Good God, Y’all

108 comments on “Good God, Y’all”

1. .
   Sounds awesome. I’ve been hoping to check it out on the big screen with some reservations early on, but every review I see from sources that I trust keeps ripping those reservations down.
   .
   Cannot wait.

2. As soon as I saw that Kenneth Branagh was directing, I knew THOR would rock socks.

3. I still would have liked to see Brian Blessed as Odin. He’s known as the man who shouts his lines but if you’ve seen I Claudius you can see his acting chops as well

   1. Or at least as Volstagg. Large, bearded, over exuberant man? That’s Blessed all over.

      1. John-Rhys Davies would have killed as Volstagg.

         PAD

      2. Good lord, why didn’t else think of that!?

   2. Blessed was attached to the role in the early stages, but for whatever reason, it didn’t work out.

4. Definitely looking forward to this one. Still not sold on Captain America…

5. Caught this last Saturday. Really wasn’t sure this character could translate to the big screen, but the film really works by splitting up his time in Asgard and on Earth. Loved the introduction of another Marvel hero and maybe the best screen cameo of a comics creator. In addtion to the barfight(tiny spoiler)I hope the DVD will reveal the recipiant of the Professor’s email SHIELD inquiry!

6. Looking forward to seeing this Friday night.

7. .
   Thor VS Green Lantern.
   .
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOHI7RS-84k&feature=player_embedded

   1. Ok, this cracked me up. Thanks for sharing it. Now I’ll be forced to spend hours watching the whole series. 🙂

      1. Well, here’s the trailer for The Avengers… if it had been done in the fifties (although there’s quite a bit of sixties too)

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E

         And their choice for who could have played the Black Widow is most logical, methinks.

8. Even in 2D, I found the first half of the film to be very dim, and could barely make out what was happening during the Frost Giants fight.

   Apart from that, I really enjoyed it. Nice mix of humour and action. I’d quite happily watch a spin-off featuring Sif and the Warriors Three.

9. Yep, I really loved this one. They got the tone just right, and I found the very last shot of the movie (not counting post credits)to be very emotionally affecting, which took me a bit by surprise. (MILD SPOILER That smile!)

   Fantastically uncynical film-making.

10. what was in the box at the end ofter the credits? Someone said a cosmic cube?

11. You do Thor in 3D without a shot of Mjolnir being hurled at the screen by not shooting for 3D, and instead doing a shoddy post-production conversion.

12. So happy to hear this.
    .
    I refuse to see any 3-D movie not shot in 3-D. It’s pointless, too dark, the 3-D almost always blows and I’m paying extra money for a diminshed experience. Why not just piss in my popcorn and make me sit next to Sally Sue McTextyphone while they’re at it?

    1. What movies were shot in 3-D besides Avatar? I’m asking because I’m not sure I can tell the difference. Also, because I didn’t like Avatar and feel like I shouldn’t really be comparing it to other 3-D movies for that reason (though, my main problem with Avatar was the story).

       1. With all the different technologies, it’s sometimes hard to tell any more what any of them actually do.
          .
          It seems like the big one is the Fusion 3D Camera System, which was invented for Avatar, and is being used for a number of upcoming live-action films, such as Transformers 3, Final Destination 5, and Spy Kids 4, all use this system. I’m seeing a different 3D camera mentioned for the upcoming Fright Night remake.
          .
          I also found this site, which may be pretty accurate:
          http://realorfake3d.com/

       2. I believe last year’s Alice In Wonderland was shot in 3-d.

       3. Craig, that site is incorrect about Green Lantern. I’ve got friends who live in New Orleans and they saw some of the filming. They were definitely using a 3D camera.
          .
          As for Thor, I’ll watch it in 2D…. but not until May 15th unfortunately.

       4. Yeah, I’m not sure what to believe any more, Kevin. Wikipedia also refers to Green Lantern being “filmed flat, converted to 3D during post-production”.
          .
          The studios certainly don’t mind the confusion, since they don’t care as long as you’re willing to buy more expensive tickets.
          .
          And wulff, I’m also seeing it stated that Alice in Wonderland was a post-production conversion.

       5. that website is definitely not accurate. Wrath of the Titans is being filmed 3D after the conversion fiasco from the first film. it also says that Toy Story 1 and 2 were filmed 3D. they were converted specifically for that release. Space Chimps 2 was direct-to-video and Harry Potter 5 and 6 were released in IMAX, not 3D. HP7: Part 2 will be the only one released in 3D

       6. “It seems like the big one is the Fusion 3D Camera System, which was invented for Avatar, and is being used for a number of upcoming live-action films, such as Transformers 3, Final Destination 5, and Spy Kids 4, all use this system. I’m seeing a different 3D camera mentioned for the upcoming Fright Night remake.”

          Wow, so another installment in the dumb and annoying Transformers series, two horror movies I wouldn’t even think of seeing and a sequel to a kids’ movie franchise that already ran its course.

          Now I’m wondering if there’s a rule that they can only use 3-D cameras for movies that I have absolutely no interest in seeing.

       7. Now I’m wondering if there’s a rule that they can only use 3-D cameras for movies that I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
          .
          How about the two Hobbit films? 🙂

       8. “it also says that Toy Story 1 and 2 were filmed 3D.”

          Uh…. they’re animated films. They’re not filmed at all. 1 and 2 were originally 2D. But for animation, they just have to do a second render pass for the second “camera”. It’s a totally different circumstance than live action.

       9. “What movies were shot in 3-D besides Avatar?”
          .
          Up was amazing in 3D. In fact, it was the only 3D experience I’ve ever truly enjoyed.

    2. Note to self(and everybody else): When seeing a movie with Mulligan, get your OWN popcorn….

       1. Ðámņ straight.
          .
          Well, for all my bold talk, I had no choice but to see it in 3-D. Liked it quite a bit, my wife was less impressed (but Ghost rider is her favorite comic book movie so…yeah.)
          .
          The 3-D was kinda meh, it wasn’t horrible like The last Airbender but it didn’t do much for the movie. I’d have traded it gladly for a brighter picture.
          .
          Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job. Great charisma, this was a Thor you could actually like. Maybe the conversion from hot headed spoiled brat to admirable hero is a bit rushed but he sells it–a particular conversation marks a turning point in the character and you can buy the idea that he emerges a changed man, worthy of the power of Thor.
          .
          Looking forward to seeing how Hemsworth and Downey Jr play off each other in Avengers.

       2. .
          “Well, for all my bold talk, I had no choice but to see it in 3-D. Liked it quite a bit, my wife was less impressed (but Ghost rider is her favorite comic book movie so…yeah.)”
          .
          Oh my god… I’m so sorry, Bill, I had no idea. Is there anything Jenn and I can do for you (other than keep the two of you in our prayers?)

       3. There’s a support group available. You’ll have to hurry and reach them before it’s too late.

       4. also, she never EVER misses an opportunity to watch A KNIGHTS TALE or THE BIRDCAGE when they are on TV, which is pretty often. Oh well, some guys have wives who gamble, sell heroin to school kids, or cheat on them with mma stars so I guess I will bear my cross silently.

       5. .
          So… You’re saying that she does occasionally show signs of good taste?

       6. “Chris Hemsworth did a fantastic job. Great charisma, this was a Thor you could actually like. Maybe the conversion from hot headed spoiled brat to admirable hero is a bit rushed but he sells it”
          .
          I and my sister had exactly the same impression. Charismatic characters cover for the fact that the transitions the characters go through seem sudden, as if part of the framework is still missing.
          .
          Don’t worry Bill, you are not alone. 4 out of 10 Americans suffer from poor taste in movies. Call 1-800-MICHAELBAY to donate…

       7. Well, between audiences generally suffering from ADHD, and Hollywood making sure that a character arc fits into all of 1.5-2.5 hours of film…
          .
          We need more Batman or Lord of the Rings, where the characters actually gets 2-3 films to show a real arc.
          .
          While sometimes sequels get green-lit before the first movie is released, the studio is still more interested in getting all that background stuff out of the way as quickly as possible. That is, if they even bother with it at all.
          .
          Thor really needs a Batman-esque arc told over several films to do it right. But few have the patience for that, which also explains why most movies are the love at first sight variety; they just don’t have time. Hollywood studios, who are spending hundreds of millions on these films, certainly do not.

13. Four Marvel creator cameos? I’ve heard about Stan the Man and JMS, but I didn’t know there were more. May I ask who?

    1. Kath here.
       It was Walt and Weezie (Louise) Simonson. There is a fifth in that editor Ralph Macchio was next to Weezie.

       1. I thought that it would have been the Simonsons. Now I’ll just have to watch closely for them. Thank you!

       2. I was waiting for a character named Simonson to show up. Didn’t expect the actual man to be in the movie. Of course, I don’t know what he looks like, so I had no way of noticing him.

14. I will not watch anything in 3D as I do not want to put glasses over my glasses just to watch a movie.

    Now, as soon as they start producing holographic devices — I’m all over that.

    I never read Thor comics. I know next to nothing about the character. I’m willing to give it a shot because of Natalie Portman. I believe she has come a long way since her Star Wars days.

    1. Natalie Portman’s performance in this shows just how charming and believable she could have been in Star Wars if they had been made by an actor’s director.

    2. Natalie Portman’s performance in this shows just how charming and believable she could have been in Star Wars is they had been made by an actor’s director like Branagh.

    3. “since her Star Wars days”…
       .
       Personally, the reason her “Star Wars days” were horrid, was because I had seen her in “Leon” (or The Professional, if you will) and “Beautiful Girls,” so I knew she could act.
       .
       She was one of the main reasons I saw Episode 1.
       Between McGregor and her (or is it She and McGregor), I figured it was going to be a good series.
       .
       Boy was I wrong.
       .
       Still haven’t seen Ep. 3, as of yet because Ep. 2 sucked so badly.
       .
       TAC

       1. Make no mistake, it shows just how awesome Ewan McGregor is in that he was able to pull off such a great Obi Wan performance given the directorship.

          I did not know Portman before Ep 1.

15. Going to see it Saturday, and looking forward to it.
    .
    Although, I wish I hadn’t read this: The script (which Joe Straczynski had a hand in) until after seeing the movie. I’ll now be walking in with the tiniest bit of bias against the movie (or, rather, the script).
    .
    –Daryl

16. Joe’s one of the best writers and best people I know, man. You got a problem with him? Kindly explain.

    1. It’s simple. His work does nothing for me. Since I don’t enjoy it, I try to avoid it. Nothing more, nothing less.
       .
       –Daryl

       1. Personally, I really like JMS’ work….but if it helps, he has story credit, but not screenplay credit.

       2. Your loss, Daryl. I’ve known Joe since 1987, and read and seen everything he’s done that I could get my hands on, all the way back to He-Man. Maybe my immersion in his work is what’s made the difference. But anybody that has worked with the people he’s worked with and held himself to the standards he has is worthy of my respect and admiration. And I don’t give that to just anyone. Joe Straczynski is, to me, one of the top ten writers I’ve met, and when that list includes guys like Ted Sturgeon, Hal Clement and L. Sprague de Camp… well, draw your own conclusions.

       3. Miles,
          Nytwyng did not bash JMS personally or rudely. He simply doesn’t care for his work. He’s entitled.

17. Miles, I’ll go out on a limb and say that Nytwyng isn’t required to like JMS’ writing. I know Joe’s a stand-up guy, and B5 is one of my favorite shows ever, but I can still understand that he’s not for everyone. Besides, the guy did state that he IS going to see the film regardless.

    1. You are 100% correct, Stephen. That’s all it is: a matter of taste. Not having knowledge of involvement (and, yes, Alex…knowing it’s just a story credit does help a bit) would have eliminated some preconceived notions I’ll now be trying to shake when walking into the theater.
       .
       Ultimately, though, it’s all good. While I don’t enjoy JMS’ work, his involvement, at least, isn’t an automatic dealbreaker like some others (Kevin Smith, Rob Liefeld, Brian Michael Bendis just to name a few).
       .
       –Daryl

       1. Good points. Maybe having known him so long is what makes the difference. Joe’s had some misses in his writing, but the volume of his work makes that inevitable; he wrote most of B5, which aged him about twenty years, cranked out most of Crusade before TNT killed the show for his not allowing them to screw it up, brought us two seasons of Jeremiah, and two hellaciously good feature films so far… Meh, it’s your choice, I just think dismissing him so cavalierly is a bit daft. But I’ll admit, he can be an acquired taste. I just like him. There are better writers out there, but dámņ few. I figure that anybody who’s worked with Harlan Ellison for five years has gotta be good.

       2. I certainly don’t begrudge anyone liking his work, Miles. Heck, our esteemed host enjoys it, and I most certainly respect PAD’s work and tastes. But, neither that nor JMS being a peach of a person makes his work to my tastes.
          .
          While I can appreciate your POV, I wouldn’t call my opinion of his work a “cavalier dismissal,” and the odds that my encounters with it are unfortunate coincidence of always managing to come across his misses are mind-boggling. To provide a bit of perspective, I went into watching the first-run premiere of B5 having no idea who JMS was. He lost me in the opening minutes of the pilot (“In our efforts to promote galactic harmony, we house all of our alien dignitaries in a zoo, for passersby to gawk at them while they try to unwind after a hard day’s work.”) over the next couple of years, at the recommendation of friends whose tastes I largely shared, I sampled the show another half dozen or so times, and it still didn’t “click” for me. Ah well…it happens. Next up, I gave Spider-Man a try when he took over the book. I lasted two issues, and just didn’t care for where he was taking it or how he was doing it. From that point, I’d pretty well decided that his output and my tastes just didn’t intersect. Again…it happens. Still, I’d occasionally give his stuff a once-over at the store. Most recently, since I’d already gotten it for the rest of the book, I read his entry in Wonder Woman #600, setting up his run on the book. Ended up having WW removed from my pull list, along with Superman.
          .
          Notice I’m not questioning the quality of his work as I would with the aforementioned Smith, Liefeld or Bendis. I’m just saying it doesn’t appeal to me. And that’s ok. Like I mentioned, my only real complaint (if you can call it that) with Thor is, now that I know he was involved in the story to some degree, there’s a very real chance that, given my established reaction to his work, I’ll be walking into the theater with a slight bias against the story that wasn’t there less than 12 hours ago.
          .
          It’s all good, though. We’ve all got writers whose work we enjoy so much it seems impossible that others might not share that view. (Hi, PAD!)
          .
          –Daryl

       3. Addendum:
          As my reply was posting, something caught my eye.
          .
          I didn’t realize until your post that he ran Jeremiah. Which just goes to show, my reaction is a genuine one to the work, and not a knee-jerk reaction to the name attached, as I tried the first wpisode or two of Jeremiah, but couldn’t get into it, either.
          .
          Dang…reading that sounds like I’m trying to say, “Nyah nyah…I don’t like JMS’ work and you can’t make me! (insert raspberry here)” I don’t mean I that way…it just struck me that now I can feel secure in knowing that I’m not just being pig-headed.
          .
          –Daryl

       4. I feel Smith is incredibly overated, Liefeld is unfairly torn to shreds constantly and that bendis is incredibly UNDER-rated as a writer:)

       5. With Liefeld, I can understand that someone might enjoy his work…I bought the hype in his heyday, myself, before taking a closer look at it (LOVED his Hawk & Dove stuff…but a second look shows the major impact that Karl Kesel’s inks had on that)…it’s his track record of blatant plagiarism that makes him an automatic dealbreaker for me. I won’t knowingly spend time or money on anything that would put a single penny in his pocket as a result. Skipped a Superman issue years ago because he contributed two pages to it.
          .
          Bendis…well…we’ll just have to agree to disagree, he says as he deletes the long diatribe about what he finds wrong with Bendis’ work.
          .
          –Daryl

       6. Hi Daryl,

          Have you seen Changeling? JMS wrote that…quite different from his other stuff. Would be interested to know what you think if you saw it…

       7. Hi, Alex. The Angelina Jolie/Jeffrey Donnovan movie? No, I haven’t seen it, but my wife has. It was in our Netflix queue, but when it arrived, she told me she’d already watched it on cable, so we just turned around and sent it right back. I kinda wanted to see it for Donnovan, as a big Burn Notice fan, but that’s about it.
          .
          –Daryl

18. I’m getting good vibes all around for this one, and I can’t wait to see it.

19. I was lucky enough to catch the movie on April 30th and have been holding my tongue…

    I think this is the best Marvel movie, yes ahead of Iron Man…

    During the battle on Jutenheim (spelling?) all I could think of was how cool it would be if the Hulk was there with them.

    I project $85 million opening….

20. Peter David: …and some woman I didn’t recognize.
    Luigi Novi: If you’re referring to Natalie Portman’s friend, who takes a cell phone pic of Thor, that’s actress Kat Dennings, who played Catherine Keener’s daughter in The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Nora in Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.

    1. Peter David: it’s easily the best Marvel movie since “Iron Man.”
       Luigi Novi: In other words, it’s better than Iron Man 2?
       .
       I mean, not that I disliked Iron Man 2, but there haven’t been a lot of Marvel movies since Iron Man , have there?

       1. Oh, I forgot about X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which isn’t saying much) and The Incredible Hulk, which was a good film, so that’s better. Is that what you meant, Peter? That it was better than The Incredible Hulk? Because that was a pretty enjoyable film, so yeah, that’s a good mark of comparison.

       2. In addition to IM2, there’s also The Incredible Hulk as part of the “Marvel Movieverse,” plus Pubisher War Zone (same year as Iron Man, though) and X-Men Origins: Wolverine at least.

21. Actually, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, being made by Fox and not Marvel Studios, is not part of the same continuity (or “Marvel Movieverse”) as all these others; the same would apply to the other X-Men movies, any of the Spider-Man movies, the Blade movies, Daredevil/Elektra, Ghost Rider, or the Fantastic Four movies. Not sure where the Punisher films fit in there.

    1. Right…it’s not a “Marvel Movieverse” movie, but it IS still a “Marvel movie.”
       .
       –Daryl

       1. Depends on how one defines a Marvel movie. Any movie based on a Marvel property, or one actually made by Marvel studios.

       2. I meant a movie based on Marvel characters.
          .
          PAD

       3. Wolverine and Punisher were co-produced by Marvel Studios, so MS was still involved in creating them.

22. Watched it last Friday. Loved it. I am easy to please when it comes to comic book adaptations but this one was actually much better than I expected. The story worked, the designs worked but most of all every character worked. Not one irritant supporting character is already an achievement, but in this film you actually get characters defined with very little screen time (well, sans fights of course).
    .
    Sif develops into a grown character with just a few lines and the right facial expressions at the right time. Jane Foster’s companions are actually human beigns and not just vehicles for witty/profound line deliverance. Portman’s Dr.Foster manages not to be cynical and bìŧçhÿ without becoming a damsel in distress hooked from the Hero’s neck, wich seems to be the two only possibilities for superheroe’s love interests. She is passionate but her passion is not the Hero, nor she forget’s it once the muscular guy shows up.
    .
    And Loki… Loki is the best villian in a Marvel movie adaptation so far. Best written and best acted.

    1. Well, yeah. Hiddleston was awesome on the first series of Wallander (Where Branagh and he really clicked…)
       .
       Haven’t seen it yet, but since I did start my “serious” comic book reading with Walt Simonson’s run, ya know I’ll be there.
       .
       TAC

23. I think I’ll see it this weekend.
    .
    I had a good feeling about it from the start, everyone involved sounded about right. Even JMS, I’ve lost a lot of faith in JMS, but his Thor was one of the few things of him that I’ve liked lately.
    .
    And, despite everybody else’s reservations about the character translated to the big screen (“Pseudo-Shakesperean Viking God in space!?!?”), I think the Thor comic has a dynamic that is just begging for a good fantasy movie.
    .
    I actually have less faith in Captain America. Can they use World War II in a way that feels right? The grandeur of the character depends on it. Without the horror of WWII to counter-balance it, the character is just empty jingoism. It can’t be too gritty, but it can’t be too silly either.
    .
    And it’s very, very necessary that Steve Rogers be a normal joe too weak to serve that undergoes the treatment. That is essential to the character. But I’m afraid they will think it too controversial to have a superhero that was created through steroids.
    .
    Anyone has more data about these plot points in the Captain America movie?

    1. Some of the footage released so far via trailer and tv spot shows a digitally scrawny-fied Chris Evans, pre-super soldier serum (including one of him using a trash can lid as a shield while trying to stave off a bully), and a buffed up Chris Evans emerging from the treatment chamber. The concept of the super soldier serum has already been introduced to the “Marvel Movieverse” in The Incredible Hulk, so it doesn’t look like they’ll be shying away from it.
       .
       –Daryl

       1. I’ve been afraid of watching traillers lately, because many of them spoil the whole movie these days. But I’m glad that Steve Rogers as scrawny geek is in it. Thanks.

    2. Uh, the trailer is readily available right here on the interwebs.

    3. In the trailer, it shows the scrawny Steve Rogers entering a machine much larger than he is, then later emerging from it as Cap.
       .
       “How do you feel?”
       .
       “Taller.”

       1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3TKCeGc2Ao

24. Honestly, the whole “throw ______ at the audience” is one of the things I most detest about 3D movies – whether they’re filmed in 3D, or filmed to be converted in 3D. I don’t LIKE things flying at my face, and that shot in just about every movie filmed in/for 3D just makes 3D look gimmicky.
    .
    Also, post-production conversion simply sucks. ‘Nuff said. (Glad Thor is worth seeing, though… hopefully I’ll get to actually SEE it in theaters.)

    1. Way back in the 80s, during the short resurgence of 3-D movie (I saw Comin’ at Ya and Jaws 3-D in those days. Yes, I know, but at least, the first one made me discover Victoria Abril, so there’s that), one movie magazine said that 3-D movies would die because one day, a cameraman would be killed by one of the things they used to throw willy-nilly at the screen. At least, Hitch had the good sense not to do that, using 3-D to give wore depth to the picture, and using it only in two key points (ah, those scissors!).

25. Apparently, people are not as enthusiastic as you about the film.

    1. Which “people” do you speak of? Of course there will be some who don’t like any given film. But if you’re trying to say that about all audiences – well, the movie has been out for mere hours, so they really haven’t had a chance to make their call. Critics however, have been predominantly positive.

    2. Well, putting aside that there’s no movie I can think of that’s universally acclaimed by everyone, I’d be curious as to what people specifically you’re referring to.
       .
       PAD

26. Well, that was worth looking into.

    1. Ah HA! Is funny because it’s like something Loki said at the end!

27. Stop! Hammer time! I can’t believe I’m the first person here to say that. Anyway…

    I saw it today, and I thought it was pretty good. (My official, spoiler-free review http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2011/05/thor.html ) The actors playing Thor, Odin, and Loki were perfect (sorry, but to me Portman’s character was a fairly generic skeptic-turned-love interest), and the action was handled well. Heck, even the Rainbow Bridge looked cool (and with a name like that, weren’t some folks fearing something from MY LITTLE PONY?). It wasn’t a perfect film, but it was pretty good — and very good for a summer blockbuster, a genre which can go overboard on special effects but skimp on plot, character, and intelligence.

    I’m also glad there wasn’t a 3-D shot of Mjonlir (sic?) being thrown at the screen. Many shots done solely for the purpose of showing off 3-D effects tend to look idiotic if/when the film is shown in 2-D: people using a yo-yo, items being waved at the viewer, etc.

    And now, SPOILERS ABOUT THE POST-CREDIT SCENES:

    1) Was anyone *really* surprised that Loki came back? In comics, if you don’t see a body (and sometimes even if you do) you know that they’re not really dead. Plus Loki is a master schemer with lots of magic, so it’s hard he wouldn’t have an escape plan. And he is, well, a god.

    2) What was that weird device Fury was showing off? I thought it might be the Cosmic Cube, but it seemed a little flat. Speaking of which…

    3) When they showed that… device, my first perverse thought was, “Oh, so THAT’S what happened to Darcy’s iPod!”

    1. 1) Well, Hiddleston pretty much spilled the beans (to a degree) recently.
       .
       2) Yes, that was the Cosmic Cube, which I believe will be playing in another movie coming out this summer…
       .
       I enjoyed it. No, it wasn’t perfect, but it hit all the right notes I think in the end. The rest of the audience, including my reluctant wife who’s already tiring of superhero films, had a good time.
       .
       Caught the Straczynski and Stan Lee cameos, but not for the Simonsons, although I don’t know what they look like. I’m glad that Marvel is doing such things for more of their creators now, but kinda wishing they’d done it already for previous films (hint: PAD and Incredible Hulk).

       1. but not for the Simonsons, although I don’t know what they look like
          .
          They look like Jim & Margaret Power, the parents of Power Pack. 🙂
          .
          –Daryl

       2. Kath here.

          Walt is in the feast at the end in Asgard. You see the back of Weezie’s head and Marvel Editor Ralph Macchio sort of next to him. I only knew it was her because She and Walt were seated behind us at a convention so I know what the back of her head looks like.

    2. The problem with referencing My Little Pony is that you forget that MLP has a lot of 20-30 year old fanboys.

28. James (and the other folks who mentioned it) I assumed it was the Cosmic Cube, but I just thought it should have looked more, well, cube-y. And where was the Simonsons’ cameo? I was looking out for it and still didn’t see it. I did find it funny though, that JMS was found unworthy.

29. By the way, my local mall in New Jersey had a couple of guys in suits and dark glasses taking people’s photos and giving them SHIELD IDs which was sort of cool in a geeky way, even though they managed to spell my name wrong. And speaking of geek moments, I did love the totally gratuitous appearance of a certain future Avenger appearing midway through the film. But I’m sure most of you know who it is anyway.

30. I just wish that JMS would finish The Twelve. I was enjoying the mini-series until it went on indefinite hiatus. 🙁

    1. Chris Weston mentioned in an interview that he was working on pages for issue 11.

    2. Chris Weston mentioned in an interview recently that he’s working on pages from issue #11.

31. Saw it in 2D here. What I was most gratified about is that they faithfully included some of the comic book effects like the big motion swirls when Thor spun the hammer.

32. Saw it Fri, while I enjoyed the hëll out of the movie I wish I had waited another 2 hours until the next 2D showing as the washed out color was a major disappointment.

33. Haven’t had the chance to see this yet, but the thing that really surprises me is that, with all the positive reviews out there, I haven’t heard the collective groan when someone said they really nailed it.

34. Mild Spoiler and one of the best lines in the movie.
    .
    Jane Foster: Is this how you usually look?
    .
    Thor: More or less.
    .
    Jane: That’s a good look for you!!

35. NEEDS MORE VOLSTAGG.

    But then, may the same not be said of nearly everything in this paltry mortal life?

36. I definitely really enjoyed the movie as welll. Well written, well acted. A somewhat more complex Loki than what we normally see in the comics. The 3-D… well, I liked some of the effects, particularly the snow. Two problems with the 3-D stood out for me though: whenever I noticed the 3-D effects I was less immersed in the story. And my friend and I got headaches, perhaps because we were wearing the 3-D glasses over our regular glasses.

37. I enjoyed the film–it’s a great movie (and thankfully, much, much more faithful to the source material than Thor from “The Trial of The Incredible Hulk”.

    The cast was solid, with Hemsworth, Hiddleston, and Hopkins really “bringing it”. Also liked Colm Feore, Skaarsgard, and Kat Dennings (yes, I admit it–I’m a shallow red-blooded male who has a fondness for raven-haired goth-looking women). Plus, Rene Russo was in it…not a bad thing at all. And Idris Elba as Heimdall–he was terrific! Sadly, it seems that even his excellent work won’t stop the moans and groans about how a black actor should not be playing Heimdall (see the THOR talkbacks on AICN if you’re willing to do some serious teeth grinding).

    The cameos by Stan Lee and Walt Simonson were nice. It was also good to see the “Special Thanks to” mentions in the credits.

    This was one of the better superhero films of the past few years. It could have gone downhill, but it did not. Branagh and the cast and crew made it work.

38. I saw it today. I liked it. Particularly the acting. I think they did the best they could to introduce a character that many believe would make for a difficult adaptation. Again, the amazing acting, particularly in the case of Thor and Loki, is what sells the movie.
    .
    Not perfect, though. My main complaints would be the fight scenes with Thor vs. the Destroyer and the big giant in the beginning, they are both over too soon and a little anti-climatic (Thor flies through them and that is it?)
    .
    Also, Asgard and its inhabitants looked a bit too glittery to me. Too much CGI, I guess. And the 3d made it worse. Is it just me or 3D makes fantastic buildings and creatures look like elaborated toys, adding to the unreality?
    .
    But I like what they did with Loki. More vulnerable and sympathetic than he ever was in the comics. I am a bit tired of over-the-top, snarky villains in action movies. It was also a stroke of genius that Odin, Thor, and Loki all seemed to love each other, even while deeply in conflict with each other. That is what a dysfuncional family is all about.

39. I actually liked this film. It’s worth noting I had really, REALLY low expectations.

    I liked how Loki was portrayed as mostly redeemable. You feel bad for the guy, and really he just gets so turned around at the end hoping that Odin will love him as much as he loves Thor… not even realizing that Odin did have a father’s love for him the whole time. Epic stuff. I’ve been reading praises for Natalie Portman’s performance which… I mean I didn’t hate here, but I don’t think she really added anything. She was pretty much just the generic human love interest. I would have loved more “Sif is in love with Thor” nods than we ended up getting.

    It’s worth noting that that Kat Dennings, who played the apathetic research assistant, actually ALSO played Iron Man’s daughter in “Charlie Bartlett” (she was also Scott Pilgrim’s girlfriend in “Nick and Nora”). She was fun for comedic relief at the right moments. I think they did Thor justice; his original Marvel origin was always missing something. I liked how the updated & revised for this film. It’s worth seeing… and this from someone who REALLY didn’t want to see it.

40. Thor is a good movie to watch. I saw it in 2D as I am unable to view any movie in 3D. I get sick. I thought this movie was well done, both in direction, script and in action. I loved all the references and homages that were sprinkled throughout. It was the little things that made this a splendid movie…awesome attention to details and the humor was well timed.
    There were some things in the movie that I did not like, but they were not enough to bring the viewing experience down. The scene with Joe was priceless. Overall, Thor was a good movie worth the price of admission.
    My only question: Where the hëll was Balder the Brave???

    1. I was thinking the same question. I was also thinking that Branagh would’ve made a great Balder if he’d made the movie 20 years ago.

41. Watched it yesterday, in 2-D (and at 3.50 €. A steal, considering the current price for movies in Paris is 10 €). Loved it as much as the first Iron Man. Good mixing of drama, action and humor (very well received in the theater, especially The Man’s appearance). Great actors all the way. I will buy the DVD.

Comments are closed.