Thor

Thor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews

Message

Empire Admin -> Thor (18/4/2011 10:59:00 AM)
Post your comments on this article

crazymoviesdude -> RE: (18/4/2011 3:34:07 PM)
I was expecting the usual 3 stars. I am sooo glad to see it get 4.

darth silas -> RE: Cool, (18/4/2011 11:58:22 PM)
Well i guess it's inevitable that Thor gets a good review from Empire since it was featured on a cover and the director is British[;)] Seriously though,as a big Marvel fan I'm looking forward to this.

Gazdance -> RE: (20/4/2011 12:21:36 PM)
Cue the geek squabble. I've been looking forward to this. Glad to hear that Marvel have, for the most part, avoided the pitfalls that made Iron Man 2 such a miserable experience.

bobatim -> RE: Cool, (20/4/2011 12:28:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gram Woods this looks and sounds a lot better than I was expecting so now I can't wait to see it. And no way it will be "better than Iron man" Hawros, they meant Iron man 2, which was, lets face it, a huge letdown How can you possibly know this, until you have seen it? I have to admit, out of all the Marvel properites, I'm not particulary enthused about Thor. However, this review has piqued my interest so I'll be checking it out as a welcome alternative to the royal wedding.

waltham1979 -> RE: @waltham1979 (20/4/2011 3:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greygor The fact that Hawkeye appears is hardly a secret. He's in the cast list on IMDB FFS and it's been mentioned numerous times I don't check IMDB for that very reason (that and that it is wildly unreliable as a source of information). It was a spoiler plain and simples!!

bobatim -> RE: Great news! (20/4/2011 7:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spideed2 If you doubt empires review, check out Rotten Tomatoes...its got good reviews there also. Was this directed at me. I did not, anywhere, in my post say that I doubted Empire's review. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I said that Empire's review had got me more interested in the film, hardly doubting it don't you think?

adambatman82 -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (22/4/2011 8:42:00 PM)
I saw the film this morning and absolutely loved it. Solid blockbuster entertainment, and possibly the best made film out of the current wave of Marvel Studio's pictures. It was nice that it felt like a stand-alone film too, and not like some extended trailer for The Avengers.

horribleives -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (23/4/2011 10:19:14 AM)
Is it worth seeing in 3D? All the reviews I've read have been positive but none of them have mentioned it.

adambatman82 -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (23/4/2011 5:52:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: horribleives Is it worth seeing in 3D? All the reviews I've read have been positive but none of them have mentioned it. The press screening I went to was in 2D.

sanchia -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (23/4/2011 7:19:28 PM)
I have tickets for Monday. Sadly I couldn't get 2D as there is only one showing and when I tried to book it it appeared to already be fully booked. I have also noticed that my local cinema on top of the inflated 3D charge now adds another Ł1 per ticket if you need glasses.

Shifty Bench -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (24/4/2011 6:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sanchia I have tickets for Monday. Sadly I couldn't get 2D as there is only one showing and when I tried to book it it appeared to already be fully booked. I have also noticed that my local cinema on top of the inflated 3D charge now adds another Ł1 per ticket if you need glasses. The only 2D showings at my 'local' (its a 45 minute drive) are only at night! And there are no buses at that time of day, so when I go on Wednesday, I'm stuck with 3D. It's Ł7.20 on Wednesday, if I leave it to the weekend (or tomorrow as its a bank holiday) its Ł9.05! I'd rather see it in 2D anyway as I couldn't care less about 3D. Groan, mumble, moan [:D]

film man aidy -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (25/4/2011 2:42:05 PM)
Just seen it, and i've got to say, Empire's review is just about spot on. Huge fun, and a great start to the summer blockbuster season. Good story, decent effects (the odd ropey CG moment aside), some great comedic moments, and an ending that left me wanting more. Loved the Frost Giants and the Destroyer, and the Marvel cameos were just subtle enough. And considering the film's popcorn nature, it boast some nice performances. Chris Hemsworth more than makes his mark, and has able support from Anthony Hopkins(as one would expect) and Tom Hiddleston as bad apple Loki. Well done Mr Branagh! Hopefully this will get the box office it deserves. Oh, and anyone planning on the spending the extra money on a 3-D showing - don't bother would be my advice. I could only get into a 3-D one, but the film doesn't need it. **** MASSIVE SPOILER TO FOLLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LAST CHANCE, LOOK AWAY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone knows that this along with Captain America leads straight into The Avengers next year, but having sat through the whole of the credits for the 'secret' scene, just to see the words "THOR WILL RETURN IN THE AVENGERS" gave me goosebumps. The scene in question completely paves the way for that movie. I can't believe that there is still so much speculation as to who the main villan will be. This seemed to make it pretty obvious. Net rumours of Mark Ruffalo's Hulk possessed by Loki don't seem that wide of the mark now...

Rgirvan44 -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (25/4/2011 4:50:53 PM)
This is a spoiler review. Whatever you would count as a spoiler anyway..... Bland, vanilla and uninspired, Marvel Studios Thor demonstrates yet again, unwillingness on the part of the producers to do anything interesting with their staple of superheroes. Let's look at the positives – all the actors give it their best shot, both Portman and Dennings are charming, while Hemsworth carries the film well. There are some funny lines, and no one will come out feeling that their childhoods have been attacked. Thankfully the Avengers references aren't crowbarred into this one, like in Iron Man 2, but there is still subplots which go nowhere and do nothing. THAT SAID just because you don't feel cheated coming out, doesn't mean the film is of high quality. This is a McDonalds movie. Characters exist solely on the surface – nuance is not needed. Now, some of you might say, "Stop being a snob and turn off your brain!” – but that is what I did. The thing with cinema is, you should mull over what you have seen on the way home, or on message boards. I saw the film less than two hours ago and it is already leaving my memory. And if you do look under the hood, questions emerge. What exactly was Loki's plan? Did he want Thor banished? How exactly was he sure that Odin would go into a coma? Why did the ice giant twist come mid-way through this plan, and why was their no pay off with his real father? Loki is up there with the Emperor when it comes to bat shit complicated planning. The stakes never felt that big. The finale hinges on us being worried about a planet full of red eyed evil dudes getting destroyed. Why should I care what happens to the bad guy planet? We have had no hint that there is another side to them. What is worse is half our cast stays on Earth looking at some grey clouds. Hardly back of your seat excitement there. Could the ice wave have not also started to infect Earth? Could Portman and Co. not have tried to drive away from the coming ice. In the middle of the desert? Nope. They just stand around. The story offers no reason why Thor is now a changed man, beyond that he can't pick his hammer up. I did think there was a funny subtext about a MAN becoming domesticated, but I guess that is just in my head, and not in the narrative. The Hawkeye cameo is hilariously dropped into a pretty rote action scene and offers nothing but a moment of squee for the comic fanboys and girls who will no doubt declare this one of the best superhero movies ever. As for the fighting – yet again close up shakey cam! Thor and his Warriors do amazing things I am sure, but it was so hard to see them. It was also disappointing to see half of the Warriors not involved in the battle with Gort. It would have been nice to have seen them as a team. With dutch angles everywhere and really close up shots – the movie at times looks like an expensive TV pilot, more than an epic fantasy. However, the actors were good, and helped to hide the failures in script. When exactly did Portman and Thor fall in love? Her character was left to stand around in the second half and complain about her equipment being taken from her. Surely having her rescue Thor from SHEILD would have been more interesting, allowed her to be proactive, and giving both characters a real link. But no, the film goes for the easy route. Making Loki an ice giant? Who cares? I presume this is a vital point from the comic books, but couldn't he have just been a douchebag brother? Having that revelation be made, before he tries to undertake a stupid plan might have made sense, but the point is revealed half way through the film. The guy is already bad, and jealous of his brother – why add this layer to him when it never really comes into play later. The fantasy stuff is ok – I dug the Flash Gordon design of it all – but it did begin to feel a little "small” when the characters hung around the same six sets. Interestingly I don't think a single human character got killed in this film -and the actual body count was really low. That makes for a nice change. At the end of the day, if you are really invested in the Avengers experiment, you will love the film no matter what anyone says. For me, this is yet another unambitious, rote, superhero film, with no subtext, in fact no text at all, which will eventually kill off the genre as people grow weary of not being challenged. Thor really isn't that much better than the Fantastic Four movies. My rankings of the Marvelverse series so far Iron Man Thor The Incredible Hulk Iron Man 2 Three stars (and that is being fair)

mackey -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (25/4/2011 5:35:39 PM)
What a terrible film. Incredibly lazy special effects, a complete lack of depth, obvious humour, bland set-pieces, zero suspense or tension. The only thing this film got right was Chris Hemsworth and it's a pity for him he's stuck at the centre of such woeful film.

sanchia -> RE: incredibly average (25/4/2011 7:05:33 PM)
There is definitely a liberal dose of cheddar spread upon this film. Some of the lines exude a nice cheesy smell but somehow it works. the character of Thor is indeed a dislikable fellow to begin with and does evolve (although some aspects seem hurried and levered in). The production design for Asgard is well realised with some good sets and the costumes although a tad plastic just about work. I saw the 3D version and it is quite subtle in that you can watch it without the glasses and the ŁD in evidence does not overwhelm the scenes, that said its presence is pointless and the film would have been better in plain 2D. Overall entertaining if a bit shallow but then in this type of film you would have to be deluded to expect greatness. For me it just scrapes 4 stars in comparison to other comic book films but only just. Also some nice end credits.

Bighousewill -> Crap film (25/4/2011 7:26:25 PM)
Not really impressed with this film I didn't think much of iron man either. This film looks like a cartoon the costumes are hilarious and plastic looking the characters are cartoons I agree with Rgirvan44 it's very forgettable indeed. Okay so it was funny when Thor goes to earth but it doesn't really go anywhere else apart from new mexico the ice world and Thors world. Actually its sad that less avid cinema goers only ever see these crap films in the cinema and other films on DVD when there are so many better films, normal people don't even stick around for the secret scene SPOILER ALERT which is where Samuel L Jackson turns up just in-case you were wondering where his bit in the film was.

KeithM -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (25/4/2011 8:12:13 PM)
Is Kenneth Branagh's Thor a winner? I say thee yay, verily... Let me cut to the chase quick sharp and tell you my reaction when the movie ended... "That was effin' brilliant!" (I won't try to replicate the rather girlish giggle that came with it) Branagh really has done wonders here. The film is entertaining, exciting, funny and emotionally engaging and just a whole lot of fun. All the performances are absolutely spot-on, every one of the cast pitch perfect in their respective roles, with Hemsworth not only holding his own in esteemed company, but totally convincing as the arrogant but likeable god of thunder. He IS Thor, every bit as much as Downey is Stark. The prospect of Hemsworth and Downey together as Thor and Stark, already intriguing, is now positively mouth watering. No pressure then Evans. :) Hopkins is superbly understated as Odin, blessedly avoiding the temptation to play it over the top (expl: In-joke - Brian Blessed was one of the 'fan choices' to play Odin - not mine I must stress), while Hiddleston as Loki is... well, he's Loki. The film could have faltered if Loki wasn't convincing in his arc and in his portrayal and Hiddleston truly delivers a subtle and intelligent performance, totally owning the role and making a truly multi-dimensional 'villain'. Portman is also very good as Jane Foster and, as a long-time reader of Thor (since about 1971) I can say that Portman's interpretation is by far the most interesting I've ever found her. She is a bit meh in the comics to be honest, but here Portman makes her into a smart, likeable (utterly loveable frankly), worthy love interest and interesting in her own right. I've read some reviews which have said that Thor and Jane falling for each other isn't entirely convincing in the time they spend together. Rubbish. Both myself and my brother were in love with her by the end and could totally believe Thor would be too. Seriously, I don't think Natalie has ever looked so beautiful. /gushing Skarsgĺrd is a good foil for Portman, acting as the sceptic and counselling caution to Portman's almost irrational desire to 'believe' and follow Thor despite the dangers and risk. Kat Dennings, in a small, but valuable role, provides some light relief to puncture some of what could have become a bit pompous and expositiony otherwise. Both serve the story well, with Skarsgĺrd in particular having a rather key role in things (no spoilers, but just make sure to stick around for the post-credits scene). Heimdall is great, Sif is great, the Warriors Three are great - and although not on screen a whole lot, with Hogun in particular having very little to do they're not quite as underplayed or as sidelined as I might have feared, all playing their parts in the plot and as friends of our hero. There are cameos (notably J.Michael Straczynski and Stan Lee of course), but they are unobtrusive and probably won't even be noticed by the non-fan. Other 'Easter egg' moments are similarly subtle (watch carefully in Odin's strongroom is all I'll say), so it seems Marvel did learn a lesson from Iron Man 2 in that at no time does the greater MU or the Avengers nods seem incongruous or crowbarred in. MINOR SPOILER: Maybe the Hawkeye scene was a bit clunky, but only if you know he's Hawkeye - my brother, who is not a comics guy, didn't notice anything 'odd' about that scene at all really, so not a major thing obviously END SPOILER The Asgard scenes work brilliantly, stunningly so in fact, never even straying near Flash Gordon territory thankfully. The Earth scenes also work just as well, Branagh managing the transition between the very different feeling 'worlds' without it ever feeling too jarring. Jotunheim was also realised well. The film jumps between the various realms a fair bit rather than just focusing on one or the other for too long, which helps avoid any slowdown in the plot and indeed, keeps the film steamrollering along very nicely. The action scenes are stunning - full on Marvel style battle scenes, just like in the comics. Honestly, there's a scene on Jotunheim when Thor first... Nah, not going to spoil. Let's just say I clapped my hands together with sheer joy at the awesomeness of it. And there are moments like that throughout. The film will be very re-watchable too, because a lot of the action is very frenetic and Branagh doesn't use a lot of slo-mo (you listening Snyder?), so it's very easy to miss a lot of the background detail in amongst all the chaos. That's a good thing by the way. It better captures the chaos of battle and time isn't a wasting dragging out action scenes because you have no story. And that isn't a problem here. There's plenty of action - and as I said, they are stunning - but there's plenty of story to be told too and it's told well. A quick word on the 3D - it's fairly subtle - not a lot of 'in yer face' poking stuff at you going on - and I think probably worth it for the experience. There are certain scenes (such as in Jotunheim for example) where the 'depth' does add to the sense of scale, which 2D might not convey as well. Same with Asgard and those expansive desert shots. I still think it'll be just as great a film in 2D, but scenes such as those will have that bit 'extra' in 3D. I'm not going to expound much on the actual story (read the synopsis if you want an idea). Suffice to say, it works. It's exciting, funny, epic, very, very entertaining and, as far as this Thor comics fanboy is concerned, effin' brilliant. Best Marvel movie yet? Possibly. My favourite so far, for sure. Hail Kenneth Branagh. Hail Thor. 9/10

homersimpson_esq -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 1:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 At the end of the day, if you are really invested in the Avengers experiment, you will love the film no matter what anyone says. I'm not a massive Marvel fan per se, (not read any of the comics), and was sceptical of the Avengers idea initially. But I still loved this film. Where does that leave me? Here's a cut and paste of my review. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do enjoy a good comic-book movie. I'm one of the few who really like Ang Lee's version of Hulk (2003). Lee was, at that point, best known as the director of the exceptionally British Sense &Sensibility (1995) and the exceptionally Chinese Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000). In making the exceptionally American Hulk, Lee proved that unexpected choices can make superb films. (History has been less kind than the actually respectable box office that Hulk did, and it remains a high quality picture that goes in unexpected directions for a comic book movie adaptation.) All of this preamble is by way of saying that the director of Thor (2011) is unexpected, but probably really shouldn't be that unexpected. Previously known as "the guy what does the Shakespeare films (innit)”, Kenneth Branagh is a curious choice, but one that works very well. Thor is split between two halves: the realm of the Asgardians, and Earth. The former is ornate, otherworldly, shiny. The latter; commonplace, familiar, dusty. Branagh gets to flex his theatrical muscles in the Asgardian segments. A noble, godly race, they speak precisely, and with weight. ("This mortal body weakens. I require sustenance.”) The vastness of Asgard, the gold and strangeness could, on paper, work against it. If it took a step forward it would plunge into high camp, almost farcical in nature. But, where it is, it is well-judged: the oddity of Asgard works for it, and serves as a neat (and often amusing) contrast with Earth. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is banished from Asgard by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) after what could have been a pre-credits sequence, but which Branagh fleshes out into the first act. He is found by Jane (Natalie Portman), Erik (Stellan Skarsgĺrd [yeah, that's right, I found the ĺ symbol]) and Darcy (Kat Dennings), a team of scientists on a mysterious experiment involving the Einstein-Rosen Bridge ('wormholes' to you and I). As Jane flickers between thinking Thor is a) hot, b) crazy, c) possibly the God of Thunder, we are introduced to our friend the S.H.I.E.L.D. agent from Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), The Incredible Hulk (2009), and probably every other "Avenger” film that's going to be coming out over the next few years. The film's strength lay in it never letting up the action. Constantly forking between Asgard and Earth means that as one strand slows up, the other takes the slack, and we're barrelled along nicely for the two hour duration. Loki (Tom Hiddleston, turning in his second superb performance of the year after the excellent Archipelago [2011]) is a particularly believable villain. Rather than mindless evil, his pain is all too mindful. There are clear, logical, believable lines drawn between his actions and the reasons behind them. This is not a comic-book villain: it's a Shakespearean one. Branagh's stamp is all over this film. As with many comic-book films, there is an expectation of sequels, and as such the "first” film will always be the myth-teller. How the hero is born. As such, Thor works particularly well, setting up this particular superhero without making the film feel like an advert for the "Avengers” film that is on the far horizon. (Something of which Iron Man 2 was sadly guilty.) Thor is many things. It's a classic fish-out-of-water; it's a father-son dynamic; it's warring-brothers; it's love-in-extreme-circumstances; it's friends-sticking-together. It's also huge, huge fun, with a huge, huge heart. (It's worth staying for the inevitable post-credits easter egg this time.)

Rgirvan44 -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 1:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq Loki (Tom Hiddleston, turning in his second superb performance of the year after the excellent Archipelago [2011]) is a particularly believable villain. Rather than mindless evil, his pain is all too mindful. There are clear, logical, believable lines drawn between his actions and the reasons behind them. This is not a comic-book villain: it's a Shakespearean one. Branagh's stamp is all over this film. Please explain the logic behind his plan.

G Funk -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 1:21:16 PM)
The latest piece in the grand Avengers jigsaw, Thor joins Iron Man, Hulk and the upcoming Capt. America as the latest origin movie setting the stage for the big-cast smackdown. Taking place on both Earth and the mythological realm of Asgard, Thor tells the story of a fallen and disgraced Norse god (although the idea of him being a literal 'god' is something that gets explained away in a hurry) on the path to redemption after letting his ego cause trouble for his father, Odin. Chris Helmsworth more than fills the boots of the arrogant, and later humbled, larger than life character, stepping into his first lead role with confidence and charisma. He's supported by a large supporting cast filling up New Mexico and Asgard with Natalie Portman, Stellen Skarsgard and Kat Dennings providing some much needed humanity as the love interest, voice of reason and wacky sidekick respectively. After the grandstanding and posturing the Asgardians, lead by Sir Anthony Hopkins as Odin, they bring much needed grounding the events. We also get treated to a surprise visit from another member of The Avengers, although they don't quite jump into the action, it's a nice little introduction. Asgard itself looks spectacular. Early trailers and images gave the impression that everything there may have been made out of cheap plastic but the final product delivered by the visual effects team makes for an impressive visual experience. Branagh makes the most of the 3D in these scenes, and as good as they are it's very possible that they'll lose their impact if viewed in 2D. The story, whilst passable for a comic book origin story, keeps things focused and moving along without getting to convoluted among the large cast and otherwordly locations that it must incorporate. The jumps between dusty, gritty New Mexico and resplendent Asgard feels quite jarring early in the film, but when characters are travelling back and forth it becomes less noticeable. As far as a comic book blockbuster goes, the action is big - although things tend to wrap up pretty quickly once Thor gets his hammer on - and the comic relief raises a laugh. It fits into the over-arching Avengers story more neatly than Iron Man's second outing and while it's not as slick or as fun as Iron Man it's closer to that experience that The Incredible Hulk. Should prove a fun afternoon at the movies for geeks and non-geeks alike. For the more geeky among us, be sure to lurk after the credits for the obligatory Nick Fury scene - this one setting things up for the Avengers story. Plus, there's that other cameo mentioned above. **** 4 Stars

homersimpson_esq -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 1:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 quote: ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq Loki (Tom Hiddleston, turning in his second superb performance of the year after the excellent Archipelago [2011]) is a particularly believable villain. Rather than mindless evil, his pain is all too mindful. There are clear, logical, believable lines drawn between his actions and the reasons behind them. This is not a comic-book villain: it's a Shakespearean one. Branagh's stamp is all over this film. Please explain the logic behind his plan. I didn't say I knew his plan. Given the assumption that comic-book movies are rarely a single entry, and sequels are a foregone conclusion, I would assume his plan will be clarified in a future movie. But I didn't feel it needed clarifying here. His motivations, however, are clear. Younger-brother-complex. He says he never wanted the throne, which was destined for Thor, but he was clearly jealous of the attention that Thor got, and wanted to be his equal. That his father gave preference to Thor was clear, and the revelation of his actual birth only added fuel to the fire. In terms of his actions in the film, I assume he never intended to kill Fluffy (that's how I heard the frost giant king's name anyway) but since he realised Thor had regained his hammer, he made the best of a bad situation by changing sides again and saving his father, biding his time until a future date.

Gazz -> Four for Thor (26/4/2011 1:35:43 PM)
I thought I was going to hate this film. The trailers didn't interest me and I really wasn't sold on the prospect of Thor as an Avenger in the universe Marvel have crafted. Now that I've seen the film I'm happy and quite surprised to report it's actually pretty good. I enjoyed it far more than I did Iron Man 2 and appreciated that it worked as a stand alone film rather than as a precursor to or feature length trailer for The Avengers. It's also quite epic in scope as the narrative often jumps between Earth and Asgard, making it the most ambitious film of the Marvel series thus far as it often resembles the fantasy of Lord of the Rings more than it does the likes of Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk. Sure it's a little Flash Gordon from time to time but the film embraces it's cheesiness rather than shuns it. A wise choice from director Kenneth Branagh. Chris Hemsworth nails the titular role too. He pulls off the arrogant son well enough but really comes into his own as a fish out of water when sent to Earth. Hemsworth has the making of an action star in him, though many have said so since his short-lived role as Daddy Kirk in the opening to JJ Abrams Star Trek. It was good to see Anthony Hopkins chew some scenery too after his somewhat dull turn in The Wolfman. I do have a couple of issues with the film however. Natalie Portman is kinda wasted on this film and the central romance doesn't really work all to well but Thor is the main event here. It took me a while to adjust to her as a supporting character considering how much the trailers and posters have emphasised her presence as a lead. One other thing that really really bugged me was that it featured some of the worst dutch angles since Battlefield Earth. For those who don't know 'dutch angles' are when the frame is tilted to one side or the other so everyone appears to be diagonally framed and the world appears to be tilted. Like this: http://chud.com/articles/content_images/173/BattlefieldE_Dutch.gif Nonetheless the film works really well and I'm quite excited to see what comes next. I'm still not sold on Thor as an Avenger in the world Marvel have created (I mean he's a God for Christs sake) but I'm quite eager to see what they'll do with the character next and what other worlds they could explore. It's silly, it's cheesy but it's a helluva lot of fun. 4/5

KeithM -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 2:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 Please explain the logic behind his plan. Seeing as how our snark-o-meters are turned off and I can't tell if you're genuinely asking or, well, being snarky, I'll answer as if the former. If it's the latter though, take yourself aside and have a quiet word. Notwithstanding the possibility that Loki's true 'logic' hasn't been fully revealed in its entirety yet, he claimed his aim was to cleanse the realms of what he considered its biggest threat in order to 'protect Asgard' - to show his father how capable he is - and that he would be a more suitable King than the headstrong Thor (and if he can kill Thor somehow during his exile then all the better to make his ascension that much smoother). The 'mischief' he causes by (SPOILER) letting the giants into Asgard was done precisely to precipitate the war Loki wanted - he knew Thor would easily be provoked into disobeying Odin under such circumstances, and while he may or may not have planned on Thor being exiled, he could have been fairly confident that Thor's recklessness - and Loki's 'wise' counselling of caution and calling for help in order, ostensibly, to avoid war - would be recognised by Odin. It's difficult to say whether the genocide was planned from the moment the two as young boys were told the story of how the peace came to be or whether it was something he cooked up later as his frustrations with Thor/not being heir began to fester, but I'm inclined to believe the former. Whether he planned to kill Thor from this early stage I'm less sure of - although Odin does make that "there can be only one" statement, so it's clearly where the seed was planted - I think the exile just gave Loki a window of opportunity where Thor was vulnerable and he seized upon it (although all of it, including the exile, may well have been one of the contingencies he'd accounted for and hence all part of the plan). Again, it's hard to say how much of his stated reasoning was actually the truth (it IS Loki after all), and I'm sure there was a degree of improvisation according to circumstances, but I think that more or less covers his logic.

Rob -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 2:40:11 PM)
Loved it. Sat there with a big geeky grin on my face throughout the entire film. Whatever "it" is I'm pretty sure that Hemsworth has "it". I thought he did an excellent job. Effortlessly moving from arrogant warrior to charmer to humbled son. It was a bit CGI heavy and a bit shiny but all in all thought it was pretty fab. Bring on the Avengers...and Thor 2.

Wild about Wilder -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 2:50:48 PM)
Quite enjoyed it but as with most comic book movies will hold back on giving it a mark untill i've seen it a 2nd time because am a huge comic book fan & need a 2nd look to be objective. 2 questions NO HELMET! or Balder The Brave?

JIm R -> RE: The Bard in Asgaard (26/4/2011 3:16:14 PM)
Went to advanced screening in 3D and it was all I thought/hoped it would be, rollicking LOTR-esque sections to the realms and imagery, the Earth footage filled with humour and knowing nods to the 'potentially' hazardous film it could have been, but in KB, it was in very safe hands and he's done a fine job with the film. Though Tom H did an amazing job as Loki and nearly walked away with the film, solid SFX and strong basis for all to come, accessible to the Avengers lead on and a massive clue post credits as to the direction of that film's story, even The Hulk spolier gets a mention by way of gamma radiation all in all, a very good film, and four stars is entirely valid.

captainrentboy -> RE: Thor (26/4/2011 6:14:59 PM)
Saw it and bloody loved it. I think it's barged its way into my Top 3 Marvel films with ease. It's been a while since I watched a Superhero film that had goosebump inducing action scenes, or even small moments, that made me want to fling my arms in the air and whoop like an overexcited American, and this had quite a few of them. I wont go on, as I basically agree with most of the positive aspects raised in previous opinions. My only downers were, Kat Denning's character, who was hugely unfunny and just plain annoying in every scene, but was thankfully missing for much of the final third (All the other humour worked well, just not her). And I agree that the main relationship seemed to form a little too quickly, maybe they could've let a few weeks go by, rather than what seemed like just two days, and that would have made it slightly more believable. Even with those slight mis-steps I'd still give it 4.5/5

Marwood -> RE: Dont understand the negativity. (27/4/2011 7:36:20 PM)
I thought it was great personally, blockbuster entertainment without too much dumbing down and probably the best of Marvel Studios' new films so far (better than Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2, may just pip Iron Man). I'm most surprised by Ken Branagh on this one, I'm sure Marvel surrounded him with top talent in the production team (isn't the legend Vic Armstrong behind the stuntwork here?) but I was still surprised at how well it all came together as his previous directorial bows have been far less epic or action based - arguably Frankenstein played in a similar arena but was kind of a mess. You can feel his presence in the central trio's relationship (Odin, Thor, Loki) of course but I think he did a great job of keeping a similar tone and style kicked off by Jon Favreau so that Thor does just about feel like it shares the same universe as Iron Man and Hulk. On that subject Marvel seems to have learned from Iron Man 2 - sure this has loads of nods and winks to next year's teamup but unlike IM2 doesn't feel like a disjointed trailer for it, I think they got just the right amount of easter eggs into Thor without taking anything away from the actual story and characters of this particular film. Pointless Hawkeye cameo notwithstanding. Performances were all great or at least good, felt that Stellan Skarsgaard and Natalie Portman did very well with badly underwritten/thin roles, Kat Dennings was chirpily lovely (geek crush) which I was relieved about because from the trailers I was expecting to loathe her character. Hemsworth was note perfect imo and like many others I'm interested to see how he does in The Avengers' ensemble. Hopkins was also great and remarkably restrained seeing as he tends to go a bit overboard when dealing in blockbuster territory. Hiddleston's Loki was also terrific, a classic "tragic" villain played extremely well and thanks to the tease after the credits I'm really looking forward to seeing what trouble he causes in 2012. Special mention too for Sif and The Warriors Three - underused but well played and I'm hoping they get a LOT more to do in any future sequels. Also Idris Elba is the balls. Complaints are minor, the pace was a bit too brisk at times and I think some exposition regarding Odin's coma wouldn't have gone amiss, seems likely that there's a fair bit of material on the cutting room floor. The sequence with The Destroyer was also quite anti-climactic considering the epic dust up with the frost giants earlier on. I saw this in 3D too, curious about the conversion process because so far the only films I've seen in 3D have been Avatar and Tron Legacy - both of which were filmed using that tech whereas Thor and Captain America have the post production gloss applied. Overall I think it was fine but really didn't add anything to the film, there were actually stretches where I think 3D hurt it because of the blurriness during the quick cut fights (such as the final Thor/Loki showdown) and making the film too dark (the aforementioned frost giant battle). I think it's convinced me to avoid 3D conversion films, it's not a bad effect generally but in this case it doesn't add anything and is clearly just a business move - 2D Captain America for me. Anyway, solid 3 star film which I'll be seeing again soon enough. Maybe 2D will earn it another star for easier viewing.

rayhiggins -> RE: ‘BY Odin’s beard,’ as Ron Burgundy might say, ‘a Thor adaptation that sucketh not!’ (27/4/2011 8:36:00 PM)
I thought this was a very good film, just about on par with the first Iron Man film. Tom Hiddleton's Loki was the standout for me. The only complaint I'd have would be that in some of the larger group action scenes, it becomes very hard to make out what's going on. Once or twice I couldn't even tell who was doing what to whom, but those moments passed by quickly. Then again, that's a minor problem most modern films have these days. Already looking forward to a sequel, though MILD SPOILERS BELOW I do wonder how they'll explain Loki's future appearances for those who either didn't stay for the post-credits scene, or didn't get it. END SPOILERS To sum up, it's a good start to the summer superhero movie blowout. Here's hoping the others at least match up to it.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.03125