Monday Morning Talkback: Let's Hear About Thor

Today, we are all Asgardians. With $66 million in ticket sales, Thor dropped its hammer on the box office competition over the weekend, helping get summertime in Hollywood off to a rousing start. What did you think of the Thor's transition from second-tier comic book character to big screen superhero? Let's discuss ahead.

Among the many topics up for debate:

· Are we really living in a world where $66 million is a soft opening?

· How did you think Kenneth Branagh did in his first stab at tentpole filmmaking?

· Was Chris Hemsworth charming enough as Thor that you could imagine him being a legitimate movie star going forward?

· Did Natalie Portman mail Thor in like it was Attack of the Clones, or did her presence lend a certain gravitas to the earthly scenes?

· Did you prefer the intrigue and set pieces on Asgard to those on Earth?

· How were the visual effects? Put another way: How unnecessary was the 3-D?

· Does Thor make you more excited for Captain America and The Avengers or less so?

Hammer away at these and more in the comments!


  • chuck says:

    I enjoyed the movie for what it was except for Natalie Portman. Not only was she phoning it in but she had one of those stupid summer-movie "smart girlfriend" parts where everyone keeps saying what a brilliant scientist she is . . . but she doesn't actually DO anything except fall sloppily in love.

  • NYJ says:

    Thor is an enjoyable movie. It probably would have benefitted from another 15 minutes or so used to establish more depth and gravitas. It's not The Dark Knight but as a popcorn superhero flick its fine. Hemsworth was suitably charismatic and Portman was more engaging than at any point in Lucas' legacy-destroying dreck, although I was more interested in seeing more of Asgard than Earth. I'm up for some Avengers, but first I'll be checking out Captain America.

  • Brian Roan says:

    Hemsworth was charismatic and charming enough to save the movie, which is definitely enough to carry another, better film. The opening is soft for a franchise that hopes to make at least one other movie in addition the Avengers cross over.
    As for the Asgard/Earth debate, it doesn't come close. The canted-angle rom-com innanity of the Earth scenes robbed the movie of all the dramatic goodwill built up by the Asgard scenes. I think the Avengers is canabalizing all of its solo-movie counterparts, and that is one of the reasons the Earth scenes failed. It makes me nervous regarding Captain America, but at least that movie takes place long before the establishment of SHIELD and all the other super heros. That might give it room to breath.

  • danrydell says:

    Not as good as Iron Man, or the first Spider-Man, but good nonetheless with some funny moments with Thor on earth.
    Natalie had some good light moments, but they were too few. They should have combined her role and Kat Dennings' (no offense to Kat. She was great.)
    Other than that, I did want a little more lightning and thunder. I mean, Thor IS the god of thunder, right?
    Some day a director is going to find a role for Natalie to be as funny and charming and likable as she was in The Professional and Beautiful Girls. It hasn't happened yet.

  • chuck says:

    @Brian Yeah, there's too much time spent setting up the S.H.I.E.L.D. stuff. I mean, it's cool to see Hawkeye, I guess. But it was also a waste of time
    @DanryDell - you hit the nail on the head on combining Portman & Denning's roles. Why not have a female lead who is also funny?

  • mjol says:

    irritating he never actually wore his cool helmet in battle
    finally learned how to pronounce 'mjolnir' after thirty years
    started out great, sludged to a stop