Thor (no major spoilers)
May. 9th, 2011 10:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
A few notes before we get into the meat of the thing:
First, the trailers were of course all genre films, and some looked okay -- but man, the Captain America trailer rocks. It manages to blend the vibe of the older comics with just the right touch of Indiana Jones, and if the movie's anywhere near as good as this looks, it may be the summer's hit. Fingers crossed.
Second, after Your Highness and now Thor, I am coming to the conclusion that somewhere out there, at the side of some set, there is a chair inscribed, "Whosoever sits in this seat, should they be worthy, shall possess the power of Patrick Stewart!" Because really, Natalie Portman does seem to be moving into his ecological niche of the Real Actor who appears in genre films to give them that sheen of respectability.
Third, Monday is a really good time to go to the movies if you like a quiet time of it. Despite this being the current smash hit, the cinema was deserted.
And fourth, while I had known that Stan Lee had a cameo in the film, I hadn't realized who the *other* cameo was until he showed up on film. It's much funnier when you're not expecting it. (I recognized him, said "Wait -- what?" and wasn't certain until he showed up in the credits.)
Anyway.
Overall, my rating is Not Half Bad. It's not a work of high art, but it's really not trying to be: instead, it's trying to go for the mythological side of comics in a big way, and it pretty much succeeds. It's big and loud, but *not* an entirely brainless action flick -- the characters really are the center of the movie, and it has a good deal more quiet humor than one usually expects from these things.
The usual caveat applies as for any good comic-book film: do *not* expect a faithful adaptation of the comic. The details are all wrong, and if you are expecting otherwise, you're in for a disappointment.
That said, the important question for any comic-book film is: did they get it? And in this case, I think they did. In particular, the movie is all about (IMO) the two most important parts of the Thor mythos. First, this is Thor's origin, and it gets the spirit of that origin right. (Irresponsible cosmic frat boy gets exiled to Earth to teach him a lesson.) And second, that the heart of the story has always been the relationship between Thor and Loki. Honestly, I think Loki steals the movie: this is his origin story as well, and I think this is the best I've ever seen it handled. This is a Loki who isn't cackling evil -- he's rather complex (at least by Asgardian standards), and broken in some terribly human ways. I get the distinct impression that Branagh signed up on this film to tell Loki's story, because he is much more *directed* than Thor is.
There are the usual thousand-and-one nods to miscellaneous Marvel continuity, but more importantly they get most of the right characters in. Heimdall and Odin are significant players, and Sif and the Warriors Three get quite a bit of screen time. Jane Foster has been completely rewritten, but I'm willing to forgive that: she was never the most interesting character in the comic, I'm afraid. The only major character missing is Balder, and he's just less *fun* than most of the rest.
And of course, the special effects are quite grand, but with an eye towards the originals. Jack Kirby would have been proud of this interpretation of Asgard, and Charley observed that the armor all greatly evokes Simonson. We saw it in 3D, and I didn't find it annoying -- they're getting better at it -- but I don't think you'd be missing a huge amount (and you'd certainly save a bundle) if you watch it in good old 2D.
So: if you are looking for an action flick with just a bit of intelligence, this is worth seeing; if you like comic-book movies, and *especially* if you're enjoying the current Marvel run, it's a must-see. Don't go in with high expectations, but it's a good time.
First, the trailers were of course all genre films, and some looked okay -- but man, the Captain America trailer rocks. It manages to blend the vibe of the older comics with just the right touch of Indiana Jones, and if the movie's anywhere near as good as this looks, it may be the summer's hit. Fingers crossed.
Second, after Your Highness and now Thor, I am coming to the conclusion that somewhere out there, at the side of some set, there is a chair inscribed, "Whosoever sits in this seat, should they be worthy, shall possess the power of Patrick Stewart!" Because really, Natalie Portman does seem to be moving into his ecological niche of the Real Actor who appears in genre films to give them that sheen of respectability.
Third, Monday is a really good time to go to the movies if you like a quiet time of it. Despite this being the current smash hit, the cinema was deserted.
And fourth, while I had known that Stan Lee had a cameo in the film, I hadn't realized who the *other* cameo was until he showed up on film. It's much funnier when you're not expecting it. (I recognized him, said "Wait -- what?" and wasn't certain until he showed up in the credits.)
Anyway.
Overall, my rating is Not Half Bad. It's not a work of high art, but it's really not trying to be: instead, it's trying to go for the mythological side of comics in a big way, and it pretty much succeeds. It's big and loud, but *not* an entirely brainless action flick -- the characters really are the center of the movie, and it has a good deal more quiet humor than one usually expects from these things.
The usual caveat applies as for any good comic-book film: do *not* expect a faithful adaptation of the comic. The details are all wrong, and if you are expecting otherwise, you're in for a disappointment.
That said, the important question for any comic-book film is: did they get it? And in this case, I think they did. In particular, the movie is all about (IMO) the two most important parts of the Thor mythos. First, this is Thor's origin, and it gets the spirit of that origin right. (Irresponsible cosmic frat boy gets exiled to Earth to teach him a lesson.) And second, that the heart of the story has always been the relationship between Thor and Loki. Honestly, I think Loki steals the movie: this is his origin story as well, and I think this is the best I've ever seen it handled. This is a Loki who isn't cackling evil -- he's rather complex (at least by Asgardian standards), and broken in some terribly human ways. I get the distinct impression that Branagh signed up on this film to tell Loki's story, because he is much more *directed* than Thor is.
There are the usual thousand-and-one nods to miscellaneous Marvel continuity, but more importantly they get most of the right characters in. Heimdall and Odin are significant players, and Sif and the Warriors Three get quite a bit of screen time. Jane Foster has been completely rewritten, but I'm willing to forgive that: she was never the most interesting character in the comic, I'm afraid. The only major character missing is Balder, and he's just less *fun* than most of the rest.
And of course, the special effects are quite grand, but with an eye towards the originals. Jack Kirby would have been proud of this interpretation of Asgard, and Charley observed that the armor all greatly evokes Simonson. We saw it in 3D, and I didn't find it annoying -- they're getting better at it -- but I don't think you'd be missing a huge amount (and you'd certainly save a bundle) if you watch it in good old 2D.
So: if you are looking for an action flick with just a bit of intelligence, this is worth seeing; if you like comic-book movies, and *especially* if you're enjoying the current Marvel run, it's a must-see. Don't go in with high expectations, but it's a good time.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 02:51 am (UTC)As for the Cap trailer. Yeah it looks amazing. I read that they originally planned to have another actor do the pre-serum Steve Rogers scenes (which were much shorter than in the final version), but actor Chris Evans fought with them about it because he believed (rightly) that pre-serum Steve is the heart of the character and it needed to be built up to make Cap believable.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 03:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 03:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 04:06 am (UTC)I actually enjoyed the movie and agree with you that you have to toss out faithfulness to the original comics. (Nick Fury wasn't a black guy, ya know.)
This movie came across as an introduction to all the anticipated sequels and eventual guest appearances by, well, everybody. The tag line at the end of the credits ties it perfectly with Iron Man.
Go, put your brain in real-time neutral and enjoy it for what it's supposed to be, a live action comic book, fer cryin' out loud.
Yours is the best rating I've come across: Not Half Bad. I enjoyed it in a half filled theater on Friday and was quite enjoyable in 2D.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 04:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 11:24 am (UTC)I'm not sure which bit you mean about the "other" cameo, because I can't think of any that I would have thought deserve spoiler protection. The writer? Other Stan Lee characters?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 12:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 12:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 12:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 12:26 pm (UTC)-- Dagonell
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 01:59 pm (UTC)Also, I loved it!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-11 02:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 02:00 pm (UTC)I love this. I love it even more, imagining it delivered by Sean Connery.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 03:29 pm (UTC)We saw it in 3D at a matinee on Sunday, at $5 a pop, so that was a bargain. It was a diverting couple of hours, but I wouldn't call it great. I was a bit surprised at Portman being there, and I thought there wasn't much in the role for her to sink her teeth into. As for being "the Real Actor who appears in genre films to give them that sheen of respectability"...well, we also had Anthony Hopkins and Stellan Skarsgard and Rene Russo and Colm Feore, all "real actors". Sometimes they're there to give that sheen, sometimes they see something in the role that the audience misses, and sometimes they -- Idunno -- have to pay off their gambling debts or coke dealers or something. How else to explain all the grade-Z Croatian-Indonesian co-production Evil High Priest roles we've seen Sir Ben Kingsley do in recent years?
Talking with friends after the movie, I was surprised to be told that Loki's origin in actual Norse mythology was much as it was portrayed in the film. I had no idea.
That ninja-Viking guy was jarring. I thought it a sop to PC-ness, and the simple fact that -- sigh -- you are required to have some bloke doing Oriental martial-arts moves in an action film like this. But I liked Heimdall a lot: I kept seeing
Tom Hiddleston and Brent Spiner: separated at birth?
Overall, given the strong actors, director (Branagh) and writer (JMS), I would have expected a much stronger product, even within the constraints (whatever they were) of keeping true to the comic. It was fun, and visually appealing, but it wasn't great.
re: pleased with Chris Hemsworth
Date: 2011-05-10 07:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 09:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 11:42 pm (UTC)I do remember, by some weird twist of (my not-very-good) memory, that Hogun isn't Aesir, unlike his comrades in arms. I don't remember any reason that mattered, though...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 10:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-11 02:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:53 pm (UTC)And it's generally correct in the comic, as well. I don't know that we've ever seen it depicted so well, but the broad strokes have been canon for a very long time.
That ninja-Viking guy was jarring. I thought it a sop to PC-ness
Yeah, it was a little odd. He actually fits the look of Hogun the Grim decently well, but the accent kept being just too ridiculous. And Volstagg wasn't nearly fat enough, but I'm not sure that a human being who looks like the comic book character would actually be able to walk, and they did get his attitude just right. (The running gag is that Volstagg looks like a complete tub of lard -- which produces a lot of shock and awe when he actually wades into battle.) But Fandral (the dashing swordsman) was dead-on perfect. And while Heimdall of course isn't black in the original (they are all supposed to be Norse, after all), the actor completely nailed the attitude...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 03:30 pm (UTC)I'm interested in the cameos as I don't think I managed to spot either of them. I don't know what Stan Lee looks like (I could Google it now, but that doesn't help me 3 days in the past) and I clearly missed the other one entirely.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:16 pm (UTC)But, slightly more seriously: Thor (and companions, especially the Warriors Three) should be viewed as a case where he made a positive contribution to characters, but his brother deserves the credit for the characters themselves.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-10 08:55 pm (UTC)Mais oui -- I've seen the previous films in the series, so I know there's always a tag. I will admit that it took me a second or two to realize what I was seeing -- at which point Charley and I agreed that the Avengers movie is suddenly looking a lot more interesting than we'd previously thought.
Stan Lee was the old guy who manages to break his truck on the hammer. I'll email you the other one. (It's a minor detail, but other sharp-eyed fans may enjoy spotting it.)