jducoeur: (Default)
[personal profile] jducoeur
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.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-10 03:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] baron-steffan.livejournal.com
I was never a big Marvel fan. (I'm a DC fanboy who's been waiting for 50 years -- no, really! -- for the Green Lantern movie, so expect me to have a lot to say about that.) And I'm weaker on the Norse pantheon than on the Greco-Roman. So I can offer the "virginal" perspective here, as a viewer with no expectations or pre-conceived notions.

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?

[profile] auntie_elspeth was pleased with Chris Hemsworth, but I doubt it was for his acting. I know my wife's preferred type, and I know I ain't it %^).

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 [profile] diablu in that role.

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)
From: [identity profile] etherial.livejournal.com
[livejournal.com profile] rosinavs and I agreed that the film was *superb* from the neck down.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-10 08:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] be-well-lowell.livejournal.com
The "ninja-Viking" guy was in the comic book more than 40 years ago. Does that reduce your objection to the "PC-ness"?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-10 11:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] be-well-lowell.livejournal.com
He's looked Asian from the beginning. I don't think he ever had an origin story, but it wouldn't matter much, since none of these characters came from our plane, much less our planet, so of *course* he isn't "really" Asian -- and Thor isn't "really" Scandinavian, by the same token.

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)
From: [identity profile] baron-steffan.livejournal.com
Yeah, I echo [personal profile] jducoeur's comment here. Was he really a Jackie Chan modern martial-arts type in the original comic? From 40 years ago? Okay, if you say so. But given the treatment of Orientals (and similar peoples, like the Inuit Tom "Pieface" Kalmaku from GL) during that era, I'm really surprised. The canonical example here is Chop-Chop from the Blackhawks, but one could also cite the Green Hornet's man Friday, Kato. Kato at least had some grit, and Pieface was a highly competent mechanic, but still, they were subservient sideline players. Chop-Chop was offensive even to 12-year-old me in 1961; I remember feeling that was wrong.

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 28293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags