I just saw this movie the other night and all I can say is....wow.

It's like they took a comic book and turned it into a movie. If you've read comics for any length of time you'll recognize the story pattern and tempo, the fights are massive and comic book worthy, you get a cameo from one of the Avengers and then the tie-in pre-end credits scene (which leads into Guardians of the Galaxy) and the post-end credits scene, which is both satisfying and humorous. It was also nice to see Walt Simonson get screen credit as Malekith's creator. Two thumbs up!

I recommend Thor highly and, I dare say, it's better than the first Thor movie!

We also get a preview of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It looks like they show the entire elevator scene ("Before we begin, would anyone like to get out?"). This is going to be another great movie. Can't wait!

Views: 197

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Vixen and I saw "Dark World" Friday night, and I agree: We were vastly entertained. And, yes, I do think it was better than the first one. (If nothing else, Natalie Portman wasn't pregnant this time, so she could be shown below the clavicle and be part of the action!)

What made it for me was the humor. I don't recall the first one having this many jokes -- which, I hasten to add, were situational and appropriate, not Adam West-style self-mockery. "There are an awful lot of shoes here" is an example of very funny dialogue that doesn't hit you over the head. And, as usual, Marcie (the Portman character's assistant) stole every scene she was in. "I see you're all still  ... muscle-y, and all."

What made it for my wife (and, to a lesser extent for me) was Tom Hiddleston's Loki. Mercurial, damaged, alternately arrogant and vulnerable, he is a tremendously fleshed-out and endlessly fascinating character. And his chief powers -- shapeshifting, illusions -- are used to excellent effect. My wife loves his horned helmet -- right out of the comics -- because she thinks that sort of over-the-top headgear is exactly the sort of thing Loki would wear.

One thing I didn't care for in the first movie was the Frost Giants, who looked like generic CGI monsters and not very giant-y at all. The Kirby visuals for Frost Giants in the comics are striking, and no more difficult to do in CGI, so I wondered why they didn't simply lift those. I have no such disappointments here; the swartalfs (Dark Elves) are striking, and owe a bit to Simonson, who got screen credit, as mentioned above.

Some further comments about casting: Both Anthony Hopkins' Odin and Rene Russo's Frigga get a bit more to do here, and add some class to the proceedings. There's a new Fandral, which doesn't make a lick of difference, as he's a fairly generic character. But seeing Volstagg again reminded me that I had recognized the actor's eyes (which is about all you can see) in the first movie and had meant to look him up and never did. So I did this time, and was surprised to discover that Ray Stevenson (I didn't recognize the name) was a guy I'm pretty familiar with, as Titus Pullo in HBO's Rome and the second Punisher (after Thomas Jane).

The Avengers cameo mentioned had the audience I was with convulsing in laughter, so it was hard to hear the dialogue, which was pretty funny if you can hear it.

Another bit of dialogue that got covered in laughter is a slapstick scene where all the major characters are popping in and out of Midgard (long story) and shouting each other's names as they spot each other. At the end, Thor's hammer swoops through, searching for its master, so the dialogue goes: "Thor!" "Jane!" "Marcie!" "Selvig!" "Mjolnir!"

Come to think of it, most of the audience probably wouldn't have caught that. One thing I noticed is that the script pretty much assumed you knew who everybody was; for example, SIf's name wasn't dropped until about midway through the movie, although she had been there for quite a while. The Mjolnir joke was the only time in the movie the hammer was named that I recall, and so forth.

As mentioned, both "credits scenes" -- should we just start calling them that now? -- were useful. One thing I'm curious about, though, was the appearance of an Infinity Gem. When had that been mentioned before? Where did it come from? I feel like I missed something.

Can't really disagree with anything said, Cap, except;

Jane's intern is Darcy, not Marcie.

Stevenson is actually the 3rd Punisher behind Dolph Lundgren (1st) and Thomas Jane (2nd). I actually liked Lundgren's Punisher movie better than Jane's.

The Infinity Gems in the Marvel cinematic Universe are, I guess, called Infinity Stones but are basically objects of great power. The Aether, from Thor 2, is one object while the Tesseract, from Cap and The Avengers, is another. I guess we'll see the other 4 in Guardians of the Galaxy.

I think the script does assume that you've seen the first Thor movie. They probably could have done a little better at introducing characters.

I saw Thor: The Dark World on Sunday. Some thoughts:

  • I didn't spring for the 3-D version, but I enjoyed it all the same.
  • Hey, it's the chick from 2 Broke Girls! I don't remember -- was she in the first Thor movie? She really livened things up here.
  • So, Odin keeps bugging Thor about being sweet on Jane Foster, telling him he should get himself a real woman, like Sif. Given that Jane spent much of the movie being the damsel in distress, I couldn't disagree.
  • Admittedly, Jane is brainy, not brawny, and did figure out how to solve the problem and did invent the devices to make it possible.
  • On the other hand, like she said, the problem WAS her fault. (Yeah, on the other, other hand, the villains would have done what they did anyway, but still ... !)
  • S'funny ... the folks from S.H.I.E.L.D. were nowhere in evidence this time around.
  • Don't understand why anybody has reason to complain about Idris Elba as Hemidall. He was appropriately majestic, strong, and loyal.
  • Oooh ... Sif gives Jane the side-eye! Oooh...
  • Was that the same Sif as in the first Thor movie? I wasn't sure.
  • Alas, poor Frigga -- ! *choke*
  • I still don't understand why Erik Selvig was prancing around with no pants.
  • Why Tom Hiddleston didn't get an Oscar nomination for Loki in the Avengers movie, I'll never understand. And he was just as good here.
  • The cameo -- what fun!
  • I read only a couple of reviews before I saw it, and both critics thought it was too ponderous and took itself too seriously, which makes me wonder if they saw same movie I did. I think overall, Marvel comics movies are far better about leavening all the destruction with humor than DC comics movies are.
  • Before the movie proper started, there was a trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was agog at the sights before me, because I read those Ed Brubaker/Steve Epting stories! I am much, much less interested in Thor the character or The Mighty Thor, the title; as noted elsewhere, I never read the book before Walt Simonson's run, and haven't since. So I didn't get that thrill of seeing comics pages come to life as I did with the Captain America trailer.
  • But then, in the credits, Walt Simonson gets a nod. So I must have read those stories; it's been too long. ...

ClarkKent_DC said:

I saw Thor: The Dark World on Sunday. Some thoughts:

  • I didn't spring for the 3-D version, but I enjoyed it all the same.
  •  I did see it in 3D. I could take it or leave it.
  • Hey, it's the chick from 2 Broke Girls! I don't remember -- was she in the first Thor movie? She really livened things up here.  
  • Yes, she was in the first movie.
  • So, Odin keeps bugging Thor about being sweet on Jane Foster, telling him he should get himself a real woman, like Sif. Given that Jane spent much of the movie being the damsel in distress, I couldn't disagree.
  • Admittedly, Jane is brainy, not brawny, and did figure out how to solve the problem and did invent the devices to make it possible.
  • On the other hand, like she said, the problem WAS her fault. (Yeah, on the other, other hand, the villains would have done what they did anyway, but still ... !)
  • S'funny ... the folks from S.H.I.E.L.D. were nowhere in evidence this time around.
  • Don't understand why anybody has reason to complain about Idris Elba as Hemidall. He was appropriately majestic, strong, and loyal.  
  • Who's complaining about Idris? I did hear some rumblings before the first Thor but, I agree, majestic and strong. He played a great Heimdall.
  • Oooh ... Sif gives Jane the side-eye! Oooh...
  • Was that the same Sif as in the first Thor movie? I wasn't sure.
  • Yes, it was. Different Fandral, though.
  • Alas, poor Frigga -- ! *choke*
  • I still don't understand why Erik Selvig was prancing around with no pants.
  • Why Tom Hiddleston didn't get an Oscar nomination for Loki in the Avengers movie, I'll never understand. And he was just as good here.
  • The cameo -- what fun!
  • I read only a couple of reviews before I saw it, and both critics thought it was too ponderous and took itself too seriously, which makes me wonder if they saw same movie I did. I think overall, Marvel comics movies are far better about leavening all the destruction with humor than DC comics movies are.
  • Before the movie proper started, there was a trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was agog at the sights before me, because I read those Ed Brubaker/Steve Epting stories! I am much, much less interested in Thor the character or The Mighty Thor, the title; as noted elsewhere, I never read the book before Walt Simonson's run, and haven't since. So I didn't get that thrill of seeing comics pages come to life as I did with the Captain America trailer.
  • I'm kind of along the same line. I didn't start reading Thor until the JMS/Coipel run and it was mostly because of Coipel. I'm currently reading Simonson's run and enjoying the heck out of it! My original comment wasn't so much that it looked like a Thor comic but that the structure reminded me of any Marvel comic in general; the scope of the fights, the cameo...they did a good job.
  • But then, in the credits, Walt Simonson gets a nod. So I must have read those stories; it's been too long. ...

Two more things ... 

  • That different Fandral was Zachary Levi -- better known to TV fans as the title character from Chuck.
  • One of those movie reviewers noted something that I have to admit is odd ... that Asgard has enough technology for forcefields and ray cannons, but the ground troops are still using swords and spears and shields against invaders with laser rifles. 


Mark Stanislawski said:

Can't really disagree with anything said, Cap, except;

Jane's intern is Darcy, not Marcie.

Stevenson is actually the 3rd Punisher behind Dolph Lundgren (1st) and Thomas Jane (2nd). I actually liked Lundgren's Punisher movie better than Jane's.

The Infinity Gems in the Marvel cinematic Universe are, I guess, called Infinity Stones but are basically objects of great power. The Aether, from Thor 2, is one object while the Tesseract, from Cap and The Avengers, is another. I guess we'll see the other 4 in Guardians of the Galaxy.

I think the script does assume that you've seen the first Thor movie. They probably could have done a little better at introducing characters.

Oops! Got Darcy's name wrong AND forgot about Dolph Lundgren as the Punisher. I must be getting old!

And I did miss something, which you explained, Mark: I didn't understand that the Infinity Gems in the movie series don't have to be gems. In fact, as you explain it, the first two aren't -- one is the Ether and the other is the Cosmic Cube Tesseract. Here I was looking for gemstones when Sif flat out said "two such objects of power" in reference to how they shouldn't be stored together. That makes the Collector's remark about wanting to collect them all even more interesting, since it will inevitably bring him into conflict with Asgard.



ClarkKent_DC said:

I saw Thor: The Dark World on Sunday. Some thoughts:

  • Was that the same Sif as in the first Thor movie? I wasn't sure.
  • I still don't understand why Erik Selvig was prancing around with no pants.
  • But then, in the credits, Walt Simonson gets a nod. So I must have read those stories; it's been too long. ...

 

Yes, that was the same Sif. The actress' name is Jaimie Alexander, and now there are rumors she'll play Wonder Woman in Man of Steel II. And I noticed she gave Jane the stink-eye as well, as she was clearly flirting with Thor at the feast, who thinks of her as one of the boys. Since I don't think Natalie Portman adds anything to these movies, I'd just as soon Sif eased her out of the picture!

As to Selvig's pants, that was actually explained in the movie. He is acting oddly because of the events of The Avengers, or as it was phrased in the movie, 'He had a god in his head." Apparently that leaves a mark.

One of Simonson's story arcs introduced the swartalf Malekith and his chief weapon, the Cask of Ancient Winters. Malekith's strong right arm was the bruiser Algrim, whom you may remember as "Kurse." Since neither the name Kurse nor the Cask of Ancient Winters were mentioned in this movie, it's understandable that you might not make the connection.

You also asked why the Asgardians were using swords and spears, but if you watch closely, some of those spears shoot light rays (Pew! Pew! Pew!) and some of those swords light up with blue fire. And, of course, they've got those big laser cannons protecting Asgard, plus a big ol' force field, plus Big Daddy Odin shooting force rays, as did his father. I thought both movies made a very strong point that although Asgard pretends that what they do is magic, it's actually high science dressed up in 10th century gear. This movie, for example, has Jane establishing that the medical device examining her wasn't a Seer or whatever the Asgardians called it, but a quantum particle engine (whatever that is). Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to.

I don't know what reviewer could find this ponderous. I thought it was leavened with a lot of humor, as I said above. And while Thor talks stiffly, his heart is clearly in the right place and he doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. And Loki spends the whole movie popping everyone's balloons. Seriously, this movie was like the opposite of ponderous.

Saw it this weekend with Action Lad (celebrating our almost-joint-birthdays), and a good time was had by all.  His absolute favorite part of the movie (1st among many, I should say) was that Avenger's cameo.  I think he'd rank it up there with Hulk's sucker punch from The Avengers.

They didn't use the name Kurse, but they did refer to Malekith's sidekick (played by AAA from LOST!) as "the Cursed One" or something. And didn't the Cask of AW play a small role in the previous Thor?

Captain Comics said:



ClarkKent_DC said:

I saw Thor: The Dark World on Sunday. Some thoughts:

  • Was that the same Sif as in the first Thor movie? I wasn't sure.
  • I still don't understand why Erik Selvig was prancing around with no pants.
  • But then, in the credits, Walt Simonson gets a nod. So I must have read those stories; it's been too long. ...

 

Yes, that was the same Sif. The actress' name is Jaimie Alexander, and now there are rumors she'll play Wonder Woman in Man of Steel II. And I noticed she gave Jane the stink-eye as well, as she was clearly flirting with Thor at the feast, who thinks of her as one of the boys. Since I don't think Natalie Portman adds anything to these movies, I'd just as soon Sif eased her out of the picture!

As to Selvig's pants, that was actually explained in the movie. He is acting oddly because of the events of The Avengers, or as it was phrased in the movie, 'He had a god in his head." Apparently that leaves a mark.

One of Simonson's story arcs introduced the swartalf Malekith and his chief weapon, the Cask of Ancient Winters. Malekith's strong right arm was the bruiser Algrim, whom you may remember as "Kurse." Since neither the name Kurse nor the Cask of Ancient Winters were mentioned in this movie, it's understandable that you might not make the connection.

You also asked why the Asgardians were using swords and spears, but if you watch closely, some of those spears shoot light rays (Pew! Pew! Pew!) and some of those swords light up with blue fire. And, of course, they've got those big laser cannons protecting Asgard, plus a big ol' force field, plus Big Daddy Odin shooting force rays, as did his father. I thought both movies made a very strong point that although Asgard pretends that what they do is magic, it's actually high science dressed up in 10th century gear. This movie, for example, has Jane establishing that the medical device examining her wasn't a Seer or whatever the Asgardians called it, but a quantum particle engine (whatever that is). Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to.

I don't know what reviewer could find this ponderous. I thought it was leavened with a lot of humor, as I said above. And while Thor talks stiffly, his heart is clearly in the right place and he doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. And Loki spends the whole movie popping everyone's balloons. Seriously, this movie was like the opposite of ponderous.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2017   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service