Renner is great.

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.)

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.

Nails my feelings: http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/mo ... ref=movies

It's not bad, it's not great.

B

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.

Thor does it nicely. Iron Man 2 forgot to be its own movie. It was all half-assed setup.

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+

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.

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.

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..

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...

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.

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+.

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.

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.

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