We all knew it couldn't go on forever.  I'm talking about my string of positive movie reviews.  It ends here.

I saw this yesterday in 3D IMAX presentation.  The 3D was good. The IMAX presentation was great.

I'm not a comic guy in any way, but I actually thought this looked good from the trailers and the critics have said alot of great things about it.

I wasn't impressed, as the story that unfolds here isn't anywhere near what I was expecting. In alot of ways, it's a very small story that takes place in only a few areas.  On Earth, we get s small desert town in New Mexico, which looks like it was most likely constructed just for filming and getting destroyed.  The stuff in the other realms fares much better.

Although there is alot of action and mayhem going on, I found myself bored.  The dialogue was extremely weak.  The acting far from good.  The characters zero dimensional and not that likable.

I left feeling very underwhelmed, but I'm actually glad I saw it, for both the visuals and for the knowledge that I don't need to see anymore comic based PG movies.

Anthony Hopkins is the best thing in this by a mile. He goes proper Shakespearian with some of his stuff - which is fitting, given Branagh's background. It's awesome because it's like he doesn't realise he's in a comic book movie.

As for the rest...it's got some funny 'fish out of water' comedy moments, but overall it was no more than '3 stars', if you like. At this point the Marvel films just feel like we're watching individual chess moves, with stuff being manouevered into position for next year's grand finale. I don't just want to see "knight to queen's bishop three", with the promise of seeing the checkmate if I keep coming back and pay more money - I want to see a whole damn game!

Oh, and the 3D was pointless. Didn't add anything, and it'll always be a problem until they work around the fact that the glasses darken the image and so actually work AGAINST the film in that regard. There have been some decent 3D films since this whole mini-revolution, kicked off...but they've tended to be the animated ones. Bolt, Up, How to Train Your Dragon, parts of Toy Story 3, CGI-heavy Avatar - here it added nothing. At least, I saw it about three weeks ago and I'd forgotten it was in 3D at all. That's not good, right?

Haven't seen Iron Man 2 or the last Hulk film...do I have to go and watch them for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to make sense? 'Cos I have no interest in doing so otherwise.

Jonny, did you see it in IMAX presentation, or just regular 3D?

I was impressed with the look of the film, inclduing the 3D.  For me, everything just kinda pops when it's in 3D, and it's well done.

I saw Clash of the Titans last year in 3D and thought it was God awful, in terms of the 3D look (as well as the entire movie!).

Saw it tonight. I enjoyed it.

It's very easy to criticise it, and all the criticisms Jeff makes are valid.

I was a big fan of superhero comics as a kid, so these things are like a trip down memory lane. Ultimately the source material isn't exactly Charles Dickens...there are occasionally truly great stories when a heavyweight writer scribes them (Dark Knight Returns for eg) but they're usually pretty slim stories.

These films are decent homages to those stories. Sometimes they are very good, like the first Iron Man, sometimes not so good but they kill some time.


Spoilers:

It was fun for me to see the cameos from the likes of Hawkeye (the guy with the corssbow, who is one of the Avengers) and for some reason I find the whole build up to the Avengers movie quite exciting. It goes back to that comic book thing I guess...it feels like an epic serialisation.

Looking forwards to all the new hero flicks...Captain America, Green Lantern, Avengers.

Rick, did you find the Earthbound story to be rather weak and "small", like I did?

Did you feel like the NM town was literally constructed for this film to be destroyed and an easy, cheap shoot, or am I wrong?

Quoted from Dreamscale Rick, did you find the Earthbound story to be rather weak and "small", like I did? Did you feel like the NM town was literally constructed for this film to be destroyed and an easy, cheap shoot, or am I wrong?

I think it's certainly a valid opinion. That NM set was very cheap when I think about it, the fight with the Destroyer was a bit of an anti-climax. Just read Roger Ebert's review and he said the same thing and wondered why it took place there and not on the Golden Gate bridge or something, as befits a superhero film.

That being said, that part of the story worked for me. I think Barannagh was more comfortable directing the human stuff and although the story was the typical "with great power comes great repsonsibility thing"...it worked on an emotional level.

HaHa...yeah, me and old Rog are like twins...   ;D ;D ;D

I didn't read it, but those were my feelings exactly.  Came across as almost a test shoot to see how the FX looked, as opposed to the finished product, based on the cheap sets they were using.

They spent $150 Million, and I just have to wonder how much Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman sucked up as secondary star power.  I was also surprised to see old Rene Russo...at first, I thought it looked like Fergie, made up to look old.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I think it's certainly a valid opinion. That NM set was very cheap when I think about it, the fight with the Destroyer was a bit of an anti-climax. Just read Roger Ebert's review and he said the same thing and wondered why it took place there and not on the Golden Gate bridge or something, as befits a superhero film.

New Mexico offers the largest tax credit for film productions, 25%.
That's $37.5 million reasons why you get a podunk desert town in the film.

And it's also why The Avengers is shooting in New Mexico right now.

E.D.

Do we know that they actually were shooting in NM?  It could be anywhere, and IMO, looked like the town itself wasn't even real.

Is that the biggest tax credit currently in the US?  I thought there were a couple that were even higher?

There's a book called from Reel to Deal by Dov Simens, who teaches the two day film school..everything you need to know about making a film in two days (based on something Orson Welles said..that you can learn everything there is to know about filmmaking in three days).

Anyway, he reckons that a $100M really costs about $10M and they just come out with these figures for hype purposes. I can't comment on that, but who knows?

I suppose a lot of the cost would be the many hundreds of VFX artists they had that created Asgard and the frist Giants place. It wasn't like a lot films like Superman where you have the ordinary world and then interludes of special effects, they are there for pretty much two hours.

To be honest, for me the best bits were the CGI-less bits. Thor making the dash for his hammer, the stuff with him, Odin and Loki (again, Hopkins was clearly loving it here). The action was all quite dull...I'm not a comic book guy, and I don't think it's fair to expect the audience to be so.

I do think the 'all working towards the bigger picture' nature of these films does detract from them a tad - you can constantly feel their need to put the pieces in place. That little scene where Skarsgard talked about sending an email to a scientist friend of his - I assume that was Bruce Banner, yes? But it really stuck out like a sore thumb, felt like it had no place in the film. There was also a lack of genuine threat. I liked the comedy, but it never really felt like anything was at atake for anyone here.

I think NY actually has the highest tax credit at 35%.  OH looks like they go up to 31%.  Several other states are in the 25-30% range, with different restrictions.

There are some Canadian provinces that are up to 65%, which is shocking.

But who really knows?

Quoted from Dreamscale Do we know that they actually were shooting in NM?  It could be anywhere, and IMO, looked like the town itself wasn't even real. Is that the biggest tax credit currently in the US?  I thought there were a couple that were even higher?

According to Wikipedia. In March of 2010, the production set up shop in Galisteo, NM.
The desert town set was built there.

Here's a casting call for extras in the area.
http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2010/03/11/thor-begins-filming-in-new-mexico-on-monday/comment-page-1/

Principle photography on The Avengers started in New Mexico three weeks ago.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/04/26/the-avengers-assemble-filming-gets-underway-in-new-mexico/

I think Louisiana offers something like a 27-30% tax break.
New Mexico is the closest to CA that offers such a high discount.

E.D.

Quoted from JonnyBoy To be honest, for me the best bits were the CGI-less bits. Thor making the dash for his hammer, the stuff with him, Odin and Loki (again, Hopkins was clearly loving it here). The action was all quite dull...I'm not a comic book guy, and I don't think it's fair to expect the audience to be so. I do think the 'all working towards the bigger picture' nature of these films does detract from them a tad - you can constantly feel their need to put the pieces in place. That little scene where Skarsgard talked about sending an email to a scientist friend of his - I assume that was Bruce Banner, yes? But it really stuck out like a sore thumb, felt like it had no place in the film. There was also a lack of genuine threat. I liked the comedy, but it never really felt like anything was at atake for anyone here.

I agree with the first bit, I think Brannagh was much more capable of dealing with characters than he was with action, which is a different ball game altogether and something he's not done before.

As for the comic book thing...I'm not sure. I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but these characters are decades upon decades old so I think it's also fair to expect those interested in these films to have some awareness of the characters. Besides the film references other films (Hulk, Ironman), rather than comics...each film has a section after the end of the credits (this one with Loki and Nick Fury...Ironman 2 had the scene in new mexico when Thor's hammer landed).

I agree about the genuine threat, but that's always a problem with these stories in whatever form they are in. Obvioulsy you know ALL the main heroes are going to surivive, but with some of them (Superman, Thor etc) they are basically physically invincible. It's hard to work round that.

Good work, Brett.  Interesting...between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

So, they did build a fake town then, right?  It sure looked fake.

I liked Thor. It was fun.

As far as New Mexico goes there are new studios on the books. Part of Tranformers 2 was shot at Davis Monthan in Tucson, AZ, and the production support was from New Mexico; from fuel to catering, all New Mexico because of the tax credit.

I really don't follow any comics.  At best I know the majority of Batman history, but even his comics I'm a bit vague on.

Saw this in 2D - I don't think 3D is worth the extra $. Sure things may pop, but for me it's just a new fad.  I'd prefer IMAX as for me is crisper and clearer.  Last I checked I had 20/10 vision and 3D for whatever reason bugs the hell out of me.  

But this was okay, but nothing in the grand scale of story-telling in my eyes.  Hopkins was awesome, but in the last few movies I've seen him in, he does great but is under-used. Watched Freejack on Netflix a few weeks ago and he was in that for a total of somewhere around 5-10 minutes. Mick Jagger was surprising good as the villain in Freejack...

But with Thor, I just wasn't impressed.  Like someone above said, they seem to be concentrating on setting up for the finale rather than take their time on all the movies and let the finale piece itself together and it definitely shows and that's NOT a good thing.

I usually like Natalie Portman, but not in this film, she was okay, but not the best of hers by any means.

I likeKat Dennings too, but the acting in this film for me was sub par all around.  

Quoted from Dreamscale Good work, Brett.  Interesting...between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. So, they did build a fake town then, right?  It sure looked fake.

They sure did, every artificial bit of it.
Even in the trailer it looked pretty sad.
Maybe Brannagh was going for a Western ghost town sensibility?
I've driven through Galisteo on my way to somewhere with toilets.
"Silverado" was made there in the 80s and more recently "Legion" set up shop there.

E.D.

I watched the film last night.
Overall, I don't think it embarrassed itself.
I thought the mystical Asgard visuals were stunning.
The New Mexico "hobby town" looking sets, not so much.
S.H.I.E.L.D. felt a little shoehorned in there and kinda ineffectual.
Agent Colson looked like he needed a nap most of the time.
Kat Dennings was pretty wasted as Portman's science sidekick.

I felt at times the drama kicked in, but it was stunted.
It's a tricky property with truck loads of fantasy and mysticism.
It handled the non earth bound elements pretty well.
But I didn't care much for the dust bowl dual in the sleepy town.
It needed some scale, get S.H.I.E.L.D. involved, more toys and carnage.
Brannagh was a good choice, I hope he gets good offers for his effort here.

E.D.