THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***

Potter is gay?!

According to the report below, it's the 11th highest opening w/e for a superhero movie (which includes The Incredibles). It did better than Superman Returns, Hancock, Watchmen and others. It's felt that any disappointment about the US gross is offset by its stronger-than-expected international take.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/20465/-thor-whacks-off-box-office-race

 

Saw this last night and enjoyed it quite a bit... I gave it a solid B, as I didn't think it was quite up there at the "epic" level...

My big quibble was the "town" in New Mexico used as the earthly setting... The whole place felt like a set piece rather than an actual town.. Being here in New Mexico, I can tell you first off that there is no such place, but that's neither here nor there.. It was very reminiscent of the old sets used in Western genre movies..

With all the "realism" in superhero movies these days when it comes to settings, this really stuck out like a sore thumb.. There are plenty of small towns here in New Mexico that could have been used. Having what looked like a 1950's version of a wild west town was distracting to me.

Other than that, I really thought the action and the acting, along with the humor were all well done.

 

I guess they were looking for a big contrast though between Earth and Asgard, and that surely setup a big contrast between worlds.

 

Gay as in happy.... I dont thing so..... Voldy kinda has him really depressed and he's not happy....

 

HP is the one that'll suck all the air out of the room. Captain America has to contend with Potter's second weekend, but looks pretty clear for its second and third weeks - I mean, Smurfs? Really?

 

^ Unless people think the Smurfs movie is Avatar 2.

 

A $242m worldwide take in the first weekend alone for a $150m budgeted movie with neither the protagonist nor the villain played by recognizable actors? Sounds pretty darn good to moi.

 

The millions of people who made Avatar the most successful movie in history will not be confused. They're smart folks.

Against a 150 million dollar negative cost and considering that the biggest chunk of it is international, it's plausible at best; not "pretty darn good."

T'Baio may be right, that 275 million would be tough for a film opening under 70 million. I'll try to look up similar examples.

 

I think it's more of people craving the summer movie blockbusters after an abysmal to mediocre run of movies since the beginning of the year. Fast Five kind of started the party and now passing the torch to Thor. The fact that both movies are actually pretty good (especially and surprisingly Fast Five) probably helps out a lot too.

 

Clash Of The Titans pulled 61 million in its first weekend, to reach about 163 million domestic. However, IIRC correctly it wasn't very well received - Thor got largely good reviews, so we can probably assume that word of mouth will be good as well.

The second Fantastic Four movie did 131 million against a 58 million dollar opening.

Abrams's Star Trek movie had an 80 million dollar opening, cost about the same as Thor, and made it to 258 million dollars. It didn't do nearly as well internationally as Thor but has a sequel coming, so the studio must have been happy enough.

On the more optimistic side, Up opened to 68 million, cost 175 million to make, and topped out at 293 million.

 

Thor is doing quite well and will continue to do so next weekend with no real competition, sorry Priest. Unlike Fast 5 who had to contend with Thor and lost 62% of it audience, even if that is expected for tentpoles, if your the studio you don't like to see it realized.

Thor could see a sub 55% drop and a rise in weekday attendance(over what F5 had) should be seen as Universities are starting to or have completed finals for the semester. I've always said(maybe not here) that the basement for Thor is $200m domestically and pending the results of next weekend I'm still confident it'll do so.

I know this, it'll be the number one or number two superhero movie this summer.

 

I absolutely loved Avatar, so thanks for the compliment. I just thought we hadn't heard the Smurfs/ Navi joke for at least 72 hours and that it ought to be dusted down and given an airing.

 

"I know this, it'll be the number one or number two superhero movie this summer."

Behind X-Men: First Class? Or Captain America: The First Avenger?

 

Man I was very happy with this movie!!! I rate it a bit higher than Iron Man 1 and 2 good choice of cast.. I loved the hammer spin.... I am going to go see it again today... Was anyone else annoyed about the easter egg??

 

What would be annoying about that?

I liked the thing he did with the hammer in the first fight with the frost giants, and I liked him putting it on Loki's chest - that was really a stand-out clever moment. I don't remember much else about him using it beyond it dislodging itself and flying to him for the resurrection scene.

I think my favorite parts of the movie are still the ones that were in the trailer - Kat Denning offering CPR and then tazing him, and Hemsworth smashing the coffee cup in the diner.

I really liked the little desert town in general - with all the dilapidated '50s architecture. It felt like a real place - which it is, of course. Galisteo?

 

I thought it was Stark for a second too. Whoever they contacted, they set up the Driver's license thing... a big hanging plot point, as I don't see Jane being able to do that.

 

I enjoyed the movie, though I didn't love it. Hemsworth and Hiddleston are both excellent. Marvel has two stars on its hands here who should both get a big push in Avengers. The humor really worked, as did the Thor/Loki character material once the film got going. I found the beginning to be quite plodding.

The story suffers a bit, I think, from feeling a bit overly cautious and wary of making any mistakes with what the studio perceived to be a delicate property to handle. I think the cast, story and effects were strong enough that the film could have been more daring.

Thor reminded me somewhat of Trek '09 in that the story is choppy and a bit rushed, but it works anyway due to the strength of its cast. Thor is not quite on the level of Trek '09 as far as pure entertainment value, though, which I would attribute to J.J. Abrams being more comfortable handling this type of movie than Branagh. If Branagh's comfort level increases for a sequel, the pieces are in place for something special.

$400 million WW looks like a lock, which should guarantee a sequel, though Thor's performance at the domestic box office looks like it is basically just going to be respectable.

 

If it's not the #1 superhero movie, which I'm rooting for, then I think Captain America could be #1. If FOX had been promoting X-Men more I could lean that way but the first theatrical trailer for XM:FC I saw was with THOR. Is that too late to get on some peoples radar? That is my question.

At any rate #1-3 will be Marvel movies it seems. Sorry GL. I'm even going to see it, it just doesn't look like a break out imo.

 

I agree, I think Green Lantern will be the one comic book movie getting lost in the shuffle, which sucks for WB and DC. They'll make it up next year, that is for sure.

 

I should have mentioned Hiddleston again, because Loki was the other thing I did really like about the movie. But yeah, the "otherworldy" sequences were pretty-looking, confused and dull with the frost giants looking as if they were borrowed from a much cheaper film.