Thor: The Dark World Review (minor spoiler alert, kind of)

Ok, I’ll do my best to keep spoilers to a minimum and at the end – that way anyone who doesn’t want anything spoiled can still get an idea of my thoughts, and anyone who has seen it or doesn’t care can see what I thought in full… And just in case I’ll use spoiler block things too…

If that makes any sense… Either way, I’m gonna start with the “bad” for the film.

I’m a fan of the MCU so far – maybe not as much as some – but I do thoroughly enjoy it. The first Thor film I thought was great and was pretty excited about the sequel. I thought it had a great trailer and considering how good Avengers was, I had high hopes. And perhaps that was a problem. You see, while I still enjoyed the movie – it fell a little flat in a few areas for me. First off it faced the same problem as many sequels do – it’s not as good as the first film. This isn’t always the case, but more often than not a sequel just never seems to be as good as the previous movie, and sadly Thor: The Dark World was no exception to this.

Maybe it’s because there’s nothing “new” to be seen with regard to the main cast or hero. Maybe it’s because the 1st film was so mind-blowingly amazing, nothing could live up to it. The reasons can vary depending on the film – and in this case I think it might have been a combination of the films the preceded it (namely Thor and The Avengers) and the fact it doesn’t feature any new developments or growth for the main characters.

Without giving anything away we see the return of the primary cast of the 1st film, minus any frost giants. Odin, Sif, Volstagg, Heimdall, Fandrall return from the Asgardian’s; while Mitgard again provides Jane Foster, Darcy and Dr Erik Selvig. There’ s a couple of new faces for some support purposes, but largely if they were in the 1st one, they’re here again without any real change. This thankfully includes Tom Hiddleston as Loki (I’ll get to him later). Basically this equates to – “been there, done that”. There’s nothing new to see here and the few new characters they do introduce do nothing more than either provide room for an extra gag or two (because you know, everyone is a cynical smartass or wise guy in the face of world wide destruction or even weird paranormal phenomena), or serve a plot point for a moment then are gone again (one in particular is painfully obvious in this sense).

What makes it even more of a let down on this front is they don’t even use this as an opportunity to try and develop any of these characters further. They literally do the exact same things and probably share similar screen time to their original iterations from Thor. There’s absolutely no attempt to make these characters more involved in any way. We also see a display of the Asgardian military seemingly completely unable to win any battle without the almighty Thor, which begs the question – how good are they really? This happened at the beginning of Thor and is basically repeated in a similar way this time around. They make a very minor and subtle attempt to push Sif into the film more, by providing an opening for a love interest between the two – which personally I would be fine with – however it never goes anywhere and seems to be completely forgotten by about half-way through the movie, Sif once again being pushed to the back of the film and getting no screen time.

poor Sif....

The film also starts with a fair bit of narrated exposition from Odin, which is necessary because without it – you’d have absolutely no idea what is going on….. except for when they re-explain it all again later in the film for the benefit of Thor and Jane Foster. So yeah – this was a bit of a miss in my book too. It’s not horrible and doesn’t really come off badly done – but it does give the entire film a quality as if it’s a story being told after the fact. Except that it isn’t. This is the most recent events. Perhaps with a different voice, or just leaving it out entirely it would have worked better. Still show the scenes and include in-scene exposition so the audience can follow – but having it narrated, and by Odin especially, sets a tone for the film which doesn’t make sense – if you let yourself focus on it anyway. It also potentially provides contradiction later in the film – but again, I don’t want to spoil anything yet.

Another area where I felt really let down was in the CGI. I may just be fussy, but considering what some studios are capable of – I have pretty high expectations. I don’t believe the production budget has been made public as yet, but I’ll be surprised if this wasn’t in the $220+ million arena. Now obviously the film will have heavy CGI, thanks to the need to literally create an entire world, and similar to the 1st film it looks awesome in the right scenes. Scenery is difficult to make look “real” when it’s a completely other world look, so I have no real complaints here. Instead it’s minor things. For example – Mjolnir. Obviously a real prop when being handled, at different times it’s replaced out for obvious reasons with a CGI hammer. The thing is – you can pretty much tell when that happens. Now, I know logically that a hammer can’t be shot flying through the air into someone or thing or changing direction mid flight and return to the thrower. But I don’t want it to be so plainly obvious either. I don’t want it to be so visible to my eyes. But that’s what this gave me. In some instances the CGI looks almost cartoony. Then there is just a really bad green scene towards the end of the film which I found really distracting – which was made worse by the fact it’s supposed to be a strong emotional scene between Thor and Odin. Instead I’m staring at the screen in disbelief thinking “how in 2013 on a movie this big, does it look like Superman IV: A Quest for Peace?” Yes, that scene is that bad and ALL of you will spot it. The cartoony affect happens with Thor himself too – when he gets hit and is sent flying through the air for example – the movement is just not right and comes off as plainly animated. It reminded me of the 1st Harry Potter movie, where Neville or Harry or whoever it was is trying to fly and ends up crashing all over the roof of Hogwarts? It looks somewhat cheap – which when considering how big the film is, and the size of the over-archiving franchise it’s a part of – it just shouldn’t.

Now – I know this is a review of Thor, but Man of Steel has to be brought up – as there is some obvious influences. Firstly – they make a point of trying to show a more power based fighting element with big hits and Thor and others being sent flying and crashing into hills and things, much like the fight sequence between Superman and Zod (although without the level of destruction to buildings and potential citizens). This to me seemed like a direct response to some of the criticisms I’ve seen around here on CV, basically saying that movie Thor just isn’t portrayed powerfully enough. In addition to that keep a close eye on some of the villain equipment – it has a Kryptonian vibe to it I felt, which again, just came off badly. It’s not badly done, it just detracted from the film for me – coming off like it was trying to match up to Superman since you know – they’re both kind of god-like heroes in competing franchises/studios/universes. Also considering how applauded MoS was for its visual effects, this isn’t surprising that they might want to lend some of those elements to give similar feel to the power we’re talking about in this movie. It’s not a bad thing, but IMO, if you’re going to do it – do it right. Don’t attempt and then not quite get there – which is how this came off. It just never looked “as good” and so it then works against the film in my mind.

Ok – minor spoiler alert here. Speaking of power – the villain raises a whole different problem for the film/s. I’m pretty sure everyone knows the villain is Malekith. He is basically portrayed as the bad of the bad and as powerful as he appears at the start of the film – he gets way more powerful by the end. I mean – Avenger’s level powerful. That is literally how strong and dangerous the situation seems by the films climax – and yet Thor handles it, without any Avengers assists in any way. What makes it even more confusing in terms of how powerful Thor is supposed to be – earlier in the film he is shown fighting an enemy who is clearly not supposed to be as powerful or strong as the primary villain – yet he gets his a@@ handed to him in an unbelievable fashion. I mean – down-right pummelled into the ground. Barely puts up a fight in fact.

And while I’m talking about this – the final battle takes an army of beings that are supposed to be almost impossible to beat – a threat so great that the entire Asgardian army wouldn’t be able handle them, and turns them into a walking punchline. I mean, I’m all for adding some humour to these films (in fact it’s an absolute necessity to make them enjoyable), but it totally removes the level of menace and threat from the end of the film. At no point while I was watching the end battle sequence did I think anything bad was going to happen. To anyone. At all. They even make a strong point of showing that no bystanders get hurt during all this. It came off as an over the top reaction to go “see! No disaster porn here! No innocent bystanders getting hurt in this alien-invasion-cross-9-realm-universe-wide-apocalypse.” I mean these villains are supposed to be threatening every realm in existence, and throughout the film are shown to be a worthy adversary for the Asgardians – a genuine threat. But during the end, a few humans are able to turn it into something of a Benny Hill chase sequence. There was one spot where literally they are being chased around and around this one area by these aliens, who for some reason don’t attempt to shoot them, and when they have the opportunity to cut them off with a separate group of aliens – they end up running around behind them as well.

Back to Thor – he’s fighting the big bad, and even though he was getting pummelled in the previous scene (literally it’s like 5 minutes earlier) he’s now going toe-to-toe with a guy who I’m asked to believe is powerful enough to bring darkness to all 9 realms and totally destroy everything as we know it? Really? Internal logic people – has no one at Marvel heard of this?

Ok – that’s the bad. Now the good.

The performances were top notch. Chris Hemsworth is a brilliant Thor and really shows some great emotion in this film thanks to some certain scenes. He looks the part, has totally gotten the character, and while none of the support cast really get to develop – you really feel like Thor has grown and matured, especially by the end of the film. He’s a true hero, worthy of Mjolnir and even ruling Asgard.

Then there is Tom Hiddleston. I realised while watching this movie that he completely makes these films work. Without him and his portrayal of Loki – Thor, Avengers and The Dark World here would have been so much worse. After the film my girlfriend even commented she think she likes him even more than Chris Hemsworth – which trust me, is a big deal. The two of them together are great and show the sibling aspect brilliantly. Paired up they make this film way better than it actually was, and one scene in particular almost moved me to tears – which again is a big deal. I simply can NOT fault their performances.

Everyone plays their respective characters well though – which is good to see. While I may have had issue with some of the characters roles – this is no fault of the actors, and the job they were hired to do – they all do an excellent job of.

These guys really do make these films worth while. And I know all film is subjective, yadda, yadda - but anyone who doesn't love Tom Hiddleston is an idiot.

With the exception to the ending of the film – the actual plot is also great. Even the ending is good (although not well executed) in terms of how they resolve the issue from a plot perspective – but it does rely a bit on some PIS – but hey – it’s a CBM. You can’t make a CBM without PIS.

I loved the villain and found him to be satisfyingly bad and powerful over-all – especially as someone who has no idea who he is, which I would suggest is going to be the majority of the audience. It proves you can make a great villain without knowing who he is at all.

Analytically, the pacing was good, I never got bored as such or felt like the film lost momentum; the score suited well and the humour (while a bit over-played and to the detriment of the finale) was genuinely funny, and felt more natural than, say, IM3. And while I had gripes with some of the SFX, the Asgard scenes are once again breath-taking. I also enjoyed the fact this film was set more on Asgard and the other realms than Earth.

There was one scene that over-all saved the film for me and allows it to be a film I will recommend to everyone. Again minor spoiler stuff here. Thor and Loki interact in such an amazing way when it comes down to the crunch between the two as far as being brothers go. I don’t want to give anything away – but basically, thanks to events and Loki stepping up as a good guy, the actions he takes kind of adds some finality for the two of them – basically put up or shut up as far as being brothers goes. In doing this they show a brotherly bond and really pull at your heart strings. Without this scene , the movie would be passable, but thanks to this scene I left feeling very satisfied, despite all the earlier issues I had with the film.

Over-all it’s a solid film as far as sequels go. It’s not amazing or brilliant by any standards, but it is a good time and worth watching, especially if you are fan of the franchise, character or MCU in general. It’s far from perfect, and certainly doesn’t live up to The Avengers – but I’m guessing the box office will see a nice boost thanks to Avengers fame and linking to the over-all MCU. Also look out for a cool cameo appearance, and in case you hadn’t heard – there is 2 end credit scenes…. Again (which kind of makes me want to tell Marvel to go screw themselves- I hate sitting though all those credits for something that’s barely important….stupid Schwarma scene). Also, just as an FYI – I saw it in IMAX 3D, and basically didn’t think it was worth it. The 3D for me didn’t add anything, so you can skip that extra charge unless you like to waste money for no good reason.

If I had to give it a rating, I’d say it’s a 3-3.5 stars out of 5. Out of 10 – I guess I’d go 6.5, considering Thor sits at a 7-7.5 and Avengers for me is an 8-8.5.

18 Comments
18 Comments
Edited by Tyrus

The action scenes weren't trying to copy/live up to Man of Steel... They wrapped filming in early Jan or something (they went for reshoots earlier in June-July but apparently those were exterior shots of Asgard and the opening scene of the film with Loki and Odin).

Posted by Veshark

Yeah, I can agree with you for the most part.

Posted by Tyrus

Overall I agree with most of your points... The one criticism I hear with so many people is that the humor was overboard - it wasn't, but the parts that were humorous were just misplaced/spread across random parts of the film.

This film felt like it was meant to kill time until Cap 2 (much like Iron Man 2)... It feels rushed - heck the promoting of this film was terrible until late last month. The movie itself was still really enjoyable/fun, the flaws aren't noticeable unless you have high expectations (I watched it twice so I know :P). It's certainly no Avengers, but it fits in quite well with the rest of the MCU.

Edited by Havenless

What I don't get is that Loki has clearly tried to kill Thor MANY times before (The Destroyer backhand, dropping him from the helicarrier in a steel cage, stabbing him on Stark's Tower, even blasting him out of Odin's Odinsleep chamber), yet all of a sudden Loki is sacrificing himself for Thor? I have yet to see the movie, but how does this make any sense?

Posted by WIshIWasSuperman

@tyrus said:

The action scenes weren't trying to copy/live up to Man of Steel... They wrapped filming in early Jan or something (they went for reshoots earlier in June-July but apparently those were exterior shots of Asgard and the opening scene of the film with Loki and Odin).

Yeah - this is true. I should have worded it differently - it's more that there's obvious comparisons to be made, mainly because MoS got there 1st (to an extent). Similarly, a lot of the moves DC will probably take now will have obvious comparisons to Avengers and what Marvel has introduced.

@veshark said:

Yeah, I can agree with you for the most part.

Care to expand? "for the most part" implies you have some different opinions - which I would be keen to hear. I'm a little worried I've been overly critical of the film.

@tyrus said:

Overall I agree with most of your points... The one criticism I hear with so many people is that the humor was overboard - it wasn't, but the parts that were humorous were just misplaced/spread across random parts of the film.

This film felt like it was meant to kill time until Cap 2 (much like Iron Man 2)... It feels rushed - heck the promoting of this film was terrible until late last month. The movie itself was still really enjoyable/fun, the flaws aren't noticeable unless you have high expectations (I watched it twice so I know :P). It's certainly no Avengers, but it fits in quite well with the rest of the MCU.

Not sure if I said it (the humour) was "overboard" but it certainly wasn't used in the most appropriate ways at all times. And I agree it feels like filler - but for me it came off as filler for Avengers: Age of Ultron - especially with the 1st (i think?) post credit scene. I agree it was still an enjoyable film, but having seen it, I view it as see it or don't - you won't miss much and your money could probably wait for it on DVD or something. I definitely felt the 3D imax treatment is completely unnecessary. Can't wait for Winter Solider (though now I'm a little apprehensive that my expectations won't be met again and I'll be left feeling flat... but the trailer is so awesome I can't help it).

What I don't get is that Loki has clearly tried to kill Thor MANY times before (The Destroyer backhand, dropping him from the helicarrier in a steel cage, stabbing him on Stark's Tower, even blasting him out of Odin's Odinsleep chamber), yet all of a sudden Loki is sacrificing himself for Thor? I have yet to see the movie, but how does this make any sense?

When you see the film it does indeed fit in and that scene is the single most awesome scene of the film IMO, especially from a cinematic, performance aspect. I was literally on the verge of tears (then again I think I'm becoming a bit of a softie in my old age). lol

Edited by Veshark

@wishiwassuperman

I think you have a fair assessment of the film.

The part which I disagree on would be that it's not as good as the first film. I would say, overall, that it's about on par with Thor 1. It's not fantastic, and like the first movie, it's simply serviceable. Thor 1 is stronger in terms of the story and pacing, but I found that Thor 2 made greater use of character work and dialogue. They both have their strong and weak points, I feel, and overall both kind of balance out for me. Thor's always felt like the middle child of the MCU - not horrible, but nothing noteworthy either.

I didn't have that much of an issue with the CGI, though maybe it's just because I don't have an eye for that kind of thing. Everything, for the most part, looks alright to me - and I find I kind of turn my mind off when it comes to CGI, because I don't want to ruin the illusion of the movie. I'll probably notice it in a second viewing, but it was fine in my first.

Beyond that, I agree with most of the points you raised. It was a wasted opportunity to not develop the other Asgardians any further. I never got a deeper understanding of Odin, or the Warriors Three, or Sif. The only character that I thought had a little development was Heimdall. Even the Sif subplot went nowhere. I wasn't a fan of the Odin narration either, not because it was repeated later in the film, but because it felt too similar to the opening exposition of Thor 1. Which was, like Thor 1, about an evil race that used a superweapon and the Asgardians beat them. It felt exactly the same.

Another bit I took issue with was with the fights. They were dull, and never felt on the scope that a god should be fighting at. Kurse carrying that big stone or punching Thor just looked tacky. The final battle not having a sense of threat was also something I felt, though at least the whole physics-messed-up was somewhat entertaining.

I also find Malekith to be the suckiest MCU villain thus far. I don't really see how anyone can consider him a 'good' villain. He is generic in every sense. Even the worst villains of the MCU like Iron Monger, Whiplash, or even Skull had some degree of personality. Even Abomination! Malekith was just dry and boring on every level, his motivations, his dialogue, his portrayal. Utterly uninspired. I'm not expecting subtle nuance in a superhero film, but at least make the villain enjoyable to watch...that's all I'm asking. At least Loki was there to pick up the slack.

Posted by Fallschirmjager

@wishiwassuperman: I haven't seen it yet, but rest assured I will no doubt read this in detail and respond with my thoughts when I do this weekend!

Couldn't help but skim though (curiosity killed the cat). And a couple points to address real quick - (mostly nothing about the actual movie :P)

On sequels in general - I actually think CBM have been fairly balanced in avoiding that cliche. X2, SM2, The Dark Knight are all examples of CBM's that had better sequels than originals (imo). And if we expand that into Sci-Fi...Empire Strikes Back was easily the best Star Wars movie (again imo). Just food for thought, not really going to disagree as there are definitely some stinkers too.

On the Sif romance. Jaimie Alexander did a panel with AMC Movie Talk on Sunday. And during it she actually mentions that they actually shot, significantly more of a love-triangle between Thor, Jane and Sif, but a lot of it was edited it out in post.

Concerning the budget, it hasn't been released - but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see it as high as 250m. IM3 was 220 - but Thor also went through reshoots at one point. Though I doubt it will have a problem making money, its all ready made 100 worldwide.

And finally thanks for the 3D tip. I despise 3D and actually saw a 3D Thor trailer (with no 3D in it...). But I always prefer IMAX to standard so I was going to suck it up. If you say its ass though (and since generally you and I agree) I'm not wasting my money.

Anyway...I'll have more thoughts this weekend after its released in the states.

Posted by WIshIWasSuperman

@veshark said:

@wishiwassuperman

I think you have a fair assessment of the film.

The part which I disagree on would be that it's not as good as the first film. I would say, overall, that it's about on par with Thor 1. It's not fantastic, and like the first movie, it's simply serviceable. Thor 1 is stronger in terms of the story and pacing, but I found that Thor 2 made greater use of character work and dialogue. They both have their strong and weak points, I feel, and overall both kind of balance out for me. Thor's always felt like the middle child of the MCU - not horrible, but nothing noteworthy either.

I didn't have that much of an issue with the CGI, though maybe it's just because I don't have an eye for that kind of thing. Everything, for the most part, looks alright to me - and I find I kind of turn my mind off when it comes to CGI, because I don't want to ruin the illusion of the movie. I'll probably notice it in a second viewing, but it was fine in my first.

Beyond that, I agree with most of the points you raised. It was a wasted opportunity to not develop the other Asgardians any further. I never got a deeper understanding of Odin, or the Warriors Three, or Sif. The only character that I thought had a little development was Heimdall. Even the Sif subplot went nowhere. I wasn't a fan of the Odin narration either, not because it was repeated later in the film, but because it felt too similar to the opening exposition of Thor 1. Which was, like Thor 1, about an evil race that used a superweapon and the Asgardians beat them. It felt exactly the same.

Another bit I took issue with was with the fights. They were dull, and never felt on the scope that a god should be fighting at. Kurse carrying that big stone or punching Thor just looked tacky. The final battle not having a sense of threat was also something I felt, though at least the whole physics-messed-up was somewhat entertaining.

I also find Malekith to be the suckiest MCU villain thus far. I don't really see how anyone can consider him a 'good' villain. He is generic in every sense. Even the worst villains of the MCU like Iron Monger, Whiplash, or even Skull had some degree of personality. Even Abomination! Malekith was just dry and boring on every level, his motivations, his dialogue, his portrayal. Utterly uninspired. I'm not expecting subtle nuance in a superhero film, but at least make the villain enjoyable to watch...that's all I'm asking. At least Loki was there to pick up the slack.

Ahh OK - that's all fair enough. The CGI thing was a minor niggle, but it irked me a little more than it otherwise should because of the quality of other films and where the franchise is at. Not sure if you've seen any of the Twilight films, but the 1st one had sucky CGI - which is OK because it was a relatively low budget film. But after the MASSIVE success of the film they had bigger budgets and things - and still terribly sucky CGI. For me - it's just not good enough. Thor is nowhere near as bad as Twilight obviously, but a similar principle to me applies. Also I agree with Malekith - not a very good villain choice/portrayal. I've actually thought a bit about this recently and without a great villain, any superhero movie will fall flat I think.

Think about it - TDK has Joker. MoS has Zod. Thor and Avengers both had Loki. IM had Jebediah (while maybe not iconic like Joker or Zod, or even Loki, was a great final villain to have and was brilliantly portrayed and written). This guy is just...kind of boring. And yes - thank god for Loki...

Posted by WIshIWasSuperman

@wishiwassuperman: I haven't seen it yet, but rest assured I will no doubt read this in detail and respond with my thoughts when I do this weekend!

Couldn't help but skim though (curiosity killed the cat). And a couple points to address real quick - (mostly nothing about the actual movie :P)

On sequels in general - I actually think CBM have been fairly balanced in avoiding that cliche. X2, SM2, The Dark Knight are all examples of CBM's that had better sequels than originals (imo). And if we expand that into Sci-Fi...Empire Strikes Back was easily the best Star Wars movie (again imo). Just food for thought, not really going to disagree as there are definitely some stinkers too.

On the Sif romance. Jaimie Alexander did a panel with AMC Movie Talk on Sunday. And during it she actually mentions that they actually shot, significantly more of a love-triangle between Thor, Jane and Sif, but a lot of it was edited it out in post.

Concerning the budget, it hasn't been released - but I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see it as high as 250m. IM3 was 220 - but Thor also went through reshoots at one point. Though I doubt it will have a problem making money, its all ready made 100 worldwide.

And finally thanks for the 3D tip. I despise 3D and actually saw a 3D Thor trailer (with no 3D in it...). But I always prefer IMAX to standard so I was going to suck it up. If you say its ass though (and since generally you and I agree) I'm not wasting my money.

Anyway...I'll have more thoughts this weekend after its released in the states.

I saw that interview on AMC too and when I saw the film I was like "they should have left it in". And yes I agree CBM's are better for sequels over-all, but still - sometimes the shoe still fits. In reflection (and I think I kind of said this in the post) I think a part of it is because I enjoyed Thor a lot, and was very excited to see this sequel, and so to see almost the same film over again - it felt flat as a result and gave me a disappointment factor which is the lense I think I'm seeing the film through. But that's me and I'm glad for people to really like and think it was a great movie - it is still a good time at the cinema, no matter what.

Yeah - the 3D thing I really can't see why anyone should spend the extra. Look - if it's only gonna cost you like an extra $3 or something - sure, who cares. In my case it added $9 to see it in IMax 3D. That's a combo right there. I think you've mentioned before it's 50% extra for you to see it that way - so yeah, my advice is to save yourself the extra cost.

And at the end of the day it definitely isn't going to have a problem making money and outperforming the original film. I will be surprised if it doesn't end up well over half billion - it has enough credibility from the first film and the rest of the MCU to attract the crowds necessary to earn significant money.

Edited by Fallschirmjager

@wishiwassuperman: Yeah, I was a bit disappointing when she said that.

The Thor/Jane romance did nothing for me in the first film. The actors had poor chemistry IMO and I felt the reasons for the romance were a bit shallow. Not real surprising though as all but 3 CBM relationships for me have been mediocre or terrible. TDK and MoS for example, two of my favorite CBM's ever, had terrible relationships that were easily the weakest parts of the film for me.

But you did say you liked the cast's performances this time around so we'll see what happens.

And yes. The average ticket price depends on time but its generally about 8 bucks. Its about 12 for a 3D movie and over 15 (iirc, and again depending on time) for IMAX 3D. And almost no movie has been worth it for me to be honest in 3D.

And yeah I doubt it will have an issue making money given the momentum of MCU movies as well as the Loki fanbase (particularity among women)

Edited by WIshIWasSuperman

@fallschirmjager: well, with the romance itself... I will say don't get your hopes up. It's not portrayed any better or anything BUT because it's now pre-established it's more palatable. The acting I can't really fault though as they all play the characters their supposed to play in the way they're supposed to play them. Some are definitely better than others of course and really some characters are better than others. I'm not a massive fan of the Jane character personally but Natalie Portman is perfectly fine in the role. Same as Darcy. Again not a character I really like and that actresses style isn't my thing, but she lends a good amount of humour so again its all good.

Loki though carries the film more than anyone, and honestly the same can be said for the first film and IMO even Avengers to an extent. That's not a knock on anyone, he's just THAT good.

Posted by DareHulk

I haven't seen it yet. However, if it is like you say not as good as the first then it makes me think it's horrible. The first Thor had a lot of issues, particularly the fact that the romance is terrible and forced. Also the scenes on Earth are bad and straight up stupid. The acting and the scenes in Asgard/Jotunheim and the villain make it watchable, but the Earth based scenes make me cringe at how crappy they are. Thor 1 was mediocre at it's BEST. Which is why if people are saying 1 is better than 2, I'm losing hope for Dark World...I still plan to see it, but my expectations have been greatly lowered yet again.

Posted by WIshIWasSuperman

@darehulk said:

I haven't seen it yet. However, if it is like you say not as good as the first then it makes me think it's horrible. The first Thor had a lot of issues, particularly the fact that the romance is terrible and forced. Also the scenes on Earth are bad and straight up stupid. The acting and the scenes in Asgard/Jotunheim and the villain make it watchable, but the Earth based scenes make me cringe at how crappy they are. Thor 1 was mediocre at it's BEST. Which is why if people are saying 1 is better than 2, I'm losing hope for Dark World...I still plan to see it, but my expectations have been greatly lowered yet again.

Having low expectations is probably not a bad thing. It makes it easier to enjoy a film I think, if you're surprised by it. I would say however, keep in mind that all film is subjective - you may actually disagree with me and absolutely love it. But for me (and I said at the start there's many possible reasons) I found the 1st more enjoyable over-all. As many have said in other reviews - the primary villain here isn't really the best, or written the best maybe - not sure what it is exactly - but I've found without a good villain - superhero movies kind of fall a bit flat. At least however Loki and Thor themselves (Tom and Chris) are brilliant - definitely the films saving grace - so definitely watch it and make up your own mind.

Posted by divad4686

What I don't get is that Loki has clearly tried to kill Thor MANY times before (The Destroyer backhand, dropping him from the helicarrier in a steel cage, stabbing him on Stark's Tower, even blasting him out of Odin's Odinsleep chamber), yet all of a sudden Loki is sacrificing himself for Thor? I have yet to see the movie, but how does this make any sense?

Well, Considering that loki lived and took over Odin place the whole "sacrifice" maybe was part of his plan.

Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21

Hmmm, I concur.

Edited by The Stegman

I pretty much completely agree with this..don't know if I would make the MOS comparision, but other than that, yes, I would also give it a 3.5. Though, I DO think the humor was overboard. Some of it was hilarious, like Thor putting the hammer on the key rack, or Loki changing into Cap. Some was kinda funny, like Jane's date/frustrated boy toy. And some was just plain eyeroll worthy, like...well, everything involving Darcy and the intern. And Thor on the subway

Edited by w0nd

@havenless said:

What I don't get is that Loki has clearly tried to kill Thor MANY times before (The Destroyer backhand, dropping him from the helicarrier in a steel cage, stabbing him on Stark's Tower, even blasting him out of Odin's Odinsleep chamber), yet all of a sudden Loki is sacrificing himself for Thor? I have yet to see the movie, but how does this make any sense?

Well, Considering that loki lived and took over Odin place the whole "sacrifice" maybe was part of his plan.

The only thing Loki seemed to care about was his adopted mother, something both children cared about, they had a small heart to heart about her..."mother wouldn't want us to fight" so on and so on, maybe that was JUST enough to lie and betray him, but not actually try to kill him, plus why give up the illusion of being the king just to kill him...better to stay safe and hidden now right?

Posted by WIshIWasSuperman

I pretty much completely agree with this..don't know if I would make the MOS comparision, but other than that, yes, I would also give it a 3.5. Though, I DO think the humor was overboard. Some of it was hilarious, like Thor putting the hammer on the key rack, or Loki changing into Cap. Some was kinda funny, like Jane's date/frustrated boy toy. And some was just plain eyeroll worthy, like...well, everything involving Darcy and the intern. And Thor on the subway

Some one posted some side by side screen caps - there's a few more to be made than I even thought. To be fair they wrapped up filming (mostly) before MoS came out, but I'd also wager there was some visual effects cues to come still. I just found it an inevitable comparison I think since they're both in the same year and are kind of dealing with similar themes (just in different ways) when it comes to their over-all sci-fi/alien invasion/destruction type themes.

A couple of those scenes you mentioned I found hilarious as well - also the end of the 2nd post-credit scene. Gotta admit that made my giggle my ass off.