IMDb > Thor (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Thor
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Thor More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 74: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 736 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Pretty package with no character development

2/10
Author: morphricky
18 August 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really should give this a 1 for the simple fact that I couldn't even force myself to watch it until the end. Character development is the one thing that needs to exist for me to enjoy a movie, and sadly, there's none.

- What I enjoyed -

Acting from most of the cast is great. Anthony Hopkins is fantastic as always. The scene where he scolds Thor is very powerful thanks to him.

The costumes and settings are nice. It's especially nice to see them keep the original design of Lokis outfit.

It had some good humor. The hospital scene felt spot on.

- What I didn't enjoy -

Natalie Portman is as pretty as her acting is wooden.

There is no character development at all. Thor changes from arrogant and bratty to a nobleman by watching lovingly into Natalie Portmans eyes. Wouldn't it make more sense if she taught him manners and made him change into a responsible man? Loki appears shy and awkward, his sudden change to deceptive and manipulative doesn't transition well. At times, it almost seems other characters gloat at him and it made me dislike the "good" characters. There's also a lot of other weird inconsistencies, such as if Odin wanted to protect Loki from the truth, why didn't he tell him not to go to Jutenheim? There's also no development to Thors friends or whoever they were. I think the sentence speaks for itself. I knew one of the characters names were Sif because I play a Marvel game where she is featured. I did not know it because she was developed as a great character.

The story is not interesting and made little sense. Odin casts out Thor for one mistake, sending him to earth where apparently Thor has no idea of earthly customs. Or well, he doesn't for 20 minutes to allow for some jokes, then he seems to know all about earth he needs to. At this point I stopped watching because I was so bored. There just wasn't anything gripping to keep me watching. Even the jokes became dull, who couldn't predict Natalie was going to hit Thor with her car again?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Felt like it was a rushed movie

6/10
Author: Otaku_Critic from Philippines
24 April 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first time I saw Thor on theaters, I honestly got amazed. When I got to watch it again on HBO, it got different the way I see it. So yeah, Thor was punished by his father and sent him to Earth without his powers. Then he only stayed on Earth for like 2 and a half days. Then Thor saved two worlds in one day.

What I'm trying to say is, everything happened so quickly. But still, the actors did a good job portraying their characters especially Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Tom Hiddleston as Loki. It really blends in together.

In conclusion, Thor is okay, even with a rushed story. There are still good parts left.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Roughly Good, But Has Many Flaws

7/10
Author: jeffrey-utley
17 August 2013

I just watched 'Thor', to get ready for 'Thor: The Dark World'. I had heard many good things about it, so I decided to give it to shot at being good. I have to say, it very much surprised me...

How was the acting?

The acting in 'Thor' was good. By that I mean everyone portrayed their character and played their part above average. The best of the acting was Natalie Portman. She definitely did the best. She played Jane Foster and just killed it. Chris Hemsworth as Thor was a good choice. He portrayed Thor very well. Tom Hiddleston did just about as well as Natalie Portman playing the main antagonist: Loki. Anthony Hopkins did fine as Odin. There wasn't necessarily anything bad or good about his acting.

How was the writing?

It's hard to critique the screenplay for this type of film. I did like how the story went, though. It did have many predictable elements, but some things surprised me. This film did have a bit too many slow parts and the romance between Thor and Jane Fisher just decides to happen, but the things that bugged me the worst weren't those things. It was how there were many illogical, unrealistic, or unexplained things in this film. All of which took me right out of it. Also, the frost giants were way too easy to kill. Those things are twice the size of what the people of Asgard are, and are still killed with one small cut of a sword across their chest. It turns out, the writing was not very good.

Did it have an interesting premise?

I did like the premise and get the humor of what Thor is going through on Earth. Yes, the premise overall was interesting, despite my few flaws with it that I described in the writing section of the review.

Was it entertaining or boring?

Like I said earlier in my review, the film did have a few too many slow parts, making the film kind of boring. Although, the situations at hand during 'Thor' did bring some light into the shadows. The film was entertaining overall, but nothing special happens, and there are only about two scenes that I found exciting. Most of the film was enjoyable, but not entertaining as it should have been, in my opinion.

What things in particular did I like (that I haven't already covered)?

I really liked all of the beautiful scenery, CGI, and effects in 'Thor'. I also liked the direction the film went in story-wise. There were also some pretty entertaining action sequences, too.

What things in particular did I dislike (that I haven't already covered)?

I have already covered most of the things that I disliked about the film, but I have one more. I thought that some of the action sequences were not exciting, a very small number that even that entertaining. There was also one in particular of which I predicted almost everything that happened, and I really did not enjoy it.

How was the film overall?

Despite all of my many flaws with 'Thor', it was mostly entertaining, and had a couple of exiting parts. I say 'Thor' would be good if you don't watch it seriously. That means don't sit down and try to enjoy it. Watch it with a few friends. Text during it. Doing these things could make the film enjoyable. I would give 'Thor' a C- on the grading rating scale.

Do I recommend this film?

As I just explained, I only recommend this film if you didn't try to sit down and enjoy it. If you tried to do that, it wouldn't be very good. If you try to have some fun with it, and watch it with some friends, talk during it, or text during it, 'Thor' could be good.

Will I buy this film?

No, I will not buy this film. If I can't just sit down and watch this film seriously for it to be good, it's definitely not worthy of me buying it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

kind of a good bad movie

6/10
Author: mittens-and-matches from Seattle
1 October 2012

This movie feels like another attempt to capitalize on the super-hero movie craze. After the first 10 minutes of watching it I was sure it was destined to be a 4 out of 10 star movie. The acting was mediocre, the plot and dialog rather uninspired, and the movie definitely seemed to be falling down the Hollywood trap of overly relying on special effects to sell itself as entertainment.

However, then something happened. Humor. (not really spoilers ahead but just a little divulging of why the movie is funny 20 minutes in).

Thor lands on earth and he starts walking around acting like a god without the power of one. This part of the movie is comic genius. Of course it ends and the movie goes back to being a little above mediocre super hero flick but for awhile there it broke my expectations in a good way. In fact, its a shame that other parts of this movie were not done better. With a more inspired script, bad guy, acting, etc...this could have been a fun winner like Iron Man. Maybe not something powerful like the Batman trilogy but at least solid entertainment. Instead it just hints at its potential while keeping you entertained enough that you'll finish the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Skilfully directed entertainment, but nothing special

6/10
Author: Bene Cumb from Estonia
22 July 2012

The first 20 minutes or so were even boring, then some events began to develop... Names like Branagh, Portman, Hopkins, Skarsgård, Russo are usually trademarks of sophistication and high quality, but their performance - at least to me - remained just above average, probably due to mediocre screenplay. All the main issues touched have been scrutinized in so many movies, that Thor became just another "sparrow on the line"...

Of course, as the budget was high, the donors and lenders seemed to want to act for certain: different races, genders and ages were carefully picked. However, technology used is state-of-the-art, fight scenes are carried out in a brilliant way. But the ending is nothing special.

Worth watching, if you are a teen, or you have teenage children and are in need of a family event :)

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I learned something from Thor....

6/10
Author: MLDinTN from TN
13 March 2012

Chris Hemsworth is very hot. I never noticed him in a movie before, but there is one too short scene of him shirtless, that is not to be missed. Other than that, I thought this movie was OK with the beginning being the best part and I didn't care for the ending. The first 45 minutes was very entertaining with some good special effects. Basically the first part is about Thor's people and their conflict with the frost giants. The frost giants invade and Thor with his other brother, Loki, and friends go to the frost giant land looking to start a war. We see some of the cool powers Thor has with his hammer. But the King is furious and banishes Thor to earth minus his powers and that's when the movie starts to get duller. He meets scientist, Natalie Portman, whom of course he falls for. I thought there should have been funnier scenes between Thor and regular people. He gets in trouble with the Feds, but just gets released, then the ending is this giant robot that is some how controlled by Loki from the other planet. Then the final battle between Thor and Loki, I just thought the latter scenes were not as entertaining.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like the comic book movies, then I'm sure you will want to see this.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A triumph of pure mediocrity

6/10
Author: Mike Stolyarov from United States
24 January 2012

I have to admit that it is a lot of fun to review bad movies that provide an easy opportunity to sparkle with witty humor, to give vent to your suppressed negative feelings, and to be sarcastic and full of biting irony.

On a rare occasion, it is also quite nice to indulge myself with reviewing a good movie and with reflecting on the multiple thoughts that the movie provokes. It is fun to enjoy praising a visionary director, a talented actor, a moving soundtrack, or some exceptional special effects.

There are movies, however, and "Thor" is among them, that are no fun to review, no fun at all. The problem with these movies is that they are average, solidly built popcorn flicks so perfectly mediocre, so utterly derivative, so shamelessly fake, so amazingly shallow, that watching them does not awake any strong emotions or feelings, and does not leave any particular memories or any aftertaste whatsoever.

The story and the dialogs in Thor make the script of "X-Men: First Class" look like a Shakespearian play. I cannot help thinking that this is a case when too many cooks spoiled the broth. The story was re- written multiple times: first to lower the movie budget from $300 million to $150 million, then because the change of the director, then for some other obscure reasons.

The directing was "okay", although it is hard for me to comprehend why Kenneth Branagh, mostly known for directing Shakespearian dramas, operas, and the other psychologically nuanced movies agreed to work on a film with such a primitive story. The only explanation that I was able to find was that "Thor" was among his favorite comic books. Who knew? Oh well, we all have our weird little secrets, I guess …

The visual effects definitely suffered from reducing the projected movie budget in half. Sadly, they were quite unoriginal and not even particularly realistic. Sometimes "Thor" reminded me a slightly modernized version of these old Japanese "Godzilla" movies with the pitiful "Destroyer" somewhat clumsily playing the Godzilla part. While I did not expect the special effects to match those of "Avatar", or of "The Lord of the Rings", it was still disappointing to see such an underwhelming effort in a movie that by definition should have had great special effects as its main strength.

Somewhat surprisingly, a previously little known Chris Hemsworth did not disappoint as the title movie character. While having not demonstrated any particularly strong acting abilities, he was still refreshingly genuine, enthusiastic, and energetic as Thor.

The strongest performance in the movie, of course belongs to Tom Hiddleston, who was quite convincing as Thor's cunning brother Loki. Loki, by the way, was the only movie character that had a little depth in it, as a striking contrast to all the other characters that were so perfectly one-dimensional and so disgustingly primitive.

The primitivism of the characters is the most likely explanation why such talented actors as Natalie Portman and Stellan Skarsgård were so awful in the movie – they just did not have anything substantial to impersonate. Even Sir Anthony Hopkins did not seem to be fully himself, brutally constrained by the outrageously simplistic script.

Personally, I did not feel I gained anything by watching "Thor" – a triumph of pure mediocrity. However, if you are excited about "The Avengers" hitting theaters in May and are willing to spend some of your free time learning more about the characters involved, watching "Thor" might not be a bad idea for you.

knowyourmovie.blogspot.com

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Acceptance, if not love, at second sight

5/10
Author: zereshk from Germany
22 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I first watched this film, I hated every minute of it. The story is full of clichés, the main character is unlikable and the mythological figures are distorted almost to the point of being unrecognizable.

I re-watched the film a while ago after having seen the knockoff "Almighty Thor" and it was then that I realized how bad this film could have been but wasn't.

I realized that this film isn't actually that bad. The portrayal of Asgard and its inhabitants - you can call it distorting or you can call it original. Sure, giving the goddess Sif, whose golden hair symbolizes ripe wheat, *dark hair* (that's the colour of mouldy wheat, FYI) isn't exactly a touch of genius. Transforming the god of fire into an ice giant is more than a stretch as well. And the way they presented the giants was just lazy. Why should beings intelligent enough to seriously threaten the gods live in a kind of rubbish dumb surrounded by debris? But on the other hand, Asgard really did look pretty epic. I can't get over the electric rainbow bridge, but other than that it was really beautiful. And most of the gods looked a lot like I had always imagined them, especially Frigg was spot on. Heimdallr being black and Thor having a Japanese friend didn't bother me at all. I mean, why not? Lots of mythologies have gods with animal heads, a different skin colour is ordinary in comparison. Gods don't have to look like the people who believe in them. Asgard having more ethnic diversity than Midgard was strange, but that was a fault of the Midgard arc, not the other one.

The part of the story that took place in Mdgard was what dragged the film down anyway. I didn't care for any of the human characters and I thought Thor became very unlikable as soon as he lost his hammer. Maybe that's a hidden superpower of his weapon. In contrast, I liked Loki a lot... but not in a good way. He didn't come across as a real villain at all. He didn't seem evil and menacing, he just seemed smart, lonely and under-appreciated. My impulse wasn't to be wary but to want to hug him. From what I hear, he'll be the big baddie in the upcoming Avengers movie - he'd better be a little less relateable there because this kind of villain makes the protagonists come across as cruel. I'm used to rooting for the villain but I have rarely felt so sympathetic towards one.

All in all, this actually is an engaging movie, if not a very smart one. It looks good, it is well acted and it has its moments. 5 out of 10 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not that good - see it only if you feel like it

Author: phd_travel from United States
8 November 2011

There are two contrasting worlds. The celestial science fiction world of Thor, Anthony Hopkins and the immortals quite grandly shown with epic battles stunning backdrops and serious words. When this is all getting too heavy we move into New Mexico on planet Earth with the rather girlish Natalie Portman for comic relief. Somehow it doesn't quite succeed - it feels schizophrenic. There isn't much chemistry between Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman. He although a bit inexpressive facially does portray an other worldliness but she just seems silly. She wasn't a good choice. The dialog could have been better - it's rather heavy and obvious. Didn't really feel for any of the characters. The only humor comes from Thor being like a bull in a china shop on Earth. It's not very consistent. Overall missable.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Nonsensical comic book yarn, carrying itself with a serious tone that it doesn't warrant

Author: davideo-2 from United Kingdom
18 October 2011

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Thor (Chris Hemworth), who in ancient Greek mythology was the God of Thunder, finds himself banished from his home planet by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) after disobeying him and nearly starting a war with the 'ice killers' (or something like that.) Anyway, he crash lands on earth, where he happens upon young researcher Jane (Natalie Portman) and her father Erik (Stellan Skarsgard) who are having their own problems with some local government bureaucrats, which makes him come in handy when he forms a friendship with them after they teach him about earth ways and customs. Meanwhile, back on his home planet, his jealous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) assumes the throne when Odin dies, setting Thor on a course to return home and begin a battle to the death that will encompass both planets.

Kenneth Branagh is a name that appears to have disappeared to the sidelines in the movie art form, with me last hearing of his name in his initial home of the theatre in some production he was doing there. Here, he appears to have done a bit of a Clint Eastwood and stayed out of view behind the camera, where he's graced this production with his particular style of pomp and grandiose directing. Within the medium of the comic book film, from the iconic Marvel chain line and borrowing from the ancient Greek mythical character, he is in his element, with all the right ingredients to make this the marvellous romp it could have been. Something just falls flat with Thor, though, never coming to life or working as the great fun it could have been.

Even by comic book film standards, this is complete nonsense, not helped by a distinctly humourless streak and a camera man who can't seem to hold it at a straight angle at various important shots in the film. As the titular Thor, Hemsworth carries the role decently enough, with a dashing arrogance that the role requires, whilst Hopkins invests an energy and gusto into his role that doesn't really fit the material. None of the supporting cast, from Portman to Skarsgard, are bad, either, it's just this is one big, lumbering mess of a film, with a bone headed steak that is the biggest surprise of all from the refined Branagh. **

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 74: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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