Originally Posted by Fish: :-)... where do you come up with this shit?
I saw it on the promotional poster
"If you haven't seen the much better original, this one seems . . . reasonable, yeah. . . . that's it. It's a reasonable movie!!" - BWillie, The Village Voice. [Reply]
Well, I've seen the flick, and everything I heard in advance was wrong.
Spoiler!
I thought it was a pretty good movie. I didn't think the plotting was "Standard Marvel." There was no other Marvel film that charted this plot. I was reasonably surprised at a couple of turns, and honestly I thought the writing was pretty solid.
Building up Carol's backstory was rushed, but after she crash lands on earth, the film largely doesn't care about establishing her character as much and it gets better for it. I thought the film was well crafted: the flashbacks were handled well, and the flip with the Skrulls being refugees was really solid.
The acting was just fantastic with one major exception. Samuel L. Jackson is just a phenomenal actor, as has been said a million times, and he runs circles around Brie Larson all film.
Larson, I thought, was just not great. She's a phenomenal actor, and her performance in "Room" was one of the best I've ever seen. But maybe Larson is miscast here -- she looks like Danvers, but Larson's powerhouse acting comes from the neck up. There's a scene late in the movie where she figures out her true origins while talking to the Skrulls, and it's all emoting and realizing, and she kills that scene. Every other scene, however....
I don't know. I think Marvel asks a lot of whole-body physicality in their acting. The example I keep coming back to is Chris Pratt, who is a constant full-body ball of energy. Larson isn't that. She is an astounding actress from the neck up, but her acting below the neck is -- I'm totally comfortable saying it -- wooden. She was fine in the fight scenes, but I think Marvel needs their MCU heroes to jump off the screen a bit more than Larson did. Maybe she'll evolve as the MCU goes forward.
I'd probably put this in the 3rd tier of MCU films, rating it as "pretty good." That tier includes Captain America 1 and Doctor Strange -- which, of course, were also character-introduction movies.
Good film, had a ton of fun watching it, I think Larson is a bit miscast in the role. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
I just watched the first Thor again a few days ago. I enjoyed it more than I remember I did the first time I watched it. IMO, it's a fine origin story. You can really see how far Chris Hemsworth has come in terms of his own range and how he's developed Thor over the years, and Anthony Hopkins just kills the Odin role. Kenneth Branagh did a great job directing it and setting up the realm of Asgard going forward.
Still haven't seen CM yet (waiting to see it with the kid while she's on spring break), but from everything I've read non-spoliery from you guys on here so far, it's a pretty good to good movie that's worth seeing in the theater. Looking forward to it for no other reason as it will be an appetizer to Endgame next month.
Uhhhhh I totally gush about Thor 1. Thor 1 is dramatically underrated.
It doesn't really have a single adrenaline-pumping action scene, but the writing and the acting is top freaking notch. [Reply]
Originally Posted by penguinz:
Hulk origin story was one of the worst MCU movies.
Why has Marvel fumbled origin stories so consistently? I can't quite figure that out.
(And by "fumbled," I mean they haven't been amazing.)
The only origin stories I have really enjoyed have been Thor's, Iron Man's, and GOTG, and I think it's because all those characters were well-realized and interesting before they became the superheroes.
That's the difference with Strange, Danvers, Bruce Banner, Steve Rogers... they just weren't interesting as characters until the powers came. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Uhhhhh I totally gush about Thor 1. Thor 1 is dramatically underrated.
It doesn't really have a single adrenaline-pumping action scene, but the writing and the acting is top freaking notch.
I think I like that movies parts vastly more than the sum of them together.
I love Loki, Hiddleston slays the role (Hopkins kills his too, but that's a given). Loki ends up being a stand-out on the screen and becomes one of Marvel's most dynamic characters. But in my opinion Loki's motivations through Thor 1 end up being inconsistent as opposed to dynamic, and his arc, ultimately, doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Marvel fixed this in future movies).
I love Hemsworth. The fish out of water scenes are hilarious in the movie. However, I feel Thor's character building comes at the expense of his "earth" entourage (Jane, Darcy, Selvig) and his "asgard" entourage (Warriors Three + Frigga). The characters around Thor never have a chance to be realized in the movie (or Thor 2, for that matter). It got to the point that all seven of them completely disregarded by the time Thor 3 came around (the problems were exacerbated when they tried to continue that balance and build on all of those characters in Thor 2 while adding even more people).
Ultimately, it felt that Thor 1's plot ended up moving in sometimes non-nonsensical directions in order to serve the characters, rather than the characters motivations coming together to serve the overall plot.
I guess I see it as an episode of SNL. Sure, there are a few sketches I love, but I prefer to see them individually on Youtube rather than watching a full episode. To be honest, it's not a movie I really care to see again. Thor 3 ultimately became a better "origin/soft reboot" of the Thor storyline than Thor 1 ever was, and I've likely seen it as much as Infinity War at this point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FAX:
Hiddleston's "Is it?" scene in Thor 1 is freaking scary awesome.
I get chills just thinking about it. What. A. Performance.
I am so happy there is a group of young actors with his range and power that have entire careers before them.
FAX
After the last re-watch of Thor 1 & 2, it occurred to me that Hiddleston may have had a much better understanding of Loki than the writers and directors did. Especially since his performance singlehandedly convinced the marvel bosses to not unceremounously kill him off via a D-level villain. He was the best part of Thor 2, and it’s amazing that he was barely in it in the first draft of the script, but became the center of the reshoots late in the production. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I think I like that movies parts vastly more than the sum of them together.
I love Loki, Hiddleston slays the role (Hopkins kills his too, but that's a given). Loki ends up being a stand-out on the screen and becomes one of Marvel's most dynamic characters. But Loki's motivations through Thor 1 end up being inconsistent as opposed to dynamic, and his arc, ultimately, doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Marvel fixed this in future movies).
I love Hemsworth. The fish out of water scenes are hilarious in the movie. However, I feel Thor's character building comes at the expense of his "earth" entourage (Jane, Darcy, Selvig) and his "asgard" entourage (Warriors Three + Frigga). The characters around Thor never have a chance to be realized in the movie (or Thor 2, for that matter). It got to the point that all seven of them completely disregarded by the time Thor 3 came around (the problems were exacerbated when they tried to continue that balance and build on all of those characters in Thor 2 while adding even more people).
Ultimately, it felt that Thor 1's plot ended up moving in sometimes non-nonsensical directions in order to serve the characters, rather than the characters motivations coming together to serve the overall plot.
I guess I see it as an episode of SNL. Sure, there are a few sketches I love, but I prefer to see them individually on Youtube rather than watching a full episode. To be honest, it's not a movie I really care to see again. Thor 3 ultimately became a better "origin/soft reboot" of the Thor storyline than Thor 1 ever was, and I've likely seen it as much as Infinity War at this point.
All fair complaints. Really the biggest issue I had with Thor 1 is what you mentioned: the reducing of everyone to one-bit players as Thor and Loki swallow the spotlight.
That's fair.
I disagree some on the inconsistencies, or maybe I'm just better at looking past them since the acting and quality of writing is so brilliant.
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
All fair complaints. Really the biggest issue I had with Thor 1 is what you mentioned: the reducing of everyone to one-bit players as Thor and Loki swallow the spotlight.
That's fair.
I disagree some on the inconsistencies, or maybe I'm just better at looking past them since the acting and quality of writing is so brilliant.
That was an absolutely beautiful thread. I am totally with you on the casting, acting, and characterizations of Thor, Loki and Odin (something that's stayed consistent through the MCU). I suppose I have an easier time watching something like Captain Marvel (which I feel has a more consistent story) than Thor, even though the casting and performances are definitely superior in the latter. [Reply]
Finally saw Captain Marvel. I'd slot it in the middle of the pack for the MCU. Not bad, not great. Some really good bits. Actually thought the girl power they rolled into it, aside from the "smile" think (which I guess I've not encountered and didn't realize it was even a thing), was really well done. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
All fair complaints. Really the biggest issue I had with Thor 1 is what you mentioned: the reducing of everyone to one-bit players as Thor and Loki swallow the spotlight.
That's fair.
I disagree some on the inconsistencies, or maybe I'm just better at looking past them since the acting and quality of writing is so brilliant.
I also finally got around to seeing this. I thought it was well done and enjoyed it. Definitely not my favorite MCU flick, but it's good. It's sort of a shame that it became such a source of outrage, as I think that really colored the experience for people. [Reply]
