SOUND OFF

1

Much more enjoyment than Thor and that one is one of my favorites too. I just enjoy the Thor universe and to see some of the other realms is very pleasing for a fan such as myself. When you have such a deep character like Loki, I was pleased to just have a villain who was pure evil and wanted to destroy the world out of vengeance like Malekith. I got the emotion beats, the brother dynamic of Thor/Loki, A LOT of funnies, and I laugh alongside Darcy so she isn't a problem. Favorite Marvel Studios movie.

xShineyxDiverx on Nov 8, 2013

2

Where is Odin?

SsuperKyle on Nov 8, 2013

3

Thats what i love about this!!! Marvel are leaving this story open-ended, they know there is going to be and that people love Loki after the Avengers. If i was making these movies I would never finish the story in each movie, like Iron Man does. Every time Iron Man ended the story was all tied up in a nice little bow. With this though we want more and there is a need for a sequel

Sky on Nov 8, 2013

4

I think the preview of Winter Solider (A+ all around) really hurt Thor 2. Saw the movie in IMAX and 3-D and while IMAX was great, the 3-D wasn't needed. I enjoyed Thor 1 more than Thor 2 for a few reasons: First: Misuse of Eccleston. No backstory. Just: I'm awake! Let's kill'em all. Reminded me of the Fallen in Transformers. Well, we're awake and let's get back to it. The Frost Giants in Thor 1 felt more there. As much as I'm glad they went with a language it felt like it hurt the character. I'm kinda glad Mads went to Hannibal now. Second: Jane Foster as the unpronouceable maguffin *and* the girlfriend in trouble? A cat fight between her and Siff would made a triple word score! Kat Dennings and the intern basically stole this movie. Third: This movie doesn't feel 3mins shorter than the first but the plotting felt like the acts rushed together and ended too quickly. Freya needed more just like the first movie. Sure it's named Thor and it's about him but let's be honest Rene holding her own for a wee bit longer would have been nice! I wanted more Warriors 3 interaction besides the Leverage-like break out of Loki which was great just needed *more* of it. And more Odin in the last reel would have been fun since Hiddleston and Hopkins are always fun to watch. The good side: The comedy was great, the fight scenes were easy to follow unlike some caped crusader we all know. The hammer moments was great and Hiddleston made people my audience first pump. SFX were better. The director did well directing. The credit scenes: First one: worth it. Second one: why wasn't this at the end of the movie instead. It's was cute. I expect it to be collared and standing guard outside Jane's house*. Overall: The plot makes it weak. Iron Man 3 had a better plot due to a good villain and that's what Thor 2 missed out on a good 3 dimensional villain which is always good to have to bounce off the protagonist. I wouldn't say Netflix or on demand it. I'd say matinee it. Wonder how Agents of SHIELD is going to connect w/ this in two weeks...? *That's non-spoilery vague enough, right?

RK Bentley on Nov 8, 2013

5

It was ok, but nothing more. Everyone did their jobs well and all but this just seems like it is only a midway show between the first one and third. Just keeping the character alive till the avengers unite again. Left me wondering how they managed to defeat dark elfes in the war, when only a punch of them elfes can fuckup nearly all of Asgard..? Chris Hemsworth voice allmoust gave me hardon, and Heimdalls stunt finished the job. 3/5 Movie

ProjectionistHP on Nov 9, 2013

6

Somehwere in the middle of Thor TDW I realized that all Marvel movies started to blur into one. It's the same stupid plot over again - a villain wants some McGuffin that gives him big power, McGuffin is always some crappy cheap looking SFX or artifact borrowed from Sy Fy Channel, no big character is in any danger of dying or getting permanently injured/disfigured, some totally minor character bites it to give the hero/heroes a personal reason for taking down the villain, everything looks so sound-stagey you can't help but think "cosplay" rather than characters (Hobbit also suffers from the same, I guess that's the price to pay for digital revolution), action is so OTT that they use Digi-doubles who leap up and down and perform neck-breaking stunts that even the most athletic stunt-doubles clearly couldn't do. So there's clearly a formula at work and that's going to bite Marvel in the ass because another 10 movies of the same are bound to lose some audience. What Marvel does well is retaining a level of entertainment that is on the right side of decent. It helps that they cast terrific actors and understand that movies are escapism. The downside is that it's all formulaic confection without ambition to create something great. It's a fast food industry that offers healthier choices but they are still fast food. That said, the movie was fun because main trio Thor, Loki and Jane are incredibly likable and give great performances, spaceship chase and battles are always welcome action piece, the funeral scene was stunningly beautiful and the ending hyped for the next installment. On the downside, digital realms are becoming too grating in their fakeness, Ether SFX was embarrassing (I've seen better on Sharknado), villians were weak sauce and Earth dragged the story down as usual. Thor works the best as family drama on Asgard. Once we hit the Earthy technobabble, it's time to check the watch. Needless to say, Loki is the story here. His scenes are all fantastic yet the movie seems scared of Loki fatgue so he is in it less than in the first movie. Ridiculous decision considering that grating Darcy has even more screen time in Thor 2 than in Thor. Even more screen time than Loki too. So really a mixed bag. Fun while it lasts but could have been so much better. Worth seeing for Loki scenes and not much else. I mean, this was a great opportunity to have Thor and Loki work together and they did to a degree. But for totally baffling reasons I cannot quite explain, the scribe and director were more interested in Darcy/Ian team-up. Who asked for that? Hemsworth is really a great find as the leading man. Beautiful charismatic, great chemistry with the cast especially Hiddleston. Portman was fantastic, with great comic timing. I already praised Hiddleston. Rene Russo did well in a slightly expanded role. The rest was disposable. Jaimie Al;exander is a Wonder Woman. I pity WB for obviously going with Affleck's campaigning to get his To the Wonder co-star Olga Kurylenko the coveted part, but Alexander is the real deal.

fishnets on Nov 9, 2013

7

It was fun and well done, but ultimately lacked a re-watchability of other Marvel films. Loki, of course, stole the show. Malekith was just boring. Even when he had the upper hand he didn't seem that villainous or evil. He simply walked around, stiff as a bored, completely expressionless. The shapeshifting scene with Loki and Thor was absolutely hilarious, especially for the cameo which looked like it was probably tons of fun to film. The fight between Thor and Kurse was much, much better than the fight between Thor and Malekith. It almost reminded me of a Superman vs Doomsday fight, two superpowered behemoths just pounding each other silly. The mid-credits scene fell flat for me. Didn't get me excited at all. The end credits scene put a nice bow on the whole movie, and the last three seconds were the second-biggest laugh in the whole movie (after the shapeshifting scene), and I hope they at least reference this on SHIELD (doubtful they'll show it).

CoosCoos on Nov 9, 2013

8

Mid-credits scene looked so cheap I was stunned. It felt like someone was making a youtube spoof in their bedroom or something. Did not feel cinematic at all.

fishnets on Nov 9, 2013

9

I have to agree with you, it just did not fit at all. It was definitely seemed unfinished, and didn't have that "polished" look that the Marvel films carry. Alan Taylor, Thor's director was pretty unhappy about having that scene stuck onto the end of his film.

cg on Nov 9, 2013

10

what the hell r u talking about, i cannot wait to re-watch this movie

Sky on Nov 9, 2013

11

I really liked it, a lot more than Thor, however there are some plot holes that annoy me. 1. Where was shield? Like they do not have guys trying to detect weird gravitational things going on? It takes 1 scientist in a lab at her moms house to find it? Why wasn't Eric being watched by shield? In the avengers he was working hand in hand with them then they cut him lose and he is running around naked? Why would Jane not just work with shield? All that grade A equipment not good enough? Even a 5 min scene that was shield saying "we are real tied up with XXX Thor you will be on your own." 2. Asgardian defense grid is pretty bad. Like omg really bad, Himdal was able to 1 shot a ship with a dagger but 4 cannons and like 3 ships can only manage to take out 1? 5000 years ago asgard fought off like 100s of those ships yet now 1 single ship poses a galaxy wide threat? I get that 5k years ago their army was devastated but come on thats got to be enough time to rebuild to the point you can kill 1 ships worth of elves. Then less bothersome but still a "really" moment. The armed forces of the world only send 2 planes at the sky scraper tall space ship that just landed in the middle of London. That ship did not seem to have any magic to it seems like the Armys of the world could have spammed planes and missiles at it till it was rubble. Nothing that ruined the movie a solid 8/10.

Brian Sleider on Nov 9, 2013

12

lol - all good points. Liked the first one better myself, but yep - what is it with plot holes these days?! Dime a friggin' dozen.

avconsumer2 on Nov 11, 2013

13

Thor: The Dark World is definitely way better then the first movie, but it should have been over 2 hours long 🙁 .

Sean on Nov 9, 2013

14

Not as good as the first, but still great fun. Needed a stronger villain.

Nielsen700 on Nov 9, 2013

15

It was better than the first which fell a bit flat in places. The visuals were much better in the Dark World and it had some great well timed action sequences. They were funny, diverse and short as opposed to the long drawn out battle scene at the end of the Avengers. Loki stole the show and had by far the best story arc and intriguing character development. He was finally given space to use his natural powers of magic which had conveniently and disappointingly disappeared in the Avengers to be replaced by the rather boring tesserect wand. Jane' character improved but still continues to border on bland and the lack of chemistry between her and Thor takes away from the film's romantic thread. However in it's place we have the brotherly bromance which surpasses anything we have seen so far in the Marvel Universe. Frigga win the best Marvel bad ass female by a mile and it was one of the best Marvel fight scenes so far apart from the original Loki/Thor bi frost fight and the action scene culminating in Loki's death. Eccleston did well within the limits of his costumes and script as did Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje but there roles needed to be fleshed out more. Kat Dennings was funny and generally it was nice that all the cast got a chance to shine Overall it had a great balance of character interaction, action sequences and humour. I loved the nods to other genres/films for example the funeral scene and attack on Asgard and the general mish mash of sci fi and mystical elements. After watching the flight from Asgard my first thought was that if they cast Tom Hiddleston in the Star Wars remakes I might actually consider going to see them. It reminded me of the same excitement I felt when I first saw Harrison Ford as Hans Solo. Anti heroes are so much more charismatic and intriguing than villains/heroes and this film provided the evidence.

interiris on Nov 10, 2013

16

The production values were much better than the first film but other than that I was disappointed. This movie does not do much to advance the characters in any way beyond setting up another sequel. More Sif would have been nice and they could have delivered a real love triangle with Thor having to choose between being with a mortal or somebody more suited for him by Asgard standards. Thor on Earth is better than Thor on Asgard. My hopes for a third would be that it is set mostly on Earth. The fish out of water element brings out the best in the character and Hemsworth. I wondered why they cast Christopher Eccleston and gave him so little to chew on. I found myself pretty bored with him. Loki is not in the movie nearly enough. I agree with most people that he is one of the better parts of this movie but even his big moments felt a little flat compared to his big moments in the first film and The Avengers. I just think they needed a little more character development and suspense build up than we got. I know not everybody liked Iron Man 3 but it was daring, energetic and kind of weird, which I liked. This Thor movie felt very bland by comparison. I think it is the weakest Marvel movie since The Incredible Hulk, which I consider the worst of the Marvel movies so far.

Christopher Roberts on Nov 10, 2013

17

6.9/10

Ehsan Davodi on Nov 10, 2013

18

I loved it, It was better than Iron Man 3. The visuals were better and the action was great. There were some cameos I absolutely loved in it that were very funny. 9.5/10

Tyler Cobaugh on Nov 10, 2013

19

I loved it. Was getting worried because there were parts that were pretty dry but once the jokes came they were all on point. Plus judging from the trailers, I didn't expect the final battle to be as cool as it was. Malkeith was a bit boring but the cursed(Kurse?) guy was badass.

Tyrell Antonio on Nov 10, 2013

20

I think they should stop making Thor movies and start making Loki movies.

Dan Hibiki on Nov 11, 2013

21

I was pretty disappointed with the film. Bland, template bad guys that generate little or no excitement though I confess that Kurse was a suitable adversary but only because he'd killed Thor's mother. Thor is so overpowered and shown besting opponents with such ease (tall stone/boulder bad guy at the beginning) that there is never any tension in his encounters. It's all just laser beam here, explosion there, interest in the scene zero. Such attempts to include humour that all possible scenes of drama (Loki dying) are washed over for the next laugh. Loki is now dominating the franchise, like Wolverine in X-Men. And the endless 'moving of the goalposts' of how far his powers extend, mean that it just becomes tedious with the film makers throwing in 'oh, of course he can do this' to get them out of a plot hole. Final battle with the endless inter planetary 'hopping' just became silly and something created purely to 'be cool' rather than it having any meaning, reason or merit. Thor is good when you play the God on earth angle, as evidenced in the first when he demands more coffee or walks into the pet store and says "I need a horse". It's this bravado that makes his character. The only example of this in the sequel is the moment on the Underground when the woman stumbles, put her hand on his chest and he smiles. That smile to me says more about Thor than the preceeding 90 minutes of childish, vacant crash/bangs. When the film started, I considered how well Marvel were doing with their franchises. By the time the film ended, I have to wonder if Marvel are killing their characters with a 'vanilla-ising' of their films to appeal to the lowest common denominator and make as much money.

Payne by name on Nov 11, 2013

22

I loved it. I wasn't expecting much but It was better than the first. I enjoyed the fact the Thor had some experience and wisdom so he wasn't all muscles. Although his shirt was off in the first 10 minutes of the movie. lol 8/10

Amy Donovan on Nov 13, 2013

23

I enjoyed it WAY more than the first Thor, which I barely liked at all. I was really surprised that people liked it, in fact. I think this one is a huge, huge improvement. Asgard looks far more textured and lifelike, and the artists clearly got let off the leash because everything is very creative looking. The humour worked about as much as it did in the first for me, which is very well.

OfficialJab on Dec 3, 2013