Thor-anyone seen it yet?
 

Your thoughts?
I've heard mixed reviews on this:
more complex than other Marvel movies, well-acted, lots of laughs/comedy (great, if true, no thanks!), Point in case-Kat Dennings as the comic relief.
Well, how much comic relief is there?
I don't need to see this if there is the dim-witted one-liners, or the pre-bubescent sexist jokes in this, a bit like the Star Trek movie.
If that's the case, i'll be boycotting this.
Don't need to see this for the comic relief. I'll watch a comedy if i need that.
/rant.
Your reviews would be greatly appreciated.

No it hasn't reach our shores yet, in few days but I will be waiting when its available on video.

I'd say you already have your answer. If you want someone else to do the dirty work and then tell you that you'll hate it, then you shouldn't see it, period.

I'm sure it won't be a big loss either.
Just thought i'd ask people who had actually seen it. Always open to persuasion.
My rant was just that. Maybe i have high expectations in movies. Meh, sue me. If i'm proven wrong, well all the better.

And I'm a sicko comic-book freak. While DC has always been my preference, Marvel has shown a talent for making good movies. On the other hand I even liked Hulk, so I really am a sicko. But I'll certainly see Thor, and I'll tell you what I think.

[edit] Just looked, and it isn't out yet.

Thanks Steve. I would appreciate your feedback on this movie, because the story line is awesome.
Edit:
In Cinemas May 6.
Bugger, should have looked before posting.

I think I will wait until it comes out on DvD and then not rent it.

Based on the previews, I am not impressed. But people have a wide interest in movies. I am sure many will enjoy it.

I am sure it will be full of CGI effects and that always sells :up:

I think I've had my share of over the top history fantasy war action already after 300 :O:

the trend is getting old...Beowulf, Clash of the Titans, Thor, Immortals :yawn:
it's all fancy CGI and editted over the top action shots with little character development or any attempt to tell a story/myth in a proper fashion.

HunterICX

:haha:

True i do agree with you, it is getting very monotonous, however i thought Beowulf and Grendel was rather well done actually.
I'm not talking about the animated version.
And (to my major relief) an action (if you will) movie without mentally challenged humour.
I wonder what Sir A Hopkins will be like as Odin.
Just can't quiete picture it. Yet.

Thor is a disgrace to my religion, Wont see it, ever!

Wait, you mean the first Hulk movie, with Eric Bana? Because I rented that out of curiosity (didn't see it in the theater due to bad reviews and word of mouth) and honestly, I couldn't see what it was that made everyone hate it so much.

Saw the Edward Norton reboot in the theater and it was fine in some respects but in others I thought the other film was better. The Hulk in the first version looked more natually a part of the world being shown, by which I mean he fit well within the overall visual style of that film. By contrast the Hulk in the second looked more fake to me because the rest of the movie seemed to be shot in a very naturalistic style and suddenly there's this big CGI thing? Ugh.

Thor is a god in my religion:D

Anyway, this Thor is entirely fictional and hasn't got much to do with the god Thor. So if I go see the movie I'll probably pull my hair out of sheer frustration from the many mistakes and inconsistencies. Even a quick look over the plot at wikipedia made me facepalm at least 8 times.

That said, Thor also happens to be the name of my student corporation, so we may very well go see the movie, and have a great time doing so.

Slight difference here. The others you mention are retellings of legendary myths from ancient sources. Thor does not even pretend to use the original sources. Its source is the Marvel comic book, and it will be based on their version of the story. Of course fans will argue about how faithful they are to that source, but it has nothing to do with Norse mythology.

I think it was the deliberate comic-book style, with the frames and all. That part annoyed me as well, but I liked it mainly for of the cast. I prefer Jennifer Connely to Liv Tyler, and while I like William Hurt his attempt to channel Sam Elliot didn't work for me. As for Bana and Norton, I liked them both. And I liked both movies.

I didn't find it particularly annoying, in fact it was that stylistic choice that for me made the original film version of the Hulkster more believable. He looked like he belonged in the world as visually created in that movie because it was very much a "comic book" world. Art direction, sets, lighting, editing whatever went into those stylistic choices - for me it created a visual environment in which the CGI (or however it was done) Hulk did not look out of place. The reboot was the exact opposite. A better job may have been done on the Hulk taken alone, but plopped down in the middle of those scenes filmed in that style? Looked a million times more fake to me.

Ditto on all counts there. I like William Hurt well enough but not enough to watch him try and pick up where Sam Elliot left off. Bana and Norton are both faves, Norton perhaps gets the nod for pure acting chops. I do think he benefitted from the fact that the Hulk reboot was clearly meant to be part of the budding Avengers franchise so everyone perhaps had a much better idea of where they were going with the story.