In many ways, my thoughts on this movie can be summed up as "Expectations vs. Reality." It certainly wasn't the best superhero movie ever, but I liked it for what it was. It seemed like the writers and Kenneth Branagh made it about ¾ of the way to having a really good movie on their hands, but there's definitely something missing.
My expectations from seeing all the trailers for Thor led me to think "It looks like it'll look good, but it'll be kind of corny." I went to see it hoping for a visual spectacle and a fun superhero movie. Just as a side note, I knew only a moderate amount about Thor in the comics before I saw the movie (and I'm more of a DC comics fan, but that'll have no bearing on this review).
Thor definitely succeeded with the whole look of the movie. Creating entirely new fantasy worlds in addition to the scenes taking place on Earth is tough, but the CGI was all really well done and convincing. I guess it's easier to make things look better if you have free reign to come up with new worlds that nobody has seen before. The production design and artwork matched the epic scale of the comics, and a surprising amount of practical effects (the frost giants, the real sets in Odin's palace) helped anchor the fantastical to the real. My only complaint is that by the end of the movie, some effects that started out looking cool seemed over-repeated (rainbow bridge cyclones, flyovers of Asgard).
But despite the achievement of creating a new variety of mythology, the film failed to provide any deep connection to the characters. The script wasn't too corny, but just kind of bland and a hodgepodge of clichés. Natalie Portman's character was so stupid. All she did was swoon over Thor, give him a ride, and say "Oh My God" and complain about SHIELD taking her research (I don't think this is her fault, the script didn't give her much to work with). Her "relationship" with Thor was totally contrived and out of nowhere. Kat Dennings' character was the stereotypical sidekick, and Stellan Skarsgard did a good job with what he had to work with. The Warriors Three and Heimdall all were supporting characters with very one-note personalities. Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Anthony Hopkins as Odin, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki all did their best, but the father-sons relationship between them never had much emotional connection or development.
There's definitely a bit of overacting involved, and I think that is due to Kenneth Branagh. I just don't think he understands subtlety that well, and preferring to stick to more broader, Shakespearean comedy and emotional moments. I remember watching him in Hamlet and laughing at the scene where he starts hitting a rock with his sword because he's angry. Well, I felt the same way a couple times during Thor.
And of course, there was no real suspense. Thor obviously can't die, he has to go be in The Avengers! None of the other characters really felt like they were in much danger. With such a shallow script, you could argue that much of the mythology was toned down because the writers feared that the general public wouldn't be able to follow anything complicated. They tried to root the mythological arcs in emotional conflicts, but none of the emotional conflicts are strong enough for us to care.
But the filmmakers honestly did a good job paying attention to details. The cinematography was pretty interesting for a superhero movie, with plenty of dutch angles and wide, sweeping shots. The fight scenes are all pretty cool, and I liked how the different warriors all had unique fighting styles. The costume design made ridiculous outfits and helmets seem natural. I liked the way they incorporated S.H.I.E.L.D. (and a special Avengers guest star) into the plot, which was much more natural than in Iron Man 2. And even though there's definitely going to be sequels, I think the ending to this movie had a good finality that doesn't make you feel like you only saw Part 1 of a three part movie.
In the Marvel movie pantheon, I would place this above Iron Man 2, but lower than The Incredible Hulk (my favorite Marvel movie), the first two Spidermans, and maybe the first Iron Man. It's worth seeing, as it's not your typical superhero movie, but I would wait until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray (and it's definitely not worth seeing in 3D). Thor is almost an experiment: Can audiences accept a lighter, mythological-based superhero movie? It certainly has the beginnings of greatness, but still has a lot to improve on.
My expectations from seeing all the trailers for Thor led me to think "It looks like it'll look good, but it'll be kind of corny." I went to see it hoping for a visual spectacle and a fun superhero movie. Just as a side note, I knew only a moderate amount about Thor in the comics before I saw the movie (and I'm more of a DC comics fan, but that'll have no bearing on this review).
Thor definitely succeeded with the whole look of the movie. Creating entirely new fantasy worlds in addition to the scenes taking place on Earth is tough, but the CGI was all really well done and convincing. I guess it's easier to make things look better if you have free reign to come up with new worlds that nobody has seen before. The production design and artwork matched the epic scale of the comics, and a surprising amount of practical effects (the frost giants, the real sets in Odin's palace) helped anchor the fantastical to the real. My only complaint is that by the end of the movie, some effects that started out looking cool seemed over-repeated (rainbow bridge cyclones, flyovers of Asgard).
But despite the achievement of creating a new variety of mythology, the film failed to provide any deep connection to the characters. The script wasn't too corny, but just kind of bland and a hodgepodge of clichés. Natalie Portman's character was so stupid. All she did was swoon over Thor, give him a ride, and say "Oh My God" and complain about SHIELD taking her research (I don't think this is her fault, the script didn't give her much to work with). Her "relationship" with Thor was totally contrived and out of nowhere. Kat Dennings' character was the stereotypical sidekick, and Stellan Skarsgard did a good job with what he had to work with. The Warriors Three and Heimdall all were supporting characters with very one-note personalities. Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Anthony Hopkins as Odin, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki all did their best, but the father-sons relationship between them never had much emotional connection or development.
There's definitely a bit of overacting involved, and I think that is due to Kenneth Branagh. I just don't think he understands subtlety that well, and preferring to stick to more broader, Shakespearean comedy and emotional moments. I remember watching him in Hamlet and laughing at the scene where he starts hitting a rock with his sword because he's angry. Well, I felt the same way a couple times during Thor.
And of course, there was no real suspense. Thor obviously can't die, he has to go be in The Avengers! None of the other characters really felt like they were in much danger. With such a shallow script, you could argue that much of the mythology was toned down because the writers feared that the general public wouldn't be able to follow anything complicated. They tried to root the mythological arcs in emotional conflicts, but none of the emotional conflicts are strong enough for us to care.
But the filmmakers honestly did a good job paying attention to details. The cinematography was pretty interesting for a superhero movie, with plenty of dutch angles and wide, sweeping shots. The fight scenes are all pretty cool, and I liked how the different warriors all had unique fighting styles. The costume design made ridiculous outfits and helmets seem natural. I liked the way they incorporated S.H.I.E.L.D. (and a special Avengers guest star) into the plot, which was much more natural than in Iron Man 2. And even though there's definitely going to be sequels, I think the ending to this movie had a good finality that doesn't make you feel like you only saw Part 1 of a three part movie.
In the Marvel movie pantheon, I would place this above Iron Man 2, but lower than The Incredible Hulk (my favorite Marvel movie), the first two Spidermans, and maybe the first Iron Man. It's worth seeing, as it's not your typical superhero movie, but I would wait until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray (and it's definitely not worth seeing in 3D). Thor is almost an experiment: Can audiences accept a lighter, mythological-based superhero movie? It certainly has the beginnings of greatness, but still has a lot to improve on.