Thor (2011)
Theatrical release, IMAX, 3D
Rating: 4/5
Viewing: initial
Being a bit of a geek, I'm really happy that the trend of comic book movies over the past several years has resulted in an increasing effort to make good, quality movies. Sure, there are still a few bad eggs out there that bring the genre down (*cough* Ghost Rider *cough*). But for the most part, comic book movies are being taken seriously, with big budgets to produce the special effects needed to keep the visual style, and big name actors and directors to actually deliver the plot...both of which are needed to do justice to the source material. The action in these movies is definitely important...it's why most people go see comic book movies. But the plot and the character development is equally as important, if not more so. This is what helps you care about the characters and what happens to them. If you don't care about the characters, then the action sequences don't have the same level of tension, because you don't really care who wins.
I thought that Thor did a really good job of delivering both the action and the characters, especially considering that this was an origin story. In most origin stories, it's easy to spend so much time developing the character that there is little time left for action sequences. Or, in attempts to combat that, it is also easy for origin stories to swing the other way and spend too much time in battle and not properly introduce the character. Finding this balance is difficult for most comic book (and other various action) movies, but it is even more so in origin stories. Part of the reason that Thor was able to find this balance was because the action and the plot development went back and forth. Rather than spending the entire movie building up the character and building the hopes of an epic final battle, only to be let down by a disappointingly short action sequence, the action in Thor was interspersed in such a way that not only did each action sequence feel satisfying, but also felt like the action was actually helping to drive along the character development.
Another reason that I feel like Thor worked so well was because of the directing from Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is probably most commonly known for his adaptations of Shakespeare. And I think that his Shakespearian experience definitely aided this movie. In most movies, when a character is not American, he/she is portrayed by someone British. I understand that it's because a British accent is just foreign enough for American audiences to say "hey...he/she's not from here!" but still understandable enough to not have to use subtitles. I sometimes have a problem with this, when it is just one character that could just as easily have been cast by someone actually from the country the character is supposedly from. But in Thor, it was easy to accept that the majority of the Asgardian citizens were British. In part because of the commanding performance by Anthony Hopkins (he might be pushing 75, but he is still totally believable as a Norse God!), and in part because of Branagh's film history (especially Hamlet). The dialog, which used a fair amount of "old English," seemed very natural rather than painfully overacted. And there were a few scenes that actually felt like they were being performed on stage (in a good way).
I do have a couple complaints though. The first of which is the love story. The connection between Thor and Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman) feels like it developed a little too quickly. It seemed much more like Jane fell in lust with Thor than in love with him. But, this is only a minor complaint. The love story between Thor and Jane played a role in his path to redemption, and I feel like the redemption story (overall) was developed very well. And considering the fact that Jane did not talk well of her ex but still had some of his clothes at her place, how quickly she fell for Thor might actually be in character for her. Also, if much more time had been devoted to the love story, it would have felt pretty sappy fairly quickly.
The other complaint that I have is that I saw the movie in 3D. For the most part, the 3D did not seem to detract much from the movie. And in scenes that focused more on the depth of the scenery, rather than poking and throwing things towards the audience, it did look pretty impressive. But in many of the action sequences, the action (moving at normal speed) was too fast for my eyes to focus and register that a hammer was being thrown at me. But, again, this is primarily a complaint about 3D in general (for a pretty great explanation as to why 3D kinda sucks, check out the link) and not just about Thor.
Recommendation: Go see it! Even if you aren't much of a fan of comic books, this is a great movie. And if you are a fan of comic books, I think that Branagh did justice to Thor. If you aren't a fan of 3D, and don't feel like shelling out the extra dough just to wear some uncomfortable glasses (seriously...who designs those things?!!?), then just see the 2D version. Having seen it in 3D, I don't think that there was necessarily anything spectacular enough to warrant a required 3D viewing experience. But, it certainly wasn't a bad experience (except for a few times during some of the action sequences) in 3D. So, if you're a fan of 3D, then go right ahead...I don't think you'll be disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment