Thor

Thor, the latest superhero attempt from Marvel, certainly exceeded all expectations. While there were concerns among Norse mythology geeks that Idris Elba’s portrayal of an African-American Heimdall was “mythologically inaccurate” (an idiotic argument anyway, as mythology by definition is inaccurate), Elba’s performance was perhaps the best of the film. A standard coming-of-age story which sets ancient gods in a modern world (a common theme lately, see: Rick Riordan), Thor does not fail to show the epic scope of its main conflict, despite being set mostly in a New Mexico desert. Director Kenneth Branagh, an experienced veteran of Shakespeare and Harry Potter, brings life to a script which has few, if any, memorable lines, and Chris Hemsworth’s performance in the title role is certainly worth remembering.

Thor begins, as many fantasy movies do, with a prologue of sorts, which sets the stage for the greater adventure. The prologue, set in 965 AD, shows Odin (Anthony Hopkins), king of the gods, defeating the Frost Giants in a great battle. As we enter the present time, there is a spectacular shot of Asgard, the gods’ home, much more grand than Mt. Olympus in The Lightning Thief. Thor, the rash, headstrong son and heir of Odin, naturally rushes headfirst into battle, his father banishes him, where he is picked up by Natalie Portman, a scientist studying what she believes to be strange weather patterns. Portman’s character is endearingly awkward, while her assistant Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings), a Scooby Doo-esque character, always three steps behind, provides some excellent comic relief. When Thor finds himself stuck on Earth after his banishment, he naturally learns that he must become “worthy” in order to return, with his brother, the evil Loki (Tom Hiddleston) attempting to stop him at every turn.

Thor‘s adherence to the comic book makes it easy for fans, and the acting (especially the performances of Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Elba, and Hopkins) bring to life a simple yet entrancing plot and a script that can only be called dull. The effects are titanic, with flying hammers, rainbow bridges across space and time, and golden castles, and the characters pull you in and don’t let you go until the movie is over. Hemsworth pulls together the clumsy strength and endearing stupidity of the titular character with ease, and Elba pulls off the fiercely loyal Heimdall with his deep voice and stalker-ish phrases, such as “Yes. I can see her.”

A.O. Scott of the New York Times argues that Marvel didn’t bother trying to make a good movie, because all they wanted to do was hook people for The Avengers. I don’t really get this logic personally, because if they wanted to hook people for the sequel, they’d try their best to make a good movie. If I go see a movie and it’s bad, I don’t want to see the sequel. Scott’s argument that the plot was textbook has some ground, but hey, it’s a comic book. How intricate is the plot going to get? Sure, the dialogue wasn’t intricate, but when you’re presenting an adaption of a comic book to comic book fans, dialogue is not what you’re going for. Thor exceeded expectations in everything it attempted to do. It’s not subtle or intricate because it’s simply not meant to be subtle or intricate. It has everything the comic book fans want: Amazing effects, cool fight scenes, and a good villain.