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)

This is the most desperate Marvel movie ever. Plenty of money, fancy special effects, kinetic cinematography, and dynamic editing drive forward an absolutely empty story, which wouldn't matter if Taylor could keep people under control. The first third of the film is a bore (the classic Marvel stuff, change the dramaturgist already), the second is also a bore (by Odin, didn't anyone tell these actors that their characters are supposed to be experiencing something?) and the final third sucks during every second. Although the finale in Greenwich is a nice change in scenery and the subway joke is divine (did the writers really not understand that Asgardian seriousness should be diluted?), if it weren't for Hiddleston enjoying every Loki second in the plot, I would have died from all the sterility. (14/07/2015)

Taylor doesn’t manage to balance the dramatic and comedy levels and so the viewer goes from the brink of tears to dumb giggling in the course of a minute. I know this because I was sitting next to a zitty nerd and I saw moments of total fascination alternate with obscene whooping. It lacks a sense of gradation because the picture gets to its peak in the middle, the beginning is a little slow and the ending is simply too cursory (after the battle in London). Otherwise, the second Thor is meant to sell the wider Marvel universe, to explain, introduce and amaze, which it does. It has no hesitation in piling on sweeping scenes where nothing less than the fate of that universe is at stake. Between its annihilation and the villain stand a bunch of incompetent scientists, a muscleman with a hammer and a pathological liar/fraudster/mass murderer. The most entertaining of those is the last named. Yes, Loki rules again (literally) and steals the scenes he appears in. Asgard is presented in its full glory at last, as well as others of the nine worlds on that tree or whatever it is. Evil elves are great baddies, with very novel firearms and effective grenades. Fights galore, even if a firmer hand and more ideas would have been great. Poor Natalie ended up with definitely the dumbest character (probably as the antithesis of God) and however much her dress suits her, that is the only upside that can be claimed. The post credits scene is linked strongly to The Collector, especially in the remarks appearing in discussions. Great things are planned and the world of the Guardians of the Galaxy looks really weird and even inviting. I’m sincerely curious. P.S.: The Capo’s cameo is one of his best. God bless Ameri... (12/11/2013)

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)