Thor was simple thrust out by the studio to make a quick buck and establish the character before the release of The Avengers. And boy, does it really show here! The first half of the movie, set on Planet Asgard, was generally interesting, even if Anthony Hopkins was sleep walking through his performance. The Frost Giants of Jotunheim presented pretty scary villains and if the film had the courage to keep the setting there, with the Frost Giants as the main antagonists, they would of made the film all the better (I know the comic takes place on Earth, but c'mon, we've seen the superhero comes to earth and saves the day a million times! Try something new!)
Just like The Green Lantern (which is still much worse), my biggest criticism is that they don't spend enough time in the foreign landscape of Asgard (Oa in GL), and head to dull old planet Earth in no time. The first time this was done (on screen, of course) in 1978's Superman, it was a refreshing take on the fish-out-of-water story. Here it acts like a poorly done comedy, throwing the tone of the whole first act off. There is a few laughs to be had (as when he wanders into a pet shop), but really felt forced for the most part.
Then there's the love story. Look, I realize films like these aren't too concentrated on developing character bonds like a (much superior) film such as Before Sunrise would, but at least show us why the two are in love! I, of course, speak of Natalie Portman's character and Thor, and the inevitable attraction that grows between them. First off, and I know other reviewers have stated it before, but Natalie Portman is horribly miscast here. Either that, or she's giving one of the worst paycheck-performances I've seen in some time (there's one line reading in particular near the end that is so excruciating, it might as well of been nails on a chalkboard). But all the 'romance' consists of is Natale Portman giving Thor an awkward, teenage-crush like smile, for maybe a scene or two. In the climatic fight (no spoilers here), Thor takes a fall, and Portman's character rushes over to help him - in which I don't know how she doesn't get killed, but this movie's logic is not exactly present. They have a moment where we get those Natalie Portman tears and her eyebrows scrunch up (as they always do when she cries, in like EVERY single movie she's ever been in.) As the audience, we're suppose to feel an emotion connection to the two that just doesn't exist. They both could of been killed right then and there, the credits roll up, and I wouldn't of felt the least bit unsatisfied. Of course that doesn't happen, as you can surely guess what the outcome is, which only irritated me more.
Tom Hiddleston is an up-and-coming actor I have high hopes for. He was great as F. Scott Fitzgerald in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris and one of the best parts in War Horse, but here is given nothing to do here in the role of Loki. It's no surprise he'll become the villain, as it's hinted at constantly in the film. But when he does become the main antagonist, his motivations are very askewed. Is he an outright villain? Is he a sympathetic villain? Is he even a villain at all? The film doesn't seem to know how to handle these questions. One scene he'll act one way, the next scene he'll be a completely new person. It'll be like if the Joker from the Dark Knight tries to kill Batman, then a minute later saves his life and buys him a beer. Is character continuity that difficult of a concept?
Stellan Skarsgard, one of the most unappreciated actors working today, also isn't given a chance to really make anything of his character. There's an assistant scientist, played by Kate Dennings, who doesn't really add anything to film and is only there for 'comedic' relief (I use the term very loosely.) Chris Hemsworth is a pretty good Thor, he comes off as very arrogant and strong-willed. But when he's asked to handle more dramatic scenes, well, I'll just says he's no Brando.
I'm sure this movie isn't directed at me (I usually prefer, you know, movies with a brain and pulse), so I'm sure this will make money and produce needless sequels. But, for my money, I think the material could of been handled a lot better.
Just like The Green Lantern (which is still much worse), my biggest criticism is that they don't spend enough time in the foreign landscape of Asgard (Oa in GL), and head to dull old planet Earth in no time. The first time this was done (on screen, of course) in 1978's Superman, it was a refreshing take on the fish-out-of-water story. Here it acts like a poorly done comedy, throwing the tone of the whole first act off. There is a few laughs to be had (as when he wanders into a pet shop), but really felt forced for the most part.
Then there's the love story. Look, I realize films like these aren't too concentrated on developing character bonds like a (much superior) film such as Before Sunrise would, but at least show us why the two are in love! I, of course, speak of Natalie Portman's character and Thor, and the inevitable attraction that grows between them. First off, and I know other reviewers have stated it before, but Natalie Portman is horribly miscast here. Either that, or she's giving one of the worst paycheck-performances I've seen in some time (there's one line reading in particular near the end that is so excruciating, it might as well of been nails on a chalkboard). But all the 'romance' consists of is Natale Portman giving Thor an awkward, teenage-crush like smile, for maybe a scene or two. In the climatic fight (no spoilers here), Thor takes a fall, and Portman's character rushes over to help him - in which I don't know how she doesn't get killed, but this movie's logic is not exactly present. They have a moment where we get those Natalie Portman tears and her eyebrows scrunch up (as they always do when she cries, in like EVERY single movie she's ever been in.) As the audience, we're suppose to feel an emotion connection to the two that just doesn't exist. They both could of been killed right then and there, the credits roll up, and I wouldn't of felt the least bit unsatisfied. Of course that doesn't happen, as you can surely guess what the outcome is, which only irritated me more.
Tom Hiddleston is an up-and-coming actor I have high hopes for. He was great as F. Scott Fitzgerald in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris and one of the best parts in War Horse, but here is given nothing to do here in the role of Loki. It's no surprise he'll become the villain, as it's hinted at constantly in the film. But when he does become the main antagonist, his motivations are very askewed. Is he an outright villain? Is he a sympathetic villain? Is he even a villain at all? The film doesn't seem to know how to handle these questions. One scene he'll act one way, the next scene he'll be a completely new person. It'll be like if the Joker from the Dark Knight tries to kill Batman, then a minute later saves his life and buys him a beer. Is character continuity that difficult of a concept?
Stellan Skarsgard, one of the most unappreciated actors working today, also isn't given a chance to really make anything of his character. There's an assistant scientist, played by Kate Dennings, who doesn't really add anything to film and is only there for 'comedic' relief (I use the term very loosely.) Chris Hemsworth is a pretty good Thor, he comes off as very arrogant and strong-willed. But when he's asked to handle more dramatic scenes, well, I'll just says he's no Brando.
I'm sure this movie isn't directed at me (I usually prefer, you know, movies with a brain and pulse), so I'm sure this will make money and produce needless sequels. But, for my money, I think the material could of been handled a lot better.