THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
Ebert is missing it when he describes Loki as such:
Hiddleston's performance is one that has been singled out and praised the most. Often times in those still dissing the movie appreciate Loki and what he brought to the film.
But as pointed out Ebert praised Mummy 3 and both Tomb Raiders so you know he can be wrong and is as far as I see it regarding Thor.
So?I gave this film a "B" while a co-worker of mine was gushing over it. Then, of course, this particular co-worker of mine also thinks Green Lantern is one of the Avengers heroes making a debut at the box office this summer.
I bolded Green Lantern and Avengers for you.
Most movie-goers aren't familiar with the Comics. My brother used to buy comics 35 years ago, and I'd read them here and there when I was a pre-teen. Don't think I ever followed an entire storyline. Most movie-goers are jsut going to see a Super Hero movie because it's a Super Hero movie and it looks cool. They aren't typically going because they know anything about the Hero or their enemies or their origins, powers etc. I know superficially Green Latern uses a green ring, and his weakness is yellow, and there's been Hal Jordan and a Black version of the Green Latern, that's about all I know. The average-movie goer isn't going to know Marvel from DC, that's only people who are regular readers (or were) whoa re going to know that level of information.
It's not surprising Joe Average is going to wonder if Green latern might be an Avenger. It doesn't make them mormons, it jsut means they aren't immersed in the culture
It's not surprising Joe Average is going to wonder if Green latern might be an Avenger. It doesn't make them mormons, it jsut means they aren't immersed in the culture
Again, Average Joe isn't going to be watching the trailers over and over again (And scouring the web for 9 different versions on a daily basis) with a magnifying glass. You're immersed in it, it's obvious to you. They'll see a Trailer on TV or at the theater and that logo will go in one eye and out the other for most people. The Logo isn't what they'll remember about the Trailer.
Exactly. And the average reader doesn't look at the colophons on the spines of paperback books either. Heck, I imagine the average viewer doesn't know or care if that cool new movie they want to see is from Paramount or Universal or MGM or whatever. That's just boring corporate stuff that has no impact on whether the movie is any good or not.
Same with the Marvel versus DC thing.
Same with the Marvel versus DC thing.
What are you talking about? My decision to see a movie is very dependent upon which studio logo I see attached to it!
I'd be very surprised if the average non-comic book fan realizes that Green Lantern and Thor are owned by two differrnt companies and are in completely different universes.
Even my wife who is married to a comic book geek (namely me) doesn't remember which characters share the same universe.
Even my wife who is married to a comic book geek (namely me) doesn't remember which characters share the same universe.
Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong - I enjoyed it but it's a pretty slight excuse for a movie; as one reviewer said, it's not something anyone will remember in a couple of months.
The problem I have with Ebert is that he expects and wants EVERY film to be art. Sometimes a good movie is just a piece of entertainment designed to give the audience a fun time. And on that level 'Thor' as a film, works fine.
Yep. Only us hardcore fans keep track of that. Even people with a vague familiarity with comics can't keep the Marvel/DC thing straight.
Heck, Trival Pursuit got it wrong once. I remember insisting to my family one night that, no, really, the card was wrong. Spider-Man was NOT published by DC Comics!
I can't remember if they gave me the wedge or not . . . .
This has been my biggest issue with the critics for a long time. And to be honest, I tend to enjoy fun movies like Thor a lot more than I do most of the "art" films. Don't get me wrong I have liked a lot of arty films, but I can only think of maybe one or two I would put on my list of favorite movies.Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong - I enjoyed it but it's a pretty slight excuse for a movie; as one reviewer said, it's not something anyone will remember in a couple of months.
The problem I have with Ebert is that he expects and wants EVERY film to be art. Sometimes a good movie is just a piece of entertainment designed to give the audience a fun time. And on that level 'Thor' as a film, works fine.
What happens if he disses on Green Lantern?
I think EVRYONE is going to diss GL when it comes out. It doesn't look good at all.
Captain America is the only other comic book movie I'm looking forward to seeing this year.
????
I thought everyone has been wowed by it. I even convinced my superhero resistant wife to go see it off of bthe strength of the 4 min con trailer.
RAMA
My co-worker is a sci-fi buff like me, but she's not a hardcore comic-book reader, and neither am I. (It depends on one's definition of hardcore, but I can pretty much tell which heroes are DC and which ones are Marvel.) She claims she read superhero comic books as a child. The funny thing is, she sounded so sure of herself when she said Green Lantern was going to be one of the characters to appear in the Avengers movie. *Shrugs*
No, I'm sorry...it's the moops.
This has been my biggest issue with the critics for a long time. And to be honest, I tend to enjoy fun movies like Thor a lot more than I do most of the "art" films. Don't get me wrong I have liked a lot of arty films, but I can only think of maybe one or two I would put on my list of favorite movies.Ebert disliked the movie. As usual for him, he's not wrong - I enjoyed it but it's a pretty slight excuse for a movie; as one reviewer said, it's not something anyone will remember in a couple of months.
The problem I have with Ebert is that he expects and wants EVERY film to be art. Sometimes a good movie is just a piece of entertainment designed to give the audience a fun time. And on that level 'Thor' as a film, works fine.
I am an "art snob" in many ways when it comes to literature, movies, and music. But I listen to my U2 albums more than Beethoven, and I rewatch my Super-Hero movies more than my Jim Jarmusch or Martin Scorcese collections.
Being of the minority opinion is not the same as being wrong - especially where fans around here are concerned.
You've got me - what happens if Ebert doesn't like it?
Is all of this some kind of personal competition? What do we win by dismissing the opinion of an intelligent and demonstrably thoughtful professional for who won't cosign our fannish enthusiasm for a mediocre movie?
If anything, Ebert is too kind to this movie by being brief about it.