Thor: The Dark World

There have been plenty of movies based on classical cartoon superheroes that have been poorly implemented and with a lousy story. Luckily this one is not one of those. This was really a very enjoyable movie and I liked this movie a lot better than the first Thor movie which I felt was mostly silly. This one has a story which was rather okay and held somewhat together. You have to remember that this is a comic book hero and the story is on that level of course. The special effects and the scenery is really nice as well. The views of Asgard is cool, almost breathtaking. Anthony Hopkins was excellent as Odin or Oden has he is called in Sweden, my country of birth. Tom Hiddleston is also very good in his role although I have to say that I really do not like his role but then he is supposed to be one of the bad guys so… Chris Hemsworth is good enough in his role but I would say that he is really the weakest ones in terms of acting. The movie is liberally sprinkled with jokes as well and, thankfully, most of them are not too bad. Although a bit silly I have to say that I did laugh when Thor politely hung Mjölnir on the clothes rack in the apartment with Darcy and Dr. Selvig. On the whole I enjoyed this movie tremendously.

More of the same. Predecible non elaborated script and with a total lack of sense of humor. The FX are, again, OK, but the feeling of swords, axes, armors and helmets is of cheap plastic.

Watching Thor: The Dark World tonight, I got the feeling that Hollywood might have finally figured it out. In theory, a sequel should always surpass its predecessor, although as we all know, many have tried and famously failed. But a new trend seems to finally be breaking through. X2 was better than X-Men. Spider-Man 2 was better than the first. And now that I've seen it, I can tell you Thor: The Dark World… is better than Thor. (And the fact that these are all Marvel productions, that's food for anther discussion.) I thoroughly enjoyed Thor, directed by Kenneth Branagh, when I only saw it for the first time just this spring. In fact, I watched it again the same week. Which is saying enough to imply that my hopes were high for the sequel. So I was really looking forward to tonight and I was not disappointed. Thor 2 was helmed by a different director, Alan Taylor, which typically always spells trouble in my book when they change the director, but I take my hat off to him. What I admire is that he managed to capture the tone that Branagh set in the first film flawlessly – even perfected it in a way. He brings to the table a duality which almost never works successfully in any film, but here, does so perfectly: Taylor made Thor 2 notably darker, yet at the same time more humorous. I take my hat off to the writers as well – they put in a ton of great jokes, all at the exactly right moment. Had this been done even a fraction less tactfully, the film would have sunk like a bag of bricks, like so many others have. I found myself (and the audience) laughing my butt off one moment, and feeling very serious and engaged with the on-screen emotions the next. Even when it happened abruptly, it still never felt inappropriate. Now that's good entertainment. Two thumbs up. The actors all wear their roles like a custom-made suit. It's obvious that Chris Hemsworth has really grown into his character, third time around. This guy IS Thor, hands down. The same goes for all the other actors, they were all perfectly comfortable in their roles and respective environments. The one that intrigued me most, however, was Loki – personified absolutely magnificently by Tom Hiddleston. Much like Hemsworth, it seems he was born to play this role. He captures all the slyness, all the arrogance and all the torment of a man almost unable to bear the weight of his own ego in a single flicker in his eyes. And then that grin… Perfection. The way Hiddleston plays Loki is strangely captivating. You know he's totally wicked and cannot be trusted, yet at the same time you can't help but really like him – you might even end up rooting for this guy, and I'm not sure many other actors would have managed this. All the special effects were as good as one should expect them to be these days. I have nothing much to say there, except that it was all terrifically eye-pleasing, and Asgard looked even more beautiful than before. It was all convincing and very well done. Still, I have not completely explained why T:TDW is better than the first. Actually, I might not fully be able to. It's mostly a feeling. As much as I was entertained the first time, I was even more entertained now. It was more action-packed, more exciting, darker and it just had a great deal more adrenaline. The only thing that I think was weaker in this film, was the character of Jane Foster. Her character was just less interesting, kind of blank. I actually don't remember much of her at all, except that she slapped Thor a couple of times and she had all this creepy stuff coming out of her… Also she was somewhat of a damsel-in-distress most of the time with the look of a scared kitten on her face, and that's not exactly how we like to see our ladies nowadays. It's so common to see women being perfectly independent now, that it's a little weird to see a grown woman with "three degrees in physics" (as Darcy so poignantly points out) scared and shivering like a little girl. Most of the time, Natalie Portman just didn't carry her scenes very strongly, and that's strange coming from such a fine actress. So maybe one of the actors was actually a little out of place after all, thinking about it. Having said that, that's pretty much my only complaint. Every other element in this film was very solid, the story was very good and they absolutely nailed the pacing. Those two hours went by in the blink of a eye. Thor: The Dark World is wonderfully entertaining and a definite must-see for every Marvel fan. In fact – at the risk of enraging the Marvel Gods – this might just be pretty stiff competition to X-Men… Watch out Wolverine, I think I have a new favorite superhero. _(November 2013)_

**A long format review from 2013** Despite a virtually non-existent (comparatively) promotional campaign for Marvel’s latest effort, Thor: The Dark World has crushed its competition box-office-wise. Though receiving less critical acclaim than Captain Phillips or Gravity, it did clean up in the finance department. I’ve made no secret of the fact that in the MCU, my favourite Avenger is Thor, so a new film was always going to be an easy ticket from me. And I can’t work out if that bias is making me more critical of the film because I care so much, or less because I’m just happy it got made? I’ll try to be as above board as possible. Thor 2 is a spectacle, make no mistake. It has the appropriate mix of explosions, attractive people, monsters, humour, fighting, mesmerising visuals, sweet symbolism and heart-wrenching sorrow that can be expected from a decent super hero film. But beyond that, it doesn’t really have much. I know it sounds like it has a lot, and it honestly does, but I just couldn’t help feeling in a quite a number of moments that the thing felt hurried. Maybe if there wasn’t such a mad rush to get a Thor sequel out by the end of 2013, they could have spent a little more time fleshing out and filling in the script (not that it’s a short movie, I mean the pre-production feels rushed) and better utilising director Alan Taylor (Game of Thrones, Rome, Carnivale). There was a hint of the generic, amongst this otherwise splendid film. 73% -Gimly

Thor: The Dark World represents all of the MCU's worst tendencies: shoehorned humour at the expense of good scenes, a cookie cutter underdeveloped villain, and an over reliance on big outlandish explosions. It doesn't help that the story is also convoluted and lame, made even worse because it introduces the second infinity stone. All in all, Thor: The Dark World is not a terrible movie. It's just far more cliché than its predecessors, and that's disappointing.

I don't understand all the hate surrounding this movie. I loved every bit of it and somehow, to me, it feels like this was even better than its predecessor. Better CGI, a darker, sci-fi fantasy plot and improved action sequences make it a truly great sequel to the first film.

Action sequences aside, this movie was a great sequel to the first film. So much character development for Thor and I just love how he reunites with the crew from "Thor,” especially with Jane.

One of the first Marvel movies I watched and though I don't know a lot yet about him, I can say that Chris Hemsworth plays Thor quite well.

Not as good as the first one. I had my hopes up the whole time as I was able to enjoy the first one, but I guess it really is true that sequels always do worse than the originals.

Not as Thor-y as the first one but definitely gives Thor some character development which, let's all agree, he needs in order for him to establish better his role as one of the main heroes in The Avengers.

Didn't enjoy it as much as the first one but watched it for the sake of keeping up with the timeline and making sure I wasn't missing any information critical to understanding the next Avengers movie coming out.

Although acting was solid and the production value was still through the roof, I wasn't able to enjoy the movie. Probably because everything else sucked.

What happened to the deep story and intelligence that was portrayed in the first Thor film?