Export thread

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor/

That's 35 critics and a 95% fresh as of right now. Not expected at all. Is Thor the victim of terrible trailers? I was kind of expecting it to be a train wreck.

Trailing were pretty bad but yeah, critics are very favorable in regards of this movie thus far.

I may see it.

I'm glad that critics were able to hammer out an agreement.

Huh.

Well colour me intrigued.

Looks like tomorrow will be Thor's day.

I'd give my right eye to see this... -Odin.

Too many movies to watch... @_@

Haven't all of Marvel Productions films done well on Rotten Tomatoes?

HA HA!

NOPE!

Punisher Warzone had the Marvel Studios (or the Knights variant) sticker on it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/punisher_war_zone/

Now, I liked it. It was an entertaining pile of trash.

I meant since they went "Independant".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios

A co-production of Marvel Studios.

My butt's gonna be so Thor from watching this movie several times in a row.

Ahh, but can you do a pun with yggdrasil? C'mon, man, challenge thyself!

O man I probably could but I wanna see where Nick takes it.

I'm approaching this with Midgard-ed optimism.

Soon as ya tell me how to pronounce it? Challenge acccepted.

It's directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

"Ig-druh-sil?"

Yig-draw-seal

The Lovely Boehner said:

It's directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

Click to expand...

And so was that Frankenstein movie, which, while not terrible, still wasn't all that good either.

Frankie Williamson said:

And so was that Frankenstein movie, which, while not terrible, still wasn't all that good either.

Click to expand...

I actually liked his adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Now, if you were to bring up a weak Branagh film, I'd mention Love's Labour's Lost.

Man the print ads for Thor have been god-awful. You'd think they would've gone with something more dynamic than a Thor bust with a red filter on it. Glad to hear the movie is getting well reviewed though despite the poor marketing push.

Heh. We never believe in critics. My wife wants to see this movie the moment she saw the trailer cause it is THOR!!!!

I liked the trailers...

filmfanatic said:

I actually liked his adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Now, if you were to bring up a weak Branagh film, I'd mention Love's Labour's Lost.

Click to expand...

I'd bring up Wild Wild West, unless you only mean ones he directed.

--Patrick

Actors usually have very limited creative input into a movie other than their part.

Movie critics can suck my di

Oh wait, they like the movie?

Ohhh shiiii

It'd still be cool if they sucked your dick though.

Not for them.

I saw it last night, and I really liked it
in fact I'm going to see it again this saturday

I have to say I loved it. Watch for the Hawkeye cameo, and as always stay for the clip after the credits.

I really liked it

Here, read this awesome review by one of my favorite movie reviewers AO Scott:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/movies/thor-with-chris-hemsworth-review.html

having read the review, i'm not surprised he's one of your favourite critics... at all

Now the mass market critics get to lambaste a comic book movie...

And the Rotten Tomatoes rating has dropped over 10%.

Saw it last night, thought it was great. I was very pleasantly surprised what they did with Loki.

The Lovely Boehner said:

Here, read this awesome review by one of my favorite movie reviewers AO Scott:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/movies/thor-with-chris-hemsworth-review.html

Click to expand...

Didn't your mother ever teach you anything? Such as if you don't have something nice to say etc?
Seriously, is your only goal on these boards to enter a topic which is decidedly one opinion, then in your oh so ImnotahipsterbutIsureashellactlikeone ways decide to drop your opinion as one would leave excrement in a commode? If so, why even bother? Get some kind of sick pleasure from it? Lord knows you're not a troll, at least you don't think you're one, so what is it?

Chill out Jiarn. It's a good review. I don't know if he's right or not but it's an intelligent addition to the discussion.

He keeps trolling, but I get the infraction for calling him out on it. Gotcha.

Posting a review about the movie we are discussing is NOT trolling. You took it that way because you don't like him. Which is fine. But his post was on topic and not insulting or anything else against are rules.

i don't think it's a good review per se because the critic keeps saying he couldn't find anything wrong with it except he doesn't like the genre.

edit: but the way he expresses it is somewhat funny and i can understand why people would dig it.

Math242 said:

i don't think it's a good review per se because the critic keeps saying he couldn't find anything wrong with it except he doesn't like the genre.

edit: but the way he expresses it is somewhat funny and i can understand why people would dig it.

Click to expand...

While I can't say if I agree with the review or not, since I haven't seen the movie, THIS:

Mr. Branagh has not failed to make an interesting, lively, emotionally satisfying superhero movie, because there is no evidence that he (or the gaggle of credited screenwriters, or Paramount, the sponsoring studio) ever intended to make any such thing. On the contrary, the absolute and unbroken mediocrity of “Thor” is evidence of its success. This movie is not distinctively bad, it is axiomatically bad.
And that is depressing. A howling turkey is at least something to laugh at, and maybe even something to see. But “Thor” is an example of the programmed triumph of commercial calculation over imagination. A postcredits teaser gives viewers who have lingered in the theater a taste of “The Avengers,” which at some future date will braid together the “Iron Man,” “Incredible Hulk” and “Thor” franchises under the eye-patched aegis ofSamuel L. Jackson. Or something. This is franchise building of the kind that has long been practiced by comic book publishers to keep their long-running serials fresh and their readership hooked.

Click to expand...

is a lot more than just saying "I don't like the genre". It's critiquing the emotional quality of the film and the interaction with the viewers as well as the way the writer percieves the film being constructed (in the vein of comic books and big summer events/tying them all together to keep you buying them, which is a FASCINATING catch on his part).
So I would say you can disagree with it but it's actually not half bad as far as reviews go. In fact it's got some really interesting insights.

New criticism seems to be, be snarky and ignore the movie.

Though my agreement rate with AO Scott is only about 60% at best, I really like his style and insights.

There appears to be some confusion here.

First, part of AO Scott's criticism towards Thor is that it's formulaic. Now, formulaic means that it's following a formula. A formula is developed when people look at trends in movies and find that if films contain certain elements, people find them entertaining. Which means that if a person goes to Thor expecting an entertaining film, they are not going to be disappointed.

When Scott criticizes a film being formulaic, he's not talking about the entertainment value of the film anymore, but more passing judgement on the people behind the film because it's lazy. Which it is. The elements for making a good example of a genre film are right there, it's just about assembling them correctly.

Now then, there are several camps among movie watchers and we're only going to concern ourselves with two: those who define "good" as being entertaining and those who define "good" as something that challenges them mentally while also having some entertainment value. For the first camp, Thor will be a fantastic film because it's so entertaining. For the second camp, Thor will be a bad film because it was thrown together following a schematic designed for the much larger first camp. In other words, since Thor was only made to be entertaining, it will be missing that mental challenge that the second camp can enjoy.


Now, one can construe the second camp as being anti-mainstream. This isn't their fault. Mainstream films are, on a whole, not going to target them. They're a smaller group and aren't going to be able to shell out the kind of money the first camp can (and does). Being a hipster has nothing to do with it. They have to go to more obscure films to get what it is they're after. And since it's obscure films that are giving them what they want, they're going to like them better. I doubt TLB's enjoyment of something like The Hurt Locker had anything to do with how many people saw it.

So what we're dealing with is conflicting notions of the words "good" and "bad". For the first camp, when reading a review, they really should be looking for words like "formulaic" rather than "bad", since that means that the movie is providing exactly what it is they're looking for.

And this ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to be >.>

tl;dr No, fuck you. Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.

tl;dr

Going to see the movie tomorrow night.

Movie Critics and Hipsters can suck my di

You know Allen, that was a great post on its own. But this part...

Allen who is Quiet said:

tl;dr No, fuck you. Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.

Click to expand...

... makes it fantastic.

No question.

Jay said:

Going to see the movie tomorrow night.

Movie Critics and Hipsters can suck my di

Click to expand...

Going Monday morning myself. Hate crowds.

Seeing it tomorrow night, hella excited. Rewatched Ironman 2 last night to get myself in the mood.

From the review "This is franchise building of the kind that has long been practiced by comic book publishers to keep their long-running serials fresh and their readership hooked."
That's what they are trying to do. Marvel wants the movies to be living comics. And cliff hangers are what kept me buying comics when I was younger. The reviewer has some legitimate complaints but I've enjoyed the Marvel movies as well, if not more, that most other movies based on comic book characters. I know The Incredible Hulk was not well received but I absolutely loved the fight scenes and when the Hulk tore the police car in two and used the halves as boxing gloves I thought that was worth the price of my ticket right there.
I'm going to see the movie tomorrow with a few friends and am looking forward to it. I'm not expecting Oscar material but I fully expect to be entertained for two plus hours.

No money. No Thor.

tl;dr

Really?

I just got back from it.

I feel kinda bad for saying this, but I felt it was merely "okay." In fact, it's closer to my "bad" end of the comic book movie spectrum (Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Wolverine, the Fantastic Four films etc) than the "good" end (the first two Spider-Man films, the first two X-Men films, Dark Knight etc).


Now, Thor's definitely not a bad movie. I had fun watching it, and there were definitely some awesome and funny moments. But I couldn't help coming out of the theater thinking about what could have been.

The Following Post Will be Quoting What Bhamv3 spoilered out. If you don't want spoilers, skip this post.

bhamv3 said:

First of all, Loki's character was completely chaotic and bizarre, and it's impossible to work out what his motivations are. Okay, so he's jealous of Thor, so how does letting Frost Giants into Asgard without the Frost Giant king's knowledge, betraying the Frost Giant king, and then trying to wipe out the Frost Giants help? Seems like a pretty Rube Goldberg-esque plan. And if he can travel to Earth whenever he wants, why not just kill Thor himself? Why send the Guardian? And then the post-credits scene, how did Loki end up taking control of Dr. Selvig?

Click to expand...

Loki's plan was thus:

1. Sneak Frost Giants into Asgard, knowing they will easily be beaten by The Destroyer.
2. Steer Thor towards disobeying their father, who will forbid retaliation.
3. Get stopped before ever getting to Jotunheim. (Failed, but the fracas at Jotunheim certainly accomplished the same goal)
4. Cause Thor to fall out of their father's good graces and take his place as heir (worked better than expected).
5. While ruling during the Odinsleep, bring in more Frost Giants under the pretense of killing Odin. In reality, this is a triple cross that will make him the hero of Asgard for saving his father's life (possibly an example of Xanatos Speed Chess at this point, ruined by Thor).
6. Destroy Jotunheim with Bifrost and really cement his position as hero for destroying their long time foes.
7. With Loki beloved by the Asgardian people, Odin will have no choice but to leave Loki as his permanent heir.

He sent The Destroyer because The Destroyer can kill Mortal Thor, Sif, and the Warriors Three far more easily than he could have. He is more a magician and trickster than hardened warrior. Plus, doing it himself would take him away from Asgard while his Frost Giant plans are in motion. He didn't need to kill Thor until after the Warriors Three went to Earth and were about to spoil his schemes. He just needed Thor to stay away from Asgard until that point.

The Selvig thing is a sequel hook for The Avengers. It will be explained further there, presumably.

Secondly, there were quite a few plot threads that are mentioned and then go nowhere. Dr. Selvig's had experience with SHIELD, and even mentions a colleague he can contact for more information. And then nothing happens. Loki mentions the Bifrost is not the only way into Asgard, and yet the whole final conflict of the movie revolves around the Bifrost being definitely the only way in and out of Asgard. Loki is a Frost Giant, but that plot thread doesn't go anywhere, and the movie would still have worked just as well if Loki was pure Asgardian.

Click to expand...

Selvig's experience with SHIELD was just a reference to Bruce Banner, and his friend who could help was only important when they thought they were dealing with a crazy homeless dude as opposed to the God of Thunder. Fair enough point, though. As far as Loki knowing alternate ways into Asgard, it was a plot point that no one else knew about them. When he got sucked into the black hole, the information went with him. And I wouldn't say that the Loki is a puny Jotun plot element went nowhere. He started out the movie feeling like his father's unfavorite and finding out he was the Jotun only made his desire to prove himself burn even hotter. Since the whole "Discredit Thor and become heir" plan was based on that envy, one could argue that the more extreme lengths Loki takes the plan to as the film goes on (having his birth father come personally as Odin's attempted assassin, deciding to use Bifrost as the Death Star) arise from his jealousy slipping into slight madness.

Finally, the final fight between Thor and Loki turns out to be a close-quarters brawl. These are two super-powered beings with godly abilities, and all they can throw at each other are punches? Why isn't Thor summoning thunder and lightning against Loki?

Now, Thor's definitely not a bad movie. I had fun watching it, and there were definitely some awesome and funny moments. But I couldn't help coming out of the theater thinking about what could have been.

Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently directing Shakespeare adaptations didn't quite prepare Kenneth Branagh for directing a super hero movie. The fights scenes were pretty much a let down all around, though I thought the acting was wonderful. Though I am wondering if they tried leaving some of the story details to the performances a bit too much, based on your reaction.

My thoughts - I liked it. A lot. I think someone at Warner Bros. need to look at this movie as a rough guide to how to handle their magic-in-the-modern-world properties like Wonder Woman.

Ranking the Marvel Studios films thus far:

1. Iron Man
2. Thor
3. Incredible Hulk
4. Iron Man 2

I... loved it.

Jiarn said:

Didn't your mother ever teach you anything? Such as if you don't have something nice to say etc? Seriously, is your only goal on these boards to enter a topic which is decidedly one opinion, then in your oh so ImnotahipsterbutIsureashellactlikeone ways decide to drop your opinion as one would leave excrement in a commode? If so, why even bother? Get some kind of sick pleasure from it? Lord knows you're not a troll, at least you don't think you're one, so what is it?

Click to expand...

A forum where everyone agrees and posts the same opinion over and over is pretty boring, isn't it?

Yeah but it's an issue when 99% of them really don't give a shit about what you say much rather how you say it that generates feedback.

For not giving a shit, you guys certainly seem to respond a lot.

Learn to read.

So you choose to generate feedback? Sounds pretty stupid of you guys.

Allen who is Quiet said:

So you choose to generate feedback? Sounds pretty stupid of you guys.

Click to expand...

Allen who isn't Quiet

Jay said:

Allen who isn't Quiet

Click to expand...

That'll show him.

Allen who is Quiet said:

For not giving a shit, you guys certainly seem to respond a lot.

Click to expand...

They're not responding because of what he says; they are responding because of how he says the things he says.

Is that clearer?

No maybe a diagram or a picture or a scratch and sniff may assist on the comprehension.

I just saw it. I thought it was very good but not great. I was certainly entertained though, and I felt as though I got my money's worth. However, if you are thinking of seeing it in 3D I would say save your money. It doesn't seem to add much.*


*Just like every other movie that just has "In 3D!" slapped on it after filming ends.

Honestly, the only movie in 3D that I really thought the 3D added to it instead of detracted was My Bloody Valentine 3D.

The Lovely Boehner said:

Honestly, the only movie in 3D that I really thought the 3D added to it instead of detracted was My Bloody Valentine 3D.

Click to expand...

You don't think it worked for Avatar?

Tress said:

You don't think it worked for Avatar?

Click to expand...

Whoops. I guess this validates me saying at the time that the movie was completely forgettable.

The Lovely Boehner said:

A forum where everyone agrees and posts the same opinion over and over is pretty boring, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Except when they do it to continue a facade that never worked for them in the first place.

The movie was great, I just got back from watching it and even my wife loved it, and she normally does not get into superhero movies like I do.

Probably the best outside of Iron Man 1 right now in my stack of the Marvel movies (and really, it would be hard to beat Iron Man considering he is my favorite of the Avengers roster).

The Hawkeye cameo was also a nice touch, I knew it the minute I saw him put down the rifle for the bow. Also loved that they go the Asgardian warriors playing a decent role, I was worried they would have been left out after the beginning.

I want to go see it again next week.

I thought the movie was a fun watch... good not great. I was never a big Thor fan anyways and I liked the movie nonetheless.

It was a fun movie, and te more I think about it, the more

I'll rent it because I'll need to know what I can for The Avengers next year, but I've never liked the Marvel Thor turning the myths into some weird alien-magic thing.

I'd love to see a movie try tackling Norse mythology directly though.

sixpackshaker said:

Now the mass market critics get to lambaste a comic book movie...

Click to expand...

Why is this attitude so prevalent? Just because it's a comic book movie doesn't mean it can't be well-made!

Personally, I'm-a wait for the DVD.

I really liked it. I wasn't the best movie out there, but it was entertaining. I'd go see it again.

Wasabi Poptart said:

I really liked it. I wasn't the best movie out there, but it was entertaining. I'd go see it again.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. All the Marvel/future movie shout-outs also had me giggling with glee.

It was pretty great!

This (spoiler free) review of Thor convinced me to see the movie (at some point).

Saw it. Loved it. Was everything I was hoping for (which was alot with all my love of IM1&2/Hulk). GF loved it. Kids loved it. Hugely packed theater makes me happy to know this will be another blockbuster for Marvel Productions. Loved the after credits. Heavily looking forward to Captain America and then The Avengers.

Will be watching it at least two more times in the theater, then buying the CE Blu-Ray when it comes out with mini-Mjöllnir!

Also, the guy who played Thor needs to take more roles that require shirtlessness.

lol

wasn't he in star trek the movie? kirk's dad, dies at the beginning

He was! I kept trying to place him the whole time.

I couldn't figure out how I knew the actor that played Volstagg. With all of the hair I couldn't place him. When I saw in the credits that it was Ray Stevenson playing him I yelled out, "Oh My God it's PULLO!" I loved him in HBO's Rome.

Paint me in the thought it was ok camp.

It did, however, plant me squarely in the if I have to see it in 3D, I won't see it camp. I don't get headaches, but the shitty angle of my seat coupled with fucking terrible 3D has left me with one of the worst of any I can remember.

I specifically didn't see it in 3D.

If you're not sitting in the perfect seat, 3D is more painful than fun to watch, plus you're paying the extra. Maybe once the tech matures a bit more it will be worth it, but for now I'm glad to spend less.

Note: Didn't watch it in 3-D. No need, it was still fantastic.

I didn't see it in 3D either. I don't understand what the fascination is with it right now. It's still the same movie.

Of all the movies I have seen in 3D, Avatar was the only one worth it. I stopped caring and decided to save the extra $15 a show.

Wasabi Poptart said:

I didn't see it in 3D either. I don't understand what the fascination is with it right now. It's still the same movie.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a matter of choice, theater was only playing it in 3D.

I meant in general. It seems like everything is coming out in 3D now.

I had to watch it 3d since my wife and I wanted to also have dinner, and they were only playing the 3d version at the Alamo Drafthouse near us. Sucky seats too, so I bet the movie would have been a lot better had I not been mostly at the front.

Really the only thing I hate about 3d is how dark they make the movie. The beginning of Thor was hard to watch because it was so dark and the glasses just made it darker.

They make 2D glasses now.

Frankie Williamson said:

It wasn't a matter of choice, theater was only playing it in 3D.

Click to expand...

I had the exact same experience. At least mine didn't charge extra for the "privilege."

2D is the way to go on flicks shot for it. Flicks shot in 3D, that's the way to go. Simple as that.

Norris said:

2D is the way to go on flicks shot for it. Flicks shot in 3D, that's the way to go. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

From your lips to Hollywood's ears.

Tress said:

From your lips to Hollywood's ears.

Click to expand...

I put the general public in the middle there. Most people don't seem to get the difference, though I'm willing to bet they notice it.

I thought that the movie was awesome and I could tell that JMS had a hand in it. A lot different from the other Marvel Movies IMO and Loki is the best villain so far.

TheBrew said:

I thought that the movie was awesome and I could tell that JMS had a hand in it. A lot different from the other Marvel Movies IMO and Loki is the best villain so far.

Click to expand...

Did you catch JMS as the first dude who tried to lift the Mjlonir?

Norris said:

Did you catch JMS as the first dude who tried to lift the Mjlonir?

Click to expand...

I *thought* that was him, but I wasn't sure.

Yeah, I don't really know what he looks like, so I will just have to go see this again. Stan Lee's cameo cracked me up, though.

I got to see it at a sneak peek on Thursday. It was a fun ride. It wasn't the greatest of movies, but it was entertaining. I also saw it in 3D and it was the first 3D movie to give me a headache. But, I got to keep my 3D glasses, so that's a win.

In the Marvel Studios films, I rank it between Iron Man and Iron Man 2 (the Edward Norton led Incredible Hulk bringing up the rear).

Edit - I read the previously linked review and thought it sucked. I hate that style of review...the arrogance of mock-intelligence. Say something with a little substance instead of saying something full of self-gratifying filler.

TheBrew said:

Loki is the best villain so far.

Click to expand...

I agree.

It was interesting because out of all the villains, I felt the most sympathy for him. Most of the Marvel villains used so far have been strait up nasty, with only Ivan in IM2 having any sort of sympathetic side. However by the second part of IM2 I simply stopped feeling any type of sympathy for Ivan.

Loki on the other hand, you feel like he was doing what he did because of his feeling of being overshadowed by his brother, the shock of the revelation of his birth, and his desire to be "worthy" of Odin even if he has to use trickery to gain that confidence. Even after all his evil laughter, attempted genocide, trying to kill Thor and such, you feel this ping of sadness for him when he realizes that he disappointed Odin. It seemed more then anything he just wanted to be the favored son rather then the "bastard". I think that was why he killed Laufy and then tried to destroy Jotunheim, he never had any intention of actually getting Odin killed.

I thought Stan Lee's cameo was very funny.

I don't know that Loki is the best villain, but he is someone I think we find it easy to relate to. We all have experienced disappointing our parents, feeling like an outcast, knowing you're not the favored one, having what you want just out of your reach, etc. That makes him a lot easier to sympathize with, I think. Most of the other villains take on this inhuman quality that makes it harder for us to connect with them in the scheme of the story.

mr_thehun said:

I should mention that I am vary happy to have seen it in 2d due to the fact that the only version in english was playing in 2d.

Click to expand...

Ok so it's not just Shanghai. Went to 3 theaters looking for this movie. First theater had only one English showing--5:30PM (already missed it)

2nd theater had an english showing but in the "VIP" theater--110RMB. The Chinese 3D version was 120RMB. There was no way I was paying that much for the 2D version just so I can sit in a large leather chair.

3rd theater didn't even have the english version at all. So looks like im stuck going to the 1st theater, which ill do today at 5:30.

Also WTF china on recently making all these hollywood released straight dubbed into Chinese. Use to be you wouldnt get the Chinese language version until 2-3 weeks after the initial release. Now it's simply starting in Chinese and even my girlfriend is slightly bewildered. We figured Shanghai would be better for having the actual, original English version of the movie.

I love VIP style theaters. There's two now in Edmonton that have what they call it UltraAVX theaters. They're worth the extra 3 bucks. Massive seats and you buy your seat when you buy your ticket like at a Stadium or a Concert. Better sound, sharper image.

Frankie Williamson said:

I love VIP style theaters. There's two now in Edmonton that have what they call it UltraAVX theaters. They're worth the extra 3 bucks. Massive seats and you buy your seat when you buy your ticket like at a Stadium or a Concert. Better sound, sharper image.

Click to expand...

Wait. What? Where are these things? I did not know Edmonton had such a thing!

I think the big Cineplex Odeon's at North and South Edmonton common have them inside. I've only been to the North Edmonton one. It's rad as hell.

Now that sounds awesome!

I'm used to paying 10-14 bucks for a movie and the theaters are crappy.

SpecialKO said:

Now that sounds awesome!

I'm used to paying 10-14 bucks for a movie and the theaters are crappy.

Click to expand...

Wow, at prime time here movies are $5, $3 at matinee.

But there is no 3D and half the speakers are blown.

Awesome theater, $6 matinee.

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.

Agreed. I have no interest in 3D.

But House of Wax (1953) rocked in 3D...

wait, that was the old tech way.

sixpackshaker said:

But House of Wax (1953) rocked in 3D...

wait, that was the old tech way.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but back then they'd put electric shockers under some of the theater seats, and it only cost a few cents.

Wait what? Unlimitied snacks? Are you sure?

mmmm wanglaojie.

Well ill have to look into that.

By the way, maybe Im just cynical, but don't you find it odd the little easter egg at the end of thor that is cut happens to be about Captain America.

ISN'T THAT ODD?

sixpackshaker said:

Wow, at prime time here movies are $5, $3 at matinee.

But there is no 3D and half the speakers are blown.

Click to expand...

Wow! We pay $8.50/ticket and that's with a military discount.

Jiarn said:

Of all the movies I have seen in 3D, Avatar was the only one worth it. I stopped caring and decided to save the extra $15 a show.

Click to expand...

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

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.

PatrThom said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

Wow. Some of what he said is accurate, while the rest is way off. I expect better of Ebert. At least know what you're talking about when you do a review.

Just out of curiosity, what does he get "wrong"?

Espy said:

Just out of curiosity, what does he get "wrong"?

Click to expand...

Little details about the movie he seems to have missed. For example:

I believe, but cannot promise you, that Jotunheim and Asgard are linked by a bridge, although this bridge also seems to be the way Thor reaches Earth, so perhaps it's more of a gateway through time and space, which would explain why Asgardians hurtle across intergalactic light-years and land in New Mexico without a hair out of place.

Click to expand...

It was explained in the movie. I don't know why he's being vague or suggesting that it wasn't made clear.

Whether he is human himself is a question the film sidesteps. We know from mythology that gods sometimes mated with humans, which is a hopeful sign.

Click to expand...

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.

There's also stuff about the Destroyer being taken out by Sif and other small stuff.

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.

Saw this yesterday, had a blast. Very fun to watch.

Tress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

phil said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is the most random movie list I've ever seen.

phil said:

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?

Click to expand...

Tress said:

It's just little details. It gives the impression he didn't watch the whole movie or didn't care enough to pay attention

Click to expand...

Who were you talking about exactly?

I generally like Eberts reviews but he seems to have two blind spots when it comes to cinema.

Horror and geek/comic movies

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.

sixpackshaker 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Espy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tress said:

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;

Click to expand...

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.

Espy said:

Just out of curiosity, what does he get "wrong"?

Click to expand...

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:

I believe, but cannot promise you, that Jotunheim and Asgard are linked by a bridge, although this bridge also seems to be the way Thor reaches Earth, so perhaps it's more of a gateway through time and space, which would explain why Asgardians hurtle across intergalactic light-years and land in New Mexico without a hair out of place.

Click to expand...

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:

Later there's a meteoric event in which Thor's hammer hurtles to earth and becomes embedded so firmly that it can't be pulled lose by a pickup truck or even the federal government.

Click to expand...

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:

These villains lack adequate interest to supply a climactic battle, so the plot provides a Metal Giant, sends him to the New Mexico town, ... He is apparently stopped by a sword through his spine, but why does he need a spine since when his mask lifts we can see his head is an empty cavern?

Click to expand...

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.

While I've always liked Ebert's writing style, I feel like at this point in his career he has a tendency to pre-judge movies so completely that unless the cake really is a lie, movies are always exactly what he expects.

If he goes in expecting to be entertained, he is always entertained.

If he goes in expecting to not have fun, he never has fun.

This is why I read his column for fun, not movie-going advice.