Thor (2011)

One of the latest in the never-ending superhero movie craze, Thor arrives with a loud thwump on disc and, having missed this highly successful adventure in theaters, I have given it a whirl. The only other of this year's several superhero movies I've seen was X-Men: First Class, which I criticized for being unoriginal and overly complicated. Now that I've seen Thor, I realize how good that other movie actually was. And that's not to say that Thor is bad. A movie becomes bad through loss of direction, through needlessness, and/or through weak and absurd material being portrayed. Thor certainly isn't confused about what it's trying to be, which is a fun time at the movies, sans popcorn. It also does not lack purpose, because there must always be new entries in the adventure genre, as the movies would be so bland without them. However, I cannot say the material here is not absurd, because it is. This is a movie about a man who goes about swinging a giant hammer at ice monsters, after all. Nobody expects it to be logically accurate.

Where Thor succeeds is in the handling of its biggest draw for crowds: action and special effects. For the first, you have several sequences featuring such things as giant robots blowing up a 7-Eleven and Thor's weapon of choice knocking out several baddies in a row like bowling pins. These moments will be considered by the movie's target audience, older children and younger teens, as "cool." Older viewers may not be so enthralled by some of the more ludicrous elements as the young set. Then again, older viewers have less tolerance for mentally dead movies that exist solely for the purpose of quickie thrills. I, for example, cannot bring myself to get behind such films, even if I have a good time watching them. There must be some effort to be truly incredible or rewarding. This is where Thor does not succeed. I find myself, just half an hour after watching it, struggling to remember main plot points. Instead, I wind up thinking about why there are children's books in our world about Thor and his people. Does the magic bridge transport them through time, as well as space? How are gods of presumably Greek origin so fluent in modern English? Why do great actors like Natalie Portman keep agreeing to appear in projects that are so clearly beneath them? None of these questions have answers, but this is not a movie where we are meant to think. We are merely meant to see, react, and move on.

While watching Thor, I was struck by a sudden thought: computers mean everything to us. There is a moment where some uppity-up agents sieze the scientist main characters' entire lab. One of them bemoans the fact that he cannot contact a friend through e-mail, because his laptop was among the things taken. Does nobody just call anyone anymore? In the same vein, there are many vast, sweeping shots of computer-generated splendor throughout the film. We have become completely dependent on computers to make our movies. The better computer effects get, the harder it is for me to be impressed. I am far more awe-inspired by hand-made epics than by digital ones. That may spring from a fondness for the old-fashioned, but I think most audience members feel the same way without knowing it. Twenty years ago, Thor would have been the most impressive visual feat of Hollywood. Now everyone takes its sparkly effects for granted. Therefore, since Thor relies almost exclusively on its visuals, and its visuals no longer amaze, it becomes a lesser film. Once again, I am not suggesting it is a bad movie. I truly believe most everyone who watches it will enjoy themselves. I do not, however, think they will remember for long afterwards.

5/10

Please don't yell at me about how low my star rating for Thor is like you did with X-Men: First Class. I'm really being quite generous. Look at it this way. I just published my essay on Citizen Kane, which I naturally gave a ten star rating out of a possible ten stars. Using logic, I consider Thor to be exactly half as good as Citizen Kane. I doubt anyone could argue with that.