Thor is strong and beats up people. He concocts an interesting plan that was probably written by the strongest of the Marvel scribes for the film. He does not really have an arc for the film, but I guess you would consider that an arc for the franchise, albeit who really wants an idiot superhero protagonist when you cannot play up the fact? At least it was something subtle that the franchise needed and works. Probably, they should have broken the fourth wall and played up how uncharacteristically smart that Or perhaps, they should have noted that there is more to Thor after all than his brawling. In the words of Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka, "You lose! You get NOTHING! Good day sir!"
Odin has a tirade about human lives being insignificant compared to the Norse Gods, which he never expressed in the first film. He does not trust Thor either. He is "killed off" or at least taken off screen during the film.
Loki hates father, hates brother, pretends not to hate mother. (We do not figure out whether he does or does not.) Usurps throne in a swerve on that storyline which is really unfulfilling.
They introduce Jane Foster without us really getting to know her other than her job and that she likes Thor. She is essentially a Mary Sue for the Chris Hemsworth smitten audience.
Stellan Skaarsgaard was completeley wasted in this film, appealing to the lowest common denominator, who makes fun of mental illness.
Where did the dark elf go for friggin forever? Why is it that these villains have nothing to do other than to war and do nothing the rest of their lives?
Tom Hiddleston is a lot better in other films, so I do not see what fans see in him, especially since how poorly inconsistent his character his written. His characters in War Horse and the Deep Blue Sea were a lot more interesting, conflicted and most ironically of all, were protagonists. He is not even fun in a Superfriends Myxtyplk kind of way. Just annoying.
This is not Taxi Driver, where you want to write about a living contradiction. It is a friggin kids movie that we probably will not watch after the first time. The film is not a mystery: If so, we'd be looking for the clues, behind why he does why he does. He does not have an anarchacial spirit. There is a difference between being unpredictable and not knowing what you're doing! Loki belongs in the second category. It is not a film where so much is going on with each of the characters. Unlike the Joker, we cannot put Loki in a mental asylum after the film is over.
Family
This film did not make sense in certain scenes where characters are interacting with each other.
For example, when talking about Thor not liking Loki, you might want to include THOR in the dialogue.
I suppose they wanted to build up when Thor and Loki met each other, without having the scene where they were like "Oh no! Thor and Loki met each other!"
Supporting characters
In Thor, there were three supporting "characters." AKA all they did was fight and we knew nothing about them. In this movie, we have the same issue, except with more supporting characters entering the fray.
The only purpose I see for this is for fan speculation and merchandise product placement from studios and their lazy efforts to sell the named toys. I think it is a bad idea to do, as it costs money and it is not even like an anime where the character designs are interesting.
These are not storm or clone troopers. They are human beings with faces (or at least or represented so visually, more so than the numerous nameless guards.) It is more of a nitpick than a criticism, but again, this film does a lot of questionable uneasy choices for a film that will probably make $1 billion.
No comments:
Post a Comment