Now I'm one of those guys who was disappointed with how Thor was presented in the first Thor film and The Avengers but Thor: The Dark World blatantly shows differentiation and I honestly enjoyed it better than any other superhero movie (including the Avengers). I wont spoil it for anyone so I'll keep it short without mentioning plot.

Action = Perfect with good fighting choreography. Also, moments with Thor and Loki were precious (brotherly love) and effective, the movies soundtrack has a resemblance with Iron man 3's soundtrack - mainly due to the fact his the same guy (Brian Tyler) but this soundtrack is more appealing cause of the way it was used. Marvel Phase 2 started of horrible thanks to Iron man 3 which many say 'was a huge disappointment' (I respectfully agree), Thor 2 was the opposite and definitely an instant turn around. Before this movie..I'd say Man of Steel is the best superhero movie this year. As far as reviews go, I lost trust in Rotten Tomatoes ever since the Man of Steel 'incident' and although 84% for Thor 2 is 'decent' I truly would have rated it higher but its not solely dependent on my opinion so I want to know what others thought?

Wait I thought Thor 2 didn't come out until November 8th...

I loved it. Saw it today, was brilliant.

@arturocalakayvee: oh...right, well it came out in the UK. I guess I posted this too early.

That's US. It's all ready out in UK :3

The after credits scene really surprised me, i never tought that they will put some GOTG spoilers by introducing The Collector.

Ahh, darn the UK then! Lucky!

Spoilers. I must have them.

What you do not understand is that Rotten Tomatoes is not some single entity rating system... It composes negative and positive reviews and and that's what it's ratings are for. how many percent of professional reviewers, film buffs, critics, and film-goers rate positively on a film.

It's why The AVengers is so high on Rotten Tomatoes, clearly, it's not deserving of a 90+ rating... It's not some excellent type of cinema. But it shows how many people enjoyed the film and that's what matters in RT. Metacritc, uses scores. That's why Avengers got a 3/5 star (which I thought it deserved well in terms of the criteria film critics use) rating because that was the general opinion from critics.

I use both RT and Metacritic and I suggest most people use it too. Metacritic does have a good system of choosing good critics and writers. But RT uses a positive vs negative response percentile on every film. So if RT gave Thor 2 an 84 (which is very high. I don't know why a lot of most viners don't get that anything above a 70 is a good score in movies. It's hard to make anything above 80... in metacritic and RT) but MC gives it a 54, it just means it's a good blockbuster flick and we should go see it for the fun of it. MC uses some critics who use the same standards for ALL movies which is frustrating when you just want a quick glimpse. So kind of an advice to anyone, read the reviews for MC and see if the film described by 4 critics is for you. look for the objective responses. So don't be discouraged by Thor 2's low rating in MC but then be confused by RT's score. I read teh reviews from MC and it matches most of our standards for a good marvel or thor movie. I mean jesus, it's not like we want Thor to win teh Academy Awards or sth, just want a good THor flick (critics sometimes....).

So to experio, I recommend that you don't lose your faith in RT. Using RT and MC, IMO at least, is the most accurate way to see what kind of films the films are before you watch any. MoS clearly divided opinions. RT and MT had 50/50 rating.

i hope there are no spoilers on this thread. I have one more week to get through when I should have been the first person to see this movie.

So no one spoil anything until november 9th at 6:00pm. Or else.

I'm not really a big fan of Thor and really didn't like the 1st movie but this is probably one of the best Superhero films I've seen in a very long time.

@experio: RAAAGGGGGEEEEEEEE. I am angry because I have not seen this.

wasnt released yet in the states but accoding to the reviews they say its the first one but better. any merrit to that?

i know its already online. i made a thread about it. is it me or did it not look finished? not complaining but in the end im excited :)

@juliustakalua: Roger that :)

@tazzmission:

Reviews stated the first ones better? I find that really hard to believe cause its certainly not. You would see why if you watch the film, they are on completely different levels especially the action.

not better but more of just like thor one but more about asgard. as i said in another thread i go by my own review because thats the only one that matters. people blow things way out of the water just like ironman 3 wich they deemed the best and i found that movie to be horrible.

After the back to back sh*tfest of Iron-Man 3 and Agents of Shield, Thor 2 got my faith back for MCU. Loved the film.

you saw it? is it true what thet say about the elves being under developed?

@tazzmission: The feeling is mutual, Iron man 3 should have got negative reviews. In Thor 2 we get a much better look at Asgard and some realms rather than 'mostly' focusing on Earth. I guarantee you wont be disappointed with this film, in any way you judge it, there's no way it can be below 'good'.

Havent seen it, live in South Africa, no spoilers, but do you think he can take man of steel, if so why, if not why

Can't wait til it hits the US

When does it hit US, it hits SA on 8th?

Anyways, to everyone who saw it, does thor's power compare to man of steels

@citizenbane:

i didn't say anything offensive.

great, now everyone is talking about it...I have to wait for 7 days.

Thor will throw a hammer at things

Guys, can thor match man of steel, please answer

just like in iron man movies where tony wears a suit.

I am angry at you! I have to wait till the 8th!

I'm still waiting for Iron Man to actually show up. My favorite is when defenders of it were harping on the "IT SHOWZ THE MAN BEHIND THE SUITZZ~!~!" when we already had two feature-length films showing exactly that. IM3 was a West Coast James Bond story with more technology.

Please guys, can thor compete with supes in movie verse

Of course. the best superman movies were in the 70's/early 80's. Superman returns was garbage, and i'm yet to see man of steel. THOR has a lot of potential movies that can wipe superman off his feet.

Now if you are talking physical fight then yes. he soloed destoryer in seconds, massacred frost giants, and took down alien snakes, THOR can take supes.

Just saw it today....it wasn't bad, it was alright.

@tazzmission: I know but I was really surprised by the Captain America cameo.

Thor 2 was good but I didn't quite like how Malekith is portrayed.

Thor 2 was OK good story, nice action scenes and funny moments...but there are some scenes that (in my opinion) in order to entertain the audience they disrespect the character a little.

He was portrayed as weak (not even close like the first movie), not durable at all (smashed by a rock, was going to die because a ship was going to fall over him, possibly get badly hurt by an arrow), no impressive striking power, he actually got stomped in a fight without his hammer, almost no lightnings powers were used (or any other kind of mjolnir blasts).

The worst thing in my opinion is when they keep saying that Asgardians aren't GODS and only live about 5000 years then they portray Asgardians as warriorss that die with one laser blast for example.

If we compare this Thor with Superman of the movie the last is above in all categories: Speed(of course), Strength, Durability(all kinds except magic), striking power, EVEN in energy projection.

Loki was great in this movie(he wouldn't get stomped by Hulk at all !!!)