So, apparently, Thor is good...?
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
Wait. What? Where are these things? I did not know Edmonton had such a thing!
Wow, at prime time here movies are $5, $3 at matinee.Now that sounds awesome!
I'm used to paying 10-14 bucks for a movie and the theaters are crappy.
But there is no 3D and half the speakers are blown.
Awesome theater, $6 matinee.
J
Jiarn
Same here. $5 early bird. 2D.
I'm so fucking sick of 3D. Complete waste of time, money, and theater space. Everyone says "Go 2D for Thor" at another forum, and you could change that to "Go 2D for any movie" and have it just as true.
But House of Wax (1953) rocked in 3D...
wait, that was the old tech way.
wait, that was the old tech way.
Yeah, but back then they'd put electric shockers under some of the theater seats, and it only cost a few cents.
W
Wasabi Poptart
Wow! We pay $8.50/ticket and that's with a military discount.
I thought Coraline gained a lot from the 3D treatment, too. But I completely agree about Avatar. Some people think 3D is an excuse to throw things at the camera for reflex reactions (puke, bullets, speeding cars), but Avatar was actually (mostly) constructed to make the 3D seem...ordinary, and did so pretty well.
--Patrick
J
Jiarn
Unfortunately I missed Coraline in theaters so I can't make that assessment, but I can definitely see how, done well, that could have easily been the case. I imagine Corpse Bride would have had a similar result.
I'll preface this by saying Coraline was my favorite movie of 2009 and I went out of my way to see it in one of the few theaters in my area showing it in 3D.
I didn't feel it did anything for the movie. On occasion the visuals would pop in a disturbing way, like when she crawled through the door, but overall it felt pointless and like I'd wasted my time and money seeing it in 3D when I could've more easily gone to another theater and seen it for less, enjoying it more. It lost nothing on my TV without the glasses.
So apparently Ebert wasn't really paying attention to the film (he get at least haf the stuff wrong): http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/_i_didnt_attend_the.html
But i do agree with him about Loki lacking Charisma(except in the post credit scene)... it does put a name to what i felt was wrong with him as a villain... he kinda looks weak even when he does pull off a good trick (and i don't think it was the actor).
But i do agree with him about Loki lacking Charisma(except in the post credit scene)... it does put a name to what i felt was wrong with him as a villain... he kinda looks weak even when he does pull off a good trick (and i don't think it was the actor).
Little details about the movie he seems to have missed. For example:
It was explained in the movie. I don't know why he's being vague or suggesting that it wasn't made clear.
Thor clearly states that he is human while on Earth, and explains (although it wasn't 100% explicit) that Asgardians are from another world.
It's just little details. It gives the impression he didn't watch the whole movie or didn't care enough to pay attention. One could interpret that as a criticism of the movie, I suppose, blaming it for being hard to follow and/or boring.
J
Jiarn
He obviously phoned it in, but NOONE MAY QUESTION THE MIGHTY EBERT!!!!
The word of mouth has been positive enough that I've caved--seeing the Sunday morning matinee.
I'm glad I decided to give it a chance, because it was great. Glad we went after all.
I, too, was a little confused about just how Thor is immortal. Is it really just all the hammer? Why exactly couldn't he use it before? Is it magic or alien tech or in what way is it both? If the asguards have the stargate (forgot it's in movie name) and that's the only way between worlds then how did the frost giants even get to earth to start with? Why did the chubby guy look A LOT like Jason segel to me? How did the scientists actually catch wind of all of this? Was Loki just misunderstood or actually a full on bad guy?
Also the girl I saw it with immediately put it as her #3 movie behind Billy Madison and Gangs of new York. I don't know how to feel about that.
That is the most random movie list I've ever seen.
Who were you talking about exactly?Tress said:
I am not too sure about his blind spots. Both genres have had more than their fair share of stinkers in comparison to the number of truly good films in those genres. Like there has not been a truly good Video Game Movie.
Yes but when someone dislikes what you like they just don't understand it.
Joking aside (although c'mon people, theres some truth in that), Ebert does a pretty good job of critical analysis no matter the genre (probably because he gets the idea of genre and freely admits when he isn't a fan) but in there is stuff that he isn't as familiar with, which is going to hurt his analysis. That doesn't mean he can't discuss the basic mechanics of the thing, it's still film, but he might not "get" the subject.
I started thinking about this since my comments on Ebert's review. As a guy who grew up being fanatical about Marvel comics, I sometimes wonder if my own background knowledge fills the gaps for me during these movies. It probably causes me to miss times when something is poorly explained because I already know the basic details anyway. This is why I think its possible that Ebert's failure to accurately report some of the film's story could be a valid criticism in itself; it may mean that the movie is slightly incomprehensible to a lot of people not familiar with the source material.Yes but when someone dislikes what you like they just don't understand it.
Joking aside (although c'mon people, theres some truth in that), Ebert does a pretty good job of critical analysis no matter the genre (probably because he gets the idea of genre and freely admits when he isn't a fan) but in there is stuff that he isn't as familiar with, which is going to hurt his analysis. That doesn't mean he can't discuss the basic mechanics of the thing, it's still film, but he might not "get" the subject.
Considering that at least some of the stuff he got wrong was the equivalent of getting the guy who fired his gun wrong when we got 20 min of seeing the gun being fired i don't think so.
Since no one has gone through and done specifics, I shall do so (god I need a social life or something)! SPOILERS AHOY!
First off, we have this except from Ebert's review:
The Bifrost being an Einstein-Rosen Bridge is fairly major plot point! It is repeated a bajillion times. What it does and how it works are explained a couple of times. And Ebert can't promise you he is getting it right. Then we have this:
Which is not wholly inaccurate, but one would have to have either missed or not understood the significance of Odin's enchanting the hammer so only the worthy may wield it to interpret it this way. Which is, again, a gigantic plot point and one that is reinforced within the film (after Thor tries lifting the hammer the first time, the rune that Odin's enchantment placed on the hammer reappears, Thor seeing it is part of what makes him lose hope even before Loki appears to him). Next up is this:
Except The Destroyer isn't stopped by Sif's sword. OK, he is for like ten seconds. Then his body morphs around backwards and blasts her. I mean, I guess Ebert could be referring to the apparent defeat that last for all of a few seconds, but that isn't really how the sentence reads.
In all, one can easily get the impression from Ebert's review that he attended the film but his mind was elsewhere while watching it. He seems to have missed stuff that was, while maybe not blindly obvious, more than adequately explained.
- Status