Thor!!!
WOW....one of "THE BEST" super hero movies to date! period! the execution was amazing, they captured not only the likeliness and personality of Thor but the entire essence of the man! the feel of Asgard was exactly what i would imagine that place to feel like, i expected nothing less for gods. The sense of scale simply amazing.
however......there were a few(and they are so minor that its not worth discussing)shots where the animation could have been tighter on some of the cg elements, that in nooooo way degrade this movie or take away from the awesomeness of this film!
not that it matters...but it has my stamp of approval:thumbup:
however......there were a few(and they are so minor that its not worth discussing)shots where the animation could have been tighter on some of the cg elements, that in nooooo way degrade this movie or take away from the awesomeness of this film!
not that it matters...but it has my stamp of approval:thumbup:
Replies
it set it up well for the avengers though, especially if you watched until after the credits.
This is what I immediately thought of when I saw the scene:
[ame]
It was a very good movie, but had some pacing issues. They had to cram too much into the ending, and it shows.
Also I take back my initial skepticism on the costumes, they look just fine.
Idris Elba was a good Heimdall too.
7/10 in it's genre.
i simply disagree, you can say you didn't like it due to personal preference and what you value in movies, however saying this was a "horrible film" without really saying why isn't very convincing to me.
i went in just as skeptic as most people not sure if they would have captured the character, and or stay true to the universe, but they really nailed it for me.
@defacto
i thought the same thing going in,i was prepared to see their costumes and be completely unimpressed but man did they do a good job. Heimdall's character and costume was fya!!!!
I'm happy they didnt give thor his helmet
one being the 3d being arsetastic and even someone said his hammer looked like a toy
Going to interrogate them further before I see it
And that was one the jokes.
"eh, report it, "
"Command, We have a xena, robin hood, etc"
So he has to have sex with her to fall in love for her? There are plenty of points in the movie, where his admiration for her develops. Some people just want to hate though :P
Anyway, just got back a bit ago, and me and the family really enjoyed it. I still think Ironman was better, but still worthy of a theater view, and way better than the Hulk (either one).
I liked the special effects... and the wormholes! \m/(>_<)\m/
Nothing is more manly than traversing through wormholes at super fast speeds. :poly122:
It was a good movie.
But I'm a biased fanboy. Totally love that character, so they couldn't have screwed this up no matter what. Plus, my company did the Thor DS game, so there's some extra bias there.
Pretty kickass movie though. My only complaint is that it's like three movies crammed into one. I wish they had done like three or seven movies or something, instead of just one.
A think a large part of this was the character of Thor himself. He comes across as a muscle headed moron, but the more time you spend with him the more you start to see that he's basically a decent guy who just got a little full of himself. He also has a decent character arc over the course of the film. He starts off with obvious flaws, is punished for his shortcomings by being thrown into a difficult situation, struggles to overcome this situation, and by the end he has learned a valuable lesson and grown as a character. A lot of films either gloss over or ignore this basic tenet of storytelling. With Thor they execute the character arc very well.
And I felt almost the same way about the film's antagonist, Loki. If they had made Loki purely evil, I think it would have been a weaker film. As it stands, they do a fairly decent job of making him a "trickster." He's more interested in deceiving people just for the sake of deception itself. He has no ultimate goal or ambition. On a different villain this would seem aimless, but applied to this character it works rather well. They manage to create a delightfully duplicitous villain and still convince the audience to have some level of sympathy for him.
I was also quite pleased with the humor. There were only a very small number of groan-worthy lines. For the most part the humor was well-timed and delivered.
BTW, why so much hate on the first Hulk movie ? I thought that was way better than this Thor thing. Meh.
Interesting how polarizing it seems to have been.
lol what do you mean? You paid for a ticket, saw 20 minutes and took off?
and you wouldn't at all argue that people who didn't enjoy it went in expecting not to enjoy it?
i think you went in looking for flaws, and found them.
don't get me wrong, i did too. but i went to see it with my gf + kids, which made the entire experience different from if i had gone alone, or even with just the gf.
AGREED. hulk 1 has been my favorite marvel movie to date. :thumbup:
but yea, I saw thor. didn't hate it.
I was totally unfamiliar with the storyline tho, so all I can comment on is that the costumes were disappointing, all the way down to anthony hopkins' sequined sash. and I don't think you could make the claim that the costume's were purposefully made to look cheap. It doesn't make sense, when everything else was gritty CG. Although the hammer did look like something out of a Happy Meal.
So idk, maybe that was some sort of awful design decision, but regardless, it looked stupid and stuck out like a sore thumb.
The movie experience itself was pretty entertaining tho. I can't really give a reason for why, but it was a fun atmosphere at a midnight release and 150+ drunk dorks in a room is a recipe for success.
Actually, I went in not expecting much. I saw people saying how horrible it was, and critics were saying how great it was (which always makes me nervous). I was glad when it didn't end up sucking.
Pior, what was so unappealing about the first 20? I thought it started off slow, but felt it picked up reasonably quick.
Also, everyone in the theater with us, seemed to enjoy it. Even the giant group of comic book geeks that sat behind us.
Special note for others who still want to see it. There IS something after the credits.
This
Compared to allot of films recently I thought it was pretty good. I tend to try and see a movie at least once a month in the cinema and this one has been the best choice this year (mind you not much competition :P).
The first Hulk movie was extremely slow and plodding. It had some of the worst pacing of any action film. In fact, I'm not sure it can even qualify as an action film.
Naturally, that is not a criticism of the film itself, but of its marketing. It was billed as a big-budget comic-book adapted action film, and in that regard it failed to deliver.
It showed considerably more promise as an involved character study. Unfortunately, the character it was studying was uninteresting, unappealing, and woefully mis-cast. When you have what is essentially a re-telling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there needs to be a perceptible contrast between the two. In the first Hulk film, they cast an abnormally large, tall, handsome, muscle-bound hunk as Dr. Bruce Banner. And whenever he turned into the Hulk, he seemed to spend an unusual amount of time being calm and contemplative, rather than wrecking everything in sight. The character of the Hulk is the embodiment of human aggression and unbridled fury. The angrier he gets, the stronger he gets.
The second Hulk film did a better job of characterizing the Hulk and Dr. Banner. (Edward Norton was a pretty solid choice for the role, he can look scrawny while still delivering believable emotional intensity) But the story that surrounded that character development was a little weak, and suffered from their attempts to tie it into the Marvel film continuity. The Abomination was also a bit of an obvious choice for the villain, and they didn't do as much with him as they could have.
Ang Lee's effort was far more ambitious, but flawed. (and woefully mis-targeted) The second film was more solid in terms of popular entertainment, but did nothing different and ultimately said nothing.
As for Source Code, yeah - certainly one of the best movies of the year. I don't know if it makes sense, but right from the very first scene I was thinking : "Wait ... this is REAL movie!! Like it's supposed to be made!"
Quite an euphoric feeling actually. Akin to District9 or Pans Labyrinth - that underlying sensation telling you that the person behind the movie is in full control and cares about what he/she is doing.
Nolan did that with The Dark Knight - you don't see the title until Gordon's speech says those words right at the end of the film. So cool, actually gave me chills the first time I saw it
This was pretty much my biggest complaint with the film. I can kinda talk myself around the pacing issues and dialogue a bit (parts felt like a stage play, might have been what Brannagh wanted), but the costumes looked oddly cheap and fake. I think they tried to emulate the classic comic look a bit too much, and it ended up too cheesy. The armor should have looked more like something Vikings might have actually worn, and Mjolnir... bleh. Thor's hammer should look like a massive block of steel, not a life-size kids toy.
Marvel adapted Captain America's costume into the real world very well, so I'm not sure why they didn't make sure Thor was handled the same way.
was going to go watch this :S
Captain America is supposed to be a World War II soldier. Thor is a space-viking. Why on earth would they bother trying to make anything in Thor "real" or "gritty?" It's pretty much as purely fantastical as you can get.
I honestly didn't have any problems with the costumes. Yes, they were quite obviously exaggerated and colorful. But the sheer lengths that they went to with the style used in the movie made it feel more like a classic comic book. And I liked that. The costumes helped the movie feel more vibrant, and they even served as decent fodder for humor. (another instance of the film not taking itself too seriously)
Sometimes its just nice to have a comic-book movie that feels like its source material. Not everything needs to be like Christopher Nolan's interpretation of Batman.
Well, because it would look better. Not that I'm advocating "gritty" or whatever, but the literal hammer of the gods shouldn't look like it's made out of plastic.
Would it? Or would it simply be more in line with your personal expectations? They didn't go into this film thinking that they would make some sort of re-telling of classic Norse mythology. They didn't slap beards on everyone or dress all the actors as if they had just stepped out of Lord of the Rings. This was never supposed to be a high-fantasy film. This is magic space vikings! And magic space vikings are allowed to have magic space armor that looks like it was inspired by Flash Gordon.
They went with a particular style and stuck to it. If you aren't on board with it, that's your preference. But I don't think you can say that the movie was bad because you didn't like how the hammer looked.
Isnt this badass!!
Haters gonna hate, what can I say?
First of all, I didn't say the movie was bad. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and Hemsworth was just amazingly well cast. Literally, my main complaint was that I didn't like the costumes. How bad could it possibly be if the thing that I most object to in the whole film is the wardrobe selection?
Second... well yeah, it's my preference. We were giving opinions here, right? If there's a definition of opinion that doesn't involve giving one's preference, I don't know what that would be.
If you dig the glossy plastic armor and a Mjolnir that looks like its made out of injection-molded PVC, then rock on, man. I'm honestly glad people appreciate what Brannagh and his team did, even if I don't personally prefer it, because the better it does at the box office, the more they'll invest in making Thor 2 equal or surpass the first one.
I watched this last night. I honestly don't know if it was money well spent. It was somewhat entertaining, but I didn't really like the movie as much as I usually like these kind of superhero action movies. There was a sillyness over the entire movie that made me not take the movie seriouslyl(You have to to some extent); That scientist scoobydoo gang, those cheesy friends of Thor and all those stupid looking suits. I just couldn't see the guy playing Loki as a bad guy either. He actually came off more as a good guy to me than Thor. I've never liked it when they try to show some character as bad/jelous/mischiefous by having other characters just say it. It's cheap and I don't buy it.
Also Thor became a good person because of the girl? I thought it was because of not being able to lift the hammer and realising he suddenly can't get everything for free?
The fights were pretty fun though. Did anyone else think of Gort when they saw that guardian robot?
It's good. But it feels like they crammed 3 movies into one. They rushed it so much that his character changes literally overnight. It could have been an entire movie in and of itself, which in my opinion would have rocked.
BTW, I really dislike the original Thor design. I think they dropped the ball on that one. They gave him a tiny hammer, tiny winged helmet, and huge pointy bits at the knees. What's more important about Thor? The hammer, or the knee-piece of the boots? I don't get it.
In my mind, this is what Thor should look like:
But I've seen very few Thor designers who pushed him that far.
good movie. could have been better...but it was enjoyable.
@Dn2:
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this but I found it a bit strange that they put a swedish character(Skarsg