Thor

Simian!

unreggd wrote: »

Just saw Thor in 3D tonight

I thought it was sh;t

It was like a rom-com

Agree with this. 3D completely took the enjoyment out of it for me. Was this filmed for 3D? So many many shítty, dark, murky scenes that I was just annoyed by the end of it. I'll hopefully never have to watch another 3D film in my life!

Mickeroo

Sticky Romance wrote: »

Agree with this. 3D completely took the enjoyment out of it for me. Was this filmed for 3D? So many many shítty, dark, murky scenes that I was just annoyed by the end of it. I'll hopefully never have to watch another 3D film in my life!

It was converted, but they did film it with the knowledge it would be converted afaik. Go see it in 2D sure.

Kess73

Mickeroo wrote: »

It always made me wonder why everyone in the Marvel Universe doesn't just worship the norse gods, because if they are indeed gods well it's obviously the right religion then?!?! :P

That did happen to a large degree when Thor took over from Odin in the comics.

Thor then decided to take direct action with regards to mankind, wiped out all hunger, wiped out any who opposed him (including superheroes as Thor killed Captain America, Wolverine, Hulk, Doc Strange, Thing etc etc), and set up shop with Asgard physically being on Earth.

The Church of Thor became the places of worship for the main religion, and Thor acts as a god for humanity, albeit a god that will not allow anyone to step out of line.

As the poo hits the fan during this storyline, Thor ends up using his power (Odinforce Thor) to change the timeline and resets it back to when he first took over from the still dead Odin. Thor then goes into the Odinsleep and the storyline in the Marvel comics picks up at the point where all the heroes think Thor is MIA or dead ( Just before the Civil War storyline in the Marvel Universe)

unreggd

Mickeroo wrote: »

It was converted, but they did film it with the knowledge it would be converted afaik. Go see it in 2D sure.

That's what I thought

I kept takin my glasses off in parts, was overly darkened in 3D

Overheal

ill wait for this on netlix then.

InisMor

Anybody know the name and artist of the other song that is named in the closing credits alongside Foo Fighters "Walk"?

Renn

Thought this was horrendously bad. For something with a nice budget of $150m you would think that something pretty decent would be offered up but nope, the same old stuff thrown at us again and again, and it's just lapped up by the general public - who do not tire of repeating the line "but I didn't expect it to win any oscars/leave brain at door" etc.

CGI was just looked ropey throughout - Asgard in particular. Dialogue sucked, acting sucked - was it just me who felt that Hopkins looked incredibly bored throughout the whole thing? An overall vacuous affair in my opinion.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

Thought this was horrendously bad. For something with a nice budget of $150m you would think that something pretty decent would be offered up but nope, the same old stuff thrown at us again and again, and it's just lapped up by the general public - who do not tire of repeating the line "but I didn't expect it to win any oscars/leave brain at door" etc.

CGI was just looked ropey throughout - Asgard in particular. Dialogue sucked, acting sucked - was it just me who felt that Hopkins looked incredibly bored throughout the whole thing? An overall vacuous affair in my opinion.

Really? thought Hemsworth was great in it, hes a superstar in the making with that kind of charisma. and Tom Hiddleston was fantastic in it, its nice to see a villain with an actual reason for his being a villain rather than the moustache twirling type. Didnt find much wrong with the cgi either, couple of average shots here and there but Asgard itself was cool.

Renn

I thought he was woeful tbh, opposite of charismatic if anything! Just so bland throughout

Hiddleston was okay but I guess at that point I just so disinterested that it didn't matter.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

I thought he was woeful tbh, opposite of charismatic if anything! Just so bland throughout

Hiddleston was okay but I guess at that point I just so disinterested that it didn't matter.

bland? seriously? he pulled off the cocky charm Thor is supposed to have perfectly

Renn

Yes, seriously.

Roaster

Renn wrote: »

Yes, seriously.

I seriously disagree with you but hey that's what makes forums...

Renn

Have you guys all read the comics or am I missing something altogether?

johnny_ultimate

Haven't read the comics. It's junk, but self-aware junk, which made a difference. Have no intention of watching it again, but for mindless entertainment, there's been so much worse. Much better too, at that, but it was entertaining within its limited scope.

Roaster

I don't read comics but like some of the posters above I thought Hemsworth was excellent. I've never seen him in anything else so I wasn't sure what to expect.

I saw an eleven minute trailer last year and thought the film was going to be crap but I was surprised how good it was.

Maybe I'm just to easy to entertain

Renn

A comment like 'no intention of watching it again' already says to me that there's something pretty bad about it

Anyway, I've said my bit.

johnny_ultimate

Renn wrote: »

A comment like 'no intention of watching it again' already says to me that there's something pretty bad about it

There's very many films I liked but couldn't be bothered going back to - too many films, too little time. It does the job, and I wouldn't violently object to sitting through it again in the future, but nor can I see myself pre-ordering the Blu-Ray. I wouldn't consider that a criticism, simply that it's not exactly the sort of film that provides riches a plenty when you watch it again.

I only tend to watch films I really like again. Only one I've seen twice in the cinema recently was The Social Network and that was because there was nothing else on in a cool little rural New Zealand cinema we wanted to go to. I don't tend to revisit films unless they left a serious impression, or if I think I might have missed something important first time around or even ones that might deserve a second chance (films you 'didn't get' but are assured there's something to get - I wasn't particularly fond of Fargo first time I watched it and loved it second time around). And yet some films simply do the job they were meant to without blowing one's mind, and there is nothing wrong with that sort of harmless entertainment from time to time.

Renn

I'm obviously a little harsher in my scoring system! I just see it as nothing really 'gained' if you get me. Found Thor to be just incredibly boring (how you can do that with quite a bit at your disposal is the most impressive thing about this film) and at certain points during the film I actually was doing some facepalms (apologies for anyone that had to see that).

Do you even see where I'm coming from for the Hopkins performance?

johnny_ultimate

Renn wrote: »

Do you even see where I'm coming from for the Hopkins performance?

Yeah, it's hardly his most admirable performance and bascially Hopkins by the numbers (although I also thought Odin as a character was meant to be bored, but I suppose that's not what you're getting at) - I preferred it to his weird performance in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger though. And I'd agree the Asguard scenes were a bit ho-hum at the best of times, despite a few nice touches like the Gatekeeper character - generally just generic fantasy stuff. The love story was thoroughly forced too, and they could have cut the dreadful Kat Dennings with barely an impact bar the loss of one or two crappy one-liners. There's plenty to pick apart. But there's also a sense of fun and not taking itself too seriously which made it appealingly silly. It's like Star Trek (a much better film all-in-all, though) or Iron Man - it says a lot when films stand out in multiplexes for merely taking the opportunity to laugh at their inherent absurdity.

I'm sure you know I'm generally more fond of world and independent cinema. But **** it - the occasional stupid superhero film can still hit a certain spot. And Thor - while hardly a masterpiece of the genre, FAR from it - at least provided a few chuckles and a story that was for the most part coherent. Faint praise, for sure, but compared to your bog standard Hollywood blockbuster these days, it's something.

HeisenbergBB

It was entertaining and I got what I paid for but i wouldnt bother watching it again!

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I only tend to watch films I really like again. Only one I've seen twice in the cinema recently was The Social Network and that was because there was nothing else on in a cool little rural New Zealand cinema we wanted to go to. I don't tend to revisit films unless they left a serious impression, or if I think I might have missed something important first time around or even ones that might deserve a second chance (films you 'didn't get' but are assured there's something to get - I wasn't particularly fond of Fargo first time I watched it and loved it second time around). And yet some films simply do the job they were meant to without blowing one's mind, and there is nothing wrong with that sort of harmless entertainment from time to time.

Let me guess...Wanaka?? Feckin savage cinema, I saw the Science of Sleep and Black Sheep there when I was there a few years ago. Hope you tried the cookies at intermission

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

Let me guess...Wanaka?? Feckin savage cinema, I saw the Science of Sleep and Black Sheep there when I was there a few years ago. Hope you tried the cookies at intermission

Best. Cinema. Ever.

The cookies were damn good too!

Sad Professor

Just back from this and thought it was great fun. Hemsworth was brilliant. I had no idea he was Kirk's father in Star Trek. Not surprising given the big impact he made in that film in what was a very small role.

ziedth

Sad Professor wrote: »

Just back from this and thought it was great fun. Hemsworth was brilliant. I had no idea he was Kirk's father in Star Trek. Not surprising given the big impact he made in that film in what was a very small role.

He was in home and away too, When he started in that show myself and housemates at the time all felt he was just to (for want of a better word) good for Aussie
Soaps. I didn't imagine he'd blow up like this mind. I'm going to actually see this today, I was gonna wait but I have a few hours to kill so why not.

PerrinV2

Saw it again today,still thought is was class, but in 2d,preferred it that way but asgaard didn't look as pretty

I only noticed today when thor regains his powers he refers to agent coulsen as son of coul,I missed that the first time

nyarlothothep

I thought it was pretty good. I generally don't like Marvel films, I tried to like Iron Man but really disliked it and found it terribly boring, crass and stupid but despite being by the numbers to some extent there is a charm to Thor. Maybe its because its not a traditional marvel concept in that it involves Nordic mythology which I do like. For example I thought the visuals were actually interesting compared to Iron Man which for me was just generic CG. The backgrounds for Asguard reminded me of these fantasy art paintings I used to see years ago which would be set in space. Also I liked the fusion of sci fi and fantasy elements. I thought Thor was a great character in that he wasn't complex or deep, he reminded me a little bit of Voltan from Flash Gordon, larger than life and one dimensional but entertaining because of this. I also liked the fact that he was a pompous asshole on earth at the beginning, it was quite funny. And I liked mythological deities duking it out in space. Its the ultimate win win combination. For that reason I'll give it 7/10, solid entertainment.

eyeball kid

Just saw this last night. Didn't really have any expectations for it as I've never read the comics. Found the whole film very silly but enjoyed it none the less.

I echo others posters comments on the 3D. Didn't add anything to the film and found that some of the scenes were very dark and hard to see.

unreggd

PerrinV2 wrote: »

I only noticed today when thor regains his powers he refers to agent coulsen as son of coul,I missed that the first time

What does that mean? :P

mikhail

Roaster wrote: »

I don't read comics but like some of the posters above I thought Hemsworth was excellent. I've never seen him in anything else so I wasn't sure what to expect.

He's hardly been in anything else. As mentioned above, he's good in the three minutes he's in at the start of Star Trek as George Kirk, and he was in Home and Away. He also appears in the Joss Whedon horror Cabin in the Woods, the release of which has been much delayed by MGM's bankruptcy. That's really about it.

Mickeroo

mikhail wrote: »

He's hardly been in anything else. As mentioned above, he's good in the three minutes he's in at the start of Star Trek as George Kirk, and he was in Home and Away. He also appears in the Joss Whedon horror Cabin in the Woods, the release of which has been much delayed by MGM's bankruptcy. That's really about it.

Cabin in the Woods is getting released now because of his break through I think. Handy or what?