X
X Welcome to The Stir.
It's easy to keep in touch with us:
"Like" us on Facebook
Receive our Hottest Stories Daily
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter
You've signed up for The Stir Daily Ten! Look for it in your inbox each evening.
Please enter a valid email address.
Harsh 'Thor' Reviews Hit the Nail on the Head
Posted by Kim Conte on May 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM
True, superhero movies aren't everyone's cup of tea. But Thor is getting particularly hammered by the critics depending on which review you read. The general consensus seems to be the big budget movie is jam-packed with tons of action, cool special affects, and ... cliches. Moreover, supporting actors Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman aren't enough to carry a movie in which the main character (played by Chris Hemsworth, who reviewers have affectionately called a "meathead" and "celestial beer monster") is likeable and muscly but bland. Come to think of it, Thor actually sounds like the perfect summer movie, right? Or does it?
A.O. Scott writing for the New York Times was perhaps the most brutal in his critique:
As I stumbled out of the Imax multiplex all-media advance screening of Thor ... I thought of seeking shelter: in a nearby bar; under a passing bus; in the velvet shadows of an art house playing the longest, slowest, most obscure movie imaginable. But when something like “Thor” comes to town, there is really no refuge to be found in drink, death or subtitles, and so I tried to reason myself out of the leaden gloom that lay upon my soul as heavy as Mjolnir.
Xan Brooks writing for The Guardian was a little more forgiving -- but not much:
I'd hesitate to call this a good film, exactly. It's overlong and all over the place. The sets are tacky and the script is in spasms. Some of the supporting players (most notably a stricken Stellan Skarsgård) appear poignantly all at sea. But there's something weirdly charming about it just the same.
And, Jen Chaney for The Washington Post could take it or leave it:
There are two things about Thor that may stick in my memory: that Chris Hemsworth has the biceps of an otherworldy weight lifter and that the film’s frost giants reminded me a lot of the Snow Miser. The rest? It will probably fade into a CGI-generated mist before the weekend is up.
The question remains, then: How memorable should our summer blockbusters actually be? Maybe if we didn't take our superhero movies so seriously, we could relax and enjoy all the muscles special effects.
Critical Mass: 'Thor' swings his hammer and the critics scream Comments (2)
May 6, 2011 | 2:55 pm
Bridges are the key theme of this weekend's "Thor," a film that bridges us from the doldrums of spring releases to the flashier, if not better, world of summer blockbusters. It also serves as another step in the bridge from the first "Iron Man" in 2008 to next summer's superhero all-star jam, "The Avengers." And within the film itself, a superhero actioner about the Norse god of thunder and his adventures in his home of Asgard and on Earth, a rainbow bridge connects the well-regarded Asgard sections of the film with the less successful Earth sections, set in Puente Antiguo, N.M. (which means "Old Bridge").
According to Times critic Kenneth Turan, the film also attempts to bridge director Kenneth Branagh's high-minded Shakespearean intentions with Marvel Entertainment's bottom-line-oriented need to crank out entertainment product. However, Turan doesn't exactly see it as a bridge: "Think of 'Thor' as the ultimate Superhero Smackdown." Surprisingly, he finds no winner. Both titanic forces fight to a draw in his estimation. He writes, " 'Thor' has its strengths, but it is finally something of a mishmash with designs on being more interesting than it manages to be."
"Thor's" hammer-swinging and 3-D derring-do seem to have had an adverse effect on poor A.O. Scott at the New York Times. He stumbled out of his screening "seeking shelter: in a nearby bar; under a passing bus; in the velvet shadows of an art house playing the longest, slowest, most obscure movie imaginable." Not even Branagh, Mr. Shakespeare himself, could save the film in Scott's eyes. Instead, he says, "you are hammered with one cliché after another, from the architecture of Asgard, with its floating stone staircases and vast, vaulted chambers, to the computer-generated monsters."
But not every critic disliked it as much as Turan and Scott. Others, while finding fault with the movie, found much to enjoy -- particularly Thor himself, blond-maned Chris Hemsworth, who acts appropriately god-like, according to NPR's Bob Mondello. "[W]hen the screenplay gives him something besides arrogance to work with, he owns the movie too -- a frat-boy god-out-of-water, amusingly clueless about when throwing his weight around is manly and appealing, and when it just makes him a jerk. In a diner, say, smashing coffee cups."
But these are critics, who spend just as much time watching Ken Loach films as they do Marvel comic-book films. What about "Thor's" core audience? Those who know Mjolnir from a mojito? Who dream of visiting Asgard with Aslan and know which is which? What does noted internet geek Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News think? Though his day started off as kind of a bummer (his review opens with a description of his eye condition upon waking up on the day he saw "Thor"), Branagh's film soon cheered him up. A lot. We'll just let Knowles speak for himself: "The second you see Hemsworth’s Thor begin twirling Mjolnir -- the classic circular way -- and you begin to see what it does... I swear -- I squealed like a little girl playing with her older brother’s cooler toys for the first time unsupervised."
Surprisingly, it's the 3-D battles that most appealed to USA Today critic Claudia Puig, rather than the fish-out-of-water romance between Thor and Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman. Puig notes that Hemsworth and Portman have good chemistry but says his best lines are just jokes. Much more impressive are "the electrifying battles between the Norse gods and their nemeses, the imposing Frost Giants. Sharply honed icicles vs. Thor's mighty hammer create massive, crumbling mayhem.This is where the 3-D comes into play stunningly, along with Thor rocketing to Earth amid what looks like the aurora borealis."
But like all strong bridges, "Thor" serves both sides well, despite the faults they may find. Minneapolis Star-Tribune critic Colin Colvert gave the film one of the weekend's biggest raves. He writes, "Happily, 'Thor' feels specific and complete, less an obligatory link in a continuing tale than a handsomely engineered, hugely enjoyable standalone... 'Thor' bridges the gap between high culture and low, between fanboys and mass moviegoers."
May 6, 2011 | 2:55 pm
Bridges are the key theme of this weekend's "Thor," a film that bridges us from the doldrums of spring releases to the flashier, if not better, world of summer blockbusters. It also serves as another step in the bridge from the first "Iron Man" in 2008 to next summer's superhero all-star jam, "The Avengers." And within the film itself, a superhero actioner about the Norse god of thunder and his adventures in his home of Asgard and on Earth, a rainbow bridge connects the well-regarded Asgard sections of the film with the less successful Earth sections, set in Puente Antiguo, N.M. (which means "Old Bridge").
According to Times critic Kenneth Turan, the film also attempts to bridge director Kenneth Branagh's high-minded Shakespearean intentions with Marvel Entertainment's bottom-line-oriented need to crank out entertainment product. However, Turan doesn't exactly see it as a bridge: "Think of 'Thor' as the ultimate Superhero Smackdown." Surprisingly, he finds no winner. Both titanic forces fight to a draw in his estimation. He writes, " 'Thor' has its strengths, but it is finally something of a mishmash with designs on being more interesting than it manages to be."
"Thor's" hammer-swinging and 3-D derring-do seem to have had an adverse effect on poor A.O. Scott at the New York Times. He stumbled out of his screening "seeking shelter: in a nearby bar; under a passing bus; in the velvet shadows of an art house playing the longest, slowest, most obscure movie imaginable." Not even Branagh, Mr. Shakespeare himself, could save the film in Scott's eyes. Instead, he says, "you are hammered with one cliché after another, from the architecture of Asgard, with its floating stone staircases and vast, vaulted chambers, to the computer-generated monsters."
But not every critic disliked it as much as Turan and Scott. Others, while finding fault with the movie, found much to enjoy -- particularly Thor himself, blond-maned Chris Hemsworth, who acts appropriately god-like, according to NPR's Bob Mondello. "[W]hen the screenplay gives him something besides arrogance to work with, he owns the movie too -- a frat-boy god-out-of-water, amusingly clueless about when throwing his weight around is manly and appealing, and when it just makes him a jerk. In a diner, say, smashing coffee cups."
But these are critics, who spend just as much time watching Ken Loach films as they do Marvel comic-book films. What about "Thor's" core audience? Those who know Mjolnir from a mojito? Who dream of visiting Asgard with Aslan and know which is which? What does noted internet geek Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News think? Though his day started off as kind of a bummer (his review opens with a description of his eye condition upon waking up on the day he saw "Thor"), Branagh's film soon cheered him up. A lot. We'll just let Knowles speak for himself: "The second you see Hemsworth’s Thor begin twirling Mjolnir -- the classic circular way -- and you begin to see what it does... I swear -- I squealed like a little girl playing with her older brother’s cooler toys for the first time unsupervised."
Surprisingly, it's the 3-D battles that most appealed to USA Today critic Claudia Puig, rather than the fish-out-of-water romance between Thor and Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman. Puig notes that Hemsworth and Portman have good chemistry but says his best lines are just jokes. Much more impressive are "the electrifying battles between the Norse gods and their nemeses, the imposing Frost Giants. Sharply honed icicles vs. Thor's mighty hammer create massive, crumbling mayhem.This is where the 3-D comes into play stunningly, along with Thor rocketing to Earth amid what looks like the aurora borealis."
But like all strong bridges, "Thor" serves both sides well, despite the faults they may find. Minneapolis Star-Tribune critic Colin Colvert gave the film one of the weekend's biggest raves. He writes, "Happily, 'Thor' feels specific and complete, less an obligatory link in a continuing tale than a handsomely engineered, hugely enjoyable standalone... 'Thor' bridges the gap between high culture and low, between fanboys and mass moviegoers."
