Author |
Message |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Thor
Renner is great.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Thu May 05, 2011 1:49 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7196 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: Thor
The film is not without glaring faults, but it does not feel 130 minutes long, which is always a good thing. Also, Thor is perfectly cast and written, as is Loki and Odin, and Thor's friends, especially the woman warrior. The effects are very good, but I didn't really notice much 3D. The negative: I love Natalie Portman, but this was all wrong for her. The role she played was horribly written and there wasn't anything she could do. She was fine, the role was not (save for a few cute moments). I would have liked a little more from the end of credits scene. B+ (not as good overall as the first Iron Man, but just as entertaining.)
|
Fri May 06, 2011 3:53 am |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Thor
Not as bad as was once feared, but not as god as the reviews might indicate. Thor is a servicable action-fantasy aimed squarely at 12 year-olds. That's not entirely a bad thing - the movie's earnest presentation of Aasgard is refreshing - but you sure won't feel any smarter walking out of this thing. It's just a big flashy ball of light meant to entertain. So of course, it feels quite hollow. The Frost Giants are anonymous and strange monsters, and the only moment there's any variation among them (love the Frost Dog) is when their action scenes are the best.
From Thor to Loki to even the hot-and-bothered Jane, the cast hit all their appropriate notes. Well, Jeremy Renner is just as shoe-horned as everyone says he is, and SHIELD also feels rather superfluous, but that's the nature of these new Marvel toys.
To me, and I know I'm projecting, it felt like Thor is so relieved to work on a basic fundamental level that it never risks rocking the boat and being anything other than middle-of-the-road. This would be fine, but I don't see why people were so concerned with a Marvel superhero movie having magic in it. There already so freaking out there with flying fire guys and sentient blaze ooze that it's really not much of a stretch to say it's not just from a science experiment. Still, for a movie about magic, there's lots of bright splashy effects but rarely a sense of wonder. But maybe that's because, at 22, I feel a decade older than this movie's target audience.
|
Fri May 06, 2011 5:31 am |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Thor
|
Fri May 06, 2011 6:19 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
I'm sorry but this is a stupid review and if your not a fan of comicbook adaptations to begin with, then why bother other than giving yourself a chance to bitch about something and be contrarian about it??? Bottom line is the movie rocks and it sets up what it's supposed to do folks, nothing more, nothing less..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Fri May 06, 2011 6:31 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
This is the best quote I've seen from a review of this movie and it's true.. Everyone it seems makes absolute damn certain to put in their review that quote "The movies good, but not perfect" or "It has it's flaws" as though you all think some movies don't have flaws when in reality, they all do..Quote: I'll admit, I'm kind of tired of positive reviews for Thor that incorporate the notion that "it's not a perfect film, but..." or "it's got problems, but..." Guess what, people? No movie is perfect and every movie has problems. Those are wasted words. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49539
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Fri May 06, 2011 10:13 am |
|
 |
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32625 Location: the last free city
|
 Re: Thor
It's not bad, it's not great.
B
_________________ Is it 2028 yet?
|
Fri May 06, 2011 10:17 am |
|
 |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Thor
Dr. BK Banner wrote: This is the best quote I've seen from a review of this movie and it's true.. Everyone it seems makes absolute damn certain to put in their review that quote "The movies good, but not perfect" or "It has it's flaws" as though you all think some movies don't have flaws when in reality, they all do..Quote: I'll admit, I'm kind of tired of positive reviews for Thor that incorporate the notion that "it's not a perfect film, but..." or "it's got problems, but..." Guess what, people? No movie is perfect and every movie has problems. Those are wasted words. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49539 Those aren't necessarily wasted words. They're just putting this film in context. It has merit, it has flaws. I will say this for it, though, 100%: I dig how it's more or less just a boyhood adventure type deal. While it does, I repeat, fall short of X2 and The Dark Knight (and Spider-Man 2), after the total, bizarre failure of Iron Man 2, with its mediocre villain and overreaching Avengers elements, the simple pleasures of Thor are to be savored.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Fri May 06, 2011 12:03 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
Gunslinger wrote: Dr. BK Banner wrote: This is the best quote I've seen from a review of this movie and it's true.. Everyone it seems makes absolute damn certain to put in their review that quote "The movies good, but not perfect" or "It has it's flaws" as though you all think some movies don't have flaws when in reality, they all do..Quote: I'll admit, I'm kind of tired of positive reviews for Thor that incorporate the notion that "it's not a perfect film, but..." or "it's got problems, but..." Guess what, people? No movie is perfect and every movie has problems. Those are wasted words. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49539 Those aren't necessarily wasted words. They're just putting this film in context. It has merit, it has flaws. I will say this for it, though, 100%: I dig how it's more or less just a boyhood adventure type deal. While it does, I repeat, fall short of X2 and The Dark Knight (and Spider-Man 2), after the total, bizarre failure of Iron Man 2, with its mediocre villain and overreaching Avengers elements, the simple pleasures of Thor are to be savored. I'm amazed by the sourness from the internet over the inclusion of The AVENGERS setup in these movies.. I mean jesus, what if Nolan had included an extended cameo of sorts from either Clark Kent or Hal Jordan in TDK??? This is how it's done and what should've been done years ago..This is how you start and build franchises..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Fri May 06, 2011 12:21 pm |
|
 |
David
Pure Phase
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am Posts: 34865 Location: Maryland
|
 Re: Thor
Thor does it nicely. Iron Man 2 forgot to be its own movie. It was all half-assed setup.
_________________   1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game
|
Fri May 06, 2011 12:44 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48678 Location: Arlington, VA
|
 Re: Thor
Perhaps not reaching the superior quality of Iron Man amongst recent Marvel adaptations, Thor still manages to be exciting and fresh entertainment. Kenneth Branagh may have seemed like an odd choice to direct the picture, but it works...Thor almost comes across as Shakespearean in nature at times. Chris Hemsworth makes an impressive splash; he's both physically impressive and talented. While his romance with Natalie Portman's Jane is underdeveloped, Portman's natural appeal shines through yet again. Tom Hiddleston's Loki is a surprisingly complex villain, Anthony Hopkins is on hand for some sage wisdom, Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings get brief moments of amusing comic relief, although Rene Russo (where has she been?!) is wasted. While it's not an instant classic, I really enjoyed myself. Thor strikes the right balance between superhero pathos and comedy, and the result is an appealing mixture that makes me excited for The Avengers next year. B+
|
Fri May 06, 2011 10:29 pm |
|
 |
Michael A
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am Posts: 6245
|
 Re: Thor
MovieDude wrote: To me, and I know I'm projecting, it felt like Thor is so relieved to work on a basic fundamental level that it never risks rocking the boat and being anything other than middle-of-the-road.
I essentially agree, it almost appears that Brannagh was just relieved to make a functioning movie out of this strange material that he never endeavored to do more. The earth parts felt surprisingly phoned in and fragmented.
_________________Mr. R wrote: Malcolm wrote: You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself. Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.
|
Sun May 08, 2011 2:55 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
Michael A wrote: MovieDude wrote: To me, and I know I'm projecting, it felt like Thor is so relieved to work on a basic fundamental level that it never risks rocking the boat and being anything other than middle-of-the-road.
I essentially agree, it almost appears that Brannagh was just relieved to make a functioning movie out of this strange material that he never endeavored to do more. The earth parts felt surprisingly phoned in and fragmented. Go back to filmgasm and stop trying to act like your Mr. Film Critic with your big words Savage.. The movie was simply very good and it's though you wanted this thing to fail but didn't.. This movie is going to have legs folks and won't be going anywhere anytime soon, even with CA around the corner.. It has replay value
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Sun May 08, 2011 3:52 am |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Thor
Maybe I'm seeing the past with rose-tinted glasses, but I preferred some of Marvel's turn out from the early 2000s. The Spider-Man and X-Men franchises had very distinct styles and some of the best first sequels ever made; Hulk was a wonderfully strange experiment; and Blade II kicked all sorts of ass. My worry with the Disney-owned Marvel is that all these films will be homogenized and samesy. Branagh, Favreau and Josh Whedon are interesting directors, but they don't have distinctive styles like Sam Raimi or Ang Lee.
|
Sun May 08, 2011 10:05 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
MovieDude wrote: Maybe I'm seeing the past with rose-tinted glasses, but I preferred some of Marvel's turn out from the early 2000s. The Spider-Man and X-Men franchises had very distinct styles and some of the best first sequels ever made; Hulk was a wonderfully strange experiment; and Blade II kicked all sorts of ass. My worry with the Disney-owned Marvel is that all these films will be homogenized and samesy. Branagh, Favreau and Josh Whedon are interesting directors, but they don't have distinctive styles like Sam Raimi or Ang Lee. Ang Lee ruined any chance of the HULK actually being good in the eyes of the public and honestly, TIH should've been the movie back in 2003 and sadly wasn't.. Ang Lee ruined any chance of THE INCREDIBLE HULK being good in anyone's eyes after being burned by HULK 2003..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Sun May 08, 2011 12:09 pm |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Thor
Sorry B, I just rewatched Hulk and I love it just as much as you did in 2003. The desert action scene is one of the best set pieces of any superhero movie, Danny Elfman's score is fantastic, and the characters are much more nuanced than in TIH. Sure it kinda fizzles out at the end... But so does TIH. Ignoring perceptions of popularity, tell me why you think Ang Lee's Hulk is so bad.
|
Sun May 08, 2011 12:17 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
MovieDude wrote: Sorry B, I just rewatched Hulk and I love it just as much as you did in 2003. The desert action scene is one of the best set pieces of any superhero movie, Danny Elfman's score is fantastic, and the characters are much more nuanced than in TIH. Sure it kinda fizzles out at the end... But so does TIH. Ignoring perceptions of popularity, tell me why you think Ang Lee's Hulk is so bad. Dude, we've been over this countless times, but for the record, Ang Lee knew absolutely NOTHING about the HULK and merely fucking winged it with that goofy "HULK has daddy issues" storyline and on top of that, the FX weren't nearly up to par, the HULK himself bounced all over the deset scene, down the sandune that was flat out just bad and not quite there yet and popular concensus after the SUPER BOWL airing of this was appalling to say the least.. The damage was done, moviegoers wanted a more realisitic looking HULK and instead got a HULK that looked like mongoloid baby throwing a temper tantrum and NOT the fierce ass kicking HULK we got in The INCREDIBLE HULK.. Also, Ang Lee knew nothing about the law of physics when dealing with this while MARVEL actually got it right.. When your dealing with a 1000LB Man like the HULK, you have to get the law of physics correct, right down to the sheer mass weight when he walks.. Ang Lee fucked that up.. The only thing I can possibly say about my review from 2003 was that I so desperately, DESPERATELY wanted the HULK movie I imagined in my head after the success of SPIDER-MAN and was in sheer denial that the movie really was THAT bad, but it just was.. TIH is far better in terms of getting the FX down, the law of physics down to a "T" and just the overall tone of the movie was just better.. Problem is though in this world, once you fuck up the product once, rarely do moviegoers come back for 2nds or are rarely forgiving and that's why TIH didn't make anymore or less than HULK 2003: No one wanted to give it a fair chance after Ang Lee's abortion.. Whew!! I'm tired now Moviedude and now I want to go do a puff of some Sour Diesel.. 
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Sun May 08, 2011 12:31 pm |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
 Re: Thor
Go for it dude. I just personally think that stylish mise-en-scene trump the laws of physics in a Hulk movie. And in my humble opinion, the much-maligned special effects have held up rather well...
|
Sun May 08, 2011 12:38 pm |
|
 |
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm Posts: 21895 Location: Walking around somewhere
|
 Re: Thor
I really enjoyed this. Gotta say going in Thor always seemed lame and the trailers did this film a major disservice. It felt like an old school superhero film with big actors rising above the material and the movie was a lot of fun. And I did not have to see this in 3D at all, because it looks like it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
Good visuals, decent action, and good humor. Everyone was on their game to rise above the completely "Insert Superhero" genaric plot. However, while I agree the story is the weakest part about the film, by going the safe route they will win over more general audiences. A solid B+ and the right way to kick off summer 11.
_________________ Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
Sun May 08, 2011 5:26 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
Thegun wrote: I really enjoyed this. Gotta say going in Thor always seemed lame and the trailers did this film a major disservice. It felt like an old school superhero film with big actors rising above the material and the movie was a lot of fun. And I did not have to see this in 3D at all, because it looks like it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
Good visuals, decent action, and good humor. Everyone was on their game to rise above the completely "Insert Superhero" genaric plot. However, while I agree the story is the weakest part about the film, by going the safe route they will win over more general audiences. A solid B+ and the right way to kick off summer 11. I very much enjoyed the subtle wink winks and easter eggs in this movie for setting up The AVENGERS, Particularly The references made about S.H.I.E.L.D having a Doctor who specializes in Gamma Radiation in custody, but escaped.. Also, the after end credits with the Cosmic Cube and seeing LOKI be one of the main villains for The AVENGERS was also cool.. Loved the Stark references when Destroyer came onto screen as well..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Mon May 09, 2011 5:26 am |
|
 |
MARVEL_ROCKS
Forum General
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:11 pm Posts: 8202
|
 Re: Thor
8/10.
I liked the performances A LOT. Loki is easily the best villain of a marvel comic book movie so far. Chris Hemsworth is another australian actor who puts american actors to shame. The action scenes and vfx were good. I really enjoyed it. However, I don't think the legs will be good because my audience was mostly 25+.
|
Mon May 09, 2011 3:52 pm |
|
 |
MadGez
Dont Mess with the Gez
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:54 am Posts: 23385 Location: Melbourne Australia
|
 Re: Thor
If the audience was mostly 25+ then legs should be better.
I saw it finally and have to say its a fantastic film. Exactly what it should be as a comic book origin film and Hemsworth (who ive dissed in the past) is perfect as Thor while Loki is the perfect villain, especially leading into The Avengers.
Grade: a solid 'A'
Much much better than Iron Man 2 and on par with Iron Man.
_________________
What's your favourite movie summer? Let us know @
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85934
|
Tue May 10, 2011 3:14 am |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
 Re: Thor
Could've benefited from another 20-30 minutes and a couple of more action scenes. Also, 3D nearly kills the experience. Thor is meant to be seen on a bright screen. The dimming on the lenses really takes away some of the film's visual power. I imagine I will enjoy the movie more if I see it in non-3D and when the film comes out on Blu-ray. It also didn't help that the dimness nearly put me to sleep.
Aside for (what I believe were major) the problems I had, I was entertained for the most part. The movie could've used a more compelling lead actor, bur Thor is kind of a bland character to begin with, so...
**½ (B-)
It's like Superman, just without any of the personality or charm.
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Tue May 10, 2011 4:25 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Thor
Jmart wrote: Could've benefited from another 20-30 minutes and a couple of more action scenes. Also, 3D nearly kills the experience. Thor is meant to be seen on a bright screen. The dimming on the lenses really takes away some of the film's visual power. I imagine I will enjoy the movie more if I see it in non-3D and when the film comes out on Blu-ray. It also didn't help that the dimness nearly put me to sleep.
Aside for (what I believe were major) the problems I had, I was entertained for the most part. The movie could've used a more compelling lead actor, bur Thor is kind of a bland character to begin with, so...
**½ (B-)
It's like Superman, just without any of the personality or charm. Hemsworth was perfect for the part and will gain an even better appreciation in general when The AVENGERS comes out next summer and the interaction between him and Downey should be good..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Tue May 10, 2011 8:33 pm |
|
 |
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 40586
|
 Re: Thor
It's nice. I agree with MovieDude though that the first two Spiderman and X-Men films just felt BIGGER. Best parts of Thor were the comedy parts, specifically Thor's fish out of water stuff on Earth. I think it'd have made for a better film if they were on Earth longer. Asgard was OK... was hard to get past how special effectsy it was. It was like Thor Candyland.
Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Thor all have the same feel to me and I'm not sure I like it if only from diminishing returns. The Incredible Hulk and Thor just felt like weak versions of Iron Man, as did Iron Man 2
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed May 11, 2011 8:45 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|