Review of Thor (2011) by Fdt44 — 11 May 2011

When you look at "Thor" on paper, you see a film booming with all sorts of potential, intrigue, and an aptitude for something not yet seen from Marvel. Unfortunately, when you take the time to actually buy a ticket, sit down in your seat and prepare to relax, the film doesn't quite live up to such expectations.

The film hem and haws at which time period it wants to delineate; the conjugality between ancient Norse mythology and the modern 21st century are muddled together very awkwardly. Aside from such befuddlement, "Thor" is highly entertaining and holds its Aryan head on the shoulders of Hemsworth, who does very well to steer the film's direction and provide ample laughs.

After you begin to examine the film after abstaining from Hemworth's charisma and allure, you can't help but notice the amount of plot holes and ambiguity that are left lingering. The pace seemed rushed, omitting essential and "needed" elements to the film.

Besides Thor's smashing of a coffee cup in the diner, the viewer is never introduced to the barbarism that is expected of a Norseman. Question concerning a multicultural Asgard also left me confused, but that was enough for me to shake off.

Despite that tolerance, however, the film disregards any mention of how Thor is able to communicate and understand the jargon of 21st century America. The film begins to show the backwardness of Norse times (granted very poorly) as Hemsworth goes into a pet store looking for a horse.

I found this to be a start in the right direction, until Portman's character yells "Need a lift?" To my surprise, Thor hops into a vehicle without any sort of amazement or consternation to the automotive advancement.

Next, I can appreciate the film's attempts to include subtle humor to break up the, at times, constant ennui, but straying from the movie's ambiance to do so is brainless. When it is ever acceptable to mention the word "princess" as a means of insult in a Norse land, is the day that Batman is no longer rich.

Yes, there are children at the movies too, this is true, but the rest of the scene into Odenheim is dreary, grave, and grim filled with grotesque, blood hungry Frost Giants--when is this a time to lower the film's rating to PG? I can't close without giving an honorable mention to two characters in the film: Loki and Jane Foster (Portman).

With regards to Loki, I found him to be one of the most dynamic villains ever created in a Marvel film. In fact, he is so "well-rounded" that at times, I wasn't even sure if he was a villain.

Yes, he was a trader, but you just couldn't help but feel sorry for him being the adopted and less-loved brother of Oden's real son; granted his character development was much greater than anyone else in the film.

Jane Foster was also significant to the film's effectiveness in the captivating enchantment she feels for Thor. It is because of her (Portman)'s performance that Thor works so well and gives off such an amiable aura.

All in all, "Thor" is Marvel's most intriguing comic book-to-movie creation yet to grace itself on the screen yet, however, it is also the most difficult to make. Because of the extreme degree of difficulty in explaining an entire mythology rather than one Gotham City, the film carries many plot holes, and for the exception of Loki, has a pretty basic character development.

The CGI effects delineate an entricate world and make for a highly entertaining and "feel-good" action comic creation.