Sunday, November 10, 2013

We're Not Worthy (a pop culture post)

Okay, so, probably, we are. Worthy, that is. After all, no one's gonna turn you away from a movie you're paying money to see, right? Well, at least not very often. Unless the theater is full. Anyway...

I don't know how I get off on these things. Okay, that's not true, but... Look, quit interrupting and let me get on with the review, okay?

As I alluded in my review of Iron Man 3, I've suffered a bit of a paradigm shift in my approach to the Marvel Studio movies. See, they did such a great job of adapting the comics, initially, I expected them to keep doing that. Iron Man And Captain America are excellent adaptations of the source material, almost perfectly capturing the tone and feel of the comic characters. Thor is also very good at that, although not quite as good as Cap and Iron Man. So, for a while, I expected the Marvel movies to continue to "adapt" the comics, staying true to the source material across the board.

But it's more like that was just the opening they used to create the Marvel Movie Universe, which is not quite the same as the Marvel Universe of the comics. So, in Iron Man 3, we get a Mandarin who is the front man for a terrorist group rather than a super villain, and, in Thor: The Dark World, we get Malekith after the Aether rather than the Casket of Ancient Winters. And, after some amount of consideration, that's okay. More than okay, actually.

It's more than okay, because Marvel is re-creating what they did to create The Avengers, right now, with their Infinity Stones sub-plot. It's just introducing a piece at a time as they build up to something bigger. In The Avengers, we got our first view of Thanos and his attempt to take control of the Tesseract, which, in The Dark World, is revealed to be one of the six Infinity Stones, artifacts predating the origins of the universe. And, also on The Dark World, Malekith is after the Aether which is another of these "stones" although it actually takes on a fluid form.

This all sounds like it's leading up to an Infinity Gauntlet kind of scenario,
which would be pretty darn cool and pretty darn cosmic. The fact that Guardians of the Galaxy is coming out next year only strengthens the case for all of this. I would expect another of the Infinity Stones to show up in that one.

Of course, none of that actually relates to whether Thor: The Dark World is any good in and of itself.

Actually, Thor 2 is better than Thor. This one just seemed more "Thor" than the first one, although I don't have a good reason for feeling that way because there was an awful lot of Thor-ness about the first one, too. Maybe, it was just that this one flowed more smoothly whereas the first one definitely seemed to have its "Earth" parts and its "Asgard" parts as separate things. If you're doing Thor as Thor (not Thor trapped in the body of a mortal), he definitely needs to have the full range of being Thor.

And there were a lot of cool moves with Mjolnir in this one, things like Thor leaping off of balconies as the hammer came whizzing over the building and into his hand. They definitely did their best to show the connection between Thor and the hammer.

The acting was great, even Christopher Eccleston, whom I'm not particularly fond of as an actor (Doctor or not). His range seems to be quite small, but his role as Malekith was a good fit as it didn't require a lot of emotion and even less facial expression. Zachary Levi also did a pretty good job as Fandral, although, as partial as I am to Chuck, I think he didn't quite fill out Josh Dallas' shoes. There was just some ineffable quality about Dallas that made him more Fandral. Portman, also, seemed to wear the role of Jane Foster much more easily in this one, so that was nice.

The thing that really made the movie work, though, was the chemistry between Hemsworth and Hiddleston. Even when not onscreen together, they pulled off the roles of warring brothers perfectly. The sibling rivalry was perfect. There's this one moment where Thor is about to hit Loki (hey, it's not really a spoiler, okay (well, kind of, but, well, deal with it)) and Thor pulls away saying, "Mother wouldn't want us to fight," and Loki smiles and says, "But she wouldn't be shocked." The relationship is perfect.

The movie also has a bit more humor in it than the last Thor, and it's not all at the expense of Darcy this time, though she does have her moments. The only real negative I'd say the movie has is that the humor breaks the tension a little too much every so often. But those are only minor bumps on the road and barely memorable once past them. It does pull you right back in.

Overall, the movie has an epic feel to it that seems appropriate to a story about gods, and it does it while keeping the movie personal. That all by itself is quite an accomplishment. So, yeah, I think Thor 2 is a step above the first one, something that's not all  that common with a sequel. It doesn't make it up to the level of the first Iron Man or Captain America movies, but it does surpass both of the Iron Man sequels. If you've been following the Marvel movies at all, you certainly don't want to miss this one.


  1. i reviewed it today and felt much the same way. The exchanges between Thor and Loki were perfect and hilarious. And they set it up so well for the next movie.

  2. I'll have to watch that at some point.

  3. I hear the same thing from a bunch of reviewers. I'm looking forward to watching it for myself.

  4. I enjoyed Thor 2 as well, but not as much as the first. I'll have my review for it up eventually. :)

  5. I enjoyed it. I'm still not sure how I really feel about it when compared to other Marvel properties - I had to see Captain America a couple of times before I appreciated its greatness.

  6. I do still want to watch this one. I guess I'm just going in blind since I never read the comics. All I care is that it's better than the first one, which, similar to what you say, is what I've heard from everyone who's seen it. I thought that the first Thor was just okay. Yeah, I said it. And while I'm at it, Christopher Eccleston sucks, as a Doctor or anything else.

  7. I have no frame of reference but you are making me want to see it, guess I'll have to watch the first movie, too!

  8. Oh my goodness, I LOVED this movie. As a writer, it's killing me (in a good way) how they just keep tying all these movies together. I mean, wow! It's like the master plot of epicness! (That's my word this month--and no, I don't care if it's not an actual word.) =)

  9. Alex: "I think you missed a column." My kids were cracking up.

    GP: Yes, you will.

    Jay: If you like the Marvel stuff, it's hard to think that you'll be disappointed.

    David: Well, I want to read that, because I want to know why you like the first one better.

    Rusty: I'm really wanting to do a marathon of all the Avengers movies, not that I'll actually do it (but I want to).

    ABftS: You don't need to read the comics.
    Eccleston has been a disappointment in almost everything I've seen him in (including Doctor Who (worst Doctor ever)).

    RG: Well, if you really want to get it, go back and start with Iron Man and work your way through all of the Marvel Studios movies.

  10. Crystal: Yeah, Marvel has always been good at that. I suppose it's part of why I hate when something gets thrown into a plot with a bunch of back story to make it seem as if it was always there. If you want to have it later, introduce it earlier. That's what I've tried doing with House, so there are many things in the first book which, based on the first book, seem meaningless.

  11. It looks great. I can't wait to go see it, and I'm looking forward to seeing the future of Marvel movies. They've done a good job at crafting a vast world. An adaptation of the Infinity Gauntlet would be incredible.

  12. Don't shoot me, but I've never read a comic book. That hasn't stopped me from totally enjoying most of the superhero movies out there. Some are pure garbage (the Hulks for example)and some are so delightful you buy them and watch them over and over again (Iron Man). No, my crush on RDJr has nothing to do with it and everything to do with how perfect that movie is! I haven't seen the first Thor yet, but plan on watching them both. My plan-to-watch list is almost as long as my virtual Kindle pile of "to-be-read" books...sigh. So much entertainment, so little time.
    Tina @ Life is Good

  13. Jeanne: They have. They did something with comics for the first time back in the 60s, and they've managed to reproduce that with their movies, the first people to ever do that.

    Tina: Oh, you know, most people have never read a comic book. It's not a problem.
    (I like the Hulk movies.)

  14. I'm really looking forward to this movie. I'm so glad to see positive reactions to it and so glad to see some new blood in the superhero category as I'm not a fan of Superman or Batman. Thanks for the review! :-)

  15. Yeesh, I still need to see the first Thor movie. And Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 and The Avengers...I'm so behind on movies.

    Glad to hear that the acting is strong in Thor 2. I heard Hemsworth was good in Rush as well, even if it wasn't a big box-office success.

  16. I've heard the relationship in Thor is much stronger than the first one, which was pretty weak to me. Good review Andrew!

  17. That's one good review (you) and one bad (The Superficial), and I'm almost certain I won't see this movie at this point, but not because of reviews. Because of inertia. I had "Thor" from Netflix for three weeks, and never watched it, and that's when Sweetie and I started a rule: If a movie has been sitting on the dresser for 2 weeks, it goes back.

    Since then, I've numerous times looked at "Thor" on instant play and even once started it, but never watched it. So now to watch "Thor 2: Electric BoogaThor," I have to first watch "Thor", and that seems like it will NEVER happen.

    But a well-written review anyway.

    So can I count on you to submit a story to my contest? Or for pay? Or have your kids in your class submit stories!

  18. Don't tell my husband, but I mostly just went to Thor to enjoy his hotness.

  19. Lexa: I'm certainly not a fan of any of the DC movies. Other than Batman Begins and, possibly, The Dark Knight, they haven't managed to pull off anything worth seeing more than once, and many that weren't worth seeing once >cough< Green Lantern >cough<

    Jessica: Yeah, you should catch up on those, and seeing Avengers before seeing Thor 2 is advisable.

    I haven't seen Rush, yet, but I do want to.

    Maurice: I think it started well in Thor. You certainly get a sense of the camaraderie amongst the group (Thor, Loki, Sif, Warriors Three) at the beginning of the movie. They just let it fall away as the movie went on.

    Michael: Yeah, it was.

    Briane: I think Thor was the movie you were trying to watch back when you were reading House and you kept saying that you were skipping the movie in favor of the book. I have a hard time feeling bad about that.

    I will submit a story as soon as I have something finished. But I will check with my students and my son.

    Elizabeth: So did my wife. With people like Hemsworth on the planet, it's just something the rest of us guys have to get used to.

  20. Suspect I will never get to see it. Boo Hoo.

  21. Jo: If you're not into super heroes, you won't feel the loss.

  22. I actually ended up seeing it twice in the theater...once to cheer up my son and again as The Armchair Squid and I took a friend out for his birthday. It was so much fun.

    I really think it is okay to separate the "real" stories in the comics with these movie versions.

  23. MOCK!: I saw it twice, too. It was just as good the second time.

    And, yeah, I agree.