Slashdot Mirror
Thor: The Dark World — What Did You Think?
On Friday, Marvel released its latest superhero blockbuster, Thor: The Dark World. Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, and Tom Hiddleston reprise their roles as Thor, Dr. Jane Foster, and Loki. Christopher Eccleston, best known for his role as the Ninth Doctor on BBC's Doctor Who, portrays Thor's nemesis in The Dark World: Malekith, ruler of the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim. Despite a strong opening weekend at the box office, critical reception has been lackluster. The movie averaged 66/100 on Rotten Tomatoes and 54/100 on Metacritic, but user reviews rated it higher, at 86/100 and 8/10 respectively. io9's review calls the plot "completely forgettable," but also said, "at a time when superhero films are gravitating towards Christopher Nolan-style darkness, it's really nice to see a movie go swinging into adventure with a song in its heart." Comic Book Resources also commented that the movie was a lot of fun, but added, "the film doesn't quite reach its true potential due to a villain who never truly feels like much more than an amorphous bad guy." Those of you who went to see it over the weekend: what did you think?
And the product placing could have been better as well.
It is what it is. Not the best Marvel movie but I didn't mind the admission price. One thing though....why is it the heroes always run into the one, only and correct cave on an entire planet? Thor and Jane avoid a storm and run into the one place with a time/space wormhole. Almost as bad as Kirk getting chased into the only cave on a ice planet that had Spock sitting in it. ( First ST/reboot movie ).
I thought I had disabled the slashdot advertisements a while back.
Except for Kat Dennings. I can watch her all day long.
Proverbs 21:19
I'm now picturing the Thor with the soundtrack from Heavy Metal.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Things went fast, caught fire, and exploded, over and over again. My basic needs were well met by this film. I plan to see it again.
Craig Milo Rogers
Ugh, I think I accidentally a word there.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
You never even catch a glimpse of Kat Dennings' assets. She's wearing heavy clothing the whole movie.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
If it did not have the love sequences between Portman and Hemsworth it would have been *cough* worth it.
Leave it to Hollywood to make dialogue awkward and cringe-worthy. It got good once the action started rolling, but there really was no chemistry between the two lovers, and Kat Dennings' character felt so forced I felt uncomfortable in the chair.
Special mention to Skarsgård for doing perhaps the best scene in the movie in which he uses shoes to explain the coming convergence. It looks like he had a lot of fun doing that and he seemed quite relaxed and confident in his role, unlike Portman who seemed off the whole time.
I just wished it concentrated more on the actual hero, instead of Thor and his love interest.
After all, all the girl did was free the aether, and most of what Thor did was deliver the girl/aether to the bad guy.
The real hero was Eric No Pants, who created the weapon that killed the bad guys.
Oh, Thor had to actually use it, but honestly, that's the least he could do after he and his girlfriend gave the Aether to the bad guy in the first place.
The movie was exciting, but I really wish they had told us more of the real story - how Naked Eric saved the universe!
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I liked Thor 2 better.
I found the character development with Thor 2 to be much more believable than that in Thor. In the first, he couldn't pick up his hammer and suddenly was humbled outright. In this, he slowly comes to realize that he cannot put his feelings for Earth (and Jane) aside and act as a ruler would, and must instead act as a guardian/soldier.
Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
It's a comic action flick that will earn a crapload of money for the investors. Great special effects, great final boss battle, great job putting Asgard on film, though the other realms were disappointing. I enjoyed it, but don't expect anything original. These movies are basically cookie cutter by now. Hell, they even used the comedic "so glad to see you...SLAP!" gag 2X.
Women will appreciate the lead. He goes shirtless and the women in the audience practically soiled their seats.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
(Which is quite over rated)
I would give them both about a 6/10.
Second one has a very slow start but ultimately, not too bad. I saw it in 2D and honestly I expected much worse, it's not a shabby movie to be honest - not entirely deep or great but not bad.
I'm not into the whole comic book thing, so I look at them as regular action movies, I don't care if they "fucked up" a character or any of that. I think the best comic book movie in the last few years was probably Iron Man 1, it's just done fairly well - good story, decent effects, it's not bad.
They confuse me. On one hand (or both), I really love looking at them. On the other, I have to imagine they are quite a burden. Men are burdened but not quite like that and it's usually quite manageable. I like things the way they are -- I'm not complaining. But they do confuse me a bit.
Enders game was far better. Enders game was far better than its peers at making you think. The psychology of Bender vs his siblings vs the academy and his peers were all well done.
Even Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston) was flat and not his usual standard. The absence of a solid story didn't help.
Seriously, go see Enders Game ... Much better than Thor.
The Asgards are skinny little grey people.
No, what that movie really needed was a script. And maybe a story where the synopsis doesn't fit on a post-it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The phone rings when they're outside seeking shelter. They can even keep the existing dialogue, but you get two or three quick shots of them triangulating based on signal bars. Maybe even show Thor isn't a total doofus and has more than three brain cells, by having him notice that they lose signal when they are aren't in line with that cave up on a ridge.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
There's a scene at the end where everyone blinks into existence, and then Mjolnir zooms by and Dennings chirps out "Mjolnir!" like she was talking to Scooby Doo or some other cartoon mascot. Low point of the film. I wish they had explained the change in Mjolnir's behavior, too. In Avengers, it blasts through multiple levels of helicarrier to get into Thor's hand just in time for him to knock the shit out of the Hulk. Here it's going around corners and shit, fast enough to be effective, slow enough so Dennings can make it into a cartoon mascot.
I had read a very negative review before seeing it, so had very low expectations, and ended up being pleasantly surprised. I thought The Avengers was better made, but Thor (the film) didn't suck. There was some clever dialog, a reasonably coherent plot, good characterization of Loki, and Thor (the character) ended up being not quite so one-dimensional as he was in the first film. Tom Hiddleston stole the show by far, but Rene Russo as Frigga was surprisingly fun to watch for the few moments she was on the screen.
I thought the last action sequence was muddy and could probably have been re-edited to make it more coherent. I thought Thor's final speech showed more character development in a few minutes than the character had shown in three films, but that was probably by design. I mean, in the comics, Thor isn't exactly a complicated guy.
It's not my favorite film, but I'll probably see it again when it comes out on video.
There is a mid-credit scene and an after-credit scene. The mid-credit scene is in a word, bizarre. Comics geeks know The Collector, and understand that this leads up to The Infinity Gauntlet, which must be a plot point in a future film, but the scene was, I dunno, just really weird. I've read that it was done by a different director.
The after credit scene follows a trend I'm not sure I like -- that of changing the ending in a scene after the credits. I first noticed this in The Grey. If it becomes too prevalent it'll be more motivation to wait until the video, so I can fast forward through the credits to see the real end of the film.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Seeing it on DVD won't make you like Sandra Bullock better but it will greatly diminish the amazing immersive experience of this particular movie. Seriously, see it on the largest screen you can find and see it in 3-D (and I'm usually a 3-D hater). You won't be sorry.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
A movie can only be as great as its source material. It can almost never be greater than the sum of its parts.
Here, the one lacking element was the screenplay, and it's a shame. The acting was superb and the direction took the script as far as it could go.
There were too many Asgardian minor characters. Sif, Hogun, Fandral, Volstagg, Tyr, etc. None has enough to do. It feels like there was more to the Sif-Jane-Thor triangle that was left on the cutting-room floor, which is a shame. It would have been better to drop any nods to the Warriors Three.
Another problem was the ridiculous hand-waving that got the Aether into Jane. The Portal-like... - well, portals were cool but there had to be a better way to release the Aether. Maybe there was a better way to drive the plot and forget the Aether completely.
Speaking of handwaving, isn't it a bit ridiculous that Heimdall didn't see the dark-elf attack coming? Isn't that his job?
It's a shame, because the small touches were all there. It was funny, adventurous, and unpredictable.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
The good: Visually impressive. The sound was excellent. 3D was tastefully done and not gimmicky. Special effects didn't seem to overreach and I wasn't sitting there irritated by a lens flare overload. Good cameo for Stan Lee. The extra scene at the end of the credits (like in every Marvel movie) left some interesting loose ends.
The bad: It seems like they cut out some minor parts of the plot and various explanations/reveals for things so they could fit more action into the time allotted. At multiple points during the movie, I thought to myself, "What is this and why didn't they introduce it?" Maybe it's a movie for people more familiar with Thor's comic book history.
I bet they will put some of the things I wanted in an extended director's cut later. So I'll probably watch for that in the stores in a few months.
Summary: It was a pretty interesting fantasy/action movie, and is very appealing to the senses. Don't leave until ALL the credits are over. The fact that I *wanted* additional exposition is good. I am just a little bit dissatisfied. Worth it for a matinee showing at least.
You are not from around here, are you?
A movie review is actually a refreshing change of pace and what could be more nerdy than a comic book based movie? Besides, all the major new papers have movie reviews.....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's from Hollywood so inevitably just another in the unbroken stream of Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies where CGI is used to wallpaper over all the average acting and complete lack of any real story.
If I'm not mistaken, this one was stock plot #4 with predictable ending #2b.
I heard Gravity was a special effects masterpiece. However, I can't stand Sandra Bullock so I'll probably wait for the DVD.
I don't share your dislike of Sandra Bullock, and I'd be curious as to what that dislike is, but she does a pretty good job in this role portraying a strong, smart, yet vulnerable character in an impossible situation -- and I agree with fellow poster SteveFoerster about the experience of the movie:
Seeing it on DVD won't make you like Sandra Bullock better but it will greatly diminish the amazing immerse experience of this particular movie. Seriously, see it on the largest screen you can find and see it in 3-D (and I'm usually a 3-D hater). You won't be sorry.
I generally don't see things in 3-D, but didn't mind for this. In any case, the 3-D is less important than IMAX (though they're usually combined for this movie), and the visual clarity and sound quality of an IMAX theater really shine here.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Mere mention of it here reminds me how much I miss the byline that Slashdot used to carry:
"News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The true viking god of metal would be Yngwie Malmsteen, not Van Halen.
A true viking god is Techno Viking
Oh were we supposed to think then? Now they tell me.
I've posted about this before, so don't want to bore anyone, but I kind of connected with her character's personal loss and willingness to simply give up, especially in the isolation of the situation. I think Sandra Bullock played that pretty well. (enough that I got a little choked up during the movie)
My wife of 20 years died of a brain tumor almost 8 years ago, seven weeks from diagnosis to death, and there are still times I want to curl up in bed, wishing all the air would get sucked out of the room, so I could wake up with her somewhere else... The reasons I don't simply give up is because (a) if there's something after this life, I'll see her again then; (b) if there is *not* anything after this life, then checking out early would be a waste; and (3) I know she would be disappointed in me if I quit.
Remember Sue...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Once upon a time, when a superhero movie with a budget and talent behind it came along once every few years, they were pretty exciting and entertaining. But with Marvel squeezing out films as quickly as they can turn the crank, plus Warner getting one out now and then, and fantasy/sci-fi films (e.g. Middle Earth, Transformers) being made from the same big-budget CGI-heavy dimly-lit mold, there's getting to be very little special about any of them.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Did anyone else notice that they cribbed a scene wholesale from the SWTOR "Decieved" trailer? That bit where the troop ship crashed directly in through the building was the Bioware trailer almost shot for shot and angle for angle. When the ship's doors opened, I half expected a bunch of light-sabers to light up.
There was always an implied "or".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Asgards are skinny little grey people.
Indeed.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
is **so** 1999!!
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
The movie and the one before are complete garbage, and if your generation gets raised on this garbage, and likes it, I can only imagine what dreck your children will watch.
Until generations later they're staring at a picture of an naked butt on the screen for 2 hours and laughing.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.
Isn't that basically the point of seeing a movie? Y'know... to go "ooooooohhh" for as long as possible? Admittedly different things make different people go "ooohh", but the point remains. If you're actively avoiding an experience that would've been "ooooooohhhh"-worthy, you're Doing It Wrong.
It's like going to a 5-star restaurant to dumpster-dive.
You know, I could've skipped the ticket price I paid in 1994 to watch Pink Floyd's last concert tour. I could've just listened to their CDs a couple more times. I'm sure I would have got 95% of the enjoyment that way, just like you. I wouldn't've known what I missed, either. Only, wait, I DID go, so I DO know what I would've missed, and it wouldn't be 5%.
It's silly to discard the input of people who HAVE experienced things.
"Oh no... he found the
I actually went to see Gravity twice. Once in 2D, and then again in 3D because my company organized a trip. If i'd actually had to pay for the 3D version i would have been sorry. I stopped noticing the 3D effect about 5 minutes in. Then during the ISS scene a couple things flew directly at my face and made me flinch (which i do not count as a positive experience) and then i stopped noticing it again for the entire rest of the movie.
To be fair i've said the same thing about every other 3D movie i've seen (with the possible exception of How to Train Your Dragon, where at least the "let's show off the 3D in the middle" scene made me go "ooohh" rather than flinch) but Gravity isn't necessarily going to cure everyone of a preexisting case of 3D apathy.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
This reminds me of a joke I once heard an actress tell:
Q:How do you tell the dumbest actress on a movie set?
A:She's the one who's sleeping with the writer.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Was this an actual new movie or just another reskin of Save the Cat?
Frankly I find myself 'watching' movies by simply reading their wikipedia entry these days. I've seen CGI before so the text version gets to the point much more quickly.