Oh yeah, that’s right, I saw the Thor movie last week.
(Minor SPOILERS for Thor follow.)
So I saw Thor this past week, and I thought it wasn’t too bad. A lot better than I expected a Thor movie was likely to be, all things considered. Certainly better than the Thor that appeared in The Incredible Hulk Returns TV movie, but still undecided if it was better than Thor from Adventures in Babysitting.
Some of the early action scenes suffered a bit from jerky-cam close-ups where you couldn’t tell what was going on, and too much of the film was people in shadows fighting dark blue-skinned creatures at night, so that was a bit rough. But overall, the film was nicely cast, the general tone was light and fun, and it was quickly and excitingly paced. Not deep, but enjoyable.
One question: I may need to watch the film again once it hits home video to pin down the timeline. How long is Thor on Earth? A couple of days, maybe? It’s possible I’m forgetting a line of dialogue indicating “SUDDENLY, TWO MONTHS LATER” or something, but I’m pretty sure the whole “Thor learns an important lesson about arrogance and sacrifice” only takes about 48 hours to play out, which means Odin’s reparative Odinsleep is basically an eight-hour good night’s rest. Not quite the godly and epic storytelling events Lee ‘n’ Kirby prepped us for.
But that’s just me being a fanboy nitpicker, really. The compressed timeline is fine for story purposes here, and, as I noted, it’s possible I’m forgetting something re: the fugiting of tempus here.
The Jack Kirby-ness of Asgard came through fairly well, I think. The armor, the buildings, the Rainbow Bridge, the big ol’ teleportation machine at the end of the Rainbow Bridge, the Destroyer: all very nicely Kirby. I had my doubts about how Loki’s horned helmet was going to play in live action, but even that worked out okay. Heimdall was good ‘n’ badass, making all those folks griping about the fact he was being played by (gasp) a black man look even more like chumps than they did already. And man, Fandral of the Warriors Three looked like he just popped off the comics page, didn’t he?
So overall…yeah, Thor was an entertaining time at the moving pictures. Not a classic or a gamechanger or anything, but a pleasant enough action flick, and sometimes that’s all you need.
Did it have to be in 3-D? Does it add anything to it? Just wondering whether to go see it on the cheap side or put up with a nauseating headache.
Joe, I’ve heard nothing but complaints about the 3D even from people who liked the film. I saw it in 2D and didn’t feel like I missed out on anything.
Seeing it in 3D would do nothing to fix the problem that all the characters are flat and two-dimensional.
Thanks for the info!
It would be nice to be able to switch between 2 and 3 dimensions. If I were 2-dimensional, I could fit into my skinny jeans!
I saw it in 2D. I’ve yet to hear one positive thing about the current 3D movie-going experience.
That’s because you’re an old crank. Movies that were designed in 3D look great in 3D. Those that tack it on in post-processing (like Thor) are a waste.
VDM – I’m an old crank because people tell me 3D movies look like shit? Perhaps I should turn off my hearing aid so I don’t hear people say things you don’t like anymore.
I really enjoyed the film. EXCEPT for the Rainbow Bridge. I thought it looked cheap. It really looked more like the FiberOptic Cable Under Plexiglass Bridge to me. Having said that, though, I liked just about everything else in the film. Missed Volstagg’s feathered helmet, though…
I almost never, ever disagree with you, Sensei, but “Thor” sucked a whole bunch of ass. Jack Kirby’s corpse is up to about 8500 RPM.
I saw it last Saturday evening and I enjoyed it. It`s true however that the 3D was crappy. Avatar and Coraline looked great in 3D, this was just a pain. I also agree that the frost giant battle at the beginning was difficult to follow. Overall I would say this dazzled the 11 year old kid in me who bought Thor comics for 35 cents in the late 70`s and that`s all I really wanted. That`s actually worth a lot to me. The three non-comic book readers who came with me liked it too. `Like` being the imperative word here.
That thing they called Bifrost in the movie? Totally a Boom Tube. Just sayin’.
I guess that whole “we learned our lesson about foisting shitty retro-converted 3D on audiences after Clash of the Titans” the studios said was a big fat lie, then.
Seriously, aside from Avatar (seemingly almost the only live-action film with the 3D done properly, i.e. from preproduction on, whatever else you might say about it as a film), and, I suppose, “How to Train Your Dragon,” every film I’ve seen in 3D as part of the current 3D era has looked like absolute shit, pure and simple, and has actively detracted from the experience compared to just seeing it in 2D.
The “RealD” logo is now a warning meaning “look frantically through the movie listings to find a 2D screening.”
It would take the filmmakers loading the press with reassurances that they had gone with the proper, non-shitty, process to get me into a 3D screening with any attitude other than annoyed resignation at best.
The film was good, the 3D was horrendous. I couldn’t see a damn thing during the opening battle on Jotunheim.
I saw it in 3D, loved it, went back the next week and saw it in 2D, loved it again.
Not understanding all the hatin’ on the 3D thang, nope.
I had precisely the same criticism: Thor’s arc from arrogant prince to “plays well with others” and the instant romance between him and Jane Foster just seemed to happen much too quickly. I mean, he was only on earth for at most a week.
Other than that, I enjoyed the thing. Wasn’t blown away, but definitely thought it was worth the price of admission and have recommended it to friends.