Drone
Posts: 959
Joined: 30/9/2005
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdan
it doesn't take itself too seriously, which allows some excruciating dialogue to sound amusing rather than grating, but it doesn't stray into camp comedy either, which allows for some quite dramatic scenes.
Really well said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mindwick
There are basically two parts to the film. One part is the scheming, intricacies and political considerations in Asgard along with the battles they lead to. All this is directly out of the comic book and it is serious, interesting, exciting and generally pretty good. The other part is Thor on earth with his newfound whacky friends, silly preadolescent jokes and the love interest. This part is simply put ridiculous, childish, boring and has nothing to do with the comic book. Once again, the comic book is more mature and serious than the movie.
The infuriating part of this all is that many film reviewers, not acquainted with the comic book, assumed and wrote in their reviews that these silly parts were the "comic booky ones” and were relieved that such a wonderful presence as Mr. Kenneth Branagh was in charge to save the day and give the film a mature plot in Asgard with the actors there speaking the "Queen's English.” The fact of the matter is that all these good parts came out directly from the comic book and Branagh merely simplified them, assuming that the audience is not smart enough to keep up with the complexities of the comic book's plots. And as for the English, here's the laugh. In the comic book the gods speak good English and use exclusively old English pronouns (thou, thine, etc). Not so in Mr. Branagh's endeavor. Here the language is casual everyday English. Mayhap his Shakespearian background didn't rub off on him or is it he just didn't consider the audience of a superhero movie worthy of such speech? The fact is that the unsung creators of the Thor comic books come up with more mature, more adult story lines and better English than Mr. Branagh.
Certain genres of film allow the viewer to know what he can expect from the film. Romance, horror and spy films all conform to certain standards. Not so with the fantasy-adventure genre. This type of film differs on the childish-adult oriented scal
I get so very, very tired of the "comic book crowd" complaining about things like this. I have absolutely zero interest in comic books, as do the mass maority of the audience who will make this film a success - translating a comic book faithfully onto the screen nine times out of ten would result in a far less entertaining movie, and you know what? That's fine by me, I really don't care what minute inaccuracy contradicts what happened in issue zillion page three hundred, of the such and such a special, Thor versus zygragrnagrtbagrba and so on, it's a good movie and I, like most, dont give a damn how it reflects on the "comics".
Don't give me the age old "I guess it has to be dumbed down to appeal to the masses who wouldn't understand it blah blah." It's a paper thin argument and is simply applied to ANYTHING you don't like, I've illustrated it on here a trillion times.
I don't care that the comics are more serious. Maybe it would have made a better movie - or, maybe not. The fact is, the finished result for someone like me, who cold care less about that sort of thing, loved the film.
|
Printable Version
RE: Whosoever scripted this film is unworthy of wieldin... - 
RE: Thor - 
) Tom Hiddleston was just great as the villain-throughout the film I was jumping between being sure he was the villain and then changing my opinion which is a surefire sign that he was not a cardboard villain that comicbook films usually have. Very subtle ambivalent acting which in another film would have been drawn in pure broad strokes and made to be very obvious but not here. He would have been a great politician, wouldn't he?
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread