View Single Post
Old May 7 2011, 10:45 PM   #175
FPAlpha
Vice Admiral
 
FPAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Mannheim, Germany
Re: THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***

A C from me

With intro movies there's always this huge problem.. running time. You just can't cram everything into 100-120 minutes and satisfy every aspect of filmmaking.

You have to introduce all the characters, explain their background and where they come from and then you have to craft an engaging story for them to act in. This is extremely difficult to do well and few have succeded.. Thor, unfortunately, isn't one of the exceptions.

In essence.. the whole movie felt very rushed to me. You go from arrogant, banished Thor to dinner serving, humiliated Thor in about 15 minutes and all that happend in between is him not being able to lift Mjolnir. That felt way too fast and forced and kinda ruined the entire movie for me because this transition should be the core of the movie.. i could have done without the entite Frost Giant/Loki plot for just getting the time to make a believable change of heart and character for Thor.

Take for instance Iron Man.. similar backstory. Arrogant man, on top of his game encounters a life changing situation and is forced to evaluate his life and changes. Now setting Downey Jr. aside who did a stellar job playing Tony Stark it was handled way better and with far more heart. You could follow the various steps of his change from the death of Yingsen to the realization what hÝs weapons are actually used for and his desire to end this.

With Thor i didn't get any of it and without that the whole movie fell apart and all that's left are a few cool pieces here and there. You just can't build a movie on a few iconic scenes.. swirling the hammer, slamming it into the ground and flying around. That's just not good enough.

Now i was always a critic of the visual design of the movie, especially Asgard. I still don't like the design choice and felt a bit more Viking/Norse influence would have suited this better than the High Tech style they went for.

The acting was ok but i'm afraid they weren't given much to work with. Portman is a great actress but all she had to do was run around confused in the first third, be angry at Shield for taking her stuff in the middle and adore Thor in the last third. That was basically it and no actress, no matter how good, can pull something worthwile out of that.
The same applies to all the big and smaller names of the cast.. Anthony Hopkins and Stellan Skaarsgard are both amazing actors but frankly they could have saved the money and hired other competent actors and it wouldn't have changed much apart from the lure of big names to give the impression the movie was better than it was.

I was so hoping for Thor to knock it out of the park.. he's got such a rich mythology, so many interesting aspects of his story within the Marvel universe but it didn't come together well i'm afraid.

The only thing now is to await the Avengers movie and see how he meshes with the team.. in the comics he always was one of the heavy hitters and judging by the after credits scene Loki and the Cosmic Cube may indeed be the big bad. I don't know what to make of that.

P.S.
Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye was just awesome!

Admiral2 wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
captcalhoun wrote: View Post

just some guy.
I was kinda hoping he'd turn out to be the Black Panther.
BTW, anybody pick up on who the agent with the bow was?
That was Jeremy Renner who played Hawkeye, one of the founding members of the Avengers.
__________________
"Best job i ever had" - Fury
FPAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote