** out of ****
While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.
I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?
Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.
The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.
I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.
Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.
While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).
While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.
I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?
Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.
The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.
I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.
Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.
While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).