Saturday, November 9, 2013

Discuss: Thor: The Dark World

Karen: It's here! The son of Odin is back on the big screen. Let's hear your thoughts -but please, keep it SPOILER FREE for a few days at least!

Doug:  Hey, I just wanted to add a photo mid-day.  I got done with two hours of mowing/leaf raking and could still find it in me to marvel at the beauty of the maple tree in our backyard.   We had a really dry spell late in the summer here in the American midwest, which has kept leaves on the trees longer than usual.  That's not so bad (other than the fact that I'll still be bagging in December, probably!).


William said...

For some strange reason Thor is the one comicbook movie that my wife really wants to see. (I don't know why that that is).

Unfortunately she had to work last night and both days this weekend, so we probably won't be able to go until next week sometime. But it looks pretty cool from the previews I've seen.

Doug said...

I had hoped to take in a matinee on Monday since we don't have school. However, wouldn't you know we had to schedule a repairman for the afternoon -- looks like me and the Son of Odin meeting up might be in jeopardy!


Edo Bosnar said...

Spoil away, folks; as usual, I won't be seeing this any time soon.
Otherwise, I liked the first Thor movie well enough, but one thing I'm kind of 'meh' about is the whole Jane Foster thing. By the time I was reading comics, Sif was his love interest, and to me that should be the default position.

MattComix said...

At this point I'm torn between being interested in seeing some Simonson stuff being brought to life on the big screen and being automatically dubious about anything with "dark" in the title.

I liked the first movie ok. JMS costume, no Don Blake identity and avoidance/shame of the helmet aside. Granted he didn't have the Blake deal in the Simonson run but I kinda never liked it there either. I'm a fan of the idea of transformation and mortal contrast in superhero comics so I'm usually disappointed when a secret identity gets dismantled.

Not to say every character needs one and I guess you can make a pretty good argument for Thor not needing one but still..

Fred W. Hill said...

I'll be seeing this in a couple of hours with a friend.

Greg said...

I'm looking forward to it but probably won't get to see it until next week sometime or next weekend. The story sounds pretty silly but the performances are apparently pretty good. I'm looking forward to a more realized Asgard, and of course the interplay between Thor and Loki.

I'm sure I'll find things to gripe about, but just the fact that we live in a time when they are making Thor and Avengers movies that are pretty good makes me happy. :)

Humanbelly said...

So William, w/out really knowing your wife or anything, I'm gonna submit that there could possibly be just the slightest touch of a Beefcake Factor (even unconsciously) in play here. . . maybe? In the first film, when Chris Hemsworth starts walking around that clinic in tight jeans & casually shirtless, the female response in our theater was heartfelt and rather hilarious. Not over the top at all, but there was an audible immediate chorus of appreciative gasps, "Ooo"s, "Mm-mm-MMMM"s, and "Oh honey-!"'s. Many are the gangly, less-than-vital fanboys who I am SURE instantly regretted talking their girlfriends into seeing that film w/ them!

You might want to be doing some daily push-ups, at least, between now and when you do see the film. Then when you get home you can "casually" rip off your shirt and impress the heck out of her with your own new-found Hemsworthy (heh) physique. Yes? Yes?

While I liked the first film well enough, I thought it was definitely the weakest of the Avengers-related series. What tended to mask that fact (in my mind) was the extraordinarily great casting, and fine performances all the way around. Well, and visual spectacle was engaging, too.

Not actually sure when I'll be able to see it yet, either. It's already the height of the holiday sprint in HBLand, so time is precious!


J.A. Morris said...

I'm with Edo on the Jane/Sif question. Plus, Natalie Portman's acting to me is like watching paint dry.
But I'll go see it, Tom Hiddleston's should make it entertaining all by himself.

Comicsfan said...

I'll be waiting for the Blu-ray edition of the film before seeing it (as with all of them), so I may be slipping the first Thor film into the player just to have a "Thor fix" to tide me over. I'm with Greg on how cool it is to live in such times where films of our comic book past are being made; but it's disappointing that many of them (like the first Thor and, from what I'm hearing, the second) fail to bat it out of the park. Am I too greedy for wanting to have my cake and eat it, too?

William said...

Well Humanbelly, you hit the nail on head. She actually makes no secret as to why Thor is her favorite superhero. lol

As for myself, I'd would have had to start the daily push-ups sometime back in 2012 in order to be in Hemsworthy worthy shape by the time I see the movie. (Unless I wait long enough for it to come out on Blu Ray - and then go on sale).

david_b said...

Well, despite still being 'army-strong' after these last 27yrs, I haven't 'bench-pressed Buicks' in a while. My lovely gal and I were just fine (and wonderfully amorous) after the first Thor flick, so you guys MAY be on to something.


Unknown said...

Saw it on Saturday with wife. 3 thoughts:

1. As a "comic book" movie, found it fun and entertaining. Sure there is no helmet (not even a "I say thee, NAY!"), but some things that look cool in comics can look silly on the screen...

2. Continue to enjoy Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki. The banter between the two half-bros worked for us.

3. Sif would make a great Wonder Woman!(everytime she showed up, I was humming the WW theme...)

Karen said...

The husband and I caught the movie on Friday while on vacation. We saw it at an amazing AMC theater: the showing we went to was presented in something called ETX, which had speakers everywhere and nice, tall cushioned seats -and it still only cost us $12 a piece. I'm not even going to go into detail about the concessions stand, which actually had self-serve options, a bakery, and hamburgers. No, let's get on to the film.

I enjoyed it. I liked it perhaps less than the first Thor, but still found it entertaining. But this is a very different Thor in this film; he's more serious, more brooding -in other words, he's more like the Thor of the comics. There's still plenty of humor but the fish out of water aspect is downplayed. The time spent in Asgard was a highlight for me, but if Asgard is not your bag you may not feel the same.

The main villain, Malekith, serves a purpose, to propel the plot, but not much else. The focus again is truly on Loki, and why not, when you have an actor of the caliber of Tom Hiddleston. Much like Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2, Loki in the Marvel films is far more complicated and interesting than he ever was in the comics. Hiddleston imbues Loki with such contrasting qualities; as practically everyone in the film says at some point, you can't trust him, yet there are moments where you can see in his eyes that maybe, just maybe, Loki contemplates trying to be worthy of being trusted. Just for a second or two. He may present a confident, malicious face to the world but inside he yearns for acceptance. Hiddleston pulls off this complexity with great skill.

There are some solid action scenes in the flick, but I think Thor's best moments still came in Avengers, and I was a bit disappointed we didn't get a little more thunder god action in this. Chris Hemsworth does a nice job -the poor guy is trapped between Hiddleston and Anthony Hopkins! -and Thor definitely shows more maturity in this movie.

All in all, a fun Marvel movie -probably in the middle of the pack for me. I do think they have set things up for a heck of a sequel.

Fred W. Hill said...

Enjoyable enough film all around, IMO, with much more of a sword & sorcery than usual superhero flick feel. Hiddleston's performance was definitely the highlight. Odin, thus far, is unlikeable, set in his ways and too unwilling to consider other options. Bit of a pity that Volstagg's typically humorous role in the comics has been transformed into a more serious warrior role in the film.

Doc Savage said...

Loki's conflicted motivations and Tom Hiddleston's performance were the best things about the movie. The plot itself was rather weak. I don't even remember what the bad guy was hoping to achieve in the end. The Kat Dennings character's limp comic relief attempts sucked the air out of every scene she was in. Chris Hemsworth gave another good, earnest performance as Thor. I still don't know what he sees in Jane Foster when the Lady Sif is around. Mediocre movie, but still better than Iron Man 3 and anything DC has done since the Keaton Batman.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed it very much. Wow! Those "grenades" used by the Dark Elves were terrifying.
I wish Malaketh got to do more.

The first post-credits scene was great! And the second was cute.

(Look for HIM in the background!!!!!)

Pat Henry said...

I haven't seen any commentary on the jaw-dropping blend of high mythology fantasy and space operatics—Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars stuff. I think they did a nice job of bringing this weird blend of Kirby's work into focus.

Part of the 'problem' with these successive successes of Marvel's is the need to bolt ever more and more on to the framework. You've got lots of high-end actors and not much for them to do, secondary threads that pretty much lead nowhere, plus cameos and easter eggs to plant in. It almost becomes an ensemble thing.

But, overall these efforts are SO-O-O-O much better, orders of magnitude better, than what we fans used to have shoveled in front of us (see Green Lantern for a taste of that) that it seems almost churlish to criticize it.

Related Posts with Thumbnails