Thor

It's not art, but it's mighty fun.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said about Thor is that it doesn't feel like a cookie-cutter superhero comic book origin story.

Has a lot of that winking wit we've come to expect from our post-"Spider Man" Marvel movies. It has a hunky, self-mocking young star, solid support from a couple of Oscar winners and the slick sheen that state-of-the-art effects can give you.

With its references to other properties in the Marvel universe and to classic tales of redemption, this no-surprises summer movie might appeal to those who've been bitten by radioactive spiders or the Shakespeare bug.

This is eminently missable, though the mosaic design of Asgard, Thor's mythical realm, is pretty cool.

All told, though, Thor suffers from "Iron Man 2" syndrome: too much backstory, too many subplots and character introductions, and not nearly enough full-frontal nudity from Natalie Portman, who frankly is given very little to work with here.

Like Thor's hammer, this ersatz epic bludgeons its victims into submission. What's more, it requires them to stare at the source of their punishment through 3-D glasses.

Amazing work on Asgard by the VFX team. Looks absolutely gorgeous without going overboard.

The first Thor is a film that rests entirely on the (very broad) shoulders of Chris Hemsworth and the manipulative charisma of Loki. The segments set in New Mexico feel like a low-budget TV episode filmed in a parking lot, but the movie is salvaged by the theatricality of the regal moments in Asgard. It’s a film that tries to adopt a high-brow tone, dealing with disappointed fathers and treacherous brothers, but then it remembers it’s a family product and throws in Jane Foster batting her eyelashes because the buff god is shirtless. A dishonorable mention goes to the Destroyer: a millivocal robot sent to kill a god, only to be defeated in a dusty little town as if it were a lawnmower gone rogue. Regardless, without the depth given to Loki in this chapter, half of the MCU would have collapsed like a house of cards.

A thunderous introduction that lacked a lightning strike: A 3.0-star origin with a royal weight.110519 (3.0)I watched this in the theater in 2011. While the cosmic scale of Asgard was visually impressive and Chris Hemsworth looked the part, the movie felt more like a Shakespearean family drama than the high-stakes, "chewy" thriller I usually crave. The action was okay, but it lacked that sharp, rhythmic tension found in "Source Code" or "The Scam." It was a decent 3.0 for building the MCU foundation, but as a standalone experience, it felt a bit too predictable and safe for a perfect score.

Thor es una de las entregas más flojas de la primera fase del UCM. A pesar de contar con una mitología rica y un protagonista con potencial, la película se queda en una historia vacía y predecible, con una dirección poco inspirada y personajes sin carisma. La narrativa es superficial, con un desarrollo forzado de los conflictos y una falta de profundidad en los secundarios. Aunque visualmente Asgard luce bien, la combinación de tonos entre la parte mitológica y las escenas en la Tierra resulta desigual. La acción es funcional, pero no suficiente para compensar la falta de peso narrativo. En definitiva, un filme olvidable que desperdicia su propio material.

O filme mostra asgard de um forma muito boa, e o vilão é um dos melhores da Marvel, sem falar de asgard no filme. O resto falha tudo, atuações ruins ou médias, romance tosco, quando se passa na terra nada funciona. Decepcionante...