Thor (2011)

[AnaBBarrosFan]

Now, I'm going to honest with everyone. Thor was pretty bad. The story was weak and it didn't seem like a complete thought. The concept of plausible character development was shat on. Shoe-horned romance. The action was crap... Fighting? Awful and over-choreographed. Special effects were below par (except for the visual concept of Asgaard, which is stunning and I enjoyed more than that of Pandora in Avatar). What did I like? It was funny. Funnier than expected. Natalie Portman, who I normally can't stand, was surprisingly likable and beautiful in the role. Chris Hemsworth (more on him later) was surprisingly talented; great acting chops. Everyone was varying degrees of great (Sir Anthony Hopkins) to passable (Thor's crew of buddies). Now... should you go out and see this movie? Yes. Should you spend money on the ticket? Yes. Why you ask? If the movie is so sub-par why would should you waste your time, money, and energy?

 

Because Chris Hemsworth is the most beautiful man on the face of the planet. He is a collective orgasm. I have never wanted to procreate more in my life. If you are a woman, do yourself the favor of seeing this movie. I promise you, it is the best decision you will ever make. Normally, the idea of seeing a movie just because the lead is attractive is laughable to me... But not this time. Oh no. Chris Hemsworth made me feel things in my nether regions I didn't know I could feel. The sight of him shirtless in low-slung jeans caused the entire sold-out theater to groan: The women in wanton pleasure and the men in utter disgust at the fact that 1. Their women had never made that sound for them. 2. They will never be that... Ever.

 

In short: Shitty movie. BEAUTIFUL MAN WORTH SEEING THIS OVER.

 

[Mirror's Venus]

^^^^^ IAWTC

Perfect flawless man.

[Pierre Tombale]

AnaBBarrosFan said:

Now, I'm going to honest with everyone. Thor was pretty bad. The story was weak and it didn't seem like a complete thought. The concept of plausible character development was shat on. Shoe-horned romance. The action was crap... Fighting? Awful and over-choreographed. Special effects were below par (except for the visual concept of Asgaard, which is stunning and I enjoyed more than that of Pandora in Avatar). What did I like? It was funny. Funnier than expected. Natalie Portman, who I normally can't stand, was surprisingly likable and beautiful in the role. Chris Hemsworth (more on him later) was surprisingly talented; great acting chops. Everyone was varying degrees of great (Sir Anthony Hopkins) to passable (Thor's crew of buddies). Now... should you go out and see this movie? Yes. Should you spend money on the ticket? Yes. Why you ask? If the movie is so sub-par why would should you waste your time, money, and energy?

 

C'mon who would honestly expect plausible character development in a comic adaption?

this movie was solely made for entertaining.

About crappy action I will just say: G.I. Joe

I agree on the special effects though, they could have been better and Chris Hemsworth, whom I have never recognized before made a good appearance.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is known to not always steal your breath with his performance, which could recently be seen in The Wolfman.

But there is no concept behind such a movie of bringing oscar worthy actor performances along with the popcorn feeling.

[AnaBBarrosFan]

As for your last point: Inception. Inception is a popcorn movie, a thinkers movie, and was nominated for best film at the Oscar's. This proves it can be done, but people are so content to watch mindless crap like 'Transformers' and make millions upon million to movie studios, that they feel they don't have to try. I'm against that. Being mediocre for the sake of it is sad and lazy. Sure movies are entertainment, but I firmly believe that entertainment is a direct reflection of society and if it loves shit mindless movies...

[Pierre Tombale]

I don't think that Inception was enjoyed by the same audience as the Transformers movies.

Inception is very special for mixing visual appeal and an interesting plot, but you still don't have to think as much as for Memento for example.

If I find a movie that would appeal on a visual basis as well as on an intellect basis, I sure won't mind, but it is not what I expect in the first place,

because that is not what they serve the purpose for.

Other than that I decide from trailers which movies to watch and which ones not. Some movies suit my mood some don't.

Other than that you have to educate the mindless before you can expect them to buy some more intelligence

[AnaBBarrosFan]

I beg to differ, actually. Inception was an all around success because it got people talking and thinking, which in turn led to all facets of people going to enjoy it. Now, for the most part, an Inception type film wouldn't attract the same audience, but Inception in itself proved that an intellectual film can be entertaining and rake in the cash. And I have to disagree in terms of Memento as well. Memento is a genius film... but it was a much simpler film than Inception. Memento is a film backwards. That was it's genius. It's much simpler than Inception which navigates though conscious and sub-conscious, as well as reality and the concept of existence as fact, rather than state of mind or figment.

 

And that's the problem isn't it? That you don't expect it. I do. I expect films to be good. If you think that Thor's lack of a true plot and awful character development is fine because it's a popcorn flick, then please, enjoy it. My defense is that I'm not willing to forgive a film being bad simply because it's the norm. A movie is bad because it's bad, not because of why it was made or it's genre.

 

I think we're also mixing up the concept of an intelligent movie versus a 'good' movie, and that's my fault because I introduced both concepts in a pretty convoluted manner.

 

My point is, that simply because a movie is supposed to be fun and attract audiences, doesn't mean that things like plot-development and character arcs are left by the wayside. They are the fundamental parts of story-telling, and that's what a movie is... it tells a story. Why shouldn't it do so properly?

[Pierre Tombale]

AnaBBarrosFan said:

I beg to differ, actually. Inception was an all around success because it got people talking and thinking, which in turn led to all facets of people going to enjoy it. Now, for the most part, an Inception type film wouldn't attract the same audience, but Inception in itself proved that an intellectual film can be entertaining and rake in the cash. And I have to disagree in terms of Memento as well. Memento is a genius film... but it was a much simpler film than Inception. Memento is a film backwards. That was it's genius. It's much simpler than Inception which navigates though conscious and sub-conscious, as well as reality and the concept of existence as fact, rather than state of mind or figment.

 

And that's the problem isn't it? That you don't expect it. I do. I expect films to be good. If you think that Thor's lack of a true plot and awful character development is fine because it's a popcorn flick, then please, enjoy it. My defense is that I'm not willing to forgive a film being bad simply because it's the norm. A movie is bad because it's bad, not because of why it was made or it's genre.

 

I think we're also mixing up the concept of an intelligent movie versus a 'good' movie, and that's my fault because I introduced both concepts in a pretty convoluted manner.

 

My point is, that simply because a movie is supposed to be fun and attract audiences, doesn't mean that things like plot-development and character arcs are left by the wayside. They are the fundamental parts of story-telling, and that's what a movie is... it tells a story. Why shouldn't it do so properly?

 

This is funny, because a because if you don't know Memento is a movie backwards in advance it will keep you thinking all the time, while Inception is straight forward diving into deeper levels of the unconscious and then out again. Is that so challenging? About the concept of existence as a fact, that makes a philosophical debate which you can lead until the end of your life without any result, but how deep does the movie dive in? It just scratches on the surface and it won't make anyone question their lives.

 

From you I would like to see a list of "good" movies, based on your standards.