REVIEW: Thor

2 06 2011

In 2002’s incredibly self-aware “Urinetown: The Musical,” the characters Officer Lockstock and Little Sally discuss things that can kill a show.  They first discuss titles, which can often sour first impressions of the show.  But the one thing that they can agree on is that nothing kills a show like too much exposition.  No one wants to be bogged down in details to set up the story; Americans are impatient, and they just want to get straight to the rising action.

The same goes for cinema.  Unless your name is Christopher Nolan and your movie is so intricate that it needs a manual, exposition is something that no moviegoer wants to sit through for extended periods of time.  It’s a necessary evil at times, but most filmmakers have gotten clever enough to knock it out in no time at all, some even by the time the opening credits are over.

“Thor,” however, is exposition taken to excess.  In fact, I’d even submit that the entire movie is just exposition for the upcoming Avengers movie.  The script adheres to none of the basic storytelling conventions, instead choosing to through information and explosions at us.  The former is to prepare us for the ultimate marketing event that will be “The Avengers;” the latter, to keep us mildly entertained so maybe we won’t realize their attempt to cash in on an extended exposition.

If you think I’m kidding, the plot can essentially be boiled down to this: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is exiled from Asgard to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for being a little too violent, and as Odin ails, Thor’s evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) ascends to the throne and does evil and selfish things.  While on Earth, Thor finds Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist studying the cosmos, and eventually gets his trademark hammer about halfway through the movie.  Thor is soon visited by friends from Asgard who are disillusioned with Loki, and a small-scale battle ensues as Loki then tries to destroy Thor and eliminate his opposition.

There’s just nothing going on that’s special in “Thor.”  Nothing merits two hours of my time or $10 from my wallet.  It’s a stagnant, slow-moving superhero movie that doesn’t deserve to be called “super.”  Heck, not even some good quality Natalie Portman gazing made it worthwhile.  It’s just a dull starter to the summer that really makes you scared for the onslaught still left to come.

I’m sure that some people will think me hypocritical for berating the lack of storytelling formula in “Thor” while decrying other movies that follow their genre’s basic outline rigidly.  But it’s not that “Thor” lacks formula; rather, it’s that “Thor” lacks substance.  It’s like Kenneth Branagh decided to adapt the film not from the comics, but from the character’s Wikipedia page.  While information may be power, it certainly isn’t entertainment.  C / 

Advertisements

Actions

Information

3 responses

5 06 2011
Sam Fragoso

You and I had similar thoughts here.

Sad thing is … I can hardly remember the picture … and that was in May. That’s the problem with attending too many screenings.

Nice review Marshall.

5 06 2011
Whiffer

What about bad subject matter? Or a bad title even, that should kill a show pretty good.

5 06 2011
Marshall

Hooray for musical theater buffs!

Leave a Reply to Sam Fragoso Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: