|
Post by Brainstem on May 13, 2011 5:55:16 GMT -5
I think talking about Kat Dennings is way more interesting than talking about Thor.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 13, 2011 6:22:21 GMT -5
I think talking about Kat Dennings is way more interesting than talking about Thor. The guy with the boring username is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Jet on May 13, 2011 8:47:07 GMT -5
Cant argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on May 13, 2011 11:23:43 GMT -5
I think talking about Kat Dennings is way more interesting than talking about Thor. The guy with the boring username is correct. Should I change it again? Is Star Fox not good enough of a reference? Also, I'm always right, remember?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 13, 2011 12:16:26 GMT -5
I remember that I'm always right, and we can't both be always right unless you buy into a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo that I don't subscribe to, so that just can't be right.
ALSO... I didn't realize it was a Starfox reference. Because I never played Starfox.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 19, 2011 22:13:01 GMT -5
Just got back from Thor. It was the second last show of the run, and on a Thursday, no less.
I thought it was really good. I think that, when it comes to Marvel films, Iron Man is the movie to beat, and I think this was basically a tie. Really, it's apples and oranges.
Iron Man was more comedic, and more of a thrill ride that made you want to BE Iron Man. I wanted that suit so badly the second I walked out of the theater. However, after the whole Afghanistan sequence, the movie didn't have much of an epic feel to it, and it was light on fight scenes.
Thor was more serious, though it had a few laughs. The trailers made it look pretty silly and corny, but I give Branagh credit where credit is due: he made Asgard seem pretty epic and magnificent, and told a fine story. My only complaint about Asgard was that we saw very, very little of its people, which made it hard to care who sat on the throne or about the consequences of the impending war.
At the start of the movie, I was interested in Jane Foster's research and her discovery of Thor, and when the movie suddenly switched to Asgard, I felt like saying "No, go back, I want to see what happens!" But then I wound up so wrapped up in the Asgard scenes that, when the story returned to Earth, I badly wanted them to return to Asgard. That really kept me interested.
I thought that Loki's intentions were hard to interpret; they could have spent more time on him and his motivations, his pain and his struggle. We got to see hints of it, and I guess that sufficed, but it could have been better. I think one of the reasons the Dark Knight was so successful as a movie was that it spent most of its time with the villain, not the hero. I suppose this is easier to accomplish in a sequel about a well-known hero such as Bat Man, but still, the more time you spend on the villain, usually the better.
In terms of performances, I think Chris Hemsworth did a solid job as Thor. He conveyed the simplicity of Thor's character without making him seem too foolish or dumb. Thor was likeable and admirable, which is a nice antidote to Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark (who is likeable, in a way, but less admirable). Anthony Hopkins was wonderful, as always; I regret initially thinking that he was above the film.
Of the other Asgardians, I enjoyed Sif (and I find her eyes positively spellbinding), and especially Heimdall, but the others were kinda meh and weren't given a lot to work with; I think they felt a little silly. Loki was good, particularly in some scenes, but not amazing. It was hard to judge Colm Feore's performance, as a lot of it was the makeup/special effects. Natalie Portman was.. acceptable, but forgettable and replaceable. I liked Kat Dennings as her friend Darcy, though. Oh, and Clark Gregg is always great as Agent Coulson.
Special effects were spot on, though they looked stupid in the trailers. Uhm, what else? Oh, the Destroyer was well rendered and directed; its blast was actually really scary.
Bottom line: Where once I was really worried how they would get Thor and Iron Man on the same screen, and how they might interact, after seeing Thor, I'm actually really looking forward to it. As long as Captain America is okay, not crappy, the Avengers movie is in really good shape.
I'll probably have more thoughts to add when I'm not high on Swedish berries.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Rushlock on May 20, 2011 7:08:18 GMT -5
I'll agree I had similar lower expectations for Thor, and that it exceeded my own. But I'm still not sold on folks comparing it to Iron Man (either) as one of the best Marvel movies.
|
|
|
Post by Puck on May 20, 2011 7:21:30 GMT -5
It was better than expected, and a nice story but it wasnt the best Marvel film, it didnt drag them down though so thumbs up
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 20, 2011 7:26:46 GMT -5
I think that there's a difference between being comparable to Iron Man, and being comparable to Iron Man *in that* it is one of the best Marvel Movies.
I feel like Thor was one of the best Marvel Movies, and so was Iron Man. So that's a similarity. However, Iron Man was light years ahead of Thor in terms of entertainment value. For me, anyway.
Iron Man is a movie I would have enjoyed even if I weren't a Marvel fan. Thor is a movie that would have been on syfy and starred Richard Greico if not for it's Marvel roots.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 23, 2011 22:27:23 GMT -5
Yeah, that's well put, WK. I think Thor would appeal to your more general geeks, including those who have never really been into comics before, but I imagine it smells a little too much like sci-fi and/or fantasy to hook the type of movie-goer who makes a point of shinning the typical geek fare. Iron Man, on the other hand, was a lot closer to your typical action movie.
Very interested to see how Cap stacks up in this respect, too.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 24, 2011 6:14:57 GMT -5
I have almost no hope regarding the Cap movie. It's pretty clear from everything I've seen that they made a conscious decision to go the route of a generic action hero.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on May 24, 2011 18:16:42 GMT -5
Ok, so wrt to the Cap movie...
I was all about it, I thought it'd be great, I think that they picked a good guy for the role, BUT WHAT WAS UP WITH HIM PULLING OUT A GUN FROM BEHIND THE SHIELD IN THE TRAILER.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 24, 2011 18:20:34 GMT -5
Cap uses guns now. Don't you read?
I can't believe you're seriously behind Chris Evans for the role of Cap. May as well have been Ahnuld once they went that route.
Hit a guy. Make a stupid comment. Lather, rinse, repeat. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on May 24, 2011 18:50:40 GMT -5
I don't know, I just generally go into a movie with good faith in casting directors and will decide afterward if they were misguided.
And Cap using a gun is terrible. D:< Isn't the whole thing that the shield represents America's stance as defenders in the world, not as assailants? Modern politics aside, if you're making this a period piece then make it fit the period.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 24, 2011 19:23:02 GMT -5
I don't know, I just generally go into a movie with good faith in casting directors and will decide afterward if they were misguided. I think thats a pretty weak argument. Film history is FULL of examples of terrible casting, and the vast majority of guys working out there today do the same thing in every movie, regardless of the character they're supposed to be playing. Chris Evans has never been in anything that suggested he could pull off Captain America. IMO, the facts are pretty clear; Marvel wanted to work with someone who wouldn't cost them much and had a foot in the door with the super hero or action genre. They didn't give a crap that Cap is more than just an action hero. In fact, your point about the shield is kind of in line with an argument I've made in the past about the new Cap (Bucky Cap). No matter how "cool" and "modern" it is for Captain America to run around shooting people in the kneecaps, it's NOT Captain America.
|
|