I guess the summer movie season has officially kicked off (or did so last week, depending where you live) with the release of Kenneth Branagh’s take on Marvel’s “Thor.” For my money, it’s a pretty respectable start — an uneven but refreshingly uncynical popcorn adventure that announces a major star in the shape of Chris Hemsworth. You can read my full take on the film (seconded by Kris) here, but we want to know what you think. Have at it in the comments.
Comments
26 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Thor’”
it’s watchable because it’s funny
I liked it. I saw it in 3D, which did nothing for me, but it didn’t hurt it. It was a solid origin story that introduced us to some good characters that I’d love to see again. It prepared the audience for some of what we’ll expect in the Avengers without beating us over the head with hype like Iron Man 2 tried to do. If we’re comparing it to the other Marvel Studios movies, I’d put it second right behind Iron Man and ahead of Hulk and Iron Man 2.
I think your 3 star review was spot on Guy. It was a perfectly enjoyable summer blockbuster movie about Norse gods and comic book characters directed by Kenneth Branagh that somehow came together a lot better on film than you would expect it to. A bit uneven, but that is to be expected considering the story of the god of Thunder being arbitrarily sent to New Mexico. I really enjoyed the celestial world and Asgard sure did look puh-retty. All the actors seemed to be having fun, which made it all the more enjoyable, although it was hysterical to see recently crowned Oscar winner Natalie Portman in such a cardboard cutout damsel in distress role (although she was clearly enjoying just being a doe-eyed babe staring in awe at the big hunky Thor LOL.)
On another note, I don’t see how all of these big ego-ed characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, etc.) can all come together for one film. I have a feeling that the whole thing is going to implode on itself when they all “regroup” for The Avengers next summer…
The film is at its best in Asgard, but the comedy in New Mexico helped a great deal. Who would’ve guessed Portman would be the weakest part of the ensemble?
http://nevermindpopfilm.blogspot.com/2011/05/review-thor-3-d.html
I had a hard time with Thor. I loved Asgard, special effects, talent (Thor, Loki, Odin especially) and the back-and-forth between the worlds. But it was rushed for such an epic story.
I couldn’t get behind the unrealistic reactions from a lot of characters, and didn’t buy the chemistry between Chris and Natalie.
It was a fun flick, but as Michael said, it was uneven. But I’m excited about The Avengers.
I’m not sure if it was because my expectations we’re so low going in, but I was suprisingly impressed with “Thor”. I expected that it would, like “Iron Man 2”, be bogged down considerably by “Avengers” related subplots, but while those subplots were needless (as always), they weren’t as distracting as in “Iron Man 2”.
I credit both the universally pitch-perfect ensemble (most notably Hemsworth) and Kenneth Branagh’s almost unfathomably (considering what he had to work with) even-handed direction. I’ve heard people in some corners people complain about the back an forth between Thor on Earth and Asgard being tonally distracting. While I don’t think that was the best approach to this material, I found that Branagh sold both the Shakespearean drama of Asgard and the light-hearted humor of Thor on Earth so effectively that I didn’t really mind all the intercutting. I was also impressed with how he kept Hemsworth’s tone as Thor consistent in either plotline, using the surrounding elements to shape our perception of him. On Asgard, he is a serious character with Narcisissm, while on Earth, his narcisism and Shakespearean style of speech are played for laughs, and effectively so. I helped me to buy into the whole thing.
Also, the film is a strong reminder of how sexy Natalie Portman is, without even trying. It was also nice to see that she didn’t phone it in and actually gave a certain amount of depth to a character who, in the end, doesn’t have a whole lot to do.
***1/2 out of ****
I appreciate it at about the same level as I do “Iron Man” and “The Incredible Hulk”, so while they’re not getting any worse in quality (unless you count “Iron Man 2”, which I don’t), they’re also not exactly great. As a fantasy-adventure flick and a quirky comedy, “Thor” is a rollicking success, even if it’s not a unanimous one.
It felt vanilla to me. I understand they’re in it to reach an extremely wide family friendly demographic so that they can make an enormous profit, I just wish Marvel would try harder to be interesting. Take chances and get risky. You’d think Nolan’s vision would have started a snowball effect. sadly not the case. I liked it though. Maybe I wish it took itself more seriously? First Class seems to be more up the alley I’m looking for.
Not bad, the performances were fantastic (especially from Hiddleston, Hemsworth, and Hopkins)! The Asgard scenes were my favorite, they have a great look to them, and the action scenes were well-directed given Branagh’s inexperience with summer blockbusters. I thought Portman did fine, but she had almost literally nothing to do, and as Joseph said above, the chemistry between the leads was non-existent.
It had it’s moments, and it’s not awful. I’m looking forward to seeing Hemsworth and Hiddleston again next year. It was well-directed and technically proficient, but in the end, Thor did too much to appeal to the general audience when it could have had more focus.
I really enjoyed the movie. It really surprised me, I never expected it would be this fun, or fresh, or well acted at all.
For me the weakest part was the whole mythology, I think it was a little rushed but then we got to the “New mexico” point and everything got its course.
Performances were good, I bought the whole chemistry between Portman and Hemsworth who I think is about to become a star on his own after this.
The humor saved it from being hokey and campy…because some of those sets like the rainbow bridge could’ve taken it to another level. It poked fun at itself and that will give it legs, I believe. I could see young kids getting into this.
I thought it was great. Branagh showed why he was perfect for the material.
Portman seemed genuinely smitten with Hemsworth
I went in not expecting to be as impressed as I was, but I loved it. I thought the cast was wonderful, particularly Hemsworth and Hiddleston, and the visual effects were superb. Portman and Hemsworth had great chemistry, and considering that Portman had very little to do, she was so charming, funny, and sexy…and so effortlessly. Branagh balanced everything pretty damn well, IMHO, and it got me so hyped for next year’s ‘The Avengers’.
I basically thought it was a typical popcorn movie. Some funny moments, cool effects (and the 3D was better than I thought it was going to be considering its a conversion), but also nothing about it was very interesting or memorable. The cast was good but most of them had thankless roles, and while it is common for the love interest to be kind of a dull character, I was let down in how many of the other characters didn’t seem well-written enough to really develop even with capable actors.
Among the now seemingly annual Marvel summer kick-offs it certainly is much better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Iron Man 2 (both of which are pretty bad), but well below Iron Man 1 (which I really liked), and probably of a similar quality to Spider-Man 3.
Spider-man 3 seems like a harsh comparison considering how tonally uneven that flick was. And none of the actors were Disco-dancing bad.
I felt Thor is a bit tonally uneven also, and again I didn’t hate either Spider-Man 3 or Thor, I think both for the most part accomplished the basic popcorn movie job of entertaining, though rarely ever did more than that.
Actually for what its worth, Spider-Man 3 currently has a better score on metacritic than Thor, though a one-point difference is fairly arbitrary and it could change with new reviews in the coming week.
Loved it. Best superhero film since The Dark Knight. An innocence drenched cosmic fantasy film is going to be a hard sell to cynical modern audiences, but this is one hell of a great way to start the summer. In a lot of ways, Thor is everything a modern Superman film should be. Action-packed, engaging, a compelling character piece, and a sweet, believable romance (Hemsworth and Portman have chemistry to spare). Bravo.
I didn’t see it in 3D, but in standard form, the visual effects were horrible. While I give Branagh great credit for better scripting and acting than I anticipated, I think he and his technical cohorts took the easy way out with the visual effects: blurry camerawork, split second editing, a lot of chaos, and thousands of whirling halucigenic circles. Not impressed.
I was left very underwhelmed by the trailer I saw back in December before The Fighter, so my expectations were quite low when I went into the theater. To my surprise I actually thought it was pretty solid entertainment and it also had some heart, which is always a good thing. I didn’t expect it to have as many comedic moments as it did, but that was also a pleasant surprise that the film wasn’t taking itself too seriously.
I found it kind of interesting how those scenes on Asgard had a Shakespearean quality to them.
For the most part, I enjoyed Thor. Chris Hemsworth was great, and the rest of the movie on the whole was cast perfectly. If the whole thing felt almost ridiculously predictable, I give the blame for that to the unbelievable glut of superhero films in the past few years. There was nothing unexpected about this at all, even though it was done well. I just couldn’t build up any excitement for it after the (extremely well-played) comedy in New Mexico wrapped up and we moved on to more “important” stuff in the second half of the film. But I give Branagh plenty of credit – I know no one who thought he could pull this off, and pull it off he did.
It felt like a 21st century version of “Masters of the Universe”…those costumes were awful.
Additionally, I thought Loki’s motivation was all over the place. I honestly walked out the theater not completely understanding what it was he was trying to do.
The Odin collapse scene was unintentionally hilarious.
** out of *****
Surprisingly, great summer popcorn fun. Nothing spectacular, but a solid three star, big budget film. As everyone has said, the humor makes it as it doesn’t take itself too seriously.
I enjoyed it. Reminded me of the 1st Iron Man – in that – it’s mostly an origin story (just not quite as good as Iron Man).
LOVED everything in Asgard. What a fantastic place!!! The whole bridge/transporter thing was incredible to watch; I felt like my pupils were having a field day. And I actually think that the art direction was better than the overall special effects.
Chris Hemsworth was great; really hope he gets some other leading roles in the future. I also thought Tom Hiddleston was impressive. Though, some of Loki’s motivations felt a bit muddled.
Natalie Portman? I don’t get the hate. She was absolutely fine; finding her way with an underwritten role.
My issue with the movie is that there needed to be more going on in the New Mexico scenes. I like what I saw. I chuckled at the humor. But there needed to be more fish-out-of-water stuff. More human interactions. More dialogue/narrative btwn. Thor, Skarsgard, Portman, Dennings, etc.. I craved much more there.
But as mentioned … it’s an origin story. You can only do so much with 110 minutes. Great fun. Overall, a low 3 stars out of 4. Better than expected.
The movie was decent but the post-converted 3D was hair-raisingly awful. I try not to watch post-converted movies in 3D on principle but I wanted to watch it on an IMAX screen and the IMAX screen near me only had it in 3D.
I have not seen one movie in 3D since ‘Avatar’.
It’s just absolutely useless for me. Why dish out 5 more bucks to see something dark/muddier, but certain things pop out at you. Ooooh, how cool? {shrugs}
Ebert absolutely HATED ‘Thor’ (from his blog).
I understand the logic in his criticism. But I always feel ‘easy’ after reading a well-written criticism, yet liking the film, anyway.