Although the visual aspects of this film was superior to those of the first Thor, particularly the cinemotography. The wide shots of Asgard espescially were something to MARVEL at (get it?) and the special effects were a step up, though admitedly the first Thor was playing it safe as director Kenneth Branagh tends to avoid effects in general.
So what wasn't better? Well Tom Hiddleston's Loki character tried to seem human and although he has done wonderful things with the character that has made every comic reader stand up and take notice... I wasn't buying it. Loki has had 2 movies where he's seemed to be everything but able to have a human emotion, now all of a sudden they want us to believe he's changed in some major way from one event? Although it was a big one I just wasn't able to take it seriously. The plotting and directing also wasn't as strong but that happens when your director goes from Oscar to HBO (note: I think HBO has delighful programming, but c'mon this is a 170 million dollar production).
For all it's faults Thor 2 was a fun movie, and likely more crowd pleasing then the first. It's a dark serious story, though by no means does it take itself too seriously, which was endearing. It was a fun ride while it lasted, probably more fun then the first, but it doesn't leave the same lasting impression the first Thor had. The latter issue won't be a problem for your casual movie goer or comic fan boy, my guess is they would prefer The Dark World to the original, though the film fanatic will analyze everything and realize that The Dark World is nothing more than a very good conceived popcorn flick with borderline useless 3D graphics... I seriously noticed it like twice...
I give Thor: The Dark World 3.5 Mjölnir out of 5
No comments:
Post a Comment