# Thor: The Dark World (SPOILERS)



## horacethegrey (Oct 30, 2013)

Watched it, liked it. But it's not as good as the first film, which is one of my all time favorite comic book flicks. Let me now go into detail what I thought of it...





WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!! READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!





LIKES

*Thor and Loki* - As with the first film, the success of this movie hinges on the performance of it's hero and his villainous brother, and once again they deliver. Chris Hemsworth still rocks as The God of Thunder, albeit a more mature and quiet one this time around, in sharp contrast to the loud and boisterous jerkass that he was (before being humbled) in the first film. And Tom Hiddleston once again threatens to steal every scene he's in with his dark and sardonic take on Loki. For me though, the film really shines when both Thor and Loki appear onscreen together. Their scenes are some of the best in the film, and provide some dramatic heft in a film that is somewhat lacking in it. How they go from here will be interesting to see, as the film ends on an ominous note where one of them gets the upper hand on the other. 

*Natalie Portman* - I never got the hate for Jane Foster in the first film. Sure she was a somewhat flat love interest, but other than that I thought she was okay. This time however, she gets to do more than just stand around like some witless bystander. Here her knowledge of astrophysics actively helps in saving the day. Natalie Portman has never looked hotter than she has here, and her onscreen chemistry with Chris Hemsworth is even better this time around.

*Frigga *- Many of us feel that Rene Russo as Frigga was kind of wasted in the first film. She's a fine actress in her own right, but didn't get to do much. This time however, she gets some good screentime and shows us why she's the Queen of Asgard.  It's so good to see her step up as a character, that it comes as a complete shock when Malekith kills her.

*Kurse *- Wow. The filmmakers went out of their way to make an adversary who can kick Thor's ass. Great screen realization of one of Thor's most powerful foes.

*Comedy *- Many of us were surprised by how funny the first film was, and the practice certainly continues in The Dark World. But someone must have been taking notes because the gags here are much more numerous here. Most of the laughs come courtesy of Kat Dennings returning as Darcy, with her patented wisecracks, and Stellan Skarsgard as Eric Selvig, by being batshit insane. But even Loki gets in on the fun with a hilarious moment that lampshades the MCU as a whole. And you have to admire the balls on director Alan Taylor for adding some genuine chuckle worthy scenes in Thor's final confrontation with Malekith.

*Asgard 2.0* - Early press releases on the film promised a grittier look to Asgard, and what we get in onscreen certainly doesn't disappoint. While the designs of the buildings have stayed the same, they rid it of any pristine and shininess. Settling on a brown and somber color scheme, Asgard isn't just a city in the stars this time, it looks like a city where people actually live.

*Ze Collector* - Benicio Del Toro! He looks like a camp galactic salesman, which speaks of the tone of the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy film he'll appear in next year. And when the Asgardians entrust him with a sacred gem for safekeeping, he hints at a five others. What could that mean I wonder? 


DISLIKES

*Story lacked heart* - The first film worked for me because it brought human dimension to the story of Thor's banishment and learning humility. This, plus the focus on his relationship with Odin and Loki gave us some great drama and managed to be very heartfelt. The Dark World on the other hand, is simply about Malekith wanting to gain control of the Aether, a flowing piece of Dark Matter that accidentally bonds with Jane Foster. Said storyline could have offered some emotion or drama, but it never really does. The only scenes that moved me in any way was Frigga's death and Thor's scenes with Loki. It's time like these that I really miss Kenneth Branagh's direction.

*Odin the Jerkfather* - What the hell?!! Why is Odin suddenly so cold and heartless here? What happened to the wise and compassionate ruler in the first film? Did the writers turn his character around just to add some drama? What a waste of an great actor like Anthony Hopkins

*Malekith *- Beyond being absolutely intimidating whenever he appears, nothing about Malekith makes him a memorable villain. A shame, since Christopher Eccleston could have really killed it in this role if they gave him more stuff to do, instead like Hopkins he seems wasted.

*New Score*- I loved Patrick Doyle's score in Thor, and I was sorely missing it here. Brian Tyler's score for The Dark World is not bad, but it's much too loud and bombastic. And doesn't offer the same sweeping and intimate moments that Doyle's score had. 


So there's my review of the film. As a sequel, I thought it was good, but it could have been better. I just hope the next Thor film gets a new director who can fix some of the mistakes here and bring back some of the first film's strengths.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

More jokes? Why? I can't stand when this happens to movies. The first one has a few good jokes and suddenly any sequeals have to be inundated with jokes. Its a quick way to ruin a movie.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 1, 2013)

My wife and I really enjoyed it, particularly the jokes. 

I think I agree with every point in your well-written review, [MENTION=40123]horacethegrey[/MENTION].


----------



## Derren (Nov 3, 2013)

Its a OK movies. It entertains but is also pretty forgettable.
Other than you I found Loki to be rather bland.

Frigga and Thor were the only Asgardians which I would consider positive. Odin was a jerk, Heimdal useless as ever and Thors companion got each their 5 minute screentime so that people don't forget that they exist and then vanished.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 9, 2013)

So the movie's out now in the US. Is anyone else going to share what they thought of it?


----------



## Goodsport (Nov 9, 2013)

I just finished watching the movie in 3D. 


-G


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 9, 2013)

Just got back from a 3d showing.

First impression?  Not impressed with the 3D.  Seems like it may have been another post-conversion.  Waste of the extra money for tickets there.

Liked it rather more than the first which seemed like it was trying to hard to just get all the origin story tedium out of the way so they could get on with Avengers.  More humor in this one to be sure (and yes, Kat Dennings gets a lot of credit there) and I think it's definitely a better movie for it.

Relationship between Jane and Thor worked better despite spending less time together.  I can only guess that is due to my own memory of their relationship having been established in the first movie.  I suspect strongly that for someone seeing this movie without that background will see a much shallower and unexplained relationship.  Despite a largely understated performance Hiddleston casually steals scenes as Loki, usually through the aforementioned added humor.

And I think I may have said this with the first movie but now it's certain - Mjolnir shall forevermore be prounounced meow-meow.


----------



## Joker (Nov 9, 2013)

For me it was as forgettable as most of the other Marvel and DC superhero movies.
Mildly enjoyable while I watched it but overall an empty experience.

The only positive thing I got out of it was the design of the Dark Elves.  They looked cool.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 9, 2013)

I'm going to watch it in a few minutes. Hopefully Kat Dennings bounces around a lot. Can anyone who has seen the movie tell me before I go in?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 9, 2013)

Well... that was disappointing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 10, 2013)

Unequal. Some jokes are really funny, others not so much. Humans understand dimensions just like that and manipulating with rods? Not buying it. There are a lot of concidences that are just too convinient. Weak script.

I did like how Loki ends up in the film, but the best element is the foreshadowing of the Infinity Gauntlet.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 10, 2013)

Just saw it yesterday - meh.

PROS
- Thor / Loki interaction
- Loki's portrayal in general
- The con Thor & Loki pulled to get a shot at the Aether
- The Erik Selvig character
- Frigga kicking ass

CONS
- Too many star wars sound effects and sci fi elements
- Asgardian pod racers and deathstar-like gun turrets
- The Asgardians keep bringing knives to a gun fight
- The dark elves looked like aliens as opposed to looking alien
- Kurse not being a singular character
- Odin being a complete jerk
- Thor just leaving Loki's body making it too convenient for that little illusion to work
- Portman's portrayal of Jane Foster - but that was mostly due to the weak sauce part and not really anything she did wrong.

Something I would have liked to see is Loki actually having a more direct impact on defeating Malekith as opposed to it being just Thor and the keystone scientists.


----------



## Janx (Nov 10, 2013)

I liked it. My wife liked it.  My friends liked it.

We all seem to have liked it more than the first.

I knew Loki wasn't dead when the Guard who was apparently just finding his body had green magic sauce finishing up as the scene opened. That pretty much meant whatever we saw as Loki dying was an illusion (Loki was likely nowhere near the blade).

Didn't quite call that Thor was talking to Loki-as-Odin, but given what I'd called when I saw the prior scene, it wasn't a shock either.

Given what Loki-as-Odin said, it would be a bit of character growth for Loki if he actually did a good job as King.



I also sense that Asgard is on the decline tecnologically. Odin's dad fought the dark elves and contained the Aether.
Yet his own son Odin has no clue how it works or how to extract it from Jane Foster.  I realize that 5000 years have passed, but we're not talking about 5,000 years of radically changing human history, we're talking a single generation step of passing knowledge on.

it's like the present day Asgardians are the iPod generation with no clue how any of this technology they rely on got here.  They think its magic (like Soul Forge), whereas the primitive hairless primate actually knew what it was doing.


These people need Tony Stark to study their tech, before their RenFair King's Feast ends.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 10, 2013)

I think that the knowledge of the aether might have been purposely been concealed, as for the soul forge, the users did know how it worked. But the lack of knowledge being passed n from one generation to the next does seem notice able, like how knowledge of the dark elves' ships was lost.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 10, 2013)

I loved it. It was extremely fun.

Odin being a jerk, first while he's dealing with his son's weird foreign girlfriend? Maybe that was a little un-called for. But being a jerk later, right after his wife was murdered? Made sense to me.

Every time there was a fight, I found myself thinking, "Damn, this is a hell of a lot better than Man of Steel."


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 10, 2013)

I'm not sure hy it is sucha suprised that Odin is a jerk. He might be specist and/or doesn't want a future king to marry a commoner.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 11, 2013)

I enjoyed it, it kept me entertained for 2 hours and it kicked ass.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 11, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I enjoyed it, it kept me entertained for 2 hours and it kicked ass.




This is the thing I have grown to love about the Marvel movies.

They're solid entertainment.

And I'm not a comics guy so I have little, if any, grounding in the genre. I just enjoy a couple of hours of action with a bit of humour.

Long may Marvel continue....


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> This is the thing I have grown to love about the Marvel movies.
> 
> They're solid entertainment.
> 
> ...




Hear!  Hear!

There may be relatively minor quibbles about each of the Marvel movies (there are for most movies), but they've been pretty good fun to watch. I thought that this outing for Thor was quite entertaining. The first movie, I thought, had a certain awkwardness to it that this one lacked. I think maybe the idea of the fusion of alien/high tech and divine/magic was a bit jarring and needed a bit of sinking in before it reached a more natural acceptance. I also think that the jumping of scenes from one location to another as it told the story flowed a bit better in the second movie.

And yes, there's plenty of humor, but I think it worked pretty well with the movie. If there's ever been one thing about Thor (as a Marvel character not counting the Ultimates) I didn't enjoy, it's his excessive seriousness. Having a bit of humorous lightness in the environment around him is a plus.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 11, 2013)

I didn't intend to see it in the theater, but I'm glad I did. I surprised to find myself saying Thor 2 was one of the best superhero movies in recent memory. A lot of fun. Embraces the source material instead of running away from/camouflaging it. Tom Hiddleston continues to be great, and Chris Hemsworth continues to be pleasantly adequate. It's the kind of movie that buries it's (obvious) weaknesses under a load of entertainment. 

The portal-tastic battle at the end was very, very clever. Hands down one of the best superheroic fight scenes in film. It's nice to see spectacle that's "witty and exciting", and not just "technically impressive and numbing". Loved the magic-tech and design(s) of Asgard -- as I did in the first one -- and the very updated-Flash-Gordon feel of the dark elf spaceship attack. 

Really, the fact the film sports a "dark elf spaceship attack" and is not utter garbage says something about the talent that went into making it.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 11, 2013)

I really enjoyed it. The 3D was not great, but the visuals and story were.


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2013)

Crothian said:


> I really enjoyed it. The 3D was not great, but the visuals and story were.




I had a hunch that it wasn't really a 3d movie, so we went with the non-3d version.

Sounds like I made the right choice and saved a few bucks.


----------



## Goodsport (Nov 12, 2013)

[video=youtube;IgPjoJGU2V8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgPjoJGU2V8#t=15[/video]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 12, 2013)

Goodsport said:


> [video=youtube;IgPjoJGU2V8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgPjoJGU2V8#t=15[/video]



Thor's hammer seems easy to pick up and use.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 12, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I'm not sure hy it is sucha suprised that Odin is a jerk. He might be specist and/or doesn't want a future king to marry a commoner.



he was most likely afraid that his son would be heart broken if he really loved her and she aged and died after what would be a short time to Thor. See Mayfly-December Romance


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

calronmoonflower said:


> he was most likely afraid that his son would be heart broken if he really loved her and she aged and died after what would be a short time to Thor. See Mayfly-December Romance



He is an old white dude. I'll go with specist and traditionalist.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 12, 2013)

Careful...


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> I had a hunch that it wasn't really a 3d movie, so we went with the non-3d version.
> 
> Sounds like I made the right choice and saved a few bucks.




I believe that is the case with most 3D movies, personally.


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> I believe that is the case with most 3D movies, personally.




Any of the films that weren't done specifically for 3d  fall in that bucket.  When I hear post-something something 3d, I know they added it as an afterthought.

Since 3d got big, Avatar and Gravity are the only two true-3d films that I am aware of that were designed, planned and shot for 3d. I was happy with both.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> Any of the films that weren't done specifically for 3d  fall in that bucket.  When I hear post-something something 3d, I know they added it as an afterthought.
> 
> Since 3d got big, Avatar and Gravity are the only two true-3d films that I am aware of that were designed, planned and shot for 3d. I was happy with both.




Yeah, when 3D is tacked on it feels, well, tacked on.  It's an obvious afterthought and that makes it more distracting than anything else.  There is one form of 3D I hate even more, though: 3D that does things for the sake of 3D.  You know, every axe has to come flying out of the screen, every weapon ever is pointed at the audience, etc.  So, so lame.  Give me tacked on over that crap any day.

I've not seen Gravity but I have seen Avatar.  Avatar did 3D right.  It was ... natural.  Though the plot, IMO, leaves a lot to be desired the 3D was a real achievement.  It set the bar and I've not seen anything come close to it since.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> Since 3d got big, Avatar and Gravity are the only two true-3d films that I am aware of that were designed, planned and shot for 3d. I was happy with both.




The Hobbit films are also designed, planned, and shot in 3D.


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> The Hobbit films are also designed, planned, and shot in 3D.




Good to know.  I don't recall if I saw the first one in 3d or not.  Now I know to make sure I do.


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yeah, when 3D is tacked on it feels, well, tacked on.  It's an obvious afterthought and that makes it more distracting than anything else.  There is one form of 3D I hate even more, though: 3D that does things for the sake of 3D.  You know, every axe has to come flying out of the screen, every weapon ever is pointed at the audience, etc.  So, so lame.  Give me tacked on over that crap any day.




The gimicky stuff flying at audience is a variation of "tacked on" to me.  It's a case of the director remembering, "oh yeah, this is supposed to be in 3d, let's throw in something to make it obvious."



Zombie_Babies said:


> I've not seen Gravity but I have seen Avatar.  Avatar did 3D right.  It was ... natural.  Though the plot, IMO, leaves a lot to be desired the 3D was a real achievement.  It set the bar and I've not seen anything come close to it since.




Gravity was nicely shot, decently acted.  had a few plot holes, but was a good film worthy of an award for something.

My eyballometric for what size screen to view a movie on is (aka how much to pay to see it for first time):

lots of talking, probably going to have awards for best acting: TV screen
lots of car chases, shooting, explosions, fighting: regular movie screen
Huge sweeping vistas or space battles: huge movie screen
Actually shot as a proper 3d movie like Avatar/Gravity: 3d movie screen

Thor rated a regular movie screen and I enjoyed it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> The gimicky stuff flying at audience is a variation of "tacked on" to me.  It's a case of the director remembering, "oh yeah, this is supposed to be in 3d, let's throw in something to make it obvious."




True - though I think Piranha 3D was an example of the 3D on purpose stuff I was talking about.  The whole point of that piece of garbage was to be 3D - a sorry excuse for a ... a ... well, anything about a movie, I guess.  For the record, no, I didn't see it.  Saw a preview before something else and immediately said 'hells to the noes'.



> Gravity was nicely shot, decently acted.  had a few plot holes, but was a good film worthy of an award for something.




I only hear good things about it for the most part.  That doesn't always mean anything but I think it might in this case.  I just don't see a lot of movies in the theater anymore.  



> My eyballometric for what size screen to view a movie on is (aka how much to pay to see it for first time):
> 
> lots of talking, probably going to have awards for best acting: TV screen
> lots of car chases, shooting, explosions, fighting: regular movie screen
> ...




That sounds a lot like the way I look at movies, too.  I never saw the first Thor but if I saw it or the second I'd probably opt for 2D unless everyone else wanted to see it in 3D.  Luckily my wife and friends feel pretty much the same way you and I do about 3D.  If it ain't shot that way from go it ain't worth seein'.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> Since 3d got big, Avatar and Gravity are the only two true-3d films that I am aware of that were designed, planned and shot for 3d. I was happy with both.



I also seem to recall Martin Scorsese's 'Hugo' and Wim Wender's 'Pina' were filmed in (and making good use of) 3d.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 18, 2013)

Just saw this last night with my family, (wife, son 12, son 9). I and my boys liked it, but the wife thought it was too violent for the 9 year old. I agree in that I wouldn't have taken him had I known the extensive war scenes, but he seems to have handled it just fine.

I didn't like the first Thor movie too much. Didn't hate it, just didn't like it. But I liked this one better.

We discussed the movie and plot and characters on the drive home, and my 12 year old made me laugh when he commented about Thor "trolling" his hammer during the portal-jumping fight. 

Has Thor ever been shown in a car in the comics? That two second scene cracked me up, and it wasn't played as an obvious gag.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Dec 18, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Has Thor ever been shown in a car in the comics? That two second scene cracked me up, and it wasn't played as an obvious gag.
> 
> Bullgrit




I don't know about a car, but the Avengers (including Thor) once commandeered a city bus.


----------

