It all feels a bit rote after the shenanigans of Thor and The Avengers but I still mostly had fun with this. B-

I'd put it above IM2, Thor, and CA, but it's not that much better than IM3 and I would go as far to say TIH is better.

The biggest problem I'm starting to have with these Marvel solo flicks is that these movies are so self contained that the stakes never feel high. I guess wanting something on the scale of TA is asking for too much, but these movie's really need some sort of BIG spectacle to keep the audience interested or give them a reason to care.

Oh! and the villains are pretty lame too. Didn't care for the dark elf baddies myself outside of Algrim/Kurse who could have been a awesome main villain, but is completely wasted. His fight with Thor towards the end was more exciting than the actual finale IMO.

The potential destruction of the universe has indeed rarely felt so insignificant.

I find it amusing Asgard's defenses include machine guns.

David, what is your summary of Natalie Portman in the series and in the newest film?

The Avengers (B)
Thor: The Dark World (B)
Thor (B)
Iron Man (B)
Captain America: The First Avenger (B-)
Iron Man 3 (C+)
Iron Man 2 (C)
The Incredible Hulk (C-)

Yes, it is a mediocre series. I'll grade it again when I've seen Thor: The Dark World.

3/5

I'm getting really tired of these Marvel movies where the story clearly takes the seatback and where the jokes and action take the frontseat.

Thor 2 is an alright movie, to catch on TV on a Saturday night.

Yet you gave it 3/5?! Which is 60%, which on RT would mean you think it is a fresh movie; it offers something to the world of film-making and/or cinema.

So far, all of the reviews seems to say that it's nothing special, and is just filler until The Avengers 2 comes around. I suppose 3/5 is your "safe" grade for it. Nobody will pick you out as loving it or hating it.

I liked it, however, I definitely enjoyed the original Thor more with its dynamic character changes of Thor and Lori and a more simple story. The effects were a bit disappointing and reminded me a bit too much of the Star Wars prequels (which it also seemed to borrow 100% of its spaceship noises from). Loki and Thor do make the movie though. I was honestly surprised how much Loki was in it, which was nice.

B

Needed more Jaimie Alexander, less Kat Dennings.

I gave it 3/5 because I thought it was alright: not particularly good, but not bad either. When it comes to TV in 2-3 years I'll probably watch it again. I did somewhat enjoy it, but I was definitely bored in some parts.

On the Internet Movie Database forum and elsewhere, the nerds are savaging Kat Dennings. Undeservedly, in my opinion. She is a bit grating, but this film's problems run much deeper than her overt comic relief. She is at worst a mild offense compared to the lazy storytelling and often ugly visual design.

Ya, I didn't mind Kat Dennings at all. She served as the necessary human commentary which Portman should fulfilled story-wise, but instead she kept passing out or kissing Thor instead.

I don't mind Kat Dennings either.

It's probably residual 2 Broke Girls hate, lol. That show is despised by quite a large number of people.

I actually enjoyed it, would give it a B+, I thought it was a lot of fun and love Loki who stole every film he has been in.

I had no idea whether it was Dennings or Lizzy Caplan for the whole movie

I liked the film. It had a fun tone and energy, but took also took its time in the non action scenes. This movie is the opposite of Man of Steel and I say that complimentary.

I was expecting the worst from the human characters but I found them to be enjoyable. Especially Dennings.

I'd rank this one as one of my favourites of Marvel's offerings.

An unwatchable movie; therefore I won't watch it.

That picture of Dennings looks like a slightly older, slightly bigger-breasted, slightly more deformed version of Amanda Seyfried.

Dennings is not hot. She's just chosen the wrong career path.

It always feels a bit strange to see The Incredible Hulk listed as one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, despite Downey Jr.'s cameo. It is so set apart from the rest, not only because they replaced Norton, but because none of the peripheral characters--William Hurt's General Ross, Liv Tyler's Betty, Tim Blake Nelson's Samuel Sterns/Leader--have reappeared, and I doubt they will at this point.

I liked THOR more than THOR 2.

Fun third act, though, and I loved the funeral sequence.

Generic, cliched, uninspired storytelling with a woefully underdeveloped main villain (Those expecting a meaty villainous role equivalent of the 9th Doctor are going to be disappointed), and actors that range between slumming/bored and irritating make for an underwhelming experience.

Hiddleston is the only one that had a chance to save this film, but even his expanded role gets swallowed by the constant attempts at bad comedy.

I adore Thor!!!

Now this is a great superhero movie!

I dug the whole mytho-sci-fi conceit and how it is told with such verve, such gusto.

Acting was solid all around, though Natlie Portman is wasted in this (time for her to make a real movie again). I always enjoy Kat Dennings comic stylings, and the old-timers were solid, especially Rene Russo as the steely queen. Chris Hemsworth is entirely satisfactory as the titular character, and Tom Hiddleston so devours his role he should be paid in relish.

A treat from beginning to end.


23 out of 5.