Review: Thor Fades in the End

Laremy Legel May 6, 2011

No real momentum, no life force, no undefinable quality.

When you’re near a crosswalk there’s a moment where you hesitate. You see a car headed your way and you do that stutter-step maneuver, half dipping your foot into the stream of traffic, but not fully committing on the off chance the driver has been momentarily struck by blindness. A couple hundred thousand years of evolution implores you not to proceed, but your modern intellect attempts to convince you it will all work out, because you don’t want to have that embarrassing scenario play out where the driver does the facetious “after you” hand motion as you stand there like a bumpkin at the side of the crosswalk.

This, in a microcosm, is Thor, a film that absolutely should exist, but for entirely commercial reasons. Past that it has no real momentum, no life force, no undefinable quality which makes it in the least bit remarkable. You can’t fault Thor for stepping into the crosswalk, because not making it would have been a less intelligent call, but once you see it in full stride you realize it’s not a gem; it’s an average film, gently loping along, hoping not to stand out.

Thor commences with Natalie Portman in a storm. She’s chasing weather anomalies with uber-likable Kat Dennings at the wheel and Stellan Skarsgård in tow. Portman has been able to predict 17 straight weather disturbances, but this one is a little different, as a shadowy figure emerges right in the middle of the tumult. Then we’re whisked off to Asgard! What’s an Asgard? Thor’s domicile, which comes off as a cross between the worlds of Speed Racer and Tron: Legacy. Exciting, right?

Thor

The first problem Thor has is Thor. Chris Hemsworth is winning and likable, but it’s tough to relate to a god. Bruce Wayne is rich, but people become rich every so often. Spider-Man was an awkward kid first, and a “dancin’ on the street” suave web-slinger only after some personal growth. The closest parallel would be Superman, but Supes embodies humility and goodness, where Thor is bravado and brute force. There’s also the issue of scope, as the New Mexico and Asgard locales make up the entirety of the film.Wait, no, there’s another planet, a “bad guy” planet we’re asked to care about as the film progresses.

To my surprise, Asgard and the internal politics thereof were placed front and center here. Anthony Hopkins is Thor’s papa, Odin, and he’s about to relinquish the crown to his eldest son. Loki (Tom Hiddleston), is his youngest son, and Rene Russo portrays Odin’s wife. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Norse mythology should see the plot line of this film telegraphed a mile away, and the complexity level isn’t all there. There ARE bad guys, who are bad because they are bad, and every so often a member of the Thor posse acts in a manner that’s not technically good. But again, motivations are never really explored, which makes the culmination of Thor feel pretty irrelevant. Thor is a film that also desperately wants it both ways. We’re supposed to take the consequences (Asgard is in peril!) seriously without any attempt at context. We’re supposed to accept that Portman and Hemsworth like each other because they talked for a few minutes. We’re expected to smirk along with the film at Thor’s ignorance of Earth’s culture, all the while intuiting that he’s aware of Earth, and here to help. Asgard is also problematic in that it is presented as a dream world (with rainbow roads straight out of Mario Kart) where they have feasts and know magic, but then real-world problems arise that don’t gibe with the established tone. It doesn’t ever really add up, though the first hour does work as a fantasy epic, almost in the vein of a Narnia movie.

To that point, we can safely call 70 of the 110 minutes solid. Centering the movie almost entirely around New Mexico and Asgard helps in the sense that it provides focus. This isn’t a sprawling epic with global ramifications, or at least not Earth’s globe. New Mexico seems to be in some sort of peril for a few minutes, but it’s a fleeting danger. Unfortunately, this focus also destroys much of the final third of the film, as consequences and choices start undoing the momentum of the piece. For instance, you could argue (and I’m happy you’re doing so) that Thor is a film full of questions without context or ramification. Natalie Portman is a researcher, but why does her research matter? Asgard has dealings with Earth, but how and why? Many things within Thor must be accepted at face value, but these very things are what make the whole enterprise feel inconsequential. To enjoy Thor is to simply enjoy bright lights and loud noises, though the 3-D aspect is largely wasted as well. Enjoyment here isn’t impossible, but you won’t be amazed when the end credits roll (and you await that patented after credits scene). Thor is the typical summer superhero film, and the genre has become formulaic enough that a decent version can be produced without much fuss. Thor is fine, but it’s not exceptional on any front.

Still, I look forward to watching the character in The Avengers. I could see 15 good minutes out of Thor, even if there’s not nearly enough to hang a sequel on. Thor won’t be remembered as an innovator or genre-shifter, and with a glut of superhero films imminent, Thor likely won’t be remembered at all.

Grade: C

Tags: Chris Hemsworth, kat dennings, movie reviews, natalie portman, thor

Previous article Review: Something Borrowed Next article Pitch Meeting: Something Borrowed

comments

Skotsman
Well said. But I must say, speaking as someone who was dragged to a free screening, it was never as silly as it seemed like it should have been. You know?
Skotsman
Well said. But I must say, speaking as someone who was dragged to a free screening, it was never as silly as it seemed like it should have been. You know?
Anonymous
Yeah, it was like they couldn’t decide on a tone. Campy or serious? They split the difference, which made it feel undone.
RealAlias
LOSER, LOSER, LOSER.
MARVEL FOREVER, MAN!!!!!!!!!!!
Brandon1985
this critic is lost that said go watch a soap opera you bum
Asgardian Reader
Just as the reference for Thor lies in Norse methology, the reference for the God of Thunder shown in this movie lies in the Marvel age of comics. Do your own home work!
Guest
lets be honest the last Iron Man, Hulk, had lead ins to THE Avengers . Thor is A MAIN lead in so he can be in Capt America. The little advertised X men first class will have the wasp. Building blocks
Dan
Get real all you critical remarks are in fact what makes it good entertainment. Movies are make believe flights of imagination not fomented the meaning of life or the such
Anonymous
Solid point. We hadn’t thought of that.
Anonymous
Solid point. We hadn’t thought of that.
Anonymous
Tough, but fair.
Valkyrie
From reading your review….its obvious you know very little of Norse mythology…..because you ask questions that a high schooler already knows from basic history or maybe you skipped class that week. Also its obvious you are not a Thor comic book follower. So this movie is not for you but heck you get paid anyway. All this proves is you still don’t do your homework even as an adult. Thor gave the fans what they want and thats all that needs to be said. I give your review a D minus!
http://profiles.google.com/rokkenstein John Thompson
Is there enough known Norse mythology to form an interesting screen play? What I’ve seen are only a few of the different presentations of Wagner’s Ring Cycle where Thor is hardly mentioned. Most of what is known about Norse mythology trickles down after Christianization. The legend of Conan, the barbarian, may be in a parallel universe with the earliest Norse legends, but Conan was not a Viking and the Conan legend did not exist before the 20th Century. Are we expecting Thor to be a hero larger than Siegfried and immortal?
Wikipedia “Viking” -
“There is archaeological evidence that Vikings reached the city of Baghdad, the center of the Islamic Empire. The Norse regularly plied the Volga with their trade goods: furs, tusks, seal fat for boat sealant and slaves. However, they were far less successful in establishing settlements in the Middle East, due to the more centralized Islamic power.
Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west to places such as Ireland, Scotland, Iceland and Greenland; the Danes to England and France, settling in the Danelaw (northern/eastern England) and Normandy; and the Swedes to the east, founding the Kievan Rus, the original Russia. However, among the Swedish runestones which mentions expeditions over seas, almost half tell of raids and travels to western Europe. Also, according to the Icelandic sagas, many Norwegian Vikings went to eastern Europe. These nations, although distinct, were similar in culture and language. The names of Scandinavian kings are known only for the later part of the Viking Age. Only after the end of the Viking Age did the separate kingdoms acquire distinct identities as nations, which went hand in hand with their Christianization. Thus the end of the Viking Age for the Scandinavians also marks the start of their relatively brief Middle Ages.”
ihatecritics
crtics need real jobs they act like they know everything …which they don’t…people go see the movie and judge for yourself.
Danielle
brfor reading this i can say i wouldn’t have put it that way, but now that i have seen the movie, i can honestly agree with every word. It had about 20 (5 extra mins) mins of solid action, but of course that action comes at the end of the movie.
Anonymous
We give your review of our review a B+. Good work!
Anonymous
Definitely something to ponder!
Anonymous
Sadly, the soap operas are dying off. Not enough revenue stream. It’s an issue.
Guest
this movie was good …wth… whatever critics are to critical! Loved it!
RobGrizzly
Hmm.. This is tough.
I have to say, I really understand what Laremy is saying. There are some
good points here about scope, face value, and lack of context. It also
saddens me to say, that the movie is a little disposable/forgettable
overall. I had this pegged as possibly being the best of this summer’s
superhero movies (scary thought: it still could be) so I admit to being
somewhat disappointed.
But all of the movies’ faults, are faults of the comic from which it’s
based. (Sorry about that rainbow road- What can ya do?) Thor comics were
never that great to begin with, imo. Stan Lee is better with original
creations, not aping Norse mythology. Which also begs me to ask why
Laremy says this Thor movie “absolutely should exist”. Just because of
Avengers? No. Its they same reason they shouldn’t make Ant-Man. Some of
these characters just won’t work as their own movies.
Tron and Narnia are apt comparisons, and honestly, it was the Asgardian
stuff I liked least. Once he came to Earth, I found it more relatable,
and liked those segments better overall. The humans do come off flatter
than the Gods, though, and I don’t think Laremy gives enough credit to
Hemsworth and Loki- they basically carry the film. The family/political
drama is very Shakespearean, so I can understand why Kenneth Brannagh
was attracted to it. These are also the elements that work best. We
don’t need to relate to Thor, we just have to believe him. And Chris
Hemsworth has the screen presence to make me look forward to seeing him
in Avengers for sure.
This was a hard movie to pull off. Good action, good characters. It’s enjoyable enough.
Thor is good enough for a pass in my book.
Grade: B
Guest
Looks like they yanked my critique of the critic, too bad he really shouldn’t take this too personally, maybe just as a clue to get a job doing something else.
Mr. Smith
Sometimes reviewers overthink the movie they are reviewing. This is comic book entertainment, not the historical review of roman mythology. Lighten up!
Kmcbride29
You’re actually wrong about that. I’m not attempting to offend you or anything but the whole “meaning of life” scope as well as all of the reviews’ points are the basics of a ‘great’ story…and it starts with the script. The film is enjoyable but think about how much BETTER it would be if the story arc was fleshed out a bit more. The movie wasn’t even 2 hours so it’s no wonder so much of it felt rushed.
Kmcbride29
Yeah, but you shouldn’t have to “do homework” because it’s the filmmaker’s responsibility to convey the necessary elements of the story. Plot holes are plot holes whether you’re a fan or not. The acting was terrific, the set designs were amazing at times, some of the action was just okay, and the movie was very accurate to the source material. Yet, still, the review was spot on.
Kmcbride29
Reviewers are just doing their jobs. Some do it better than others but everyone has their own opinion, ya know what I mean? Many of them are former industry writers and it can be difficult at times to pull back and be less objective…especially when everyone is expecting them to be objective in the 1st place (which is why we all read the review anyway). But even animation movies are developed under the same story guidelines so it doesn’t matter the genre of film…there’s always a standard and those standards are in place to make the movies we love/hate even better. Hope all of this gave you a better understanding. I know you didn’t ask for it but I just thought I’d help a little.
djuraev
well i dont see the movie so , bad
thewatcher
I Liked this movie… one of the things I found missing was the emotional connection overall. I believe they were trying to prevent boring us all to hell… Spider-Man 3, ring a bell. But I feel a bit more of Loki’s contempt for Thor should’ve been explored, like that first moment Loki realized Odin favored his true heir, maybe a scene where Loki was listening in on a private moment between Odin and a younger Thor. The scene where Thor re-gained his power the fight scene with the destroyer should have included Sith, Thandrill, Hogan & Volstagg & been more extensive & elaborate.
Asgardian Reader
Homework in this case is simply short hand for saying if you lack knowledge of the subject matter maybe you should do research before doing a review. Just on the odd chance your lack of information would be a example to someone else not to know what they are talking about. Comparing Asgard with Narnia, and in fact not know what Asgard is only shows a lack of understanding. Like comparing apples and oranges, or Dr. Who with the Three Stooges.
the big red
thor was alright they could done more with the movie. more action and a better look in too the thor legdons but as 1 out of 10 i give it a 8 so ya good job marvel….
Guest
how dare you say any thing bad about thor, it was a great movie
Guest
how dare you say any thing bad about this amazing spectacular movie. Every thin about it was great
Odin
if you lack knowledge of the subject matter, your ONLY research should be the movie. Nothing else is needed for a review OF THE MOVIE; it is not a review on the Mythology of THOR or a study of all its’ components. It is ludicrous and idiotic to ask someone to research a subject beyond that component which is being reviewed. It would seem that you are accusing the reviewer of being a dolt because they are not as well informed as you about the subject the movie portrays, and therefore not well enough equipped to enjoy the movie or review the movie properly.
Narnia is a perfectly legit comparison for Asgard because they both are fantasy realms in movies that have a portal to our earth. And besides, they are both movies dealing with fantastical elements that necessitate a logic to make them coherent.
Get out of your insulated world. It is more than proper for one who is NOT an affictionado of a said genre to review it, for they will judge it by its’ merits alone and its’ wider appeal. A good story is a good story regardless. You would have only the converted comment on the common religion. I will not argue with you about this, I call you fool, and I cast you out Asgardian Reader/Valkyrie. You will be allowed to return to the realm when you have gained some maturity.
I CAST YOU OUT!!!
O D I N
a movie review does not require “home work”, only the movie in question.
I CAST YOU OUT!!!
nterview
It’s a summer popcorn movie… looking for depth in a comic book based summer popcorn movie is the height of movie reviewer pretentiousness — you admit it was entertaining, and your assumption that it was meant to be anything else but entertaining, with some cool special effects and most of all in the BUSINESS a box office success is your own critic’s bias weighing in. I doubt anyone involved thought that they were doing Shakespeare; in fact Kenneth Branagh most likely did it as a fun departure from the seriousness of most of his past projects.
Sam Padmore
There are a lot of movies that if you have an understanding of the subject matter, will make them more enjoyable. A wider knowledge of events or other media is just basic intelligence, not “homework”.
I watched the film and fast forwarded the obvious falling in love, life lessons, growing up bit. Which made it very entertaining indeed. And yes I possess a basic understanding of Norse mythology without doing any ‘homework’ at all.
Dionne Clarke
The film makes no sense at all. Must have been a cheap budget film. Why the hell does the
man from shield call Thor Donald when they haven’t even met before? Dumb.
I can pick out at least 20 things that does not involve the viewer. The music was
absolutely stunning though. Stupid film.