Well, if Hulk is going to be in the Avengers, then Marvel is two out of three so far for the whole gang's origin movies. Hulk was a dud, but Iron Man and Thor are both solid. I thought this was almost as good as Iron Man. Had a little humor, some action, but not too much action, some romance, but not too much romance, and good character development.
I liked how they spent almost as much screen time on the villain as they did on the superhero, which I'm beginning to think is essential for any superhero story to work. Where are the X-men without Magneto, where is Superman without Lex Luther, Batman without Joker, and so on. Most superheros are defined by their villains, and not the other way around. In this regard, the villain of Thor is great in that he is probably one of the more well defined, and developed as a character. Not quite sympathetic, but very realistic motivations. All of this lets us really appreciate the heroic qualities in the main character all the more.
I also liked how they were not tied down to the original comic books, or the Norse mythology. It seems they put story first as a priority, without any sort of continuity issues with the myths either.
I would give it a solid 4/5. I'd like to know why Chris docked it a .1, unless he is using a different scale than me! Also, it's probably better than that, but I already heard good things from other people, and whenever that happens I do not like it as much as the original reviewer. Or maybe all of the original reviewers were docking the movie a .1 just for that reason.
Ha, yeah good question about why I gave it a 3.9 and not a 4. I think I was worried I was overly excited about it because it was one of the rare times I actually went to see a movie at a theater. Whenever I do that lately, I end up liking the movie more than I think I would normally.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, I think in hindsight it's worth a solid 4/5.