Review: 'Thor' offers up colorful, cosmic introduction to Asgard's greatest hero
Intimate at times, epic at others, 'Thor' is strong addition to Marvel universe
Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth play Loki and Thor, brothers whose complex relationship drives much of the drama in Marvel's newest superhero movie 'Thor'
Are you a fan of The Avengers?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
I am of mixed mind about the glut of superhero cinema right now, and this summer is going to test the patience of the audience with the genre.
In the comments section for my "Transformers" piece yesterday, Vern posted a few times, invoking the image of Pauline Kael trying to write about the current landscape of movies. And it's both very funny and a nice humbling reminder that critics are defined by their overall diet of movies. We are only ever as good as the movies we are given to write about, and when I'm done with all of this in the future, will the sum total of my work be varying opinions about how well people crafted movies that primarily deal with dudes in funny costumes beating the hell out of each other?
The thing is, part of me has been waiting my whole life to see the Marvel characters in particular brought to life on the bigscreen. Now that they're actually doing it, there is a great deal of satisfaction in seeing how they approach each of the characters, and even if I haven't loved all of the films, it's been exciting to watch these things come to fruition. And I am happy to admit that I'm an easy mark for this sort of thing. I have a voracious appetite for pulp, and I'm not sold on the idea that these movies need to be "important". On the other hand, if they're not fun, they don't really have any reason to exist. These films cost a small fortune, especially if you want to make the outrageous seem possible, and that sets up the expectation that they must be bigger and more significant than the average issue of a comic book… even if that's all these films really are.
"Thor" is the latest film from Marvel Studios, and part of this year's double-feature that completes the run-up to next summer's "The Avengers," the biggest gamble the studio's made so far, and one of the biggest gambles from any studio in town. One of the most common complaints about last year's "Iron Man 2" was that it felt like more of a set-up for another movie than a complete story that worked on its own, and that's certainly a danger when you're working your way towards something. "Thor" is also risky for the studio because it is the first moment where they're introducing magic to the Marvel Universe, which has been defined by a sort of pseudo-science so far, impossible but at least pretending to be set in a real world. With "Thor," they're making a pretty major jump, and even after visiting the set and reading the script, I had some big questions about whether or not they'd strike the right tone and find a way to make this feel like part of the world they've been so carefully building.
The answer is a resounding yes to both questions.
Chris Hemsworth, best known to audiences as Kirk's father in that powerful opening scene to "Star Trek," is just as good a fit for the character of Thor as Robert Downey Jr. is for Tony Stark, and that one thing goes a long way to making the film a pleasure to watch. Finding the right way to introduce the character and his mythology is the big task this movie has, and there were some very interesting choices made in deciding how to bring Thor to life. First, they dumped the notion of him changing into a human being, something that was part of the earliest version of the character that Marvel published. Originally, Dr. Donald Blake had no idea he was Thor until a chance encounter with a cane he found in a cave revealed his true nature to himself. In that version of the story, he had been sent to Earth by Odin to learn humility, and living his life as a human being in an infirm body was an important way of guaranteeing that he could not rely on his considerable physical power or his godly powers.
With "Captain America" coming out this summer and focusing on the startling transformation from skinny Steve Rogers to muscle-bound Captain America, Marvel made the wise decision to not deal with a shape-shifting Thor, while still finding a way to do something thematically similar. Instead of an origin story, they've decided to tell the story of the moment when Thor goes from an indifferent impulsive god to a being who has a connection to our world that makes it important to him and who is able to think beyond himself finally. It is his transition from a super-powered being to a full-blown superhero, and in doing so, they've managed to make a movie that doesn't really feel like any of the other Marvel movies, that has its own voice, and that pulls off its various goals with real charm.
The film opens on Earth, or, as Thor calls it, Midgard. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her friend Darcy (Kat Dennings), and Professor Andrews (Stellan Skarsgard), Jane's mentor and advisor are looking at a strange energy phenomenon, one that Jane predicts will manifest again over a specific part of the southwestern desert. When it does, they race towards it in their RV, braking only when a figure looms up out of a cloud of dust and debris and they end up hitting him. As Jane runs to help him, she looks around at the miles and miles of desolate landscape and asks, simply, "Where did he come from?"
The next half-hour of the movie backs up to answer that question and introduce us not only to the character of Thor, but to the world he inhabits. For years, I've heard Avi Arad and Kevin Feige refer to "Thor" as "Marvel's answer to 'Lord Of The Rings'," and when they first started developing the film, they were planning something more fantasy-oriented, a film that would take place across the Nine Realms. That was before they started bringing all the properties together in one shared world, though, and at some point, they realized that they needed to use this movie to bring Midgard and Asgard together. The film spends some time establishing the basic rules of Thor's world and introducing Odin Allfather (Anthony Hopkins), the ruler of all the realms, and his sons Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston), one of whom will end up sitting on his throne one day. While Hopkins has certainly played variations on this type of figure many times over, he works with an economy here that is appreciated, and both Hemsworth and Hiddleston perfectly fit these roles. They take these big mythic archetypes and make them human and specific, not an easy task.
Thor is close to taking the throne from Odin, and on his coronation day, there is a disturbance that upsets everything. Frost Giants from Jotunheim, one of the Nine Realms, somehow manage to infiltrate Odin's Vault, where weapons gathered from around the universe, each one powerful enough to bring about Ragnarok, have been stored for safe-keeping. There's one that was stolen from the Frost Giants that they want back, and they actually make it all the way to where it's stored before The Destroyer steps out and kills them all. The coronation is interrupted before Thor can be crowned, and Odin, Loki, and Thor investigate, not sure how anyone could have made it into Asgard unobserved. Thor wants to immediately go confront the Frost Giants, and in particular, he wants to kill Laufey, their king, as an example. Odin tries to get him to stand down, but a bitter argument erupts between them, Loki desperate to make peace before things escalate. Too late, though, and Odin realizes that he almost handed over the rule of Asgard to an angry child.
He strips Thor of his powers, banishes him to Midgard, and then invests Mjolnir, Thor's magic hammer, with a magical task. Only once Thor has learned humility and become a person of substance… only once he is worthy… will he be able to reclaim his hammer and all the powers that come with it, setting up a very simple Sword In The Stone scenario which becomes Thor's main focus once he wakes up and realizes he's on Earth. That brings the movie full-circle, back to that opening scene out in the desert, and is a major element in the middle of the film. Based on the trailers and the clips so far, I was worried that the film would be nothing but wacky fish-out-of-water humor about Thor trying to fit into a modern world, but by now, you've seen most of that. It's not the main thrust of the film. Instead, the film keeps cutting between Asgard, where Odin has fallen into the enchanted Odinsleep, leaving Loki on the throne, and Earth, where Thor is having to confront what it means to be a mortal man. Loki, who starts the film as a trusted and loved brother to Thor, reveals his true nature fairly early on to the audience, and he ends up learning some hard truths about his own origins that leave him shaken, things that threaten to destroy Asgard completely.
A few observations about things I really liked in this film: when superpowered beings fight in this film, there is a sense of power and force that we still haven't seen in many of these movies. I've complained often about how disappointing it is when Superman faces off against a human-scaled threat like Lex Luthor because it means we never really see the upper limits of what Superman can do. In this film, there are many fights where every single being onscreen is superpowered, and all of the punches and kicks and throws are full-strength, nothing held back. And while Kenneth Branagh has still never met a dutch angle he didn't love, the action in the film is staged well, and there are some beats and some images that push comic book language on film to places we haven't seen before. In particular, I think everything involving Heimdall (Idris Elba) is spectacular, and I love his Observatory and the way the Bifrost works. It is crazy, but it's also kind of beautiful. I also really like Sif (Jaime Alexander) and the Warriors Three, Thor's compatriots. Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), and Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) don't have a ton to do in the film, but they make their time onscreen count. If they do show up in future movies, it will be a welcome return.
Beyond that, Mjolnir is made a credible weapon of choice, something I was curious about beforehand. One of my many issues with "TRON: Legacy" was that the discs are interesting in the context of a disc wars jai alai match, but as hand-to-hand weapons, there are few things stupider than the sight of two people slapping at each other with magic frisbees. They just didn't work, and you could practically feel the fight choreographers give up halfway through the few action scenes they even bothered to stage. Here, there's a lot of different weaponry on display, and it all seems like actual weaponry you would use to actually kill things. Mjolnir is pretty damn handy in a fight, and Hemsworth makes it feel like something he's comfortable using in a number of different ways. In general, he makes his powers feel like something he's comfortable with, a lifelong part of who he is. There's no montage in this film of him trying to learn to fly or tentatively trying out the hammer to see what it can do. He is Thor from the very beginning. His character arc is all about his attitudes towards the world around him, and his eventual acceptance of responsibility for his actions.
In some ways, "Thor" feels like the youngest of the Marvel movies so far, pitched squarely at a kid audience that really doesn't know the character, and that may infuriate some older fans. I've long been afraid, though, of 30 and 40 year old men who demand that each and every movie about thunder gods and radioactive spider-men and vigilantes in batsuits be tailored directly to their appetites. I read comic books as a kid. They were a gateway to pulp storytelling for me, and I was rabid about them. I don't want these movies to be serious, piercing explorations of the human soul. I want superpowers and fights and flying and monsters, and "Thor" absolutely delivers on that level. Branagh finds a nice tone to play with the entire cast, and there is a sense of humor to things that seems fairly low-key and gentle. For me, the most consistent laugh in the film is the way the oh-my-god adorable Kat Dennings keeps mangling the pronunciation of "Mjolnir."
The film is true enough to its comic origins to incorporate ideas like the Rainbow Bridge, one of those things I honestly never thought I'd see anyone do in a live-action movie, and they manage to make it sort of gorgeous. Bo Welch's production design takes some big crazy ideas and figures out a way to make it all seem fairly real. Haris Zambarloukos, the film's cinematographer, shot one of the ugliest professionally-produced movies I've ever seen, the borderline-incompetent "Mamma Mia!", and he worried me more than Branagh walking into the film. His work here is strong, though, and there's a burnished hyper-color quality to the world that works well. Branagh is one of those directors who I think works very well with actors, but who has traditionally displayed a fairly wretched sense of cinema. I still wake up in cold sweats thinking about how badly he mangled the gorgeous script for "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein," and I'll never understand what people see in "Dead Again," even if I live to be a thousand years old. Having said that, I generally liked his work here. I was surprised by how much I liked some of the giant-scale sequences, since I thought those might be the places where he dropped the ball, but there's one chunk of action that takes place on the Frost Giant's home planet that is very effective, and while I'll give second-unit legend Vic Armstrong some of the credit for that, it's a testament to how well Branagh was able to drop into someone else's way of doing things that it all came together as coherently as it did.
Natalie Portman is fine as Jane Foster, but it's not really a role that demands much of her. She is basically the thing that allows Thor to finally see humans as more than these weak little backwards beings, and she's certainly pretty enough to make a god reassess our planet. Dennings is comic relief and little more, but she is as plush and appealing as always, while Skarsgard has a few good scenes and appears to be part of the big plan for what's coming in future films. In general, the material with SHIELD seems to organically hint at the larger Marvel Universe this time without totally overwhelming the main story in the film, and the after-the-credits beat in particular is very effective. I thought the Hawkeye cameo in the film was utterly pointless, though, and especially for audiences who don't know the character already. I would never guess, based on his two minutes of screentime here, that Jeremy Renner's going to play a major role in "The Avengers" next year. He's not just inconsequential, he's useless and distracting. It is fan service, at best, and more than anything, sort of annoying. I also think there's a disconnect between the spectacular real environments built for Asgard and much of the CGI work, which seems to re-use certain shots several times to the point where they almost feel like stock footage. I like the design of Asgard more than I like the way some of it was executed, and it seems odd that Digital Domain and BUF, companies that I think are among the best at environmental work, would make some of the odd mistakes they make here.
Even so, there's a whole lot of the film that I really like, and I can't wait to take both of my sons to see it. Allen's never seen any of the Marvel movies so far, and Toshi's only seen them on home video, and even then, only selected parts of the films. This time out, the playful nature of the film and the broad, primary-colors storytelling seems like a perfect way to finally introduce them to the world. The 3D post-conversion is actually pretty clean and used well, and I think for kids, the immersive quality of it all will really pay off. If "Captain America" is at least as fun as "Thor," then Marvel can rest easy until next summer, because they will have managed to introduce each one of the Avengers successfully. The best thing I can say about this film is that it genuinely made me want to see Hemsworth arguing with Robert Downey Jr., magic versus science, and I can finally imagine the two of them occupying the same world.
"Thor" premieres in Sydney today, and will be opening in several markets before it finally hits theaters across America on May 6.
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Around the Web
News From Our Partners
-
Gateways To Geekery: Picking a path through the nebulous terrain of post-rock
For Our Consideration: Why is it so hard to make a good Superman movie?
Watch This: Wes Craven’s The Serpent And The Rainbow returns zombies to their Haitian roots
-
Can You Guess the Celebrity in This Yearbook Photo?
David Guetta Joins Forces With Glowinthedark + Harrison on 'Ain't a Party'
Hanson Party Celebrate the Release of New Album 'Anthem' in New York [Pics]
-
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
-
James Gandolfini: Friends, Family Mourn Acting 'Genius'
James Gandolfini Dead: Actor Dies of Heart Attack at 51
Josh Hutcherson on Kissing Jennifer Lawrence for 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire'
-
What to Watch Tonight: Burn Notice, Graceland, and the Season 1 Finale of Hannibal
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Premieres of Futurama and Franklin & Bash, and Hot in Cleveland's Live Episode
News Briefs: FX Orders a Comedy Starring Kelsey Grammer and Martin Lawrence
-
James Gandolfini: 1961-2013
Total Recall: John Goodman's Best Movies
In Pictures: Zombie Nation!
-
James Gandolfini Dead At 51
'Star Wars VII' Cast List Leaks: Who Are The Seven Characters?
'Fifty Shades Of Grey' Locks In Director
-
'The Newsroom' Season 2 Down to Nine Episodes After Aaron Sorkin "False Start"
'Under the Dome' Sneak Peek Clips: Dean Norris Throws His Weight and the Cows Split
James Gandolfini HBO Drama 'Criminal Justice' in Limbo After Actor's Death




Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
April 17, 2011 at 3:23AM EST Reply to CommentSounds like the plot of Little Nicky. ;p
I'm looking forward to it. Hope it's good.
Ronny Is it true that 3d in Thor is pointless as this review http://www.reviewmaze.com/2011/04/thor-2011-not-just-teaser-but.html suggests? Should I see it in 2d if possible?
May 3, 2011 at 5:43PM ESTjukeofurl
April 17, 2011 at 3:43AM EST Reply to CommentAt the same time I was reading comic books, I was reading all the myths Roman, Greek & Norse. I was a kid who knew Thor, Loki & Odin(+ wife Freya)
there first. Based on my perception that Drew never panders, this is mucho encouraging. I never doubted Branagh would give it a good go - I've seen most of his films & he's a pro. This does sound good. Can't wait. . ..
Jay
April 17, 2011 at 4:39AM EST Reply to CommentDrew, I can't tell you what a relief it is to read your review. I'm one of these strange people who wants every film to succeed, and I try to stay positive and excited as they build up to release. I've felt with Thor that people have been waiting to pounce, and I'm chuffed you liked it so much. Brilliant.
Blkjack I feel the same way. I don't always agree with Drew, but more than any one out there, I respect what he has to say, so I'm glad he put a nice stamp of approval on it.
April 17, 2011 at 12:55PM ESTEdc
April 17, 2011 at 8:25AM EST Reply to Comment"will the sum total of my work be varying opinions about how well people crafted movies that primarily deal with dudes in funny costumes beating the hell out of each other?"
thats what literary scholars do about Heracles/Odysseus/beowulf.
actionmoviefreak
April 17, 2011 at 8:46AM EST Reply to CommentAaaah, loved hearing that it's good and why it's less/more than expected. Skipped the middle part about the plot. :D Lucky you to see it first!
Monterey Jack
April 17, 2011 at 8:52AM EST Reply to CommentDead Again is one of my favorite movies. I love the HELL out of that.
David D.
April 17, 2011 at 10:21AM EST Reply to CommentI don't care about anything else. Branagh put Rene Russo on screen again.
MarcMac But David...what about the movie?
May 10, 2011 at 7:47PM ESTIn all seriousness, though, it was great to see Rene Russo on the big screen again. Man, she's still lovely. Thank you Mr. Branagh!!
GC
April 17, 2011 at 10:36AM EST Reply to CommentKind of wish you acknowledged Zack Stentz and Ash Miller in your review. They're great writers. They've got X-Men First Class coming up too.
Brian
April 17, 2011 at 10:40AM EST Reply to CommentI was hoping for this film to succeed and based on your review it seems like it has. Looking forward to seeing it, and watching all the haters (based on out-of-context clips) eat shit.
Andy
April 17, 2011 at 11:03AM EST Reply to CommentAs someone who has never read a comic book in his life, but has pretty much seen most (perhaps 'all'?) of the modern adaptations I don't know why... but this is definitely the movie to date that I've been looking forward to the most.
Reading your positive review only amps it up for me. I'm very much wanting to see this - an urgency that hasn't struck me for Captain America yet. But it may.
April 17, 2011 at 11:12AM EST Reply to CommentDrew - excellent review. If you don't mind me asking, how old are your sons? My son is anxious to the see the film, but based on the trailers we've been thinking it's a wee bit too intense for him.
ZC
April 17, 2011 at 11:28AM EST Reply to CommentAs usual, Mori's reviews are more like a play-by-play that spoils half the movie.
Ebert you are not, Mori. I remain glad that I bailed on AICN a few years ago.
-ZC
Pete You....bailed on AICN a few years ago aaaand....followed Drew here, to an entirely new site, which isn't AICN....to bitch about Drew.....who you were glad to leave behind at AICN. You are a colossal, astonishing fucktard.
April 17, 2011 at 6:30PM ESTScottMendelson Reply to comment...
April 17, 2011 at 8:39PM ESTScottMendelson Apologies... it logged me in and then published my non-existent comment at the same time.
April 17, 2011 at 8:45PM ESTAnyway, while I agree that Drew's reviews often delve deep into plot-synopsis material, it is usually in specific paragraphs that can be avoided if need be. But to choose Ebert as your rebuttal is kind of silly. Ebert is many things, most of them great, but he is an infamous spoiler of endings and plot twists in the middle of otherwise spoiler-free paragraphs. He tossed out a massive spoiler for Super right in the introductory paragraph, divulged the finale to The Dark Knight, openly detailed the climax to Frequency, and chortled about a major death in True Lies without acknowledging that said moment occurred at the very end of the film and involved the death of the primary villain. It's gotten worse over the years, and I frankly no longer read Ebert's reviews of movies that I haven't seen until after I've seen the given film.
Megalodon
April 17, 2011 at 12:07PM EST Reply to CommentI was slightly comforted to hear that Loki's true nature soon comes to light, because there is just something fundamentally wrong with "Loki desperate to make peace before things escalate". And I guess I'll have to get around a dark brunette Nordic god of firelight, if it is in fact faithful to the comics. (Just seems wrong, though.)
April 17, 2011 at 12:59PM EST Reply to Commentwait, so there is an after-the-credits scene in this movie??
Monterey Jack Haven't pretty much ALL of the recent Marvel movies thrown a Credit Cookie in to plug the next superhero flick?
April 17, 2011 at 3:37PM EST
April 17, 2011 at 1:59PM EST Reply to CommentWrite a comment...
Tedd
April 17, 2011 at 3:27PM EST Reply to Comment"I'll never understand what people see in 'Dead Again', even if I live to be a thousand years old"
Amen brother. Usually even if I don't love a movie that most people do I'll at least understand what they like about. Not "Dead Again".
And Thor sounds interesting. We'll see.
Monterey Jack Why do you (and Drew) hate it so much? For me, it was a "gateway drug" to discovering Hitchcock and Welles, and even taken just on its own merits, it's a fun, twisty mystery flick with great performances, visuals and music. What's so hateful about it?
April 17, 2011 at 3:39PM ESTTedd Specifically? Well, it's schmaltzy, manipulative, overreacted, and has two (count 'em two) of the dumbest twists I've ever seen in a movie (in the interest of not spoiling, they're the ones involving genders and the one involving the perpetrator).
April 17, 2011 at 6:50PM ESTI watched it after having seen a number of Hitchcock and Welles films, all of which I really enjoyed. I just didn't like what Branagh did with the genre. (For the record, though, I did really like his Hamlet, from 1996).
But, as with any form of entertainment, to each his own. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
XK
April 17, 2011 at 4:01PM EST Reply to CommentVery happy to read another positive review, (this is the 3rd review I've read... all positive), and simply cannot wait to see this. :)
April 17, 2011 at 7:12PM EST Reply to CommentActually in my humble opinion, Branagh's directing was the only aspect that made me decide to watch this movie, after they announced to the public he was on board. Thor has always been an interesting Norse God, but in the Marvel Universe I thought he was just a rather (to be honest) DUMB character. But hearing that Branagh was helming it, suddenly I felt like this might be a worthwhile project. Like the other commenters here, I am glad to see a well written, positive review, that was stated with childlike enthusiasm, because I am just plain tired of reading "critiques" of movies by people that think they are clever for tearing a movie apart for the heck of it. Drew, I have never read your blogs before, but I will say that I might just have to continue reading them, and also you have made me fully want to see this movie. Kudos.
April 17, 2011 at 9:18PM EST Reply to Comment"I've complained often about how disappointing it is when Superman faces off against a human-scaled threat like Lex Luthor because it means we never really see the upper limits of what Superman can do."
I agree. It's why I've been disappointed by some of the superhero movies recently. Superman in particular has had this problem for a long time. Even in Iron Man 2, Tony Stark's and Rhodes' fight with the drones at the was limited, so that they didn't really seem that threatening. It felt like it passed by pretty quickly. In Iron Man 1, Tony's and Obadiah's fight was way too short, and didn't really feel epic. The Hulk and the Abomination's fight in The Incredible Hulk was the first film in recent memory to really feel epic, and show what these guys are capable of doing. Whatever else you think of the movie, that last battle was epic. They chose Zod for the next Superman movie, which should guarantee an epic showdown there, but it's still not as inspiring for me as if they had chosen Darkseid, who would have immediately meant a brutal beat down for Superman at one point, and forced Superman to use every single bit of his strength to beat him. That's a matter of personal preference, of course, but the point is impressive heroes demand equally impressive villains. The X-Men films tried, but they focused too much on Magneto and minor mutants, which meant we didn't really get a sense of scale of what these ultra powerful mutants can do, aside from Magneto lifting that bridge in the 3rd one. They shied away from the more extreme villains like Apocalypse, out of 'realism' (misplaced in a film where a guy can shoot red energy beams out of his eyes, if you ask me), and that really limits the battles you can show on screen, if you want to establish how powerful these mutants really are, and how powerful the ones they face are. I'm glad to hear Thor doesn't shy away from that, and that the gods feel like superpowered beings when they fight on screen. That's why I'm hoping we'll get more of that in The Avengers, since there they will really be crawling with superpowered beings, enhanced humans, or technological ultra men all over the place. You've got to show some big battles, if you've got guys like Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man headlining your movie. :-D
"I don't want these movies to be serious, piercing explorations of the human soul. I want superpowers and fights and flying and monsters, and "Thor" absolutely delivers on that level."
Very well said. Serious, piercing exploration of humanity is fine if it helps your movie, but if you sacrifice the wonder of the world you're showing for the opportunity to show that emotional stress and character development, you've already lost half of your charm! The Batman movies from Chris Nolan have eschewed certain villains for the sake of 'realism', and the result is that half of the interesting Batman villains are gone from the story! Mr. Freeze, Bane, Ra's as an immortal...they've all been cast aside in favor of realism that, while well intended, actually goes against some of what Batman represents. They're taking a stab at Bane now, but I'm hoping that Nolan will realize that some stretching is necessary for this character, and that Bane will actually bulk up and show his superior strength like in the comics, not being twisted into something we no longer recognize. Some fanboys really hate the Nolan movies because while he does excellent work in building a 'realistic', believable world, they recognize that he has not accepted a huge part of the Batman world. The favorite quote I see from a lot of people is that sometimes it doesn't 'feel' like Batman - it just feels like some guy in a bat costume, and characters that vaguely resemble their comic book counterparts. Batman comics represent the notion that some of the actions Batman takes result in some extreme reactions, the creation of these monstrous criminals, and that Batman himself becomes aware of a wider world through his quest, things like Ra's al Ghoul and some of the other threats in the world, things he never would have imagined existed had he just remained Bruce Wayne, a rich spoiled playboy doing nothing but partying. In a sense, Batman becomes 'enlightened' through his quest for justice, far more than any of his fellow human beings who otherwise remain ignorant of many of the threats out there. Chris Nolan doesn't seem to get that, and that's why I'm hoping we'll see a more open minded version of Batman in the Justice League movie. He's done a great job of reviving the Batman series for the current generation, but it's time to pass on the series to other hands. There has to be a way to balance both. You have to have the emotional content and realism, so that the world can be believable, but also have the awe and wonder of the world in this universe, that is very different from our reality. Let's face it: Gotham City is ultimately not our reality. Why should it play by our rules? The Marvel Earth is ultimately not our reality. Why shouldn't things like Apocalypse and gods on Asgard exist, when it's so fundamentally different from our world? We don't go to the cinema to see a world exactly like ours, when we go see superhero films. We go to see a world different ours, where heroes of this class can exist and make a difference in the world. From your assessment, 'Thor' seems to have accomplished this. I really look forward to seeing the film in May. :-D Sorry for the long post, overly long even, but you brought up some really good issues. *grins*
TimB
April 18, 2011 at 12:54AM EST Reply to Comment"It is fan service, at best, and more than anything, sort of annoying."
Its so hard to fault Marvel Studios for doing something we all day-dreamed about as comic-loving children: tying together the main Marvel staples into singular film properties. But I have to agree with you. Most people went bugnuts for RDJ's cameo after the credits of "The Incredible Hulk." Conversely, I was just kind of annoyed by it. Either the scene is important enough to the overall story to include it in the actual film, or its not. Throwing it on, post-credits, seemed like a tacky way to throw fans a non-existent bone for a film that was still 4 or 5 years away.
I love, love, love the concept of getting all these big characters together into one gigantic film, don't get me wrong. But if you're gonna do it -- COMMIT to it. Otherwise, you get a middling mess like "Iron Man 2," a movie that was ultimately less of a sequel to "Iron Man" than it was a BRIDGE to "The Avengers."
...that said, Kat Dennings and Natalie Portman is a bouquet of adorable that makes me weak in the knees
Blkjack
April 18, 2011 at 1:08AM EST Reply to CommentI've read a few reviews now (all positive) and one thing I'm curious about has not shown up in the review. Does Thor have the ability to fly like he does in the comics?
Scudman Yes.
April 18, 2011 at 2:25AM EST
April 18, 2011 at 2:44AM EST Reply to CommentGreat review! Even though I had to skip the plot-centric sections of the piece, it was done well enough for me to get the overall tone of the film.
It's nice to hear that Hopkins has it dialed back too. Lately, he seems to either not be engaged, or chewing up the scenery.
I have never read a Thor comic, but this movie just has had me so jazzed for it since last summer. Can't wait!
Katarzyna Nowak
April 18, 2011 at 7:22AM EST Reply to CommentI hope in this film series, they will include:
Balder, Beta Ray Bill, Frey, Hermod, Hercules, Hoder, Hrimhari, Idunn, Kelda, Thor Girl, Thunderstrike, Tyr, Valkyrie, Vidar, Volla, Zeus.
I look forward to seeing the following villains in future sequels:
Absorbing Man, Atum, Bloodaxe, Cobra, Desak, Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Enchantress, Executioner, Fafnir, Fenris Wolf, Grey Gargoyle, Hela, Karnilla, Kurse, Lorelei, Malekith the Accursed, Man-Beast, Mangog, Midgard Serpent, Mr. Hyde, Mongoose, Perrikus, Quicksand, Radioactive Man, Ragnarok, Seth, Surtur, Ulik, Wrecking Crew (Wrecker, Bulldozer, Piledriver, Thunderball), Ymir, Zarrko.
April 18, 2011 at 1:16PM EST Reply to CommentThank you for that great review. I like Branagh and his work quite a bit, but was unsure if he had the sensibilities to make THOR work. It sounds like they've struck a nice balance between the comics and THOR himself, in the sense of making all of the elements work for modern sensibilities.Btw, the bifrost bridge is straight from the old tales, so no Marvel invention there.
Good to hear about the 3d too, though I still hope for a few "coming at ya" effects. I don't like IMAX 3d all that much, but I may seek out a 4k house for this, if it's worth it.
wildphantom The 3D is terrible.
April 25, 2011 at 4:55PM ESTJust saw the movie in the UK and enjoyed it alot, but avoid the 3D at all costs. It's just an inferior experience.
senitype
April 18, 2011 at 2:53PM EST Reply to CommentHave you seen the Thor Senitype Collectible Movie Ticket? 10 different images each in a limited edition. - Go to www.senitype.com
Dave I
April 19, 2011 at 10:44AM EST Reply to Comment"I don't want these movies to be serious, piercing explorations of the human soul."
What if I do? Does that mean I've outgrown comics?
Sure, I like the "superpowers and fights and flying and monsters" (figuratively and literally). That said, I like the conflict. Even as a kid I liked more mature comics & storylines. Now, I love The Watchmen, Sandman, and even I Kill Giants, Calvin & Hobbes, and Scott Pilgrim. All of those have their fun moments, but they all also have some depth. Even if it was not the main focus, or the most obvious element in any of them, there was that underlying serious sort of soul-gazing for the character.
To me, that is where The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2 succeed, but where the movie Superman Returns and the Spider-Man One More Day comic and all the erasing of all consequence and necessity for growth utterly fail. If it is JUST cool looking flying and bashing of monsters, I am not interested. If at the end of the movie of funny book all consequences are erased, things maintain status quo, and we can conveniently forget about things like how Peter Parker was married but it magically disappears or there is really no struggle for Superman except to throw fists, then it gets old fast. When we have Iron Man and Tony Stark has to deal with his failing health and the weight of his father's expectations, or Batman dealing with the death of a friend and lover coinciding with the loss of a friend and his own moral conflicts, or Scott Pilgrim being an analogy for growing up and facing how he has really been a douche to the women in his life and failed to take accountability in his life.
In short, I want and in fact need that "serious, piercing explorations of the human soul" on some level. It does not have to be all about that, and they inherently have the cool super-powered action sequences. To be really great though, for me it has to have that undercurrent of character growth and consequences and take a peek into the soul of its characters. In fact, the lack of that is what holds comics back in a lot of ways.
-Cheers
April 30, 2011 at 8:41AM EST Reply to CommentI saw this movie in Dubai last Thursday...
it was BRILLIANT...
seriously BRILLIANT
actually, the only complaint me and my friends had, is that it was too fast! we wanted MORE.
Hemsworth is a star, and this movie will shoot him to super stardom.
The chemistry with Natalie is REALLY good (watch out for the scene where he kisses her hand and her reaction...so genuince, cute and real!)
If you are touchy about spoilers, stop reading:
Though I don't think I am spoiling anything here by saying this:
the scene after the traditional 2nd half of the superhero genre film 'hero gets defeated by the bad guy' then something happens 'then hero gets his powers back' made me and my wife squeal like little kids! it was EPIC... correctly pulled off... visually cool and the music..etc all on cue...
Anyway, this move is awesome and I wanna see more of THOR...
personally dont get much about AVENGERS cause that's too many characters thrown in when 1 is always enough...
i wanna see more THOR!!!
LN
May 3, 2011 at 7:48AM EST Reply to Commentjust saw this and Tom Hiddleston was kind of wonderful as Loki
Rick Chung
May 8, 2011 at 5:20PM EST Reply to CommentReviewed: The Magic of THOR.
iansblogcanada
May 12, 2011 at 6:01AM EST Reply to CommentI just watched Thor this weekend and I was impressed. It left me wanting to see more and I didn't feel ripped off at all and the end. I wish there was a little more of Portman and Dennings though, perhaps in the sequels.