Thor
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Starring:
Chris Hemsworth (Thor)
Natalie Portman (Jane Foster)
Tom Hiddleston (Loki)
Anthony Hopkins (Odin)
Kat Dennings (Darcy)
Stellan Skarsgard (Erik Selvig)
Jaimie Alexander (Sif)
Rene Russo (Frigga)
Thor has always been the odd-man-out in the Marvel Universe. He was, quite obviously, inspired by Norse mythology, but most of his fellow superheroes originated in shitty sci-fi stories. Iron Man is a guy in a robotic suit, Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider, the Fantastic Four were exposed to cosmic radiation, the X-Men are the next step in human evolution, etc. These sci-fi characters are more fantasy than science, but they’re rooted in a set of genre conventions that American nerds, long accustomed to questionable science in their fiction, accept without notice. But Norse mythology is this weird, funky thing over in the corner. It’s magical, and pagan, and rooted in a dead religion. And to make matters worse, the Norse gods don’t have the name recognition of their Greco-Roman counterparts. In a movie season already saturated with nerd bait, how would Marvel sell such an unusual character?
Marvel Studios and director Kenneth Branagh (a.k.a. that Shakespeare guy) never answer the above question, possibly because they never decided what kind of film they wanted to make. It’s one part high fantasy, one part parody of high fantasy, one part standard superhero film, and one part infomercial for upcoming superhero films. Mix it all together and you get a concoction that isn’t terrible, but it’s never as good as it could be.
First, the good. Thor has an actual sense of humor about itself. This title character does not brood atop rooftops while contemplating the delicate balance between civil liberties and costumed law enforcement. Thor prefers to hit things with his hammer, exclaims how awesome he is, and flirt with Natalie Portman (which seems a pretty sensible way to go through life if you’re a Norse god). And the film freely acknowledges the absurdity of space gods. The special effects look expensive but fake, and the armor and weapons look like toys. But that’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. After all, what the hell are Norse, techno-magical weapons supposed to look like? This is superhero-space god fantasy, not archaeology. Thor is shiny, plastic adventuring in the tradition of Flash Gordon. If only Branagh could have gotten Queen to do the soundtrack …
And the film isn’t exclusive about boys and their toys. There is plenty of action and several gorgeous women to gaze at, but the the filmmakers also threw in some light comedy and a genuinely sweet romance. And there is a gratuitous shirtless Thor scene that elicited several coos and whistles from the female half of the audience I was in.
Now, the bad. While Thor is goofy, it’s never as goofy as it could and should be. Why is Anthony Hopkins required to play such a somber Odin? There are a handful of glorious moments when Hopkins gets to chew the scenery, but the script demands that Odin be the voice of reason. Too bad, because a reasonable patriarch is a boring turd. Plus, while Asgard is garish and weird, it’s never used in an imaginative way. There are no surreal moments or logic-defying architecture. Despite being a fantasy setting, Asgard seems rooted in a tedious realism. But that’s because Thor is still a mainstream action movie, and it has to adhere to the expectations of a mainstream audience. That means action, hero learns a valuable lesson, hero gets the girl, some more action, the end.
The film is also chock full of references to previous and future Marvel films. SHIELD Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) from Iron Man has a prominent supporting role. And there are brief cameos by Hawkeye and Nick Fury, plus set-up for the upcoming Avengers film. In themselves, these glorified shout-outs do not ruin Thor … until the moment when they become the point of the film. That moment comes during the film’s climax, when the main conflict ends on an anti-climactic note because certain plots must be left unresolved until the next Marvel installment.
So that’s Thor. An entertaining, silly, uneven mess. For all its flaws, I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would.
I thought Loki walked away with it.But then, villains tend to do that…
Pity they couldn’t give Odin some of the slyness he showed in the old myths!
So is the Avengers movie definitely happening? Have they started production…?
Well, nothing’s definite in Hollywood, but Captain America is supposed to be last “setup” film before Avengers. And principal photography begins this month. And they’ve already hired Joss Whedon to direct … which lowered my hopes, but unlike most nerds I am not a Whedon fan.
Noah, they’ve wrapped principal photography for ‘Avengers’.
Why oh why is everyone bitching over Hawkeye’s cameo? It was perfectly integrated into the storyline and gave a nice Easter-Egg fillip for fans.
Showing Thor as a dick and a doofus is perfectly in line with the traditional tales. Same goes for Hercules, and I hope Thor II features the Lion of Olympus and Thor-boy ripping up Manhattan.
Odin as a devious tricksterish plotter was shown in Roy Thomas’ run on the title in the late ’70s, as well as in Walt Simonson’s wonderful run.
And Idris Elba fugging ROCKED as Heimdall, despite the wails of the neo-Nazis about a Black man playing an Aryan supergod. Boo-hoo to you, Heilers.
Anyway, screw that Marvel glitz…this is the comics movie I worry about:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiquue_bande-annonce-les-aventures-de-tintin-trailer-spielberg-jackson_shortfilms
Alex, you are allowed to say “fucking.”
As for the Tintin movie … I’m curious but I’ll probably wait for it on video.
I actually admired how they managed to make (NON-SPOILER) the climax revolve around Thor hitting something with his hammer, really really hard. Go Thor!
It was also the first 3D film I’ve ever seen (didn’t have the option of 2D). As far as I could tell, the 3D added nothing to the film except about $6/ticket. Oh shit, that one guy’s totally standing in front of that other guy!!! And it made the intensified continuity/WTF-is-happening action scenes even harder to read than in a Christopher Nolan film…
Alex wrote:
“Why oh why is everyone bitching over Hawkeye’s cameo? It was perfectly integrated into the storyline and gave a nice Easter-Egg fillip for fans.”
Hawkeye should have taken out the hammerless Thor in two seconds. Unknown crazy person attacks the base, and Hawkeye just poses and waits for orders? Yeah right…… the only reason Hawkeye didn’t do anything is because it would get in the way of the plot.
Richard wrote:
“That moment comes during the film’s climax, when the main conflict ends on an anti-climactic note because certain plots must be left unresolved until the next Marvel installment.”
I don’t think the end of the conflict was anti-climactic, I do think that there was a really forced ad for the Avengers movie after the credits, though. I don’t think it had anything to do with the rest of the movie, however.
BTW, didn’t Thor conveniently forget he could fly in the last scene, where he’s dangling off the rainbow bridge or did he only remember he could fly during one moment with his girlfriend? I’m pretty sure there was a scene where he could fly in that movie.
I’m fairly sure there were a few plot holes in that movie.
Also: not enough goofy Kirby helmets. On the other hand, full props for giving so much screen-time to the Warriors Three, of all people. I predict the sequel will prominently feature Beta Ray Bill or else Ego the Living Planet — you heard it here first, True Believers!
So I have one nice thing to say about the Hawkeye cameo. While I don’t know a lot about the character, Jeremy Renner is a perfect choice for the role. He looks pugnacious, which is the only consistent quality that I can remember about Hawkeye. More generally, I have to admit that the casting has been spot on for most of these Marvel Studio productions.
Jones – a live action Beta Ray Bill would be some creepy shit. But I’m hoping the sequel involves Thor being turned into a frog. This franchise needs to embrace the weirder parts of the comics.
Does Hawkeye have boxing glove arrows? Or is that Green Arrow? Either way, I want more boxing glove arrows in the future.
“I have to admit that the casting has been spot on for most of these Marvel Studio productions”
Natalie Portman?
I’m really surprise by the general lack of critical response to how weak the female characters are in this film. This review is a pretty good indication of how much agency they have in the film. Women are mentioned three times: twice as the object of Thor’s desire, and once as the object of the (straight, male) audience’s gaze.
How many women are in this film? I can remember four.
1. Natalie Portman’s character is supposedly a brilliant astrophysicist, but aside from her academic research she seems pretty useless. There’s a running gag about what a terrible (or perhaps just absent-minded) driver she is: she hits Thor twice with her car, and another time almost drives off the road because she’s too busy being awed by him. And that’s mostly what she does throughout the movie: look at Thor in awe and giggle whenever he speaks to her.
2. Her assistant. Mostly there for comic relief. Also is in awe of Thor’s hot body. You could pretty safely remove this character from the film and it would have no impact.
3. Sif. She’s a badass female warrior and that’s the extent of her characterization. She exists only to prove that women can be strong, too. And “strong” of course is measured by how violent and deadly you can be in battle. You could also remove her from the film and it would have no effect.
4. Thor’s mother. She’s barely in it. Doesn’t really do anything.
Of course, you could criticize a lot of the male supporting characters as being cardboard stereotypes too. You could even maybe argue that even the main players like Thor and Odin and the SHIELD dude aren’t very well developed either. But at least they have some agency – they drive the plot forward.
Loki ended up being the only character I really was interested in. Even though he’s a little too somber and brooding for someone who’s supposed to be the God of Mischief, at least he has complex motivations, and he manages to be very sympathetic while also acting as the main villain. For me, he was the star of the movie. His relationship with his brother Thor (and to a lesser extent with their father Odin) was much more compelling than the tacked on romance between Thor and “the girl.”
Boxing Glove arrows is Green Arrow’s thing. Hawkeye has boomerang arrows (I think).
As for Natalie Portman … she was fine in the movie. I think she’s a fairly mediorcre actress in general, but she wan’t awful by any means. Of course, she didn’t have much to do, which leads me to Basque’s comments…
You’re right that the women didn’t have much to do (and Rene Russo was completely wasted, why even have a name brand actress in the role if she gets only 4 or 5 lines?) but I don’t expect much in the way of female agency in a movie called Thor. I thought Thor, Odin, and Loki would be the central characters, and they were. I also don’t expect much from sidekicks and love interests, though I was pleasantly surprised that Sif got to do more than just look pretty.
Real female agency in a superhero movie will probably only come when the movie is about a female hero, like Wonder Woman. But considering that they can’t even get a Wonder Woman tv series off the ground, I’m not holding my breath.
Wasn’t there an Elektra movie? Or did I imagine that? Maybe she was only in daredevil? I haven’t seen any of these….
There was an Elektra movie. It was a critical and commercial bomb.
Yeah, people have been raving about the BO of superhero movies, while gliding over the disappointments and outright bombs. I mean, there have been 3 Punisher movies and all 3 tanked.
Disappointments:
Hulk, Incredible Hulk, Daredevil, Superman Returns, Blade III, Wolverine
Bombs:
Elektra, the Punisher (x3),Steel
But Richard, in that case why even bother having female characters? If it’s just going to be tokenism to avoid a sausage fest, it seems like a waste.
I don’t really agree that supporting characters can’t have agency. I mean, the SHIELD guy was a supporting character and he had more agency than Natalie Portman, who shares top billing with the protagonist.
Besides, I thought there was a wasted opportunity to have her character do something useful as the last act approached. When the Asgardians find themselves stranded on Earth, I thought after all the talk about how science and magic are the same thing, that she would find some way, using her fantastic brain, to open up the bridge back to Asgard.
That would have been perfect. Her being an astrophysicist would have payed off and served a purpose. She would have become more than a mere love interest. But no, instead she just stands around helpless.
I guess maybe they’re saving that for the sequel? It’s kind of hinted at the end that now that Thor destroyed the bridge, she might find a way to reopen the portal and bring him back to Earth. I guess we’ll see.
It’s a bit depressing to think that it’s unreasonable of me to expect female characters who are more than passive love interests just because they’re not the hero of the movie. I think we expect more from supporting male characters, and there’s no reason not to expect the same from supporting female characters.
Wait…there was a Steel movie?
Basque, I don’t think love interest is exactly the same thing as tokenism, but I understand your point. As for the SHIELD guy, he seemed more active than Portman, but his machinations didn’t actually amount to a hill of beans … the main plot was still the power struggle between Loki and Thor. You could have removed SHIELD and the main plot would have been unaltered (though the movie would have lost an action sequence and a cameo). As for the Rainbow Bridge, I agree that it was kinda lame to put off the rebuilding of the bridge to the next film … this relates back to my complaint that much of the film is an informercial for other films.
As for male versus female love interests, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t expect much from either of them. I don’t have high expectations for Steve Trevor anymore than I do for Lois Lane.
Alex- don’t forget the Catwoman movie with Halle Berry! That was an even bigger bomb than Elektra.
Noah- yes, there was a Steel movie made in the 90s. It starred Shaquille O’Neil, and it was extraordinarily bad.
Catwoman I saw. http://hoodedutilitarian.blogspot.com/2007/10/bad-as-she-wants-to-be.html
Basque’s moans about the lack of women with ‘agency’ in ‘Thor’ take me back thirty years, to when outrage was expressed over John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’, which hadn’t a single female role, even as a walk-on.
To which I say, Tough. That was the logic of the piece. This is the logic of ‘Thor’– which, incidentally, bends over backwards to introduce strong women.
I mean, Jane Foster is no longer a nurse,who in the comic actually was once hospitalised because Thor didn’t want to commit to a relationship; she’s an astrophysicist. Wow, what an oppressed category of woman workers.
And Sif is just brushed off– because she doesn’t fit into Basque’s schematics of male oppression. Sif goddam nails the Destroyer single-handed. She’s treated throughout as the equal of her male comrades.
Thor’s mother is shown to be a brave woman, standing up to Laufey and the Frost Giants by herself.
Basque, look for more vulnerable targets in the future.
Anyway, THIS is the comics-based movie I really look forward to: ‘Le Chat du Rabbin’ (‘The Rabbi’s Cat’), adapted by Joann Sfor from his comic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX7I2YLt73w
John Carpenter’s Thing doesn’t have women because it’s about homosexual panic. Logistically, there’s no particular reason you couldn’t have had a woman or two on the base. In fact, the original Hawks film did have women in it. The fact that there are no women is in fact a really valid point, and is central to understanding what’s going on in the movie, I would argue.
I haven’t seen the film (edit: I mean Thor), and have actually seen at least one review praise it for its treatment of women (here it is.) But either way,there’s nothing wrong with talking about a movie’s gender politics.
And you could have made your very reasonable points without edging towards a flame war, Alex.
My “moans” are not about the absence of women with agency. They’re about the presence of women without agency. My point is: if this is a story about important men doing important things, then don’t bother adding pointless female characters to hide that fact.
And John Carpenter’s The Thing is one of my favourite movies.
I thought I was contributing to a discussion here. But when my contribution gets ridiculed as “moans,” that’s when I sign out.
Have fun, guys.
Hey Basque. I appreciated your contribution. It’s definitely a point worth raising. Thanks for commenting.
On the gender politics (I agree with Basque), I particularly liked the fact that despite the new, updated and PC friendly move of making Foster an astrophysicist (As Alex says, to make her less oppressed), the subject of her unoppressed scientific study ultimately turns out to be…Thor! She thought she was studying the stars? Silly girl.
Basque’s right on the women without agency, but I also liked how the most headline example of positive female representation sort of backfires.