The strain of intense serialization takes a toll on "Thor: The Dark World," the eighth film in Marvel's on-going cinematic universe. Natalie Portman is back as Thor's earthly romantic interest, Jane Foster, which necessitates a slightly awkward part-explanation, part-avoidance of why Thor seemed to forget she existed during the events depicted in "The Avengers," in which Jane did not appear. Coming up with a compelling story that is about 70% a continuation of "Thor" and 30% a continuation of "The Avengers" and fits into the larger, on-going MCU story line that is supposed to culminate somewhere down the road paved with Infinity Stones is a tall order, and the multiple writers don't quite pull it off. Neither, however, do they completely fumble, and Alan Taylor's serviceable direction as well as a solid cast most of whom we're familiar with do a good job of smoothing over the rough spots as much as possible. The cast is really the best feature -- Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston are by now so comfortable with each other that it is easier that ever to believe these two were raised as brothers, it's good to see Portman again and Kat Dennings as Jane's sister is more of an asset to the story (and slightly less annoying) than she was in "Thor," Rene Russo as Thor's mother gets more to do, and there are a few pleasant if minor additions to the human side of the story, including Jonathan Howard and Chris O'Dowd.
Unfortunately, the movie doesn't spend as much time exploiting these strengths as it does on yet more universe-threatening, lazily conceived super-villains, the Dark Elves, and on fake science and fake legend about astronomical convergence. "Iron Man 3," the first film in the MCU to follow "The Avengers" and the one immediately preceding this, played it smart and didn't pretend the universe was at stake, for the obvious reason that such monumental stakes would call for the involvement of all Avengers. This film is not so smart. Despite the high stakes, the film really doesn't go very far afield. After the globe-trotting qualities of the most of the MCU, this one feels studio-bound and more reliant than ever on computers to create any sense of scale.
The fun thing about Thor as originally conceived was the supposition that what most people regard as Norse mythology was, in fact, based on powerful aliens whom the primitive humans would have perceived as gods. The first film got that; this film, rather than explore that motif in more depth or even play with it, opts instead for mumbo- jumbo about gravitational anomalies that helped ancient peoples build temples and what-not. It's meaningless drivel and a little insulting, both to ancient civilizations and audiences' intelligence. I'm all for suspending disbelief, but give us something worth suspending it for, not a grammar-school rehash of "Chariots of the Gods."
This is still better than "Iron Man 2" and not really appreciably worse than "The Incredible Hulk," which was more coherent but duller. It is, however, the first in the series that makes me wonder whether Marvel can really pull off its ambitious enterprise as consistently as it hopes.
Unfortunately, the movie doesn't spend as much time exploiting these strengths as it does on yet more universe-threatening, lazily conceived super-villains, the Dark Elves, and on fake science and fake legend about astronomical convergence. "Iron Man 3," the first film in the MCU to follow "The Avengers" and the one immediately preceding this, played it smart and didn't pretend the universe was at stake, for the obvious reason that such monumental stakes would call for the involvement of all Avengers. This film is not so smart. Despite the high stakes, the film really doesn't go very far afield. After the globe-trotting qualities of the most of the MCU, this one feels studio-bound and more reliant than ever on computers to create any sense of scale.
The fun thing about Thor as originally conceived was the supposition that what most people regard as Norse mythology was, in fact, based on powerful aliens whom the primitive humans would have perceived as gods. The first film got that; this film, rather than explore that motif in more depth or even play with it, opts instead for mumbo- jumbo about gravitational anomalies that helped ancient peoples build temples and what-not. It's meaningless drivel and a little insulting, both to ancient civilizations and audiences' intelligence. I'm all for suspending disbelief, but give us something worth suspending it for, not a grammar-school rehash of "Chariots of the Gods."
This is still better than "Iron Man 2" and not really appreciably worse than "The Incredible Hulk," which was more coherent but duller. It is, however, the first in the series that makes me wonder whether Marvel can really pull off its ambitious enterprise as consistently as it hopes.