Thor 2 opens on November 6, 2013 (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Interesting article in The Hollywood Reporter today about how Marvel's developing a standardized post-production pipeline for all of its movies. The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were all shot digitally primarily with ARRI Alexa cameras. Look for that to continue; while Marvel isn't forcing its filmmakers to use the Alexa, it's chosen the Codex Vault as its media management environment, and ARRI has the closest relationship with Codex. Personally, I love the look that the Alexa provides so that's fine by me.

 

[DavidJ]

Fascinating.

 

[Todd H]

Just got back from an 8 PM screening. Had a blast. Thought it was better than the first. I wish Malekith's character had been developed a bit more. And Loki, as usual, was awesome.

 

[Tim Glover]

Saw it tonight...First half was uninvolving. Just found myself kind of bored. But the 2nd half improved & was compelling. Some nice moments with Thor & Loki. Not as good as the first one.

 

[mattCR]

I thought it was fascinating. Watching it, I kept thinking how truly bad "Man of Steel" was, and how this film really captured everything I love about a comic book film - in that it was open to the audience, characters you could root for, and a playful but fast moving tone.

There were some script moments here that were brilliant in both their pace and setup. I thought the very beginning was a bit slow in the setup, but once we got about 20 minutes in, the film just clicked and ran like clockwork; including a fantastic ending.

I did appreciate that there are TWO cut scenes (so don't leave after the first one, the second runs at the end of all credits, and while short is pretty rewarding if you're on a date)

Really solid. A-

 

[Ejanss]

I thought it was fascinating. Watching it, I kept thinking how truly bad "Man of Steel" was, and how this film really captured everything I love about a comic book film - in that it was open to the audience, characters you could root for, and a playful but fast moving tone.

Over on BR.com--where even daring to speak a word against Christopher Nolan is considered heresy--a debate sprung up about Man of Steel, Dark Knight Rises, the difference between gloomy, fatalistic, would-be hyper-realistic DC films, the better Marvel movies, and why Iron Man 3 was so bad, ie, in that it tried to imitate Dark Knight Rises. Basically summed up by the question, "When will Warner/DC realize that Nolan hates comic books? "

That led to all sorts of theories being postulated about WHY Warner always has to make its post-Dark Knight DC movies so somber, downbeat and "socially" epic, to try and hammer us into praising them as Innovative--While Marvel, who already knows we've never heard of these characters, can just go in with the print-comic plots, and do whatever they darn well please.

 

[TravisR]

Just like the rest of the Marvel movies, I thought it was fun but kinda forgettable. My only real gripe is the cutesy dork dialogue. I assume that Joss Whedon either took a pass at the script or someone is just stealing his way of writing nerd character dialogue. That worked great in Buffy (it's one of my favorite things about the show) but it's just become a cliché at this point.

And for those of us who don't know the Marvel U, can someone explain the first P.S.? All's I got out of it is that Benicio Del Toro is some kind of albino Liberace who collects things that are presumably of some kind of cosmic importance.

 

[Yavin]

Here's my official review of the film (with comments about the 3D presentation as well). I give it a 4 out of 5.

I was most pleasantly surprised by the humor that it present throughout the film. It felt more in line with the humor in The Avengers than the first Thor film, and it made for a very fun experience.

Other than that, the action was great. The scope of this film was much bigger than the first and it pays off. They also managed to somehow combine LOTR and Star Wars in a way that works (for some reason, I had just never thought of that combination before).

 

[Sean Bryan]

And for those of us who don't know the Marvel U, can someone explain the first P.S.? All's I got out of it is that Benicio Del Toro is some kind of albino Liberace who collects things that are presumably of some kind of cosmic importance.

His character is called "The Collector". He will be featured in Guardians of the Galaxy. Ronan the Accuser (played by Lee Pace) will be the main antagonist and but will be working for Thanos (the ultimate Big Big Bad of Phases 1, 2 & 3). "The Collector" will play a role in that story, but he will not be the main antagonist. I haven't seen the scene yet, but I understand that The Collector is portrayed as quite eccentric in a 5th Element kind of style. The items he's gathering are likely of huge cosmic significance when all assembled (possibly a version of the Infinity Gauntlet?). It's likely that the McGuffin in Guardians of the Galaxy will be another of the items he is seeking, along with Thanos. So this mid-credits scene is setting up that whole scenario that will probably play out through GotG and other phase 3 films culminating with Avengers 3. But that's just my guess, as I haven't even seen it yet.

 

[TravisR]

...I understand that The Collector is portrayed as quite eccentric in a 5th Element kind of style.

That would be a good description for it. Thanks for the explanation!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Okay, so sure, it's far funnier than the first Thor film, less melodrama of family angst in Asgard, but the earth stuff just seems to flippantly cheeky, I felt like they mashed the tone of the Asgard side with Richard Donner's Superman, and the earth side with Richard Lester's Superman II, and then sprinkled in some Star Wars dust for the antagonist side (the elves). So, I just found some of the plot advancements jarring as it went from somber to hijinks funny in a the blink of an eye. The Warriors 3 and Sif are underused, and the Scooby gang (Jane and her crew) just pull stuff out of their butts to advance the plot to get from one set piece to another. But it's enjoyable if you just sit back and turn off your brain.

Plus, I don't really like the onscreen chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, nothing feels real about their character's attraction to one another.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

 

[Todd J Moore]

http://todd3d.blogspot.com/2013/11/thor-dark-world.html

That's what I have to say on the matter.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I also prefer the first Thor film (like Tim), but I did like this one as well. It was occasionally a little TOO silly, and it popped the most when Loki was on-screen. But a good solid movie, with some interesting action scenes, and plenty of Asgard and fantasy nuttiness. I liked that.I did run home to buy the "Art of..." Book though. Art Direction and Production Design were very nice. But I was a little underwhelmed. Villain was flat, and Maguffin was a bit boring. I felt like the movie was chasing the script a bit, if that makes any sense.Still, I'm not complaining about getting a fricking sequel to a Thor movie, drenched in Walt Simonsonese.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I thought it was good. WARNING, THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS POST. PLEASE DON'T READ IT UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM. On the throne at last! Wow, what a cool ending!Still kind of processing to be honest. Unfortunately for me, since I can't help but follow the development of these films so closely, it's often hard for me to enjoy the movies for what they are on the first viewing. Fortunately, I've found that my enjoyment levels generally jump up quite a bit on subsequent viewings. Anyway, at this point I'd put it close to the original Thor. There are things that that each does better. The original Thor had a simpler, but more emotionally engaging story (for me). The simple issues of fathers and sons, jealousy, arrogance and learning humility was the heart of the first film, even if it spent too much time on Midgard with Thor de-powered. The action scenes were good, but a little underwhelming. I, for one, liked the Thor-Jayne romance in the first (even though I am aware that many don't). Thor had a decent character arc with going from arrogant to selfless. Loki, of course, had a great character arc as well. In the Dark World, they definitely went for a bigger, more ambitious story of Universe-ending proportions. The action is very well done, and the visuals are beautiful. I think they missed a bit of an opportunity with Thor's arc. It was decent, but it could have been more significant if they had developed the idea of him wrestling with the realities of being King more from the start of the film. I understand that they cut scenes of Bor, Thor's grandfather, being more responsible for the destruction of almost all of the race of Dark Elves, including Malekith's family (instead of the film's version where Malekith basically sacrificed his people so that he might destroy the Asgardians and escape). That would have been an additional "hard choice" that Thor would have had issues with (as far as the sort of things a King may have to do). They did touch on this somewhat with Odin's stance to sacrifice as many Asgardians as it takes to defeat Malekith and simply waiting for him to hit Asgard again. But I think it would have played better if the concept had been planted from the start, making Thor's ultimate choice that he isn't someone who feels comfortable making those types of decisions and wants to remain a protector of the realms rather than King have a stronger payoff. It worked, but that could have been a decision that he wrestled with more. The omission of this also left Malekith pretty one dimensional. Which is fine. A comic book movie, or any action movie for that matter, doesn't really NEED its antagonists to be super-deep well developed characters (I mean, really, how "developed" was Darth Vader in "A New Hope"?), but it's generally better the more developed they are, like with Loki in the first film. In addition to just wanting to end this Universe and to bring back the darkness "just because that's what he wants", he would have had a more personal grudge against Asgard. I've read they decided not to do that because they didn't want him to be sympathetic in anyway. I believe that was a lost opportunity. Loki, of course, was just perfect. Even with the reduced role in this film, I think he had the strongest character arc. His relationship with Frigga, his desire for vengeance, his general enjoyment of all the scheming involved with Thor's plan to free him and defy Odin, his actual genuine acts of heroism in protecting Jayne and ...SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!...helping Thor trick Malekith and defeat Curse. And then of course, through all of that, his deception of everyone in....SPOILER WARNING! SPOLIER WARNING!.... faking his death and somehow taking Odin's place on the throne of Asgard! Wow. That was truly good stuff. I wasn't really surprised about him faking his death. I figured he'd try to do something like that. But the actual Throne grab reveal at the end was a damn cool surprise for me! Well done!Actually, a good bit of Thor's arc comes from his feelings for Loki. Starting with him not caring about Loki rotting in the dungeons and telling him he was always holding back when fighting him because he had hoped something of "his brother" was still in there but would now have no issue with killing him if he betrayed him. Then, as they escape and and launch their plan, he wants to trust Loki, knows he shouldn't, but does anyway because its the only option. And Loki comes through with flying colors (protecting Jayne, saving Thor from Curse, and getting himself killed in the process. This ends with Thor seeing "his brother" again in Loki. The brothers fighting side by side (with Thor saving Loki from the disintegrating portal bomb thing) was great, even if Loki still had his own schemes to fake his death to escape. That's the great thing about Loki. He is absolutely, positively not one dimensional in the slightest. Frigga was excellent. Her scenes with Loki were nice, and she totally kicked ass when fighting Malekith. I thought the funeral scene was quite beautiful. I feel like they did use the grief and anger for Thor and Odin and Loki to further the film's events. But I also somehow felt like it could have been utilized more. Not sure about that exactly, but maybe something more from Thor referencing Frigga when batteling Kurse and Aether-infused Malekith. Very cool battle jumping between the realms at the end. Yet, it didn't quite have the emotional weight of Thor and Loki's smaller battle on the bridge at the end of the first film. I don't have any real issues with the humor in the film. I liked most of it well enough, and I didn't think any of it was over the top. Maybe some of the humorous scenes came a little too soon after the death scenes, but still I was ok with the tone of the humor in the film. Overall, after first viewing (with way too much pre-film info and about 16 months of anticipation in my head) I thought it was good. I'm hoping on subsequent viewings I experience my typical uptick in enjoyment factor for films that I've been anticipating too damn much for my own good.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I'd add that I'd also love to have had more Sif and the Warriors Three and less Darcy and her intern. But I thought every moment of screen time used for the Sif and TW3 (at least Volstag and Fandral) was very well done. Their parts in the escape plan all played nicely. I thought Darcy was good. Had no problem with her. I could have done without her intern, but he honestly didn't bother me. I just don't think he was necessary, and I think the story would have been better had it put more weight on the Sif and Warriors Three elements and less on the Darcy and her intern stuff. Actually, I think more Selvig over intern boy would have been better. Poor Erik had a rough time with having "a god in his head" and the part he played in the alien invasion of New York. His resulting eccentricities (thinking better without pants) were fine. Maybe a little much, but overall I found him to be a fun character in the film. And he really got a bit of a character arc ultimately when he came to terms with it all, threw out his med, and just got to work trying to save the Universe.

 

[Sean Bryan]

SPOILER WARNING FOR FUTURE MCU POTENTIAL STORY DIRECTIONS and for THE ENDING OF THE DARK WORLD!!!! PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET!!!So, the mid-credits scene reveals that there six "Infinity Stones" and that two of the them are the Tesseract and the Aether. "One down, five to go."Sif and Volstag are leaving the Aether Infinity stone with The Collector because "it's too dangerous to keep them so close to each other". So I think it's safe to say that MARVEL has told us in this scene that they are going to be doing some sort of take on, or adaptation of, The Infinity Gauntlet story from the comics in Phase Three (probably culminating in Avengers 3). As I speculated, I now am 100% certain that the McGuffin in Guardians of the Galaxy will be another Infinity Stone. I'm wondering if The Collector has his own agenda, or if he is simply collecting them for Thanos? So I assume that Sif and Volstag delivered the Aether Infinity Stone to the Collector on "Odin's" orders. And since ......SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!!!..... "Odin" has now been replaced by Loki, was Loki placing the Stone there simply because he recognizes the danger? Or is he basically delivering it to Thanos?Knowing Loki, there is definitely a reason for why he'd be doing this. So is he still in service to Thanos? Is it out of fear because of his failure to deliver the Tesseract to Thanos? But then, if he is straight up in service to Thanos, he's now in a position to give him the Tesseract as well. But all The Collector was given was the Aether. So, I'm not so sure what Loki's motivations are here or how all the players will ultimately be connected. GotG will shed more light on this, I'm sure. Thoughts?

 

[Sam Favate]

I thought the film was terrific -- loads of fun, a great cast, great visuals, and a compelling story. The Marvel films have been consistently strong; they're doing great work. Can't wait to see what's next. Oh, and loved that, just like the very end of Iron Man 3, "Thor will return."

 

[Freddie Z]

There's been rumors that she has been talking with WB. They'd be fools not to try to cast her as Wonder Woman.

She did test for the role but she's out of the running due to her commitments to Marvel.

 

[Freddie Z]

Just like the rest of the Marvel movies, I thought it was fun but kinda forgettable. My only real gripe is the cutesy dork dialogue. I assume that Joss Whedon either took a pass at the script or someone is just stealing his way of writing nerd character dialogue. That worked great in Buffy (it's one of my favorite things about the show) but it's just become a cliché at this point.And for those of us who don't know the Marvel U, can someone explain the first P.S.? All's I got out of it is that Benicio Del Toro is some kind of albino Liberace who collects things that are presumably of some kind of cosmic importance.

Here's another explanation for the uninitiated:http://ca.ign.com/videos/2013/11/08/thor-2s-after-credits-easter-egg-explained

 

[Joe Wong]

Did anyone see this in Dolby Atmos?

I show up to watch it in Atmos and the ticket seller tells me Disney didn't send any Dolby Atmos prints out. Oh, well.

The Atmos trailer they played was fantastic.

Joe