"You're Thor? Tell me about it! I'm tho thore I can hardly..."
Ahem, and apologies to officialgaiman, who used that line in Sandman: Season of Mists. Only he finished it.
Anyway, some brief background. I've been into Norse myth and legend for as long as I can remember. I spent many years as a Marvel fan and only with some reluctance did I relinquish a large part of my "The Mighty Thor" collection when we moved to the US (I did keep the entire Simonson run). And for good measure, I'm an admirer of Kenneth Branagh, former wunderkind of British theatre turned film director.
So, let's face it, I was always going to have to go and see the Thor movie.
And I have to say I was by no means disappointed. I've seen enough superhero movies not to have expectations of them transcending their genre roots (and thus not bothering to make too much sense). There were nonsense elements within this movie, certainly, and some things got pretty much lost in editing by the looks of it, but overall it actually did hang together for at least 80% of itself, which is more than many superhero films (some barely manage 8%, such as the second FF movie, or the laughably dire Ghost Rider - someone PLEASE explain how there's a sequel to that coming out next year?!?!).
Casting helps a great deal, of course, in terms of believability. If the characters look and act right, much else can be forgiven if needs be. And I was impressed by both Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, neither of whom are big names and neither of whom I was remotely familiar with. Hemsworth captures the larger-than-life boldness of Thor just about pitch-perfectly; his early arrogance is as convincing as his self-sacrifice later (though I can't help but feel that at least a touch of his sacrificial gesture came from not wanting to live as a mortal; I'm not sure if there was an intentional overtone here or not). Hiddleston's Loki was beautifully layered; tortured by an intelligent backstory (rooted in some aspects of myth, rather than the comics, which was a nice surprise), and ultimately a man who had lied both to himself and others that by the end he now longer knew what the truth was. There were elements of his plan that didn't gel - if he really was after his father's regard, which I found entirely plausible, then he should surely have been less keen to actually kill the already-banished Thor, and indeed in the earlier part of the movie his affection for his brother (despite everything) seemed quite genuine. So I wasn't entirely happy with the veering of his character between tragic/misunderstood and outright evil (and let's remember, he is not the "God of Evil"; he's the god of Lies, and close to being the only Trickster God in European myth cycles). Of course, my reactions may be coloured somewhat by my own takes on myth - this is someone who's rewritten chunks of Norse myth from the POVs of both Odin and Loki, after all.
The "human" supporting cast had less to do, but did their jobs well enough. The sidekick got completely shuffled offstage after she'd got her iPod product placement in, which was kind of a shame as she had a certain charm. Portman was as winsome as she has been since her first appearance (in "Leon"/"The Professional"), but hardly made for a convincing scientist; Stellen Skarsgard did a much better job there, though quite how this guy in his 50s or so had ended up as her faithful assistant was not explained (probably just as well since no explanation would have made sense). And SHIELD actually get to do a bit of Men in Blackery, for the first time in the franchise.
A word for the visualisation; Asgard was as grand and wondrous as it needed to be, a beautiful fusion of elements from the comics' various realisations of the realm and a touch of intriguing reinterpretation - the "rainbow bridge" was done differently and beautifully (I particularly enjoyed the little touch of the lights changing as horses rode over it), although the Bifrost teleportation beam was handled rather more oddly (but clearly was deemed necessary as, literally, a Plot Device). The Destroyer looked perfect, though the T2-style body reversal after Sif had pinned it to the ground was an unnecessary touch. The Frost Giants looked a touch peculiar but their ice creation effects were suitably effective.
It'll be interesting to see how the film stands up against the others coming this summer.
We've got X-Men: First Class, which looks pointlessly revisionist (but the franchise needs work after having been completely wrecked in X3 - just as the comics franchise was wrecked by its own popularity in the post-Claremont years, with Age of Apocalypse and House of M and all sorts of grandiose ideas twisting continuity into a ball of rusty barbed wire - and not helped by the written-by-numbers Wolverine movie).
We've got Green lantern, which looks to be trying for a major sensawunda but with way-over-the-top CGI (the trailer clips of the likes of Abin Sur, Kilowog and Tomar-Re just don't look believable - they are horribly over-rendered, with a level of detail that reality just doesn't actually have) and questionable casting (I will always love Ryan Reynolds for his motormouth Hannibal King in Blade 3, and he'll be the perfect Deadpool when they make that, but Hal Jordan he surely isn't).
And we've got Captain America, with the "intriguing" (you may choose an alternative word) prospect of the FF's Human Torch recast as Cap - I wasn't impressed by Chris Evans' Torch but I'll admit his trailer appearances (most as Steve Rogers) are more promising - and Elrond/Agent Smith as the Red Skull. I suspect I'll go and see these, since superhero movies do tend to work best on the big screen. But I can honestly say I don't expect to enjoy any of them as much as I did Thor.
Next year's Whedon-helmed Avengers movie, on the other hand... now THAT I have hopes for.
Anyway, some brief background. I've been into Norse myth and legend for as long as I can remember. I spent many years as a Marvel fan and only with some reluctance did I relinquish a large part of my "The Mighty Thor" collection when we moved to the US (I did keep the entire Simonson run). And for good measure, I'm an admirer of Kenneth Branagh, former wunderkind of British theatre turned film director.
So, let's face it, I was always going to have to go and see the Thor movie.
And I have to say I was by no means disappointed. I've seen enough superhero movies not to have expectations of them transcending their genre roots (and thus not bothering to make too much sense). There were nonsense elements within this movie, certainly, and some things got pretty much lost in editing by the looks of it, but overall it actually did hang together for at least 80% of itself, which is more than many superhero films (some barely manage 8%, such as the second FF movie, or the laughably dire Ghost Rider - someone PLEASE explain how there's a sequel to that coming out next year?!?!).
Casting helps a great deal, of course, in terms of believability. If the characters look and act right, much else can be forgiven if needs be. And I was impressed by both Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, neither of whom are big names and neither of whom I was remotely familiar with. Hemsworth captures the larger-than-life boldness of Thor just about pitch-perfectly; his early arrogance is as convincing as his self-sacrifice later (though I can't help but feel that at least a touch of his sacrificial gesture came from not wanting to live as a mortal; I'm not sure if there was an intentional overtone here or not). Hiddleston's Loki was beautifully layered; tortured by an intelligent backstory (rooted in some aspects of myth, rather than the comics, which was a nice surprise), and ultimately a man who had lied both to himself and others that by the end he now longer knew what the truth was. There were elements of his plan that didn't gel - if he really was after his father's regard, which I found entirely plausible, then he should surely have been less keen to actually kill the already-banished Thor, and indeed in the earlier part of the movie his affection for his brother (despite everything) seemed quite genuine. So I wasn't entirely happy with the veering of his character between tragic/misunderstood and outright evil (and let's remember, he is not the "God of Evil"; he's the god of Lies, and close to being the only Trickster God in European myth cycles). Of course, my reactions may be coloured somewhat by my own takes on myth - this is someone who's rewritten chunks of Norse myth from the POVs of both Odin and Loki, after all.
The "human" supporting cast had less to do, but did their jobs well enough. The sidekick got completely shuffled offstage after she'd got her iPod product placement in, which was kind of a shame as she had a certain charm. Portman was as winsome as she has been since her first appearance (in "Leon"/"The Professional"), but hardly made for a convincing scientist; Stellen Skarsgard did a much better job there, though quite how this guy in his 50s or so had ended up as her faithful assistant was not explained (probably just as well since no explanation would have made sense). And SHIELD actually get to do a bit of Men in Blackery, for the first time in the franchise.
A word for the visualisation; Asgard was as grand and wondrous as it needed to be, a beautiful fusion of elements from the comics' various realisations of the realm and a touch of intriguing reinterpretation - the "rainbow bridge" was done differently and beautifully (I particularly enjoyed the little touch of the lights changing as horses rode over it), although the Bifrost teleportation beam was handled rather more oddly (but clearly was deemed necessary as, literally, a Plot Device). The Destroyer looked perfect, though the T2-style body reversal after Sif had pinned it to the ground was an unnecessary touch. The Frost Giants looked a touch peculiar but their ice creation effects were suitably effective.
It'll be interesting to see how the film stands up against the others coming this summer.
We've got X-Men: First Class, which looks pointlessly revisionist (but the franchise needs work after having been completely wrecked in X3 - just as the comics franchise was wrecked by its own popularity in the post-Claremont years, with Age of Apocalypse and House of M and all sorts of grandiose ideas twisting continuity into a ball of rusty barbed wire - and not helped by the written-by-numbers Wolverine movie).
We've got Green lantern, which looks to be trying for a major sensawunda but with way-over-the-top CGI (the trailer clips of the likes of Abin Sur, Kilowog and Tomar-Re just don't look believable - they are horribly over-rendered, with a level of detail that reality just doesn't actually have) and questionable casting (I will always love Ryan Reynolds for his motormouth Hannibal King in Blade 3, and he'll be the perfect Deadpool when they make that, but Hal Jordan he surely isn't).
And we've got Captain America, with the "intriguing" (you may choose an alternative word) prospect of the FF's Human Torch recast as Cap - I wasn't impressed by Chris Evans' Torch but I'll admit his trailer appearances (most as Steve Rogers) are more promising - and Elrond/Agent Smith as the Red Skull. I suspect I'll go and see these, since superhero movies do tend to work best on the big screen. But I can honestly say I don't expect to enjoy any of them as much as I did Thor.
Next year's Whedon-helmed Avengers movie, on the other hand... now THAT I have hopes for.