Why didn't you like the Thor movie?

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by evildupe (17 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw the Thor movie, and I thought it was really good. Why are so many critics (Ebert) hating it? Did you hate it? Why? 
 
I'm so confused!

#2 Posted by katanalauncher (934 posts) - - Show Bio

Really as much as I respect the guy, you really shouldn't validate Ebert's opinion when it comes to Comicbook movies.

#3 Posted by Walker696 (980 posts) - - Show Bio

at the end of the day if you liked the movie then leave it at that, I know folks who say Daredevil and Elektra were great movies, others say the X-men movies were great too, but I hated them all, but that's my opinion though. Don't let others get you down on what you like.
 
by the way I loved the movie myself lol

#4 Posted by Deadcool (6754 posts) - - Show Bio

That movie was perfect enough for me.
#5 Posted by CodeSaint (159 posts) - - Show Bio

It was like a Thor movie should be made for me,

#6 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

i liked it,  the destroyer was beaten way to easily tho.....
#7 Edited by Pacperson (299 posts) - - Show Bio

I really liked it :) Prolly my favorite Marvel movie next to Captain America...
 
But it does have some problems.
 
The very very forced romance being the biggest one...just wasn't enough time for this i guess,
How easily the Destroyer was beaten...It does show how badass Thor is tho
Maybe a little too jokey at times...Now that Thor and the World are introduced this should be toned done in sequels,
 
This is just a personal thing but i want more Warriors Three and Sif action =p
 
We can Nip-pick it too death of course...But overall its a Good movie :)

#8 Posted by stumpy49er (611 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked it. I actualy think its the best superhero movie of the summer. 
My one problem is the whole science based magic. 
It's Thor! 
Not Iron Man!
I understand that whole Avengers movies started with the first Iron Man movie, which of course is all science based but when it comes to Thor, it's just straight Gods and magic, no science.
I have a friend who thought that was such a great idea and I couldn't help but roll my eyes. My friend is an alien/science nut. Me, I'm a comic book nut. When it comes to Iron Man, I want science, until it comes to Mandarin, then I'll take alien tech/ science based magic. When it comes to Thor, I want straight magic.

#9 Posted by joshmightbe (24728 posts) - - Show Bio
@Pacperson: Maybe it was beat so easy as a way of saying movie Loki didn't know how to use it as well as Odin did. Just a theory 
#10 Posted by MutenRoshi (850 posts) - - Show Bio

some fans didnt like the fact superman wasnt in it 
..

#11 Posted by iaconpoint (1363 posts) - - Show Bio

It doesn't have enough hammer-swinging.  
 
Seriously, doesn't Rotten Tomatoes have this movie in the high 70's? And as much as I love Busiek and Perez, the scene where Thor breaks the Rainbow Bridge totally negates the above scene, at least for me. My biggest problem was the slow pace of the second act, but I understand why it was needed for character development. Still, the movie was the one I have been most excited about since Spider-Man and I was not disappointed. I love it.

#12 Edited by fps_dean (260 posts) - - Show Bio
@ebuchanan said:

i liked it,  the destroyer was beaten way to easily tho.....

My thoughts to a pinpoint! I thought they did an excellent job with the storyline, mixing the original storyline up with JMS's storyline, but the destroyer is supposed to be so strong that even Thor himself cannot defeat it.
#13 Posted by Shadowdoggy (3800 posts) - - Show Bio

I loved it.
#14 Posted by _slim_ (14083 posts) - - Show Bio

I still haven't seen it yet.

#15 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2502 posts) - - Show Bio

Ebert once said that he didn't consider video games to be "art," despite the fact that he'd never really played any. He lost all credibility as a critic when he did that, in my view. In addition, and this may seem really petty and cruel, but look at the guy! Is he really someone whose opinion you'd be willing to trust on what is and isn't awesome?

#16 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4765 posts) - - Show Bio

I disliked a lot. 

  • Deconstruction of the rainbow bridge. 
  • Science was mentioned, none was explained.
  • Donald Blake was an easter egg. It made the nerds two seats behind me half giggle then snort.
  • Thor's mighty beard made him feel like Thunderstrike. What has been the issue the past several days about diversity and characterization? Men with beards shouldn't play men without beards.
  • Thor's Australian accent. Again, characterization.
  • The full potential of Thor wasn't exactly addressed. Something worldly should have wrapped around him, then he should have politely shoved it away like a truck/car/wrecking ball/crumbling building/top floor with twenty orphans screaming in shock and horror. I wanted a true display of his strengths. Not some convoluted CGI experience.
  • Fight scenes weren't what I expected given the comics, they were rushed to wrap things up.
  • Destroyer was an excuse to add more to the threat level, but it didn't pay off in the long run.
  • Natalie Portman was a dull character. I mean Jane Foster! No, wait, I mean Natalie Portman.
  • Loki outshines everyone in terms of presence, leaving everyone seemingly one-dimensional.
  • Volstagg felt like filler and he certainly was. A food reference here, eating food, more food.
  • Sif felt like a non-threatening female to Jane, and they couldn't have picked a more normal-faced actress to do it.
  • The presence of S.H.I.E.L.D. throughout the entire movie, despite previous knowledge of their involvement in the Avengers upcoming movie.
  • Hawkeye is an agent. Not only that, an agent with a bow. During the Avengers movie, secret service agents will carry pick axes to protect the President.
  • Thor felt like a sequel, a prequel and a direct adaptation of the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America.
  • Thor didn't wear his helmet a whole lot. It made the rest of the outfit null and void, and Thor just a man with the likeness of Thor.
  • Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston's portrayals were all right, but they were the only ones who actually connected.
  • Worst prequel to the Avengers I have ever seen.
#17 Posted by Deadcool (6754 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe: Crap

#18 Posted by darth_brendroid (1692 posts) - - Show Bio

I personally liked the fact it had an Australian lead.

That said, something I liked about Inglourious Basterds was how it tried to get actors from the right countries for the characters. Would have been interesting with Thor, but hey.

#19 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4765 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deadcool said:

@sesquipedalophobe: Crap

That's one way to say you completely agree.

#20 Posted by danhimself (22714 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought the movie was great.....I don't really know how they could have possibly made it better than it was

I stopped viewing the lead up Avenger movies as separate movies a while ago.....just think of all of them as prequels to what's hopefully a really amazing movie

#21 Posted by Deadcool (6754 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe said:

@Deadcool said:

@sesquipedalophobe: Crap

That's one way to say you completely agree.

No, actually that my way to say that I am surpriced that you hated the movie because little details (from my point of view), I am agree with the Autralian accent, and I missed Don Blake during the movie (For me this Thor was Ultimate Thor + 616), but the rest of the comment (from my point of view, don`t get mad with me) are pointless complaints (sorry), the point of every movie is entertain, and I liked this movie more than any other Marvel movie ever done.

But that is just my opinion...

#22 Posted by Billy Batson (58319 posts) - - Show Bio

It had Thor in it. True story.
BB

#23 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4765 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deadcool: It's always the little things that add up to one big problem. At least I'm not as critical as this guy.

#24 Posted by Shadowdoggy (3800 posts) - - Show Bio

yeah, I really liked it too 
I thought it was really entertaining and had great imagery 
and I really like Chris Hemsworth as Thor 
#25 Posted by slick23 (460 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw the movie, it was pretty awesome! Now its making me want to read Thor comics even though im a DC Fan.

#26 Posted by gavinification (82 posts) - - Show Bio

I for one loved it. And Chris's accent wasnt strong.

#27 Posted by Zomboid (740 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought it was great. On par with Captain America, and better than Iron Man. Though, like others have mentioned, the Destroyer was defeated too easily. But overall, I really enjoyed it, and it has made me want to check out some Thor comics.

#28 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3567 posts) - - Show Bio

The only part that I didn't like was the romance. The movie wasn't long enough for it and I feel like they could have just left it out.

#29 Posted by 04nbod (174 posts) - - Show Bio

I loved it. The only bit I could say I would change would be the role of the Warrior's Three. They needed more to do but it felt like they gave all their screentime to Sif just to have her in it. Cut Sif out completely. They could probably have also done more scenes between Thor and Jane and show that there was a long stretch of time he was on Earth.

#30 Posted by jumpstart55 (2252 posts) - - Show Bio

I didnt like it at all. The movie was way to stereotypical and predictacble. This movie could of done so much better.

#31 Posted by TheGoldenOne (38789 posts) - - Show Bio
@04nbod: Seems like you don't like Sif.
#32 Posted by EnSabahNurX (2294 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not a thor fan, i mean i like him in cartoons fine but never got into his character but i was surprised i liked the movie well enough, ebert is old so he is like my teacher they don't like movies that are just suppose to be fun

#33 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2502 posts) - - Show Bio

Ebert once stated that, although he had played almost no video games in his life, he refused to consider them "art." Now, while the debate over what does and does not constitute art isn't something I intend to go into, this statement completely invalidated his credibility as a professional critic, as far as I'm concerned. A professional critic is someone that produces informed, educated criticism. That he was willing to make such a sweeping statement about a medium that he had admitted to lacking any real knowledge and experience of implies that he believes his opinion should be considered relevant, not based on any manner of objective standards, but simply because he's Roger Ebert.

For my part, I enjoyed the Thor film. It had its flaws, as all films do, but I was satisfied with how it presented the subject material, and found it to be the most engaging film that I viewed this year, easily (and no, it wasn't the only film I saw this year).

Here's a bit of unprofessional criticism from me: Roger Ebert is an irrelevant curmudgeon whose opinions couldn't be more obsolete if he was insisting that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I would no sooner consult his belligerent tirades in the course of making my viewing choices than I would attempt to navigate the Himalayas using a Magic "8" ball as my sole piece of survival equipment.

#34 Posted by tbone1225 (210 posts) - - Show Bio

I adored Thor, but I'm not excited about Thor 2. Kenneth Branagh was the reason Thor was good and he's not attached to the second film.

#35 Posted by Loki9876 (3039 posts) - - Show Bio

the movie was good

#36 Posted by kashif1 (40 posts) - - Show Bio

@Shadow_Thief: Ebert later admitted that while he would never change his views he was not qualified to make them. The guy deserves respect for what he did in making movies a respected medium, give him that atleast.

#37 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

Anything that has sibling rivalry and I like it (almost anything). I also like Tom Hiddleston was perfect for the role of Loki.

#38 Posted by 04nbod (174 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheGoldenOne: I'm pretty meh on her to be honest. I find she adds very little at the best of times but in this movie especially she and the warriors three was too much. When faced with choosing one or the other I will go with the warriors. Is there anything Sif says or does in this movie that one of them couldn't? It was an interchangable role. They needed someone to worry about Thor and show how dangerous the destroyer was. That's it. I would have liked Hogun to get more than one line.

#39 Edited by FastDebrid (1 posts) - - Show Bio

@evildupe: I agree. The movie was very nice. Though Natalie's scenes were few, it was really good. What makes other think otherwise?

============================================================================================

http://www.fast-debrid.com

download in 50 file hosting services like Megaupload, Fileserve, MegaVideo, Hotfile, Rapidshare..

#40 Posted by The Stegman (26005 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's the review i made on Thor a while back 
 
 

 Now I will start with the good, what I liked.  First I found the actor playing Thor, Chris Hemsworth to be spot on, he played Thor to a tee, from now on whenever I think of the Norse god of Thunder, I will think of Hemsworth, his dialect, mannerisms and body (dude was buff) were all perfect.  Next Tom Hiddleston as Loki. This role is particularly hard to play as Loki is a very complex character, he isn’t entirely evil or good, but rather a jealous brother who wants to step out of the shadow of the powerful Thor.  However Tom nailed it, I found myself understanding Loki’s reasons for his actions and actually feeling for him toward the end during his final battle with Thor, however I would have liked to seen a bit more development of his character (actually showing his descent  from good brother to villain).  We then have Anthony Hawkins as the all powerful all father Odin and no surprises, he nailed the role, as he can do no wrong, he was a pefect choice, as for Natalie Portman, she was an ok Jane Foster but really, the character could have been played by ANYONE.  The next thing that stands out to me is the effects. They were pretty darn good.  I also really liked the relationships between Thor, Loki, and Odin, they felt like a true family going through hard times.  I also loved the tie ins to the rest of the Marvel universe such as SHIELD development, and the introduction of Hawkeye.

             Now, the  bad, it’s actually quite a lengthy list,howver it’s more of me being picky. First, the 3D it was NOT NEEDED I know this was one of those post 3D changes, but honestly I only noticed the 3D in a few scenes, and although it was cool, it didn’t really add to the movie, and wasn’t worth the extra ticket cost.  Secondly, the Thor development, although I like how we see him change from an arrogant, pompous prince to a true hero, I think the change happened a bit too fast, I don’t think a person’s WHOLE personality can change in that length of time (he seriously spent like four days on Earth and had a complete 180).  This leads into my next problem, the Thor/Jane foster relationship, this also felt very forced.  Jane Foster was this strong, super intelligent woman in the desert doing her work, and suddenly a man falls from the sky (literally) and she goes all googly over him??? Within a few days she was stumbling and tripping over herself in his presence. I feel like that relationship was rushed and frankly, seeing as how the plot was actually about Thor and Loki, unnecessary.  Take the first Iron Man for example, there was virtually no love interest in it, although we got hints from Tony and Pepper, I think it would have been better to be handled that way.  Next, the Warriors Three. They are the three fighting mates of thor taken right from the comics, I LOVED how the actors playing them nailed their personalities, however they felt unneeded.  They show up at random times in the movie and really accomplish nothing, a prime example of this is the penultimate fight seen with the destroyer robot, they show up just to help Thor, although against the robot they fight for 30 seconds, lose, and leave, sort of a waste. Speaking of the robot, that scene itself felt a little rushed, although it was a threat at first, once Thor got his abilities back, he defeated it in like one minute, however this is understandable since the final fight hadn’t occurred yet. And now the final fight, which disappointed the hell out of me almost as much as the final fight in Ironman 2, it felt rushed and ended in about 5 minutes. It merely showcased Thor and Loki trading blows while Thor tried to convince Loki to stop and finally…ended, 3 minutes later.

            Although I have other problems with the film, these were my main ones. So in conclusion, the movie was good, but not great, I feel that if another 30 minutes or so was dedicated to it, to lengthen it out a bit, it would have helped, however I do understand that there is only so much you can do to contain 30 some odd years of a character’s backstory into a film adaptation, so thus, I give Thor 3.5/5

 

#41 Edited by 04nbod (174 posts) - - Show Bio

@FastDebrid: I think people were expecting an epic love affair in this movie and were shocked that it was so understated. Hence you get a lot of 'underwritten' comments. I would have liked more of them but then,I love the Thor/Jane dynamic in everything, its just a concept that works. Here is hoping the second movie is more in the spirti of Thor: The Mighty Avenger though and we get a treasure of a love story.

Its shocking how poorly Jane Foster is treated by Thor fans (and Marvel). I did serious work to her Comicvine page after the movie to get it anywhere resembling accurate or representative of her character and story.

#42 Posted by Sir_Deadpool (461 posts) - - Show Bio

the story was not that good at first. the actor wasn't good either. thor aint that funny like he looked in the movie. this had nothing to do with the thor comics in my opinion! only thing was the characterrs were in it thats it. asgard looked okay but everything that happened on earth was wack. this wasn't a great movie in my opinion for real thor fans. just my oppinion maybe you do not need to sahre it. but i was shocked and thought no that is not the thor i know.

#43 Posted by tensor (5103 posts) - - Show Bio

1 Bad special effects

2 Bad story felt rush no depth to it for the first movie

3 Best scene was in the beginning, the fight with the frost giants, then you go down hill

4 The ending was lame as hell, this is a comic movie we are suppose to come out feeling like yeah that last scene was worthy the money ,take notes marvel incredible hulk batman spider man superman all had a wicked good fight at the end

what happen ?

#44 Posted by thegoddessofwar (24 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked this movie a lot. I loved the character portrayals, and the action was really awesome. The only thing I didn't like was Jane Foster....she kinda annoyed me :/

And I wish that the Destroyer hadn't been defeated so easily. That could have been a pretty epic fight scene....but it wasn't :(

#45 Edited by baron2011 (1155 posts) - - Show Bio

didn't like it at all

one of the most ugliest movie i ever saw,but this is just my opinion

#46 Posted by PowerHerc (85335 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegoddessofwar said:

I liked this movie a lot. I loved the character portrayals, and the action was really awesome.

And I wish that the Destroyer hadn't been defeated so easily. That could have been a pretty epic fight scene....but it wasn't :(

Agree completely.

#47 Posted by ntb1124 (948 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegoddessofwar said:

I liked this movie a lot. I loved the character portrayals, and the action was really awesome. The only thing I didn't like was Jane Foster....she kinda annoyed me :/

And I wish that the Destroyer hadn't been defeated so easily. That could have been a pretty epic fight scene....but it wasn't :(

I agree, I felt like the best fight was in the first 10 minutes of the movie, and then the destroyer part was just way too brief.....

other than that the movie was a good lead in movie, but the next one needs much more character....

#48 Posted by The Impersonator (5620 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe: Are you serious?

#49 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4765 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Impersonator: Yes, but I suppose it wasn't all that bad. I got to third base because it so romantic. Third base is still holding hands, right?

#50 Posted by SickAlice (65 posts) - - Show Bio

1. Ebert doesn't like anything he considers to have ties to young male audiences. He's a very technical and versed critic but he's alright stated he's bias there.

I liked the movie myself, but in favor of the question my turn-off's be they of any scale or not:

- To much Thor and Jane hang out and chat time, and not a lot of romance nor steam in those parts to make up for it either.

- The Frost Giants weren't bad per say but not what I would have liked to see.

- As a friends ten year old son, who happens to be named after the God Of Thunder put this, Thor wasn't tested hard enough.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.