A fun flick, even if not for the reasons you'd think
isn't really a superhero movie, at least any more than Disney's Hercules
is. The movie is about a god having to prove himself worthy of his powers, rather than a regular person receiving superpowers by chance and having to decide how to use them. Even the film's use of the Three Act Structure
is uncommon for its type, since the second act is the slowest and most character-oriented, while the others are the loudest and most bombastic.
The movie is a good introduction of the comic-Thor to new audiences. I don't know if it's actually loyal to he comics, but whether it is or isn't, it's a great stand-alone production for those who have no preconception about the story and characters. The only thing from the comics which is never explained is the concept of "Odin-sleep", which comes out of nowhere and seems like a cheap plot device.
The beginning is really weirdly paced, and over all, badly handled. After a cold open on Earth, there's a twenty-minute flashback to Thor's life on Asgard. The fact that there is a flashback at all, especially one so needless, was really distracting to me. The opening infodump isn't helped any by the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins
(as Odin) refuses to act, and sounds utterly uninterested in what he's narrating about. Hint for moviemakers: Get someone who cares to introduce the audience to your setting.
The movie picks up in the second act, when Thor arrives on Earth. There's some genuinely funny comic relief and interesting character moments. The human sidecast is mostly likeable, and the love interest manages to come off as a real person, even if she does fall for Thor all too quickly. The sideplot in Asgard is a bit wonky, but but luckily it doesn't drag on for too long. The third act is surprisingly minimalistic, with focus on personal drama and special effects rather than minion-smashing.
Loki's character annoyed me. Everyone who knows anything about the comics knows he'll be a bad guy, and all the newbies recognise his archetype the moment they see him. The movie manages to play with the audience for just a bit about whether Loki is actually a bad guy, but in the end they forsake all ambiguity. Would have been great to make him more tragic, rather than just whiny.
Overall, it's a good movie. Worth seeing for the second act. 3D was badly applied. See it without.
I don't understand your comments about Loki at all. I thought his manipulations at the beginning were shockingly subtle, and some people really did question whether he was going to be a bad guy. He even managed to pull the rug out from under the viewer with his real motives - and that proved he was quite a tragic character indeed. So yeah, I kind of have to disagree with you about him forsaking all ambiguity.
6th May 11
6th May 11
(edited by: Kerrah)
I got the impression that he wanted to ruin Thor's coronation in large part because he was, well, the God of Mischief. And jealousy certainly doesn't run contrary to his characterization being tragic.
7th May 11
8th May 11
8th May 11
I thought Loki had perfectly well done characterization. His true motivations being unclear until the very last moments. His petty ruining of the coronation has excellent justification given that, at the time Thor was an enormous idiot child douche. Of the two of them pre-earth Thor and Loki, Loki is hands down the better choice for king. Imagine playing second fiddle to that enormous ass for thousands of years. A little jealousy is not only understandable I might even go so far as to say it is warranted.
9th May 11
11th May 11
30th Dec 12
In order to post comments, you need to