movieverse.
 

I better get out of this thread, I haven't seen the movie yet.

 

 

I was underwhelmed by the movie, but I loved the look of his armor, particularly how bright red that cape looks on Earth.

 

The armour did look spectacular in the middle of a little dustbowl town - the colours and style just popped.

I agree. It seems people doesn't fucking know what the fuck they want with a superhero movie these days. It's Thor people, its never supossed to be the end all of the genre. It just wants to be fun with some depth of characters thrown into it, and in that sense i think it succeds.

Saw it tonight, really enjoyed it, more so than any of the other Marvel films to date. I guess it was the combination of the glorious Asgard stuff - which gave a grand, sweeping scope and feel to proceedings - and Loki proving to be the best villain this side of Magneto. The cast were great, Thor himself was just the right combination of insufferably arrogant and charmingly heroic and I loved that for once we had a film that was happy to go all out and show us a superhero in all his glory. I get why some find the Destroyer fight anti-climatic but really, it just serves to show us how powerful this guy actually is, that this fearsome weapon that's tearing shit up left, right and centre is just nothing compared to the true power of Thor.

 

Of course, it does make you wonder how he's going to fit into the Avengers given he's almost certainly more powerful than the rest of them put together but hey...

 

So yes, definitely recommended. My only niggle with it really would be the way Thor learns humility and worthiness in basically a couple of days. Given we're looking at an ancient, immortal being here, I'd imagine he'd be a bit too set in his ways to reform quite so soon, no?

 

 

As for the 3D/2D thing, the little cinema I saw it on surprisingly were doing the 3D thing too, annoyingly, and other than the added sense of depth, I really don't get why they bothered. It all seemed fairly pointless and unnecessary.

What, there's humor in my comic book film? WHAT, my superhero is looking like a superhero??!!! What, it all ended in a predictable showdown?!?! What the hell kind of comic book film is this?!?!   

 

Ahhh, I didn't think of that at the time, but can really see that comparison now. Good stuff!  :)
 

 

I'm only disappointed with the prospect of an anticlimactic Destroyer fight for purely geeky reasons:  In the comics the Destroyer is Seriously Bad News (tm) and Thor usually ends up being pretty effed up after he's done fighting it.  It's usually portrayed as stronger/more durable/more destructive than he is.  It won't bug me -that- much, but I admit I was kinda looking forward to seeing an epic Simonson-esque battle where Thor really looks like hell by the time he's done.  Those are always the best Thor stories.  Maybe...MAYBE...we'll get a hint of that in Avengers when the inevitable Hulk vs. Thor throwdown occurs.  We can hope, anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

hey i saw the thor last week and found it amazingly superb and i am planning to watch it again with my friends.......

Yeah, but then they should have made Loki even stronger. Basic hero story element: the stronger the villain, the more exciting it becomes to see how the weaker hero takes him down. And it would have been a perfect increase. You have the Destroyer, the ice giants and their monster easily killed by powerful Thor, who's not even breaking a sweat doing so. Now if the same guy is only barely able to beat Loki, you get a real sense of how powerful and dangerous Loki is. Take the scene in which the warriors three see that Loki is the new king of Asgard. They're stunned and frightened, they don't dare to say anything against him. But you don't get to see why they're afraid. In Jotunheim, Loki should have shown that he's quite a capable magician and not just a coward throwing small fireballs. He should have been as dangerous as Thor and able to easily fight the warriors three. Only then would it have been thrilling when Loki begins to project his anger on earth.

Simple example: Iron Man. In the first one, Bridges suit is stronger than Downey's, while in the second Downey super easily kills off the weaker Rourke. Or take Daredevil. Having the all hitting villain meet a hero who's capable of foreseeing and evading any oncoming projectile... that's not the best concept.

But it's not about strength... Loki is master strategist, that's his thing, not his ability to punch or throw fireballs. It's the only way you can make him a real threat because we all know that in the end, Thor has his hammer and would be able to punch just a little bit harder than him.

 

That's the reason that Bridges, Rourke and Rockwell made entirely impotent villains in Iron Man. They're never shown to be smarter than Stark, so we're never worried that they'll succeed.

Well traditionally the Dragon (Destroyer) poses the physical challenge while the Big Bad (Loki) poses the mental/moral challenge.

Somebody forgot to write a second act for this movie, so while the first was really quite entertaining, the third didn't live up to its potential.

 

Everything in the middle was either perfunctory or annoying. Truly awful and lazy humor, thankfully only based in dialogue for the most part, clutters up the second act, which otherwise has some half-assed romance building and a weak action sequence.

 

The first act, though, with Asgard and Frost Giants and Anthony Hopkins actually bring subtlety and power to his performance, made the movie worthwhile. The Shield stuff was all decent, as well, even if every fight scene was a little limp.

 

My screening was sadly in 3-D. I wouldn't recommend it. Sometimes it made it look as if one actor had been super-imposed in front of another, and that was pretty funny.

It was Ok.  I've never read the comic and maybe is just me, but i was a bit disappointed in Thor i always imagined him as a super mighty entity and much much taller!

I'm sure Chris is a nice guy and all but i can't see him as a God.. to me he looks like the member of a metal band.

Tom Hiddleston did a great job, somehow i found myself rooting for him.

Perhaps I'm looking way to much into this movie but... how hypocrite was Thor?  Loki did everything he wanted to do before he was dumped on earth.

Funny how in a few days a former God can learn the meaning of life thru love and pancakes.

Pancakes made Hellboy turn against Hell.  Let's not be too hasty about downplaying the effect of pancakes.

 

As you should know.

Well played sir.  I forgot about about that :P

Liked it a lot.  The weak second act trend in Marvel movies seems to be lessening, though I felt that there needed to be more showing of growth for Thor when he was in that town.  I know he's smitten with Jane and eventually learns a lesson, but he didn't really seem to have been taught anything.  I guess seeing the Destroyer laying waste had an effect, but I didn't really feel it.  What must be Branagh's influence on the characters and relationships made the movie for me.

 

The cast was pretty uniformly great, and I even liked Kat Dennings as the comic relief.  Didn't know that Laffi was Colm Feore though.

 

It's logical that SHIELD would handle stuff like this, but would it have killed them to have thought of sticking Hawkeye in earlier?  In addition to having a role, or at least being there, for the Destroyer, it would have been good to see Hawkeye at least be in the same shot as Thor.  Like when Thor was walking out of the compound, have Hawkeye look at him and smirk or something like he could have taken him.  No need for a Black Widow in Iron Man 2 sized role, but a bit more integration than an afterthought.  Even if it was kinda thrilling to see Renner all up there with his bow and everything.

 

One thing though, Odin was wrong.  He seems to think it was a few extremists, but even though it was Loki's help, Laffi was perfectly willing to try to assassinate Odin.  I guess Laffi thought he could get away with it, but still.  Frost Giants weren't necessarily over the war, and that's from the very top.  They might not have done something until much later, but they were still spoiling for a fight.  But, I guess that's why Odin was still always prepared to fight a war, even if he didn't want to start one.

Yeah, it was an uneasy truce, but still a truce.

Chris Hemsworth is only three inches shorter (6'3") than Marvel's "official" height for Thor (6'6").  Heck, in the group shots from last year's San Diego Comic-Con..Hemsworth looks to be half-a-head to a full head taller than the rest of the lineup.

 

Put me in the liked it but didn't love camp, but I'm wondering if this ends up becoming the real story of the movie--and how it will play given events this week.

 

 

Thor's "lesson to learn" is that it's wrong to use magic (ie advanced tech) to sneak attack your enemy's homeland and kill him. The climax is basically him stopping Loki from sending Bifrost Team 6 to kill Usama Bin Frost Giant. Not sure this is something Americans are in the mood to see right now.

Had a good time with this. Hemsworth is incredible, possessing a knowing charisma that made everything he said make me want to laugh or cheer. Hiddleston is great as well, balancing bored mischief-maker with evil machinations well. This continues the strange trend in Marvel films of the villain being more sympathetic than the hero for the majority of the running time until a last minute escalation ie. Tim Roth until he becomes the full-Abomination, Mickey Rourke until he attacks the expo. This is not only a sign of well-written, well-casted villains, but heroes that have a fascinating character arc that starts them off as complete assholes.

 

Obviously Iron Man pulled this off better because Thor's redemption felt a little truncated (like most of the 2nd act Earth stuff), but I bought it in the moment. Thor had just been proven unworthy and (thought he) lost his father in one minute, followed by bonding with Stellan Skarsgard and Portman, two normals that he'd previously considered beneath him. Although it's brief, his actions in the town (saving civilians instead of joining in the fight, telling Sif to live instead of dying and becoming a legend, sacrificing himself to save others) are completely contrary to his actions at the beginning of the film. He has changed. Perhaps Odin would have let him sweat it out on Earth a little longer, but the situation demanded action.

 

I think there was the right amount of balance between Earth and Asgard, but I wonder about the way those moments are positioned throughout the film. I expected to start off on Earth longer and get eased into Asgard, but the movie decided to jump right in. Not so much a complaint for myself as I'm used to this kind of sci-fi/fantasy, but I wonder if mainstream audiences will be squriming in their seats by the time Thor crashes down into the desert.

 

I did wonder what the purpose of Skarsgard and Dennings was. Imagine if those characters were cut out, and most of their lines/characteristics were given to Portman's Foster. Not only would she have the skepticism of Skarsgard and the sass of Dennings, but she would have done more and spent more time with Thor. An odd choice, writing a female scientist character that is obviously mature (Portman may look young, but by having college student Dennings there and Foster's impatience with her, I think it's safe to say Foster is near 30) but still needs a male mentor character to protect her.

 

Hmmm, well, fun time at the movies. Most of the characters didn't get a lot of development but (and I'll liken this to Constantine's ability to evoke comic book backstory in looks and brief exposition) I felt like there was history and comraderie there. Some jarring editing in places, and a few odd acting choices that would have been deal-breakers if I wasn't already along for the ride, but a worthy successor to Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. I was never a Thor reader as a kid so I will say the movie made me care about a character that seemed impenetrable before.

 

Oh, and finally for the minute or so he was onscreen, I think Samuel L. Jackson finally cemented his Nick Fury. There was more professionalism and menace this time around (better clothes as well, no more beer belly hanging out). I hated him in Iron Man 2, so lazy there, so this was a nice step up.

I'm jealous. I'm still waiting to get it.

 

I just can't get on board with Jackson as Fury. He's not even convincing as Ultimate Fury. I just don't get that 'battle hardened' warrior vibe that Fury needs. You need to believe that Fury has fought in and won Wars. I hope he pulls it out for The Avengers because he needs to be a leader of men by then.

 

Regarding the post credit scene, I was a bit perplexed. Why introduce something like the cosmic cube then? It's obviously important in the Cap movie and The Avengers so why was it slipped quietly in the back like that, surely it will only be reintroduced again in Captain America.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I'm sure it'll get a proper and formal introduction in the Cap movie. The teaser works because it establishes, 1) that Fury is aware of Thor, 2) that Selvig will be doing work for S.H.I.E.L.D. and will show up in The Avengers, 3) that Loki is still alive and (judging from how demented he looks in the mirror image) has embraced being a full-on villain and that there's no way back into Asgard's good graces, 4) and last but not least it teases the Cosmic Cube, which if you see Cap and remember it will be cool, and if you didn't or don't, it'll still be fully explained in that movie anyways.

 

 As an aside, I really, really liked the movie. Like someone said, it has its faults (a really rushed first-quarter and a love story that never really convinces), but it's so goddamn earnest and the performances from most of the players were so good and fun that you just fall into its arms. I came out more than satisfied enough with it, which is always a good thing with any film, much so with one I've been looking forward to for so long.

 

 Hopkins was in it WAY more than I expected. I loved the final Rainbow Bridge sequence, from the battle up until Loki falling into the abyss.

 

 Good stuff, really happy with how it turned out.

You mean, like... a son who is secretly adopted from his most dangerous foe?

 

Really though, quite a bit of the beneficial and powerful technology we have in the real world can be turned around and used in a destructive manner -- so long as the person wielding it has the know-how, and no conscience.

Movies don't infer they imply. People infer. 

 

I saw it earlier today and wrote a review for my comics-related blog (Comics Con Queso) which I will post here so you don't have to click away. Short version: I liked it.
 

 

Very entertaining movie. I actually had a lot of fun with this one, and it was good to see a comic book movie that actually felt like it had sprung from a comic book. The Asgard sections were definitely the best bits due to the threats faced to the family and the kingdom, and I guess the Earth sections suffered a little because of that but it was only a minor flaw for me. I think that the Foster / Thor romance could have maybe done with another scene or two as I agree with those who say that Thor's redemption seemed to happen quite quickly - hopefully there's a deleted scene or two that might reappear when it's released on DVD. Hemsworth was great in the title role (the guy's certainly got charisma) but Tom Hiddleston was the standout for me. The role could easily have been a moustache-twirling bad guy part but Hiddleston managed to make me feel sorry for the sneaky little rat. Very much looking forward to seeing him again in The Avengers.

The action scenes were really good (and I was happy with the fact that I could actually see what was happening for once). I walked out of the movie wishing it had been longer which doesn't happen a lot nowadays.

 

Branagh has gone up in my book quite a lot thanks to Thor. I initially questioned why he had been chosen as a director but I take that back now. His influence on the Asgard scenes was most certainly noticable. In lesser hands those sections could have been disastrous but Branagh helped to keep them as interesting, and bubbling with Shakespearean drama. Oh, and I'm happy to report that Anthony Hopkins seems to be alive and well. I thought he'd slipped into some kind of coma with his recent output but the guy was on fire in every scene here. Welcome back Mr. Hopkins. I've missed you!

I mostly liked it. Loki is awesome. S.H.I.E.L.D. is boring. Needed more Thor flying around shooting lightning/smashing things. The Avengers better be pretty brilliant for all the compromises it's making the other Marvel movies make.

Saw this today: Loved the shit out of it, far more than I was expecting. I enjoyed the romance between Hemsworth and Portman more than a lot of people here did, though I agree with Harley that it was a little too easy in the making: Having her bristle at Thor's arrogance in the early stages would've added an extra dimension to their growing attraction, as it would've been something that feeds into his learning humility. And yes, Thor's switch does happen a little too quickly; the film does throw in all the elements to make Thor's breaking understandable (The exile and Mjolnir's 'rejection' of him followed by his being made to believe that his father was dead and his mother has disowned him and forbade his return to Asgard) but he needed a period of confusion and/or bitterness before he became all-round nice guy to Jane, Darcy and Selvig. As it was, it came across less as the learning process it was meant to be and more him suddenly going "Oh! I'm actually quite a nice bloke. Okay then...".

 

As for Odin's reluctance to take the Frost Giants to task for breaking in, I got the impression that Loki was as much a factor as basic diplomacy. He admits himself that he planned to use Loki as an instrument to engineer a lasting peace between the realms, and doesn't want any minor incursions coming along and fucking it up. Loki provides the one factor that can ensure that the Frost Giants will actually WANT a permanent peace, and Odin doesn't want to play that card until the right moment (In his eyes)

 

Mixed in with this is what seems like a fear of what Loki might do when he finds out his true heritage: it's the reason he was never truly up for a shot at the throne, and Odin's reaction when Loki does confront him about it makes pretty clear that he was trying to put it off as long as possible.

 

As for Loki, I think Hiddleston was fantastic and Loki the best-written character in the film. It's true that at times his motivations seem muddled, but I took that as being by design: Loki is the kind of Shakespearian-model tragic character you want someone like Branagh directing, a man of great qualities that are overshadowed by a fatal flaw that destroys him. In Loki's case, a mastery of diplomacy that is overwhelmed by his jealousy and insecurity. Everything he does is driven by the need for his father's approval (Even after learning that he's Laufey's son, he still declares himself the son of Odin) yet everything he does to secure it drives him further and further into a hole he can never pull himself back out of.

 

Visiting Thor when he's captured by SHIELD is IMO his turning point - seeing Thor so humbled, he could've easily went back to Asgard, told Odin that Thor had learned his lesson and won that love by being the agent of his brother's rehabilitation. Unfortunately, he goes ahead with the story about Odin dying and his mother hating him, and the moment is lost; from here on in he can't afford to let Thor back without his deception becoming known, and he's locked into the plan of suckering Laufey into Asgard while at the same time suppressing Thor and his friends. If it seems like a convoluted and unwieldy plan, that's because it is - Loki is a master strategist pushed into shitty strategizing by his own lack of emotional control, and by the time it all starts going tits-up he's too corrupted to see it.

 

Great cast, Hemsworth was superb and Elba was indeed badass (Giving Heimdall a nice sense of understated wryness; his withering disapproval of Loki was really fun) Another pleasant surprise was the well-roundedness of Branagh's direction: we all knew that he'd do well with the court intrigue stuff (It's the guy's bread and butter), but I never expected him to handle the action and effects stuff so well. So yeah, it may have had its flaws but i thought the good way outweighed the bad.

Edited by Workyticket - 5/7/11 at 12:56am