Even if I had rather enjoyed the previous album with all its faults and blunders, which was no doubt the weakest of the Marvel movies to date, THOR’s first name was by his artificiality and his humor poorly dosed, which torpedoed the good will of Kenneth Brannagh, good director to the remaining. And it must be said that the provision of Chris Hemsworth, who is supposed to relate the movie with the main character, was too limited to hope to base a film actually good. However, the side “canard boîteux” of the film has given him in his time my sympathy (such as with a Z-series).
Now comes THOR – THE WORLD OF DARKNESS, which is out in cinemas after a majestic AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3 in my opinion even more flawed in its role as the leader of the Phase 2 of the Marvel universe Studios (in particular with a sense of humor very uneven). Honestly, just chilled by the last movie about Tony Stark and added to the torrent of rumors about a production quite rough and complicated where the director Alan Taylor would not fitted completely to the film, including Joss Whedon called in to help along the way, I was a little apprehensive to go see this second movie about the god asgardien, the license the lowest of the Avengers universe, which resembled, in principle, to a project badly flared.
Both say following, the feature does not make a qualitative leap in the phenomenal series, but it is clear that I was wrong and that this film works much better. Oddly, visually poorer than the first, the Realms, including Asgard dépaysent more and do not occur on Earth primarily makes all the asgardiens, Thor understood, more believable. We are no longer in a superhero movie but in a movie of fantasy, hyper-lean look of the world of Tolkien brought to the fore by Peter Jackson, but it gives a better legitimacy to the license Thor. The experience of Alan Taylor on the series of HBO, GAME OF THRONES, seems to have served the world depicted here, hitherto locked in a certain torpor.
“The viewer is not carried away, as it should, in the light of the ambitions which could boast the studio at the origin of the success of the Avengers, but it is far from the torture that was able to be the first film for some. “
It should be noted at the level of the casting as if Anthony Hopkins cachetonne once again, he does it with a little more involvement than previously, and Chris Hemsworth is beginning to find its feet in the role of the son of Odin, pretend and they now have more than two expressions, and anything other than a status setter. It appears, however, the more grown up of this action-comedy (because you have to take it as well) is Tom Hiddleston who gives the character twisted Loki throughout its entire thickness as it is in its teasing, or in his side’s tortured son rejected.
As to the evil character of Malikith, leader of the dark Elves, Christopher Eccleston plays it without a doubt very good, but between the makeup very present and persistent impression having to do with a cross between the Emperor and Darth Vader in terms of posture, it’s hard to see in him a new type of threat. It remains quite alarming to justify the plot.
I was talking about at the moment of “action-comedy” to describe THOR – THE WORLD OF DARKNESS because, like many films of the 70s and 80s, one is here faced with a film centered on characters and punctuated with gags that events requiring a profusion of visual effects and technical prowess was sufficient in themselves. It is obvious that the scenario as the technique are not here the key to entering in the film : it moves, as it often does in the comic-books (or in the television series “the classics”), by the evolution and interaction of the characters rather than exciting adventures and innovative.
What we see here is the installation of a sustainable portion of the Marvel universe film by the enrichment of the characters related to Thor (especially Loki, of course, but Jane Foster and her “underlings” as well) that necessarily goes through the box humorous to make it digestible. And gags, there’s a plethora ! It should be noted the most effective as being that of the arrival of Thor to the apartment of Jane, as well as the subway (in any case, the laughter in the room) but here they are better integrated than those of IRON MAN 3, who, conversely, took me out of the plot.
Despite a certain aura of chaos surrounding its production, Marvel Studios and Alan Taylor took the bull by the horns to regild the blazon of Thor and his hammer. The gags hit the mark, the characters enrich the scenario and ultra-simplistic, but the job. Of course, the viewer is not carried away, as it should, in the light of the ambitions which could boast the studio at the origin of the success of the AVENGERS, but it is far from the torture that was able to be the first film for some.
Your opinion ?