Recent superhero movies have set the bar so high, anything less is considered mediocre, or even weak. While Superman-2 and Dark Knight had immensely character-driven plots, Thor is a throwback to the likes of Fantastic Four, where action is the only charm. The fact that the protagonist is one of the rare non-human superheroes, and half the movie occurs in other planets, doesn't help much in the lines of character development - as the only minimally interesting character is Elba's 2-3 minute "gatekeeper" role. True, I was not bored, but future generations will find the 78% rating just plain wrong.
PS #1: Like any Marvel superhero movie, wait till the end of the end credits! You leave, you lose!
PS #2: I was going to utter my amazement at how Kenneth Branagh ended up directing this, but couldn't say it any better than Ebert:
"The director given this project, Kenneth Branagh, once obtained funding for a magnificent 70mm version of "Hamlet." Now he makes "Thor." I wonder with a dread fear if someone in Hollywood, stuck with a movie about a Norse god, said "Get Branagh. He deals with that Shakespeare crap." "
Mo says:
I enjoyed it but felt it needed a much bigger budget. Some of the FX were quite poor and the 3D was just a last minute thought. I wanted to be smashed in the face by Mjolnir...but it just didn't happen. The most notable 3D moment was a product placement for some breakfast cereal! The performances were a bit underwhelming and Thor losing his powers lasted too long, they probably didn't have the budget for mor FX. Iron Man set the standard and Thor fell short. The little taster at the end was nice though. It's all gearing up towards the Avengers movie. I can't wait for Captain America though!!!
ReplyDeleteYou probably know some critics are strongly against 3D, saying it looks slightly darker than 2D (and I think it is). "Avatar" and "Up" were the rare movies that got the lighting right. I'm thinking maybe if I'd seen "Thor" in 3D, it would have been a more pleasant experience.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much looking forward to "Captain America" too, especially that Joe Johnston is directing it. He's made some decent movies in the past ("October Sky", "Jumanji"), although he's had some failures too ("The Rocketeer", "The Wolfman").
And in the "Captain America" trailer, did you notice the scientist whose name was Stark? Probably Iron Man's dad.
Honestly, the 3D in Thor was feeble. If you're gonna make a 3D movie go all out, don't do it just because it's the latest thing. The 3D in the ads before Thor was much better.
ReplyDeleteApparently the reason "Avatar" worked as 3D, was that James Cameron had invented a special camera specifically for 3D filming. The reason other 3D movies fall flat on the face, is that they turn 2D movies into 3D retroactively - after they've already filmed them in 2D.
ReplyDeleteWerner Herzog says he's filmed his recent 3D documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" using the new system. Haven't seen it yet.
That explains the poor showing in Thor then. The 3D only acted as a distraction and frustration!
ReplyDeleteActually I have some good reasons caused me affect and enjoy “Thor” … my first experience watching movie in Abroad Theatre(!)… the first experience of seeing movie in 3D( and it was stunning ) & just simply because I love all superhero movies . ,particulary when it belongs to Keneth Brannagh whom I ‘m fan of his style, both Shakespearian and nonshakespearian ! …., however no doubt it has own pitfalls which made Roger Ebert and a plenty critics unhappy and you not satisfied with and all seems logical. But I liked the scence of Loki’s outcome and unlike Ebert ,its image as a villain kept on my mind, the final scene was great ,inspite of knowing it shows sequel is on the way but oooops ! I forgot to stick on my seat , I had such pleasant experience with Resident Evil: Afterlife, recently but I missed again!
ReplyDeleteWhat’s your idea about short –funny role of Jeremy Renner? I got surprised at first but read about that maybe it’s a nice overlap between 2 Marvel’s! Thor and Avengers…I always love such cool hints!
Next time you watch 3D, take off the glasses for 2 seconds during the movie. You'll clearly see 3D is darker than 2D. I'll probably avoid 3D whenever I can, for the same reason.
ReplyDeleteWell, I took off the glass in “Green lantern “ and I got your point. You're right and 3D is more darker than 2D and causes a little headache for me too! , but indeed I still love and excited about such high-tech and more excited of reading such news and interview! It must really be gorgeous.Isn't it?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-talks-3d-star-wars-explains-live-action-tv-series-delay/
PS: I’m impatiently waiting for your comment about “Tree of life “. It’s strangely beautiful and deep but I ‘m totally speechless about movie and I don’t know what to say ? What was really that ?!
Agree. Now that I think, "Avatar" has been the only 3D that was neither darker than 2D, nor gave me headaches. I'm seriously thinking about avoiding 3D for now, unless the technology improves ... or Lucas is involved!
ReplyDelete(Thanks for posting the interview! Awesome to get an update on the Star Wars TV series!)
And now you're giving me a guilty feeling! Just had a new member added to the family, and waiting for a chance to see "Super 8", the new X-Men movie, and "The Tree of Life". I'm worried the chance may neverhappen! But I'll skip "Green Lantern" for now. I heard the reviews were horrible.
Believe me :Having new member in family is the most inspirational movie have been ever made and ever watched in HX of cinema so far… for all time! I especially recommended “Tree of life “ for portraying such father-son relationship beautifully!
ReplyDeleteHere Looking forward to hearing this and other movies comments for those when come out to DVD at home! :-)
I couldn't agree with you more.
ReplyDelete:-)