A lot of her convincing to make me care for the film or her character: FAILED
She is not unattractive, but her lack of conviction on the screen makes her ugly. Her taking of a contract for the Marvel franchise a sign of child stardom and .
She is the friggin Bella Swan of the Thor franchise, a lackluster looking and acting woman who plays the everywoman who falls in love with a man who is not all that great either in a movie that reflects our times of MTV Jersey Shore horror-bledom.
In Thor, I laughed at the built up stereotypical joke by a terrible phoned in Natalie Portman's inability to drive. In Thor: The Dark World, I laughed a few more times.
There is a cut where all we see is Natalie Portman's boobs bounce. (Seriously, I did not figure out what was the point of that cut over than that!)
She actually had lines to read in this film, unlike Thor. Too bad the director chose bad takes of her to put in the film.
They even teased Thor to be with warrior woman in the film. HE DOESN'T GO WITH HER and the option is IGNORED through the rest of the film! Why would you do that, if it is not going to go anywhere, especially if it would have been a better choice to begin with!
Showing posts with label Thor: The Dark World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thor: The Dark World. Show all posts
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Taiwan-based Thor: The Dark World Product Placement
There is an Apple Sidra Thor: The Dark World commercial in Taiwan.
At least it wasn't in my Xiao Chi.
At least it wasn't in my Xiao Chi.
Thor: The Dark World: 1. The Characters
Normally when you write a character in a Hero's Journey situation, you do not want to stray far from this formula, and in this analysis of Thor: The Dark World, I analyze how the movie failed.was of him.
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.
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.
Thor: The Dark World Analysis Intro
Avengers was a marketing success by Marvel, and an overly hyped critical success from the era where anybody can be hired to become a journalist. Not very philosophical. Talking fun vs having action, in an ACTION movie. Not properly pacing the film or fighting. There must have been some sort of propaganda brainwashing involved in this process.
Iron Man was a great film. Top of 2008. Probably why everybody was so excited to hear about a Samuel L. Jackson Nick Fury team up with a Robert Downey Jr, Tony Stark.
If you want to hear a really good analysis of the first Thor film, I highly recommend Kristen Stewart Wants It's criticism aptly titled, Thor sucks.
Whereas people enjoyed the campy un Tarantino-like conversations of the Avengers, I would have enjoyed more action, being it was an action film. There was not the tension or philosophy or style there was in Die Hard or Terminator 2.
Whereas Thor had a nonsensical screenplay, the Dark World was just not a good screenplay if you have been to film school. Both main protagonists learn nothing, albeit The Dark World was done more tastefullly.
In the words of RedLetterMedia, there are two things wrong with this film.
Normally when you write a character in a Hero's Journey situation, you do not want to stray far from this formula, and in this analysis of Thor: The Dark World, I analyze how the movie failed.
Iron Man was a great film. Top of 2008. Probably why everybody was so excited to hear about a Samuel L. Jackson Nick Fury team up with a Robert Downey Jr, Tony Stark.
If you want to hear a really good analysis of the first Thor film, I highly recommend Kristen Stewart Wants It's criticism aptly titled, Thor sucks.
Whereas people enjoyed the campy un Tarantino-like conversations of the Avengers, I would have enjoyed more action, being it was an action film. There was not the tension or philosophy or style there was in Die Hard or Terminator 2.
Whereas Thor had a nonsensical screenplay, the Dark World was just not a good screenplay if you have been to film school. Both main protagonists learn nothing, albeit The Dark World was done more tastefullly.
In the words of RedLetterMedia, there are two things wrong with this film.
- The Characters
- The Story
Normally when you write a character in a Hero's Journey situation, you do not want to stray far from this formula, and in this analysis of Thor: The Dark World, I analyze how the movie failed.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Star Wars: Episode VII:: Thor: The Dark World
There was a lot of speculation what Disney would do with the Star Wars franchise after purchasing it from George Lucas recently. Would Mickey Mouse show up in the Star Wars franchise? Would it become more kid friendly? I honestly do not think people would notice after watching Thor: The Dark World.
Ever since Patton Oswalt made his overhyped tandem about a Star Wars-Marvel crossover that anybody easily could have made, fans have been clamoring for a franchise crossover like this from Disney.
It looks like Disney will give it to them.
In Thor: The Dark World, there are numerous Star Wars easter eggs throughout.
Forget the fact that Disney owns Marvel, Star Wars and ILM. These are things that would have been noticed in spite of that.
And of course:
The Dark Elves resemble General Grievous. The leader even does a Darth Vader force choke in the movie!
Ever since Patton Oswalt made his overhyped tandem about a Star Wars-Marvel crossover that anybody easily could have made, fans have been clamoring for a franchise crossover like this from Disney.
It looks like Disney will give it to them.
In Thor: The Dark World, there are numerous Star Wars easter eggs throughout.
Forget the fact that Disney owns Marvel, Star Wars and ILM. These are things that would have been noticed in spite of that.
- The beginning begins with a futuristic sci fi, laser fest that would make any Star Wars fan drool despite Thor being about fantastical Norse mythology.
- Sword and laser battles.
- Humanoids driving odd looking spaceships.
- Chopped off hand of the protagonist
And of course:
- Natalie Portman love interest in ancient space ware.
The Dark Elves resemble General Grievous. The leader even does a Darth Vader force choke in the movie!
4 things that are wrong with the Thor franchise
- Natalie Portman does not try.
She simply does not. She is the Bella Swan of the Thor franchise, in it for the billion dollar paycheck she is getting signed for being as terrible and lackluster as possible. I do not even see the point of her character being in the franchise. Sure, Kat Dennings is ok, but all she did was kiss her intern in The Dark World. We get amateur, lowest common denominator, non-nerd fanservice for this franchise from this film that really destroys it from becoming a Lord of the Rings classic. Speaking of which,
- It should be like Lord of the Rings
Remember that awesome scene where the Dark Elves and Norse Gods were fighting? That should be the entire franchise. Hack and slash action. You can appeal to everybody by just having people beat the crap out of each other. They should be playing a game of Norse Risk.
- Loki
He's the main protagonist and we have no idea where they are going with him. More on that in further analysis.
- Misusing old dudes
Stellan Skaarsgaard and Anthony Hopkins are two of the most scariest badass old dudes in the business today. They should be mother fucking villains with Alex DeLarge in RED, not this farty old comic book film. Skaarsgaard naked. I guess that's a check? Making fun of mentally ill people? Very tasteful!
Heck, Rene Russo actually got some combat in this movie, but got killed off as a result!
WTF was that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)