IMDb > Thor (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Thor More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 71: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 708 reviews in total 

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Not impressed :(

Author: Nicamber1 from United States
12 September 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unfortunately this movie doesn't compare to such movies as Iron Man. Dialogue didn't keep me very interested. Even the battle scenes didn't keep me very interested, they were very short lived.

Once Thor arrived on earth, he met Natalie Portman, whose character and relationship with Thor I just couldn't connect with.

My favorite scene in the movie is when Thor is retrieving his hammer and Jeremy Renner is the sniper. Love Jeremy Renner! Besides Jeremy Renner, Thor's brother was enjoyable to watch. He had so much more personality. He wasn't so drab. I enjoyed watching the villain more then the hero!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

While "The Avengers" was a winner, "Thor" really doesn't work.

Author: Sergeant_Tibbs from Suffolk, England
10 July 2013

The only reason I watched this film is because I'm going to see The Avengers soon and I've seen all the others, although they range from decent to average. I was already not a fan of anything about this film so I had low expectations and it pretty much met them. I'm not a fan of Kenneth Branagh in whatever he does so Thor was pretty typical of him. The emotional cores of the film are intended to be the father/son, brother/brother and Thor/Natalie Portman relationships, but none of them were convincing as they weren't set up properly, nor did they have any genuine chemistry, as a poor attempt to base them on Shakespearean foundations.

Loki is a ridiculous villain, he wasn't evil nor threatening, and I immediately hated the character of Thor. Every character is paper-thin and charmless, I had lots of eye-rolling moments. Especially as they set up the realm of Asgard to be a sincere and the Earth scenes to have lighter comedy, the contrast only seeming sloppy and cheap, as they repeat the same jokes four times in a row hoping to get one laugh. There's no tension or excitement, as the unlikeable Thor battles faceless obstacles, it's no better than a Steven Seagal movie but made PG-13. The other Avenger films had something redeeming about them, but I'll see how the big film is on the big screen. I don't expect something spectacular, but at least worthwhile.


Update: I saw The Avengers and it was spectacular. I am pleased.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

Thor-oughly entertained by this one

Author: big_ryan15 from Australia
27 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have to admit, i had low expectations for this adaptation. Hulk yeah sure, Iron man, why not, Captain America, its set in the real word of course it'll work. But THOR? A wildly fantastical tale of Norse Gods and Rainbow bridges and nicknamed hammers ?? Surely not! Ill stop with the bashing; this film is astonishing. The oddest thing has happened here. Coupling notoriously artsy director Kenneth Branagh with one of Marvels most theatrical characters was a stroke of genius. At the beginning of the film, we are quickly introduced to Jane Foster, her whimsical offsider and an older gentleman. Storm chasers aren't normally this clever you might think to yourself during this opening scene, but alas, they are revealed to actually be physicists after a few minutes. An incredible storm arrives and THOR HAS LANDED: or so you would think. Mere moments after being introduced to our title character we are thrust on an astrological journey to Asgard, land of gods. Here we are introduced to Odin, the all father and his 2 young boys; Loki and Thor. Odin recites stories of an ancient war in which a planet load of frost giants planned to destroy the realm of Midgard (earth) before Odin and his merry men stepped in to save humanity. It is during this scene we are first shown Thor's arrogance and thirst for war. Skip ahead a few years and THOR has become Asgard's mightiest warrior, just as Odin had foretold. A celebration is occurring, Thor is about to be crowned as king of Asgard, but alas... this glorious day is interrupted by none other than said FrostGiants attempting to steal a stolen heirloom from Asgard's weapons locker.. The story rapidly gains traction from here. Thor marches into the Frost Giants planet (against his fathers will) in all his Aussie glory, kicking ass and taking names. He and his friends become swiftly over powered and Odin is left no choice but to step in. An argument erupts in which Odin tells Thor of his assholness and douchebaggery and that he is no longer worthy of his giant hammer Mjolnir or his god of Thunder status. Cast down to Earth the audience is reunited with the opening scene and we are officially filled in. A bevy of comedic scenes follow in which Chris hemsworth's THOR is tranquillised and run over multiple times. The film transitions backwards and forwards between our world and that of Asgard so as to keep us informed on going ons. Odin goes into a coma and Thor's mischievous bro Loki starts to come into his own. A marvellous story unfolds filled with action, humour, heartache and a whole heap of awesome!! Branagh's eye for curious shots is on full show here and works fabulously in creating a beautifully surreal Asgard. The films close is a little rushed but is also very heartfelt and strong. Leaving plenty of room for more character development, THOR is as good as if not better than every comic film to date, the characters were superbly cast and played and the story follows as close as it can to the source material as it can without being too over the top. Spectacularly fun movie, worthy of the Marvel name tag and certainly a sequel. 10 out of 10 for performance and entertainment....

Make sure to stay after the credits for the Captain America nod.

Was the above review useful to you?

95 out of 187 people found the following review useful:

I really don't understand all the positive feedback for this film

Author: jprslattery from United Kingdom
21 May 2011

This film was one of the most tedious experiences of my life. I enjoy a good cheesy action film like the next guy and was genuinely looking forward to a mindless 90 minutes of fun. What I actually experienced was self important, overly buff, lord of the rings reject extras spouting some of the worst lines in film history. How Natalie Portman, let alone Stellen Skarsgard, got roped into this I will never know. Repetitive actions scenes, awful editing that cut the middle of conversations and light humour from Thors friends (puke) and the terrible Kat Dennings made for a challenging viewing experience all round. Where Iron Man went so right with its self depricating humour and quick wit Thor has languid scenes, flacid romance and wooden character interaction.

The picture lacks a decent development of storyline and character which is always difficult when introducing a character with a deep backstory but it has been done so well recently with Batman Begins et al. There is a definite smell of studio meddling in the final cut with some scenes jumping all over the place. Loki (Tom Hiddleson) changes from loyal brother/Son to evil traitor with no story or character development. Anthony Hopkins spends most of the film in a coma. Chris Hemsworth can't be to blame for a film which seems over produced, over edited and that was marketed as Return of the King but was more Masters of the Universe. The decision to assign 'Ice Giants' (yes Ice Giants) as 'baddies' falls flat as they are about as scary and menacing as frosty the snowman.

The whole project felt a thin and is so poorly put together you could see it unravel before your eyes. Fingers crossed for a better Summer Blockbuster in the near future...

Was the above review useful to you?

99 out of 195 people found the following review useful:

God of Slumber

Author: RhyanScorpioRhys from United States
8 May 2011

Hmmm, Thor… where do I begin? I have long since given up the erroneous notion that superhero movies should be true to its comic book counterparts. I also have lived long enough to see superhero titles rebooted so often that they bear no r...resemblance to their origins as told in my youth (Jane Foster is an astrophysicist stormchaser?) So, I entered Thor with absolutely no expectations. Good thing, too, because if I had any, they wouldn't have been met. First, I must agree with Sir Anthony Hopkins and state that there is far to much CGI in this film and not enough character development. There were opportunities to delve into characters and their back stories that were simply ignored.

Other problems include: Fight scenes that played out like video game ads, with actors trying to strike the right "badass" pose for the cool action shots. Annoyingly silly humor that wore thin quickly. Conflicts that were one-dimensional and built no real suspense. A forced love story. And I understand that even a god of thunder must have a character arc, and Thor's was a common one that I could have overlooked… had it been better acted, and yes, better directed.

The whole movie lacked gravitas. Plain and simple.

There are some that have said it's nothing more than a two-hour preview for the upcoming Avengers movie and I can't totally disagree with that. But it is not the worst superhero movie ever made (far from it), it is simply the weakest Avengers prequel movie made to date (and yes, I'm including Iron Man 2 in that category).

Who knows? Check your brain at the door and you might just enjoy this special episode of "Donald's Creek."

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What was wrong with the original manuscript?

Author: kss-3 from Ystad, Sweden
10 January 2014

So, I decide to see the movie Thor, but with some hesitation. This is my own culture as a Scandinavian, so maybe I am not supposed to write a review, maybe I will just spoil it all. I will of course be critical.

When I grew up I read the Edda, so I know the stories of Norse Mythology well. This is also my first question, when you read the real stories, as they were taken down by my distant ancestors, what is it that make the writers and directors change them when making the movie? Is it because they were not good enough? The movie Thor reads like a five year old who was told the real stories but decides to vulgarize them. Or maybe it was due to bad memory, maybe it was on purpose.

The fact remains, they have taken a beautiful story and ripped it to pieces. It makes me sad because when people hear "Thor" they will recall all the wrong images. Sure, some ideas have been preserved, like some of the names and places, but just as many are made up and the whole conflict with the "Jotuns" have been turned into a simplistic black and white world. It makes you wonder, was this done because movie makers think that viewers cannot understand the real story, that it would be too complicated?

And then the whole connection with the present, it turns the figure of Thor into a freak-show. And the sword associations to King Arthur with the sword stuck in the ground. Can't Hollywood tell a story without mixing it with Anglo Saxon familiarities? When Jackson made the Ring at least he tried to follow the original book. It's difficult to understand how Branagh could put his name to this lot. It's all very embarrassing, from story to acting.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

One character sells the movie. Everyone else, including the title character, are afterthoughts.

Author: soloriamagic08 from United States
27 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Thor, the movie where a god (alien? demi-god? Not completely sure) changes his century old or so personality in three days. Because of a girl. Come on director if you're going to be cliché at least try not to be so obvious about it. I'm going to review this in parts because I have so much to say about it.

Story- Like I hinted at above Thor is a prince that is exiled from Asgard,a fantasy like world in another dimension, to our meager little planet Earth. Here he has to learn humility if he wants to come home because he pretty much started a realm wide war by being an arrogant prick.The problem with this plot point is that for the first 25 minutes or so, when the story was based on Asgard and one other realm (not earth),the story was actually interesting. That takes a severe nosedive when Thor is thrown to a small desert in the middle of nowhere on our planet. To say this part of the movie was very boring would be like me saying rain is wet. All the interesting bits happen on Asgard with Thor's family, but unfortunately since Thor is the main character it's his sleep inducing antics on earth that we have to follow the most and not the far more captivating Asgardian plot points.

Characters- Overall everyone was decent in their roles. I thought Chris Hemsworth, apparently a newcomer at the time, was good as Thor. He was very arrogant (at first), but overall nice and kinda goofy like a big kid. Natalie Portman, as the earth-based scientist Jane and Thor's unfortunate love interest did what she had to do. However, this wasn't much, but that's the thing her part could have been given to anyone and worked. That's why it was obvious that Portman and Hopkins (to a lesser extent) were only really cast because they were the big name draws in a sea of relative unknowns. Speaking of Anthony Hopkins he had a commanding, but still kind, presence as Odin the King of Asgard.However, the role that shined above all was from,apparently another newcomer, Tom Hiddleston.

He played Thor's younger, quieter, darkly mischievous brother Loki, and my god did he blow everyone out of the water. I watched this movie for the first time on Netflix a few months ago, and not being a superhero movie fan I admit I wasn't expecting much. Especially not the Oscar caliber brilliance from Hiddleston. Loki was a scene stealer and really the sole reason I kept watching to the end.

Romance plot- A plot tumor that should have been regulated to C plot or even better not been in the movie at all. The biggest problem with this plot line however was not its existence, but that the two leads had NO chemistry with each other. To say Hemsworth and Portman didn't have this would actually be an understatement. This is unfortunate since they had it with everybody else. Just sadly not with each other.

Visuals and music-Asgard, and one other world, was beautiful but it was glossy looking and didn't look lived in. It was also very obvious they were on a set in a lot of the interior scenes. Very boxy. The earth scenes were a desert and of course very dry and boring looking. The music had a good fantasy vibe, but it wasn't memorable for me.

The Bad Guy-The villain's overall motivation wasn't executed well, and since this is the essence of his start of darkness a lot more effort should have been done in the writing room in this regard.

Battle scenes -Overall I wasn't in awe. I was barely in meh.

There's supposed to be a war brewing and yet we are not shown this even a little. Definitely takes a whole lot of tension out of the movie in that regard.

A very important character is called a master of magic, his power is this for god's sake, and yet I've seen more magic, big and small, done by the children in the Harry Potter films.

Costumes help you get immersed in a world. Especially in a fantasy setting, but sadly the asgardian's costumes overall looked like they came off the Halloween rack at Wal-Mart. Clearly the 150 million or so budget barely was dipped into for the costume department.

Deleted Scenes- This bares a special mention because after seeing them it's one of those what the hell was the director thinking face-palm worthy things. After watching some deleted scenes from other movies it's usually very obvious why they were done away with. This isn't one of those movies. Even when watching the original cut I felt something was missing. Dialogue that didn't make sense, didn't flow right, or seemed to be gone. Transitions that were off and whole plot points that seem to have more to them then what was shown. Then I watched the deleted scenes and go oh there's the rest of the movie! Why would you cut scenes that fleshed out your overall story and more importantly your characters! The deleted scenes made the movie so much more and it's a shame they were cut.

In summary the script, dialogue, story, and just overall execution wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. The acting (especially Hiddleston's Loki) is what overall helped sell it for me. However, in all honestly this is not a movie I can watch in its entirety again. Certain scenes certainly, but not the whole movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Entertaining, but by the book

Author: Treyroo from Saratoga Springs, NY
24 November 2012

The film opens in a realm and/or planet far removed from Earth and human existence. We're given a brief overview of the major events in its history and then we're introduced to its royal family battlefield conqueror, Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth). After disobeying his father, Odin (played by Anthony Hopkins) he is banished to Earth and stripped of his godlike abilities.

Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). While studying anomalous events in the atmosphere under the guidance of her mentor Erik Selwig (Stellan Skarsgard) and with the not- so-able assistance of Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings), she bears witness to Thor's banishment or rather the tornado-like occurrence that made it possible. This intrigues Foster and after a brief period of reticence she hopes to offer help to Thor and, at the same time, elicit any information he might have that could help her in her work. All the while, turmoil in Thor's realm could potentially destroy both it and Earth.

I'd not seen Hemsworth before and while the part requires very little beyond physicality, he is adequate at least. The "earthlings", are good enough as are those from Thor's home planet and the story is about what I expect. It's not amazing, it's not awful. Basically, it's just a good time at the movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Thunder? More smoke and mirrors

Author: adrongardner from USA
13 September 2011

Plain and simple - when the humans show up the movie dies a slow death.

It's a superhero movie so you know what the plot is. Hero comes to Earth to help humans. They're basically riffing Superman to the Nth degree here. But on to the important stuff...

What the heck is Natalie Portman doing in this movie. I mean that in two ways. First why is she even in the movie? Second, what did she do other than stand there and let her hair be blown around by the off screen wind machines? It felt like all of her scenes were filmed in one day and she looks so bored in all of them. Chris Hemsworth was fine as Thor and Hopkins played a good Odin, but it was the human characters that kill this one.

At least Branagh threw in Skarsgard for the Swede inside joke. But as usual Stellan Skarsgard is totally wasted. After Insomnia I was just in awe of what the man is truly capable of and here in the states they always use him as a window curtain.

I didn't mind the first act all that much, but for a movie about the GOD OF THUNDER, it comes off surprisingly meek.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

A movie worthy of Thor!

Author: TheUnseenMovieLover from United Kingdom
26 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow. That was the first thing I thought after seeing Thor. I'd read the strong reviews, I loved the choice of Kenneth Branagh as director and the trailers looked great. But I still wasn't prepared for how satisfying this movie would be. This is the very definition of epic, and I LOVED it.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a God of Norse mythology, son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and brother of Loki (Tom Hiddleston). When Thor disobeys his father and sparks an ancient war with the Frost Giants, Odin banishes him from the realm of Asgard and casts him down to Earth. With the help of a trio of humans (including Natalie Portman's Jane), Thor struggles to fit in on Earth whilst looking for a way to return to Asgard. Meanwhile, the devious Loki plots for his father's throne…

Simply put, Thor is the best superhero movie since The Dark Knight. The idea of Norse gods and warriors who dress, sound and look like pompous Vikings (some of whom interact with modern humans), multiple universes, rainbow bridges and Frost Giants must have seemed pretty hard to pull off without being silly, especially when this hero eventually has to meet with more "realistic" superheroes such as Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America in next year's The Avengers movie. But Branagh has taken something potentially camp and cheesy and turned it into a powerful, strangely relatable story; there are quite a few Shakespearian elements in Thor's story, something which Branagh is an undeniable master at adapting to the screen. Plus, Branagh and the screenwriters also inject a much-needed humour into the proceedings without unbalancing the emotion and surprising seriousness of the story. The most impressive thing about Thor is the way it treads a pitch-perfect line between respecting the material and winking at its audience knowingly (most notably with a certain cameo). In that way, it's reminiscent of The Mask of Zorro, never taking itself too seriously whilst never allowing itself to slip into parody.

Branagh also proves to be a master at creating an epic summer blockbuster. Apart from a few dodgy moments, the visual effects are stunning; in fact, this is probably the most visually impressive film I have seen from Marvel thus far. The production design is also beautiful; Asgard is one of the most incredible movie landscapes I have ever seen. My eyes were stretched to breaking point, trying to drink in all the details of this new, exciting and opulent world. There are some moments which look a bit fake (which is annoying when the filmmakers had about $150 million to work with), but it's almost forgivable based on how spectacular the majority of the visual FX shots are. Credit must go to the FX and art direction departments.

But a summer blockbuster wouldn't be a summer blockbuster without action, and Thor delivers some great sequences. The early encounters with the Frost Giants (genuinely frightening creatures) are superb, with Thor and his friends using some pretty bad-ass moves. A later scene where Thor fights to retrieve his mystical hammer, Mjolnir, is gritty and intense, whilst another great set-piece sees the metallic being known as The Destroyer hunting Thor and destroying most of a desert town in the process. I have heard that many people consider the final confrontation to be anti-climactic, but I have to say that it isn't as much about seeing epic action is it is about seeing how the main characters have grown and changed throughout the course of the film. In a way, I think that displays the film's greatest strength. It isn't all about the action and the visual effects; it's more about the characters and the emotional response.

Speaking of which, the cast is exceptional. No pay cheque grabbing here; every cast member dives into their role headfirst. Let's start with the big guy himself, Thor. Hemsworth is best known for his brilliant, five- minute appearance as Kirk Sr. in 2009's Star Trek; to go from that to the lead in arguably one of Marvel's most risky undertakings could be seen as a huge step. You wouldn't know it from watching Hemsworth's performance, though. He is absolutely perfect in the role, charting Thor's journey from an impetuous fighter to a more understanding, wiser man with ease. Comedy, action, drama, romance; all encompassed perfectly in Hemsworth's performance. He deserves to achieve stardom after this, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how he fits into The Avengers. Natalie Portman is charming and charismatic as Jane; the scenes between her and Hemsworth ooze chemistry, whilst her scenes with Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings, terrific as Jane's mentor and intern respectively, shine with a wonderful camaraderie. Hiddleston steals the movie whenever he appears as the slithering, manipulative yet oddly sympathetic Loki; this is a wonderfully complex role, and Hiddleston never strikes a wrong note. Hopkins, instead of hamming it up, brings powerful gravitas to Odin; he is intimidating, yet wise and weary from his many years of experience. The scenes between him, Hemsworth and Hiddleston are tremendous, each actor bringing all of their talent to bear and succeeding beyond all expectations. There are too many other names to mention, but rest assured everyone's sublime.

Apart from some minor quibbles, I absolutely loved this movie. Branagh, the cast and crew have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. This encompasses everything I want from an epic adventure; action, wonder, romance, comedy and a surprising amount of character and intelligence. In my opinion, this is one of Marvel's best, taking something which could have sunk to the lows of Ghost Rider or Elektra and propelling it to the same heights as Spider-Man 1 & 2, X2 and Iron Man. Add a great pre-credits teaser for The Avengers (plus one exciting appearance from a minor member), and I couldn't be more hyped. You're up next, Captain America; don't you dare let the team down.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 71: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history