Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Marvel at its worst

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Marvel at its worst Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Marvel at its worst - 4/11/2013 9:24:20 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12189
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot
People hated Iron Man 3? The Shane Black directed Iron Man 3?

...Were you on the Internet in May?

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 91
RE: Marvel at its worst - 4/11/2013 9:34:21 PM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1513
Joined: 24/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot
People hated Iron Man 3? The Shane Black directed Iron Man 3?

...Were you on the Internet in May?


I suspect this is where we see the disconnect between 'people' and 'people on internet film forums'.



(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 92
RE: Marvel at its worst - 4/11/2013 11:58:48 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7919
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot
People hated Iron Man 3? The Shane Black directed Iron Man 3?

...Were you on the Internet in May?


This is what happens when you have children and can never find the time to get to the cinema. By the time it gets released on DVD your six months behind everyone. I'm sure I'll get round to watching Thor 2 eventually as well...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 93
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 5/11/2013 12:13:48 AM   
R W

 

Posts: 341
Joined: 23/6/2006
It’s been two years since the release of Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Marvel’s Thor, which for many was considered as one of the most outlandish superhero pitches and yet what Branagh bring was a clever fish-out-of-water comedy set amidst the epic fantasy evoking Norse mythology. Following his first outing with The Avengers, the God of Thunder makes his entry into Marvel’s Phase Two where everything goes bigger, if not necessarily better.

When a supposed extinct race known as the Dark Elves – led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston – return to bring destruction to the Nine Realms, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) reunites with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and his brother/arch nemesis Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet.

With Kenneth Branagh stepping out of the director’s chair, due to his involvement in the upcoming Jack Ryan reboot, Alan Taylor – director of TV shows such as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, etc. – helming this sequel is somewhat familiar ground for him having directed episodes of HBO’s Game of Thrones, but this is fantasy in a much grander and cinematic level. No doubt this is bigger and takes nearly every aspect from its predecessor and amps everything up such as showing more of Asgard, the Nine Realms and even retains the comedy.

Although Alan Taylor supplies a number of visually dazzling action sequences and improves on certain flawed aspects from the first film, the most notably being the Warriors Three, Taylor lacks Branagh’s directorial touch as he took a fresh spin on the superhero movie whilst still keeping to true to the heroics, as well as presenting comedy that successfully acknowledges the outlandish 80s-styled fantasy. This sequel is less on super heroics and more on fantasy exploring with an overload of expedition and a bit more seriousness, given the film’s subtitle.

Despite the film’s “darkness”, the cast is what lightens the thing up with Chris Hemsworth continues to shine with his charisma as the God of Thunder while the supporting cast such as Natalie Portman is delightful and Kat Dennings continues to steal the show; Stellan Skarsgård on the other hand, playing the crazy doctor Erik Selvig is very over-the-top. However, the standout as always is the God of Mischief himself Loki as Tom Hiddleston in his third outing retains his sly mischievous and a playfulness as a villain, as well as having the film’s best scenes with his chemistry with his on-screen brother that have dramatic and humorous tension.

Although this sequel is a classic case of “bigger, but not better” which is largely due to the absence of Kenneth Branagh’s direction, Thor: The Dark World is a swashbuckling fantasy adventure that features a never-ending strong performance by Tom Hiddleston.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 94
best of the marvels - 5/11/2013 4:47:05 PM   
findogask

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 29/8/2012
Thor & Iron man, my two favourites of the "wallet busting " franchise , however Iron man falls down whenever R.D. jnr is not onscreen (ok that's not much I admit) with Thor even the minor Characters are interesting, and they all seem to be having a great time , come on its a comic book movie not the national theatre , this makes a big difference , I always fealt the cast of the recent Superman looked like they were at work on a wet Monday morning. Thor has a good balance between the "Comic geeks" teens, and older types ( that's me) just looking at cinema Time table like they are standing in a train station ( where shall I go today ) good mental fun, and I left the cinema felling better... job done guys.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 95
RE: best of the marvels - 5/11/2013 4:49:39 PM   
findogask

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 29/8/2012
sorry that should have been 4 stars... rubbish laptop

(in reply to findogask)
Post #: 96
RE: best of the marvels - 6/11/2013 10:53:09 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9139
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Awesome entertainment. Loved the action and fx and also the fun performances. I thought the 3D was great too and really added a lot to the experience! I loved the sequence where Asgard is attached and when Thor has to escape. I also loved the finale, going through the different realms. Good superhero action. The humour worked well in this too. Highly recommended!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to findogask)
Post #: 97
RE: best of the marvels - 7/11/2013 9:47:04 AM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3982
Joined: 19/10/2005
Eons ago, Bor, father of Odin, vanquished the Dark Elves led by Malekith, who sought to return the universe to its state before creation using a force called the Aether, and contained the Aether, which cannot be destroyed, within a stone column. Unbeknownst to him, Malekith and others escaped into suspended animation. In the present, in Asgard, Loki is sentenced to imprisonment, while Thor helps win the final battle in a two-year war to make peace in the Nine Realms. In London, astrophysicist Jane Foster discovers an anomaly similar to the one that brought Thor to Earth and is sucked into a wormhole. It seems that a rare alignment of the Nine Realms is imminent, and at spots where the Realms touch, portals are created. Thor finds Jane and takes her to Asgard, where Odin realizes she is the Aether’s vessel, heralding a catastrophic prophecy…..


So here we are, yet another Marvel movie, and the second of the Phase Two movies. When I reviewed Thor, I mentioned how all these Marvel films seem to be distinctly average and never really soar like the best superhero films. Thor was not really any different. It was undoubtedly enjoyable, but just held back from really getting good. I also wrote how I was tiring a little of these movies [and not just from Marvel]. Since then we have had the three best films to come from the studio. Captain America: The First Avenger, Avengers Assemble [probably the best of them all, though truth be told it’s not as impressive on a second viewing] and Iron Man 3 [a rare case of a part three bettering parts one and two] were very strong efforts indeed, and it seemed that Marvel were trying a little bit harder. Sadly Thor: The Dark World is about as generic an outing as you can get. It’s not boring, but lamely rehashes ideas and images from loads of similar films without adding much originality of its own. Frankly, it looks like they barely made much effort at all.

We open with a prologue setting things up, and I guess the inspiration here was The Lord Of The Rings – actually, come to think of it, there’s quite a bit of that in this film, from the sets [much of Asgard looks just like Rivendell] to even bits of the music – but little of its quality. The prologue races through information at top speed and quick images of fighting and special effects are thrown at you, but it’s all so fast I personally didn’t have a clue what was going on. The intention was to get through all this stiff as quickly as possible, but the result is just confusing. The rest of the film, though easier to follow except when it’s being thoroughly stupid, is much like this. It speeds through everything, and while there’s nothing wrong with a fast pace, here it just gives the impression of a very convoluted story even if it actually isn’t. There’s little actual tension and many scenes just look cut short. The original cut was supposedly quite a bit longer and should maybe not have been shortened in such a manner, because this edit is a really cack-handed editing job. Some of the least interesting parts play out in a overly long manner while good intriguing stuff is rushed. I have a feeling this is more because of studio editing than director Alan Taylor, though the TV helmer [The Sopranos, Game Of Thrones] seems ill at ease directing his first Hollywood film, and a biggie at that. Many of the supposedly humorous moments, for a start, fall flat.

After the opening sequence we quickly fast forward to another battle, and we can thank Taylor for actually allowing us to see the action for a change, unlike Kenneth Branagh who, though he tried to bring some Shakespearian grandeur to Thor, decided to shoot its action in that crappy fast-cut manner [from the trailer, it looks like Captain America: The Winter Soldier is like this, but I’ll remain hopeful that it isn’t] that is the craze these days but just results in confusion and sore eyes. Another good thing is that this second solo Thor adventure boasts far more thrills and excitement then the first, which after the striking opening sequence decided to become a fish-out-of-water comedy [one that was sometimes funny, admittedly] and didn’t even bother to give us much of a climax. The action scenes in this one don’t show much imagination though, and are usually cut short. There’s a spacecraft chase around Asgard which is reminiscent of Star Wars but is certainly exciting, yet it’s over far too soon. Meanwhile the special effects really are a mixed bag. You’ll get some superb, convincing visuals, then a god-awful green screen shot or something. There’s a bit where a spacecraft crashes into a building which is even worse than that rubbishy train scene from Skyfall. It doesn’t help that most of the visuals are just borrowed or rehashed, like the whispery Aether whose like we’ve seen in The Green Lantern and other films. And for God’s sake how many times do we have to see a hole form in the sky to another dimension through which the baddies can come?

The filmmakers obviously thought the climax of Man Of Steel was far too long [actually, the main problem with that film’s climax was that it was dreadfully filmed, and it was certainly not the worst aspect of that piece of crap anyway] and decided instead to have a more low-key destructive brawl at the end that ended quickly, but they went too far the other way and it’s all over before you know it. Even the supposed twist to the sequence was done before, and better, in Jumper. There really is a distinct lack of imagination to this film, and yet it still tends to rely on special effects to try to take our mind off idiocies like Jane the heroine walking around Asgard as if she were on holiday, or a scientist able to quickly create a remote control for cosmic anomalies, or the character of Heimdall being very different from the Heimdall of the first film [he even has a different voice], or Greenwich underground station supposedly being three stops from Charing Cross – in fact it’s not even on the same bloody line. Even a good popcorn film requires some thought, and there’s precious little of that here. You’re just meant to enjoy the spectacle, but when even that’s mostly unimpressive one’s mind just wonders.

There is one major sequence, an elaborate variation on a Viking funeral, which is visually striking and is actually quite beautiful. It’s too short, but hints at a much more interesting and artful film then Thor: The Dark World. There are also some good moments between Odin and Loki in a film which only really takes flight [if limited flight] when they are together, fighting and bickering, though they are cut to the bone because God forbid you should have any depth in a film like this. I was unfair on both Chris Hemsworth [Thor] and Tom Hiddleston [Loki] when I reviewed the first film. Hemsworth has improved immensely as an actor and now really has the charisma and the charm the character of Thor requires, while Hiddleston’s understated slimy menace is very effective. The two actors are great together, which is more than I can say for Natalie Portman, who turns into a really bad actress whenever she’s in a film like this [Star Wars anyone?]. She just constantly looks like she’s acting, though at least she does try to act, unlike Anthony Hopkins who just seems half asleep throughout. Christopher Eccleston does okay as the main baddie, but his part is really poorly written in what is a totally by-the-numbers screenplay.

A strong aspect to the film is Brain Tyler’s score, which is his best yet with some strong themes and good, if unoriginal, action scoring. A few of the comic moments do work, and overall Thor: The Dark World is fun if you switch your brain totally and utterly off, but I reckon I’ll forget most of it by next week or at the very least mix it up in my mind with other films. It really seems a film made by committee to mark time in the Marvel Universe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And the two end credit scenes? I would recommend you watch the first [it has a striking appearance by a certain actor] and skip the second. I was annoyed I had to bloody wait for something which they could have put in the actual film and would have taken the edge of its utterly dumb twist ending.

Rating: 5/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 98
Better than the first one but... - 8/11/2013 4:29:18 PM   
ericcoyle

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 9/10/2009
Certainly a big improvement on the abysmal first one but still not all it should have been. The plot was a red herring. Why not just have a war between the Asgardians and elves? The villain was pointless and the elves themselves made no sense. They could fight their way into Asgard but couldn't catch one human scientist and her ditsy sidekick "comedy relief"? They looked like exactly what they were, a bunch of stuntmen in costumes running around London in a rather aimless way. The editing was at times terrible, with unexplained and pointless cuts to other realms for the odd second, a shot of Hogan turning round for no apparent plot reason. Zachary Levi was a poor choice for Fandral (his one main fight scene being sub TV standard)and in general the warriors three were badly under used.
Hemsworth and Hiddleston were great value for money however and I have to admit to a tear in their final scene together. This was very quickly undercut by subsequent events which would have had more dramatic impact if placed later in the film.
Big improvements in production design, some completely convincing CGI made you forget the computer game quality of some of the work in the first film. The final confrontation was good up to a point but then ended far too abruptly.
Overall a disappointing but enjoyable in parts success/failure. Three and a half stars please.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 99
ODIN'S BEARD!!! - 8/11/2013 5:08:12 PM   
ROTGUT

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 14/7/2008
Is it the perfect superhero movie? Nope. At times it did feel like we were watching some glossy new Star Wars film. Does it entertain? Ultimately yes, thanks mainly to the excellent Hemsworth/ Hiddlestone double act, nifty SFX, some big crowd pleasing set pieces and a barnstorming incident packed final 20 minutes .You always get the sense that Thor the Dark World was conceived as a far more sombre affair in it’s original form but once the script had been revised and put through the Marvel studio dream machine filmmaking process, everything started to lighten up. Get past the horribly clunky Green Lantern style opening monologue and the cheesy earthbound rom com melodramatics and you‘re left with a film that’s been designed, honed, tested, retested, reworked once again and edited to within every last inch of it’s cinematic life. All the knockabout comedy stuff felt like it was shunted in as an after thought but it all works if you don’t mind the bizarre sight of Hemsworth charging around Greenwich naval college fighting massed ranks of dark elves or mingling with the rush hour commuters at Charing Cross station in full Thor get up! But in truth, the only thing I really want to know about THOR is - will he EVER put the blasted helmet back on again!!! FOUR STARS

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 100
RE: ODIN'S BEARD!!! - 9/11/2013 7:57:16 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18250
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
I enjoyed it. That said there definitely was some evident flaws, one being Christopher Ecclestone dialing in his performance which detracted from any sense of threat his particular character had. Quite a few things didn't really make sense and at one point I am certain Hemsworth drifted into a cod Scottish accent for at least one sentence (although I was distracted at that moment) and Natalie Portman didn't really perform anywhere near her best. Zachary Levi being recast as Fandral didn't work very well.

That said there were many great moments such as flitting between worlds during a fight, Kurse gave a particularly ominous and threatening villain and the cameo from a fellow Avenger was well worth the watch. The ending supposed twist ending do seemed a little pointless and tacked on.



_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to ROTGUT)
Post #: 101
Great Thun Thor All. - 9/11/2013 1:08:42 PM   
Oroborous

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 30/6/2013
By the gods this made the first film look like a bad and insulting joke, clearly the best thing that could ever have happened to the franchise was to get rid of whatever blundering fool directed the first entry (Yes, I do know who it was, and he should be ashamed of himself).
I have to say this was easily the most fun I've had watching a superhero movie since the Avengers, a feeling especially highlighted by memories of the perplexingly underwhelming Iron Man 3 and the drudgery of Man of Steel earlier in the year. The best visuals of any of the Marvel films, brilliant production design (costume and sets that no longer look like cheap plastic toys), exciting action, and engaging and thoroughly likeable characters made this great fun throughout. The story was simple but did everything it needed to to keep the pace up and the action moving forward, and while not perfect, I could count the selection of unflawed superhero films of this sort on one hand, or possibly even 2 fingers. There were certain nits that could be picked, but nothing worth distracting from the overall film experience, and to dwell on them is frankly, in a film of this kind, petty and unneccessary.
I had no faith in Thor after the first film, but now I'm genuinely excited for the next installment, if the quality is kept to this standard. I only wish more superhero films could sustain this level of fast paced fun, and not waste time dwelling on overused and tired characters (see Iron Man 3) or an unjustified sense of hollow pomposity (see Man of Steel).
If Marvel have kept this standard up for their upcoming films then I'm pretty darn hopeful.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 102
RE: Great Thun Thor All. - 10/11/2013 1:17:05 AM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
Saw it tonight and thought it was decent throwaway fun.Great fx and action as you would expect from an MCU flick but i thought the main villain didnt make much of an impression and didnt come across as very threatening ( unlike his bad ass henchman! ).

The humour was a bit OTT this time compared to the last movie,( especially when that annoying wanker Chris O Dowd made his cameo ) and Sif is badly underused ( We see her about to make a stand against Asgardian soldiers in order to help Thor and Loki escape and thats the last we see of her! ).

Overall however its good fun and much, much better than the awful Iron Man 3.

Man Of Steel however is still superhero movie of the year for me.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Oroborous)
Post #: 103
RE: Better than the first one but... - 10/11/2013 10:42:09 AM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1513
Joined: 24/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericcoyle

Certainly a big improvement on the abysmal first one but still not all it should have been. The plot was a red herring. Why not just have a war between the Asgardians and elves? The villain was pointless and the elves themselves made no sense. They could fight their way into Asgard but couldn't catch one human scientist and her ditsy sidekick "comedy relief"? They looked like exactly what they were, a bunch of stuntmen in costumes running around London in a rather aimless way. The editing was at times terrible, with unexplained and pointless cuts to other realms for the odd second, a shot of Hogan turning round for no apparent plot reason.


You must have completely zoned out during the exposition scenes, which clearly explained why there wasn't just a war between the Asgardians and the Elves, why they were in Greenwich (well, there was some suspend-your-disbelief handwaving there, to be fair) and why they kept jumping between realms. Hell, the jumping between realms really was the point of the last set piece.

If you didn't get it, no wonder you didn't enjoy it much.

(in reply to ericcoyle)
Post #: 104
And furthermore... - 11/11/2013 4:28:23 PM   
ericcoyle

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 9/10/2009
In response to the previous post, please don't use the term "you didn't get it", which implies you have a superior intelligence or some such twaddle. I completely understand why the realm jumping was going on but in actuality this has nothing to do with the overall plot of the film (elves are nasty and must be stopped). It is just there so that wacky special effects can ensue. It also has nothing to do with the problems with the film, which chiefly lie with an obvious over-used concept and some very poor editing/pacing decisions. I'm not saying it was a bad film. For the most part it was extremely enjoyable. I'm just saying that there are problems which are annoyingly easy to fix. You can hardly claim that the mechanism by which the earth scietists were able to control exactly where the anomolies would occur was clearly explained. This is exactly the sort of non-science that mars the worst episodes of Dr. Who or Star Trek and I would hope for better from a cinematic presentation. If you want to defend the film for these transgretions why not address the specific points raised instead of attacking my intelligence, which it goes without saying is vast beyond belief don't you know!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 105
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 11/11/2013 10:54:19 PM   
musht


Posts: 1870
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
I agree that the villain was pure and Ecclestone (why they needed to change his voice is a mystery) was criminally underused but it didn't stop me from the enjoying the hell out of this. I can understand people's complaints that this was just filler and trailer for the next Avengers but I personally don't see that as a bad. I love that these films are smaller parts of a much larger universe, yes there are hints of that Universe but I've never felt that they don't stand up on their own. Marvel have done very well to balance it so that the outsider who hasn't seen all previous films isn't completely out of the loop. Thor is easily the hardest character to do this with given the history with Loki but I think it holds up. Really enjoyed, just what I needed on what could been a very boring Sunday night.

< Message edited by musht -- 11/11/2013 11:13:05 PM >


_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to ericcoyle)
Post #: 106
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 10:51:28 AM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1049
Joined: 30/9/2005
Have to say I enjoyed it. There were problems with the antagonists for sure and perhaps it's a bit bloated, but I can't say I regret spending money on it.

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 107
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 12:09:42 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3985
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
For me, the reason the film fails is that it has this brilliant and entertaining dynamic between Thor & Loki - and then chooses not to use it (how long do they share the screen together? 10 minutes? 15 at a push?).

The closing moments of The Avengers and the trailer for The Dark World suggest that we were on the cusp of a sort of buddy / road movie with these two. That would have been great!

But what do we get instead? A rambling plot, a bland antagonist, scenes in London that are tonally all over the place and Anthony Hopkins shouting at everyone.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 108
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 1:01:39 PM   
musht


Posts: 1870
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

For me, the reason the film fails is that it has this brilliant and entertaining dynamic between Thor & Loki - and then chooses not to use it (how long do they share the screen together? 10 minutes? 15 at a push?).

The closing moments of The Avengers and the trailer for The Dark World suggest that we were on the cusp of a sort of buddy / road movie with these two. That would have been great!



I think Marvel showed a huge amount of restraint to not do a buddy movie. I think if they had gone with that movie however they would have been accused of resting on their laurels. Everyone knows the Thor/Loki relationship is the strength of the Thor franchise, personally, I'd hate to see that muscle over worked.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 109
RE: And furthermore... - 14/11/2013 2:14:15 PM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1513
Joined: 24/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericcoyle

In response to the previous post, please don't use the term "you didn't get it", which implies you have a superior intelligence or some such twaddle. I completely understand why the realm jumping was going on but in actuality this has nothing to do with the overall plot of the film (elves are nasty and must be stopped). It is just there so that wacky special effects can ensue. It also has nothing to do with the problems with the film, which chiefly lie with an obvious over-used concept and some very poor editing/pacing decisions. I'm not saying it was a bad film. For the most part it was extremely enjoyable. I'm just saying that there are problems which are annoyingly easy to fix. You can hardly claim that the mechanism by which the earth scietists were able to control exactly where the anomolies would occur was clearly explained. This is exactly the sort of non-science that mars the worst episodes of Dr. Who or Star Trek and I would hope for better from a cinematic presentation. If you want to defend the film for these transgretions why not address the specific points raised instead of attacking my intelligence, which it goes without saying is vast beyond belief don't you know!


I don't think 'elves are nasty and must be stopped' really is the overall plot of the film. The plot of the film is that a dangerous, universe-endangering menace brings Jane and Thor back together, and forces Thor and Loki to reluctantly join forces. It is Jane and Erik who work out how to defeat the universe-endangering menace. You could do a 'nasty elves need to be stopped' plot just by having a big fight between Asgardians and Dark Elves in space, but then you have no reason for Jane and Erik and Darcy to be involved, for Thor to return to Earth or Jane to go to Asgard, and no real reason to get Loki out of his prison cell. it'd be pretty dull.

What you're saying is that you wanted a completely different film, with a completely different plot, from this one. Which is fine - you didn't like it. But you didn't like it because it wasn't what you wanted, not because it did what it set out to do badly.

Within the confines of the story it was telling, everything made sense. Within the confines of the movie it was trying to be, it succeeded. It wasn't trying to be scientifically (or geographically) accurate, it was trying to be a fun blockbuster.

The realm jumping is the point of the convergence plot, the plot has been set up specifically so people can jump between the realms. That's both so that they can have some fun spectacle in the third act and so they can threaten the universe from earth. They want to threaten the universe from earth so they can bring back Jane and Erik and Darcy and have them be involved in the plot solution.

It's actually all rather neatly plotted.

(in reply to ericcoyle)
Post #: 110
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 2:20:47 PM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1513
Joined: 24/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

For me, the reason the film fails is that it has this brilliant and entertaining dynamic between Thor & Loki - and then chooses not to use it (how long do they share the screen together? 10 minutes? 15 at a push?).

The closing moments of The Avengers and the trailer for The Dark World suggest that we were on the cusp of a sort of buddy / road movie with these two. That would have been great!



I think Marvel showed a huge amount of restraint to not do a buddy movie. I think if they had gone with that movie however they would have been accused of resting on their laurels. Everyone knows the Thor/Loki relationship is the strength of the Thor franchise, personally, I'd hate to see that muscle over worked.


I don't know the comics - is there a Thor-Loki buddy story in them?

I think the end of the film sets up Thor 3 quite nicely, which is pretty clearly going to have a strong Thor-Loki component. It may even complete the arc of that relationship.

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 111
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 3:17:17 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3985
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh


quote:

ORIGINAL: musht


I think Marvel showed a huge amount of restraint to not do a buddy movie. I think if they had gone with that movie however they would have been accused of resting on their laurels. Everyone knows the Thor/Loki relationship is the strength of the Thor franchise, personally, I'd hate to see that muscle over worked.


I can't agree with that to be be honest. There's numerous examples in the Dark World to suggest they are resting on their laurels as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kathryn2


I don't know the comics - is there a Thor-Loki buddy story in them?



I don't know either. Does it matter though? I guess it might to the sensitive souls who read the comics or hated that glorious twist in Iron Man 3, but faithfulness doesn't guarantee a successful or better adaptation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kathryn2

I think the end of the film sets up Thor 3 quite nicely, which is pretty clearly going to have a strong Thor-Loki component. It may even complete the arc of that relationship.


Exactly. So just imagine if they were bickering with & distrusting one another for the majority of the film? The stakes would have been raised significantly. Yet instead, they've barely advanced.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to kathryn2)
Post #: 112
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 4:51:11 PM   
Dirk Miggler


Posts: 1106
Joined: 14/1/2009
Like the first one thoroughly entertaining albeit with a few problems here and there. I'm suprised at people who liked the first not liking this TBH and the humour is pretty much in keeping with Thor and Avengers so don't really get the complaints there either. 3 1/2 maybe 4 stars at a push. Great leads in Hemsworth and Hiddleston who really lift the film whenever they are on screen, great action and a terrific ending.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 113
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 14/11/2013 6:31:08 PM   
musht


Posts: 1870
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris



quote:

ORIGINAL: musht


I think Marvel showed a huge amount of restraint to not do a buddy movie. I think if they had gone with that movie however they would have been accused of resting on their laurels. Everyone knows the Thor/Loki relationship is the strength of the Thor franchise, personally, I'd hate to see that muscle over worked.


I can't agree with that to be be honest. There's numerous examples in the Dark World to suggest they are resting on their laurels as it is.



Not the laurels people expected them to rest on


_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 114
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 15/11/2013 10:44:34 AM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1513
Joined: 24/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: kathryn2


I don't know the comics - is there a Thor-Loki buddy story in them?



I don't know either. Does it matter though? I guess it might to the sensitive souls who read the comics or hated that glorious twist in Iron Man 3, but faithfulness doesn't guarantee a successful or better adaptation.


I just think we're more likely to see that dynamic if it's part of an existing story arc - I get the impression that Marvel are keen to adapt/play with existing storylines from the comic, rather than invent new ones. I heard Kevin Feige on the spoiler podcast say there's lots of good Thor-Loki storylines and very few standalone Loki storylines, when discussing the possibility of a Loki spin-off film. (BTW, even as a huge Tom Hiddleston fan I think a Loki movie is a bad idea - look what happened when fans demanded more Jack Sparrow!)

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: kathryn2

I think the end of the film sets up Thor 3 quite nicely, which is pretty clearly going to have a strong Thor-Loki component. It may even complete the arc of that relationship.


Exactly. So just imagine if they were bickering with & distrusting one another for the majority of the film? The stakes would have been raised significantly. Yet instead, they've barely advanced.


I'm not sure I'd agree with that - Thor does distrust Loki for most of the film, that's why he doesn't bother going to see him in prison (he no longer believed he was redeemable), and why when he hears the prison alarm his first thought is that Loki caused it. That's why he warns Loki not to betray him.

I also think that more bickering would get tiresome. It doesn't take much of that to establish their relationship, the only reason to include more is if it has inherent comedy value. I didn't actually find most of it that funny in this film, to be honest. I may be scarred by too much sibling bickering in real life....

The stakes have been raised quite dramatically in that Thor now thinks that Loki died honourably and heroically - that he redeemed himself. The fallout from finding out the truth should be ....interesting.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 115
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 15/11/2013 1:12:03 PM   
Coyleone


Posts: 567
Joined: 13/10/2008
I thought this was a tremendously fun time. Great characters, design, set pieces, humour and a fun script raise this above other comic book movies from this year that lacked any of that stuff (coughmanofsteelcough). Sure some of the science doesn't make sense, but seriously, who goes to see a movie about a god with a huge hammer and multiple worlds and expects it to be scientifically accurate? The villains were fine, Provided a nice base for the more important story and character stuff with Thor and Loki who is brilliant, and as a character he smokes every other Marvel character for me. Very well written and developed with so many layers. Very funny and thoroughly enjoyable blockbuster and probably my favourite Avengers movie that isn't The Avengers.

(in reply to kathryn2)
Post #: 116
RE: Thor: The Dark World - 19/11/2013 3:39:55 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2392
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
Just saw it as part one of a triple-bill catch-up today along with Gravity and Captain Phillips. I enjoyed it. I liked the greyness of the London setting, revived a life-time crush on Natalie Portman who I thought was really invested in it contrary to the general comment trail. Ecclestone was muted but looked the part carrying a pretty groovy villain aesthetic. Hiddleston is the reason why I go back to the Marvel movies despite feeling very "take it or leave it" about superheroes in general. Really liked the dimension jumping which made the 3rd act satisfying. Something that probably hasn't been managed since the Avengers. Didn't expect much, but was fitfully entertained.

(in reply to Coyleone)
Post #: 117
- 6/12/2013 8:32:57 PM   
smakris04

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 9/5/2006
What where they thinking? Horrible story that makes no sense. The characters act like 12yearolds. At times it looks like symply interesting scenes that don't connect are put together. :P
I couldn't wait for it to end.
Loki is the real God here. Thor is just a pawn. We want a Loki movie!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 118
RE: - 15/12/2013 10:48:52 PM   
Biggus


Posts: 7639
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
The second post-Avengers solo outing for the Marvel Cinematic Universe sees the titular hammer-swinging Asgardian facing the threat of the age-old Dark Elves. As 2009′s Kenneth Branagh-directed Thor was my favourite stand-alone Marvel film, my anticipation for its follow-up was high. Thankfully I wasn’t disappointed.

Whereas Thor: The Dark World may lack the breeziness and simplicity of the original, it makes up for it with more depth of story and epic scale. After a snappy prologue introducing us to the Dark Elves followed by scenes of Thor restoring order in Vanaheim, the film becomes a slow burn, carefully building its story and characters. At around the hour mark (coincidentally when Loki becomes a major plot participant), the film seems to change gear and sustains an action-packed pace laden with misdirection and plenty of humour to keep you hooked right up until the final reel.

Chris Hemsworth now fits the role like a glove and Thor’s fearlessness/recklessness dichotomy is now nicely balanced with a sense of melancholy and responsibility over his love for Jane Foster and the burden of his deceitful brother Loki. Speaking of which…

Tom Hiddleston returns and is clearly having the time of his life as the god of mischief. His Loki could have quite easily fallen into pantomime villain territory by this point but Hiddleston still manages to show the sparks of humanity and doubt behind those scheming eyes which never truly disclose Loki’s ever-conflicted agenda.

I’m happy to say that for me Thor is still the benchmark for the individual Marvel films but with more characters on the way (e.g. Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man) there will no doubt be some strong challenges on the road to Avengers 2: Age of Ultron. However for the time being, the god of thunder still reigns supreme and at the prospect of a further Thor sequel I say…

Another!

_____________________________

"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

http://fletchsworldoffilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to smakris04)
Post #: 119
RE: Why the dig at Man of Steel? - 28/12/2013 10:20:36 AM   
chang

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 28/12/2013
A much better film than its 2011 predecessor, embracing its fantasy roots with exciting, entertaining results.
quote:

Thor: The Dark World

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Marvel at its worst Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141