Thor: The Dark World

Thor is a weaker comic character than the Avengers, Batman, or Superman. Not that Asgard is not visually attractive or even epic, because it definitely is, it reminded me of the aerial shots on Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith from Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, the characters in this film, including the main one, are simplistic, straightforward, and mostly boring, especially Loki. The same goes for the screenplay. So, you can expect heroic speeches, a few jokes, a hideous main villain, a hideous secondary villain, a group of heroes in equal numbers, a woman who beautifies the screen, several action scenes, and rhythmic music, so to speak. Oh, and of course, a reference in the last shot confidently heading towards the third installment. WEAKS. There are only two iconic scenes (Loki facing the Monster and Idris Elba as the conqueror of spaceships Part 1), nothing more. Isn't that too little for 180 million? (10/11/2013)

He came, he saw, he was not surprised. Purely as an old acquaintance, I forgive the emotionally collapsed (rather inflated in terms of tone) first half, the Marvel exposition according to the "nothing from something" template is, of course, expected. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the scheme "from the dark depths of the universe will emerge another horse face that has another mega-weapon to destroy the cosmos" is starting to get quite worn out and hackneyed. The best thing about Thor: The Dark World is not the main storyline, but rather the completion of relational peripeteia from past films (Thor x Frigga, Thor x Loki, a comedy storyline with a disturbed Erik). It is shot skillfully, it tries to dilute the theatricality with dark fantasy and a greater richness of relationships between the gods. The result is not dazzling, but at least it works (and where it doesn’t, it ironically thematizes the discrepancy - jumps between dimensions). I was expecting some more surprises and a slightly fresh approach. But the series team hit the Marvel tracks and isn't tearing out the sleepers. In the end, it escalates nicely, Natalie is (more and more the same) fragile, Chris waves the hammer around decently... basically, things are essentially the same as always. Nothing amazing, nothing beneficial, no new interesting characters... a pleasant stop on the way to something bigger. Which I'm actually not really looking forward to. Thor: The Dark World confirmed to me that the only real life line in the Marvel world is Iron Man. If, instead of saving the world, he's worrying about what is going on inside his head. Otherwise, it's a wooden costumed opera that is nice to look at, but it doesn't really move anything forward. I liked the first film more, because everything was new and detailed. The second film just successfully draws from it. Edit: No, I cannot give it 4 stars compared to Iron Man 3... [65%] (05/11/2013)

I liked the first Thor better, mainly because there were no moments to smile about, but rather regular jokes and gags. There are only a few of these in the sequel, and they're really good... But there aren't enough of them. I'm actually not very clear on what kind of movie this was supposed to be. The "dark" subtitle suggests a kind of fateful spectacle with a more serious note, but what a surprise - the "funny one" was also much more serious! Or did Kenneth Branagh just make it seem that way? Aha! I think I've hit the nail on the head (whilst wielding Mjolnir)! Well, fortunately, none of this means that Thor: The Dark World was bad or that it wasn’t entertaining. It's imaginative and brisk entertainment, it doesn't offend and there's little that doesn't need to be there (poor Stellan Skarsgård got a good beating from the script). Even Loki's "improvement" didn't bother me that much (the moment when he reads a book in his cell undisturbed made me laugh out loud, just like Thor's ride on the subway). I decided to add a fourth star for the portal finale, which was really well thought out and unexpectedly playful. And, lest I forget, the great post-credit scene. (12/11/2013)

If Iron Man 3 raised hopes that Marvel movies could at last escape being such predictable “run-of-the-mill, mass-produced, paint-by-numbers movies, inoffensive and targeted at everybody and so suitable for nobody in the end" and head out on their own path, the new Thor tramples this hope deep into the earth. None of it is downright bad, but nothing is downright good either; it’s simply an unambitious safe bet, like most of the previous movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is only really good where it isn’t taking itself seriously. And moments like that are few and far between; Loki’s cameo conjuring, the coat hanger, the subway, the monster with the doves... And that’s about all. In the end we get about thirty seconds of real entertainment and all the rest is just make-believe? (08/11/2013)

On paper, this movie must have looked more promising than what Alan Taylor wound up doing with it. Kenneth Branagh and his more serious note, as well as the sense of a dramatic arc of the film as a whole, are missing from the second Thor. The biggest weakness (even on paper) is the hasty ending. Nevertheless, it is still a nice chill-out movie, with some nice acting, a pretty Natalie Portman, the feel of a fantasy, epicness and some great scenes, both comic and dramatic. I don’t recommend watching this in 3D, as the colors are faded and it does not have a single scene that would justify its use. (09/11/2013)