Thor: The Dark World — What Did You Think?

On Friday, Marvel released its latest superhero blockbuster, Thor: The Dark World. Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, and Tom Hiddleston reprise their roles as Thor, Dr. Jane Foster, and Loki. Christopher Eccleston, best known for his role as the Ninth Doctor on BBC's Doctor Who, portrays Thor's nemesis in The Dark World: Malekith, ruler of the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim. Despite a strong opening weekend at the box office, critical reception has been lackluster. The movie averaged 66/100 on Rotten Tomatoes and 54/100 on Metacritic, but user reviews rated it higher, at 86/100 and 8/10 respectively. io9's review calls the plot "completely forgettable," but also said, "at a time when superhero films are gravitating towards Christopher Nolan-style darkness, it's really nice to see a movie go swinging into adventure with a song in its heart." Comic Book Resources also commented that the movie was a lot of fun, but added, "the film doesn't quite reach its true potential due to a villain who never truly feels like much more than an amorphous bad guy." Those of you who went to see it over the weekend: what did you think?

Re:it lacked extensionalism

[rubycodez]

but it will make a wonderful overnight $1 DVD rental? that's how I watch any blockbusters, if I watch them at all

Meh

[ip_freely_2000]

It is what it is. Not the best Marvel movie but I didn't mind the admission price. One thing though....why is it the heroes always run into the one, only and correct cave on an entire planet? Thor and Jane avoid a storm and run into the one place with a time/space wormhole. Almost as bad as Kirk getting chased into the only cave on a ice planet that had Spock sitting in it. ( First ST/reboot movie ).

Re:Meh

[SteveFoerster]

BTW: what does this Thor movie have to do with nerds? Serious question, I did not see it and before today I've never heard of it.

You're asking that about a movie based on a comic book full of sci-fi and fantasy elements? Seriously?

Re:missed it

[SteveFoerster]

Seeing it on DVD won't make you like Sandra Bullock better but it will greatly diminish the amazing immersive experience of this particular movie. Seriously, see it on the largest screen you can find and see it in 3-D (and I'm usually a 3-D hater). You won't be sorry.

Re:Ham-handed love sequences ruined it

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: Check for petrification and/or hot grits. That's how you discern whether you have a Portman or a Knightley.

Re:missed it

[fahrbot-bot]

I've posted about this before, so don't want to bore anyone, but I kind of connected with her character's personal loss and willingness to simply give up, especially in the isolation of the situation. I think Sandra Bullock played that pretty well. (enough that I got a little choked up during the movie)

My wife of 20 years died of a brain tumor almost 8 years ago, seven weeks from diagnosis to death, and there are still times I want to curl up in bed, wishing all the air would get sucked out of the room, so I could wake up with her somewhere else... The reasons I don't simply give up is because (a) if there's something after this life, I'll see her again then; (b) if there is *not* anything after this life, then checking out early would be a waste; and (3) I know she would be disappointed in me if I quit.

Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]

Yet Another CGI Superhero Movie

[tverbeek]

Once upon a time, when a superhero movie with a budget and talent behind it came along once every few years, they were pretty exciting and entertaining. But with Marvel squeezing out films as quickly as they can turn the crank, plus Warner getting one out now and then, and fantasy/sci-fi films (e.g. Middle Earth, Transformers) being made from the same big-budget CGI-heavy dimly-lit mold, there's getting to be very little special about any of them.