Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thor: The Dark World — What Did You Think?

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the not-as-dark-as-doom-3 dept.

Movies 233

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?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it lacked extensionalism (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393795)

And the product placing could have been better as well.

Re:it lacked extensionalism (4, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45393811)

but it will make a wonderful overnight $1 DVD rental? that's how I watch any blockbusters, if I watch them at all

Re:it lacked extensionalism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394147)

And the product placing could have been better as well.

Oh my God!

You doubled majored in marketing and philosophy - didn't you.

You poor, poor, poor fucking basterd.

I just KNOW you have a drinking, drug, porn, gambling, and running addictions.

Re:it lacked PERIOD. (4, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45394415)

Mere mention of it here reminds me how much I miss the byline that Slashdot used to carry:

    "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"

Thor? (1, Offtopic)

xevioso (598654) | about a year ago | (#45393805)

You know what this movie needed? A progressive rock track. Songs from Yes, Rush... would have been awesome.

Re:Thor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393845)

Twilight of the Thunder God cover by Sabaton.

Re:Thor? (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45393857)

I'm now picturing the Thor with the soundtrack from Heavy Metal.

Re:Thor? (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45393873)

Ugh, I think I accidentally a word there.

Re:Thor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394125)

No, you didn't. Pervert!

Re:Thor? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393939)

I would like a movie about Val Halan, the Viking God of Rock

Re:Thor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394021)

The true viking god of metal would be Yngwie Malmsteen, not Van Halen.

Re:Thor? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#45394439)

The true viking god of metal would be Yngwie Malmsteen, not Van Halen.

A true viking god is Techno Viking [youtube.com]

Re:Thor? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#45394271)

The Viking god of RagnaRockNRoll is ValHallen, with his mighty Axe! Google him if ye dare!

Re:Thor? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#45394055)

No, what that movie really needed was a script. And maybe a story where the synopsis doesn't fit on a post-it.

Re:Thor? (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | about a year ago | (#45394141)

They could have just recycled the Flash Gordon theme song: "Thor! Oh, oh! Master of the universe!"

Re:Thor? (1)

pgpalmer (2015142) | about a year ago | (#45394265)

Well, if the Asgard are essentially the masters of the Nine Realms (aka universe), and Thor was going to be made king... then the theme would have fit quite well.

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393807)

First!

it made me fart (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393813)

am i the only one ? never had a movie do that to me before.

Re:it made me fart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393931)

Was this fart forged from the heart of a dying star? If not, it was probably just your Raisinettes.

Meh (3, Insightful)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | about a year ago | (#45393819)

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 ).

Re:Meh (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393855)

Because in all the other possible universes in which they ran into the wrong cave, they perished and thus there was no movie?

Re:Meh (1)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year ago | (#45394227)

You sir just made me laugh, good one!

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394089)

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 ).

So you would prefer the ST movie to be a month longer, showing Kirk searching through empty caves?

BTW: what does this Thor movie have to do with nerds? Serious question, I did not see it and before today I've never heard of it.

Re:Meh (5, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year ago | (#45394137)

BTW: what does this Thor movie have to do with nerds? Serious question, I did not see it and before today I've never heard of it.

You're asking that about a movie based on a comic book full of sci-fi and fantasy elements? Seriously?

Re:Meh (1)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | about a year ago | (#45394231)

The great thing about movies and TV is they could just put up a black screen with white letters saying "Three years later..." and continue the story.

30 extra seconds is all it would take. (3, Interesting)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about a year ago | (#45394097)

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.

Re:Meh (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45394527)

I'll see your old Kirk and Spock and raise you New Kirk getting chased into the one cave of millions on the one planet of billions that happened to have New Scotty in it.

Loved It (-1, Flamebait)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | about a year ago | (#45393823)

Action was exciting and the final battle lasted a while and had a unique mechanic. Action was evenly spaced with typical "Marvel Superhero humor" and drama throughout. Though I saw the Loki 'twists' coming a mile away, my wife did not.

Also Kat Dennings provided two great reasons to go see it.

Solid 8/10

Re:Loved It (4, Informative)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45393885)

You never even catch a glimpse of Kat Dennings' assets. She's wearing heavy clothing the whole movie.

Re:Loved It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394093)

And it's not like she's anything to look at, to begin with.

Re:Loved It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394291)

he must be referring to her eyes.

Re:Loved It (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45393981)

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.

Re:Loved It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394419)

>> Men are burdened but not quite like that

Speak for yourself.

Funny that (4, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45393825)

I thought I had disabled the slashdot advertisements a while back.

Re:Funny that (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45393863)

when your ad blocker is adjusted correctly this site disappears entirely. best of luck with that

Re:Funny that (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45393889)

I actually make a point of not checking the box rewarding me for being a positive force in the slashuniverse.

Re:Funny that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394263)

I actually make a point of not checking the box rewarding me for being a positive force in the slashuniverse.

...um... why? Just so you're armed with something self-inflicted to feel miserable about in the comments?

Re:Funny that (4, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about a year ago | (#45394379)

Do you know how often I get offered something "thanking [me] for [my] positive contributions"?
Every day on the top right corner of slashdot, is a lot more than from my boss or family.

Plus, the ads do pay /. bills, so they might as well keep believing that I'm seeing them.

Re:Funny that (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45394387)

$5 and wonderful slashdot karma will get you a coffee at starbucks

First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393827)

I for one welcome or new Asgardian overlords?

Re:First? (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45394005)

The Asgards are skinny little grey people.

Re:First? (1)

pgpalmer (2015142) | about a year ago | (#45394277)

Must be a side effect from using the Bifrost.
Should have posted a sign: "Bifrost travel may be hazardous to your health."

Re:First? (1)

achbed (97139) | about a year ago | (#45394007)

They're not that new. I welcome our old Asgardian overlords.

missed it (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#45393829)

I haven't been to the movies theater in four years and just went this past weekend... to see Ender's Game.

Re:missed it (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#45393973)

I haven't been to the movies theater in four years and just went this past weekend... to see Ender's Game.

That was fairly good, but you should have seen Gravity instead - in IMAX. Just my $.02.

Re:missed it (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#45394061)

I heard Gravity was a special effects masterpiece. However, I can't stand Sandra Bullock so I'll probably wait for the DVD.

Re:missed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394159)

Heretic!

Re:missed it (3, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year ago | (#45394167)

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.

Re:missed it (1)

Libertarian001 (453712) | about a year ago | (#45394599)

Yes, yes I will be sorry. 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.

I'm made plenty of mistakes with money. One that I no longer make is on entertainment, movies in particular. I'll get 95% of the enjoyment from seeing it on the small screen as I would on the large, and for a whole lot less. And, really, since I don't waste money on 3D, I really don't know what I'm missing, nor do I care.

Priorities: We all set different ones.

Re:missed it (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#45394367)

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 [slashdot.org] 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.

Re:missed it (1)

Kubla Kahhhn! (3042441) | about a year ago | (#45394389)

I also do not care for Bullock. But I now have to conclude it's due to the roles she's been cast in, because she won me over in Gravity.

Re: missed it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393999)

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.

Re: missed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394025)

Bender...damn iPhone was too smart for me. It knew better. But, benders game was also pretty damn good too ;)

Re: missed it (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45394433)

Bite my shiny metal ass.

Yawn. (2)

wcrowe (94389) | about a year ago | (#45393833)

Except for Kat Dennings. I can watch her all day long.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394069)

Dat Kat

News for nerds? Stuff that matters? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393843)

Please ??

Re:News for nerds? Stuff that matters? (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45394253)

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.....

It Met My Basic Needs (2)

Craig Milo Rogers (6076) | about a year ago | (#45393861)

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.

Waiting for it to come out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393871)

On the piratebay.

Ham-handed love sequences ruined it (3, Informative)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year ago | (#45393891)

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.

Re:Ham-handed love sequences ruined it (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#45394029)

I usually feel uncomfortable in my chair with Kat Dennings too... usually have to cross my legs or throw a blanket over my lap.

Re:Ham-handed love sequences ruined it (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about a year ago | (#45394063)

They could have gotten Keira Knightley instead of Natalie Portman I can barely tell them apart anyway.

Re:Ham-handed love sequences ruined it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394245)

Protip: Check for petrification and/or hot grits. That's how you discern whether you have a Portman or a Knightley.

Great movie (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393899)

I thought it was really good. The story wasn't flabby and lazy like most sequels, it was well-written, and had a sense of humour about itself.

I'm getting bored with all these superheroes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393903)

I like the beginning of the movie as they fleshed out the dark elves. As soon as Thor (or any title hero) shows up I get bored with the lack of suspense, the plot bending over backward to get to the hero's victory, and the obvious insider jokes. I'll have some more Walking Dead thank you.

Not bad, for a secondary plot line. (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | about a year ago | (#45393905)

The movie itself was interesting.

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!

Re:Not bad, for a secondary plot line. (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#45394325)

Wait. Stellan Skarsgard goes pantsless?

...I'm not sure I want to see this movie anymore.

Re:Not bad, for a secondary plot line. (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#45394507)

It helps him think.

Re:Not bad, for a secondary plot line. (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#45394537)

Yeah. It was fairly disturbing in a squicky kinda way.

Liked it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45393907)

Good adventure action movie to eat popcorn to...enjoy the characters and thought the movie was a keeper. Def an 8/10.

Character development (2)

Bardez (915334) | about a year ago | (#45393911)

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.

Gotta say it. (1, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45393919)

That's... Brilliant!

(note: If you don't know Doctor Who, first... why are you here? second... you won't get this joke)

Re:Gotta say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394091)

That's... Brilliant!

(note: If you don't know Doctor Who, first... why are you here? second... you won't get this joke)

To be fair, that isn't really a joke. It's just saying a common English word that a different character played by the same actor is fond of.

Re:Gotta say it. (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year ago | (#45394211)

Apparently Guinan still has some work to do to get you to understand humor.

Re:Gotta say it. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45394339)

Yes, but the whovians all *think* it is clever, which is all that counts... At least to them.

Re:Gotta say it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394301)

That's... Brilliant!

(note: If you don't know Doctor Who, first... why are you here? second... you won't get this joke)

If you feel the need to include an explanation of your reference that's longer than the reference itself, you should really consider a different reference.

Re:Gotta say it. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45394591)

That's... Brilliant! (note: If you don't know Doctor Who, first... why are you here? second... you won't get this joke)

If you feel the need to include an explanation of your reference that's longer than the reference itself, you should really consider a different reference.

I am so, so sorry.

*giggles*

Good, does what it's supposed to (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45393929)

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.

Re:Good, does what it's supposed to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394465)

At least the characters are original. Not just recycled material. Right?

Re:Good, does what it's supposed to (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45394561)

How many times did they use "Roger, Roger"?

About as good as the first one (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year ago | (#45393953)

(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.

I liked it ok, but it seemed...flat (1)

TomR teh Pirate (1554037) | about a year ago | (#45393997)

I don't know if it was the theater or what, but the soundtrack seemed to do nothing to change the mood of the movie. There just seemed to be a lack of emotional polish to the production. I really liked the battle of Asgard, however. It felt very sci-fi, and that was actually very refreshing.

Bit too fast, bit too much Loki (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about a year ago | (#45394011)

Subject. While it does clock in at two hours, it does seem to come and go a bit too quickly. Most importantly is the "rivalry" between Jane Foster and Sif being hinted at (twice), but never going anywhere. At times, Loki stole the show in terms of just being there and while he's a joy to watch, I think he's going to be a bit too overplayed.

Still, movie is balls to the wall hilarious at times, (*SPOILER*) especially when we see Loki as Captain America. Overall I think the first Thor was better but this one was certainly pretty awesome.

The funny was a little forced at times (1)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#45394047)

Overall I liked the movie, but I thought some of the humor was forced at times. Or badly timed. And I would have liked to see more character development on the Jane Foster character. Mostly she is reactive. Tom Hiddleston carried the movie.
The final scene with the collector was miserable and should have been cut from the movie completely.

Needs more Freya (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394083)

If you don't know her divine profile, look her up.

Although, that might mess with the type of rating they are aiming for.

What is this? Rotten Tomatoes? (-1, Redundant)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about a year ago | (#45394117)

Ok, the ender's game review was kinda geeky and vaguely newsworthy. It's a "classic" YA sci-fi. The author is a homophobic dick. I can kinda see why it's on Slashdot.

The "Hey, the movie of Starship Troopers wasn't so bad" post felt like it was desperately milking the after-effects of the last movie post.

But this? This has gone on too far. Slashdot is not a movie review site. This is not a place to comment on the geeky movie of the month. It's geeky and nerdy, sure, but it's just not news.

Mjolnir... (2)

Arkiel (741871) | about a year ago | (#45394127)

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.

Re:Mjolnir... (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#45394549)

Actually, she says "Mew Mew" which was a call back to a gag in the first film where she can't remember what the actual name is whenever she has to refer to it in conversation.

Who the hell cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394139)

How is this remotely "stuff that matters"?

Re:Who the hell cares? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45394403)

It's on Slashdot right? That means it's news for nerds.

What's more nerdy than a comic book based movie? Check: Nerdy

How it matters? You got me there.

But we've had lots of stuff that didn't matter posted here...

This is what I think. (0)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#45394145)

I liked /. more before it became predominantly slashvertisements and marketing focus groups.

What did I think of the movie? I thought they should rastify Thor by 10% or so.

Re:This is what I think. (1)

EricWright (16803) | about a year ago | (#45394223)

I thought they should rastify Thor by 10% or so.

Props for the Itchy & Scratchy & Poochy reference!

better than I expected (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45394157)

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.

What was missing (2)

Webs 101 (798265) | about a year ago | (#45394169)

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.

Hopefully spoiler free review (2)

djdanlib (732853) | about a year ago | (#45394193)

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.

Re:Hopefully spoiler free review (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about a year ago | (#45394603)

The extra scene at the end of the credits (like in every Marvel movie) left some interesting loose ends.

One of the loose ends is supposedly getting cleaned up in the Agents of SHIELD TV Show, in an episode where they have to go to London to deal with the aftermath of this film.

What did you expect? (2)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#45394297)

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.

Grits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45394503)

When I saw it, I brought a can of hot grits and some tight underwear.

What Did You Think? (2)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year ago | (#45394601)

Thor: The Dark World â" What Did You Think?

Oh were we supposed to think then? Now they tell me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?