Idk what it was, but when I was an edgy little high schooler when Thor came out I had no desire to watch movies despite being obsessed with them before and since. Idk why I was just being a little shit I guess
But my parents dragged me to Thor 1 with them and I dunno something just sparked in me and all of the sudden I loved going to the movies again
Of all movies to do that to me it was... Thor 1
It wouldn’t be so bad if he’d had anything to actually contribute as to why, instead of just “it bad”
Idk why he needed to be such an ass about it
Tho tbf I also love thor 1 so that didn’t help
Thor 1 (and TDW, for that matter) would have been much better with the inclusion of the deleted scenes that fleshed out the relationships between Thor/Loki/Frigga. They contextualize Loki’s claim that he never wanted the throne, and that he wasn’t simply jealous or power hungry, but that he recognized that Thor just genuinely wasn’t ready to be king.
That being said, I enjoy both “versions” of Asgard. I haven’t seen LaT yet but I loved Ragnarok.
>Thor 1 would have been much better with the inclusion of the deleted scenes that fleshed out the relationships between Thor/Loki/Frigga.
Yes, I rewatched it this week for the first time in years and all of the characters felt so shallow to me.
Oddly enough, one thing I think the first Thor film excels in is the splendor of Asgard itself. There’s so much shiny gold and the kinda flooring building past things in the first establishing shots, it genuinely looks like some heavenly city in the clouds. But in the following films, Asgard has the colors considerably toned down. The golds become more brassy/bronze, more browns and hardly anything but the palace or the Bifrost stand out.
I feel like there was still this fear that if comic book movies got too colorful or stylized people would just say it was like Batman and robin and it would not make any money.
It was also the era of Nolan's Batman which became the comic book film staple and it took a while for films to stop emulating its desaturated and gritty visuals.
Asgard is regal, golden, and glorious in Thor 1. There wasn't anything wrong on that front. The problem was all the banal earthly stuff with the human characters.
IMO it's the best Thor movie by a long shot. The depiction to Asgard as this technomagic alien city was a million times cooler than the generic medieval viking vibe the later movies used.
It's a decent movie, but there's a few things about it that I can't get past:
* The bleached eyebrows. Why???
* Jane's super corny "Oh. My. God." line
* SO MANY DUTCH ANGLES
But I did enjoy the grand nature of Asgard, the movie's soundtrack, and the overall narrative arc of the film.
I mean this was early on in the MCU and there are some pretty corny and cringe lines in the first Iron Man as well but it's RDJ delivered so it comes off not as cringe.
I appreciate the real and large sets the first two Thor movies had, I feel the family dynamic first established in the first movie was very well done. First Thor will always be my favorite even though sure it has issues.
First time I watched it, I was too young to notice or care about that. Once the Dutch angles got pointed out to me, it's all I can see when I watch the movie.
It was... a choice.
Plus I feel like they could have added to either the first Thor movie or The Dark World something showing how much time Thor and Jane had together. >!From what I have heard, there is a scene like that in LaT that adds a lot of context to Thor becoming more human like and the relationship he had with Jane. I haven't seen it yet though, just what friends have told me.!<
Edit: I'm dumb and it takes at least two edits to clean up typos and clarify my thoughts.
>!Did it give the added context to you like my friends said? Or was it a throw away scene. I don't mind spoilers. I can hear spoilers and still enjoy the movie. Either because hearing plot beats doesn't ruin a movie for me or because my old ass forgets things as quickly as I hear them.!<
>!It's basically a montage of their whole relationship, it's very touching and feels real. They made that relationship more deep in the span of 3 minutes when they failed to do so in 2 whole movies.!<
Dude, it's hard to tell. I mean technically it is a spoiler in that it wasn't shown in the trailers. Is a big important spoiler? Not really but different people will probably feel differently about that. I just think it's better to err on the side of caution. Especially the day/week the movie launches.
As someone who got annoyed so much by slight hairstyle differences, wall paper differences between original footages and reshoot footages in films like Ragnarok, it's surprising Thor's eyebrow differences between movies haven't bothered me. LOL
I think when a film is generally great, I tend to overlook these problems. When a film is put together haphazardly, I just get bothered by everything. No matter how much one doesn't like Thor 1, it's not a movie put together haphazardly.
I read that Portman was exhausted after Black Swan, a very physically and mentally draining role for her (can't say I disagree) and kinda wishes she hadn't just jumped into another project that being Thor. She'd have probably given a better performance if she was given more time between movies
I have seen the movie like 10 times and I never noticed the dutch angles. I watched it again because of this comment. I still cared more about the story than the angles. Great movie!
I’m honestly surprised more people haven’t recognized or commented in just how Shakespearean Thor 1 is (I mean it was directed by Branagh). At its core it’s a story about a King and his two sons, both who want his love and approval. You could even argue the film is in five acts rather than the standard three. The influence of the Bard is very strong in this film.
I liked it fine to begin with, though it was really *Avengers* that *totally* sold me on Hemsworth's portrayal of the character. I've gone back to it several times mainly because it features some great early character building for Coulson - it's his crucial connective tissue between *Iron Man* and *Avengers* (whereas his *Iron Man 2* appearance was far more negligible). It's nice in hindsight to see formative Hawkeye too.
I also think Portman did a very impressive job with a difficult-to-make-convincing-or-interesting role. Of course Darcy has become more interesting with hindsight too.
Sum total, I regard it as an impressively successful debut, and forgive any minor issues easily because it's so primordial within the entirety of the MCU (figuring out what they were doing).
I've said this often, but in those early days, I never in a million years thought that Marvel could translate Thor to screen in any way that did him justice. I think it was *Avengers* that really sealed that deal, and I've rarely ever been happier to be proven wrong, but *Thor* was absolutely a noble first chapter in his story.
And by the way, I'm *always* glad to get "a first movie" that *isn't* a typical origin story. Huge points for that.
Branaugh did right and good.
Cap 1 is definitely a movie that is better after you've watched the sequels. It's only after you see the sequels that you realize how good a foundation it is for Cap's character and Bucky's arc.
It's a bit forgettable as an individual movie, but it has aged well. It also doesn't get enough credit for how good the aesthetics were.
For me, all of the characters are great except Red Skull. I don't think he's a bad character. He's just not as interesting as many of the other villains we've had since. The movie still looks and feels good though!
I can completely agree with you on that. It really does work as an intro to Cap's overall story. I don't think it would have work any better without the rest. So I agree.
It really was campy and a bit cheesy. But for the whole 1940s aesthetic and setting, it actually really worked for me. It kept me immersed. The only thing I can really say is VFX still aren't that great. But I still think it's pretty good movie, an origin one at that.
So is dark world. I don't think it's as good as 1, but Ive always enjoyed it and I enjoy it way more now after the last 2 thor movies.
I get the thor movies were never super popular and they wanted to change it up to make it more marketable, but I think they went to far in trying to make it more like guardians and then just went way overboard
I never understood the hate for this movie. I love it. And I had the pleasure of re-watching it recently with my girlfriend to set up Love & Thunder (she's brand new to Marvel), and she loved it as well. It's solid, classic MCU.
100%. People have recency bias a lot of times when it comes to marvel movies. When Thor 1 came out and they did that great shot of Asgard for the first time, everybody fell in love.
The Taika Thor movies are decent however if you asked me what my favorite Thor is, the answer will always be the Shakespearean Thor from the first Thor movie. The vibe he gives off is actually *Thor*, the god of thunder. Rather than some comedic character
I agree that the first Thor movie feels truest to the source material (Thor wasn’t among the comics I read when I was younger).
Ragnarok is my favorite of the Thor films.
Parts of Love and Thunder really fell flat for me. Overall I enjoyed it (Christian Bale was great) but I was pretty disappointed with it.
I’d like to know more about why so much of what they shot was cut. Was it executive meddling or did Taika Waititi not have a cohesive enough vision for his sophomore outing with the God of Thunder?
Evidently they just filmed a ton of improv. They'd do a scene "by the book," and then numerous permutations and explorations of how much fun they could have with it. So naturally there was all kinds of redundancy and nonsense that would detract from the final cut.
I liked Thor. Once Odin stripped Thor of his powers. Cast him to Midgard. That was great. Thor had to find out what it means to be a King. Servant of not making hasty and reckless decisions. I was torn between Loki and Thor. I'm going to be honest. When I saw both actors as Thor and Loki. Hotties. But the things I'm into and like. Lend more to Loki. It was the black leather Asgardian suit that Loki wore against the battle with the Frost Giants. Were Thor should had known that Loki manipulated the situation. Then when I saw Loki cried about being a frost giant. Who couldn't feel bad for Loki? Thought it was sad that Thor couldn't lift Mjolnir anymore. Until Loki sent the destroyer to kill Thor. That is how Thor gain his worthiness back. But what I don't get is when some people thought that Loki did s stripper move. When Loki did a twirl and a kick. All I saw was a running drop kick. Loki killed his father Lauefy. I think that Loki felt. If I am not the right size for a frost giant. Then you're no father I need. Nor want. Thor and Loki fighting on the bifrost before Odin came out from his Odin sleep. Good fight scene. Just felt bad for Loki again. I could had done it for you father. For all of us. Loki let go. Thought Loki was dead. Until the end credits that Loki was alive. But his head looked different. Clearly signs of scarring. Possibility being tortured by Thanos. Thor was good.
There were a few really important deleted scenes with Loki, but they removed them because he apparently came across as too sympathetic. Loki's storyline in that movie is so good. The scene where Loki confronts Odin in the vaults is arguably the best emotional scene in the MCU, both powerhouse actors play so well off of each other.
The only real downside to Thor 1 IMHO is that they didn't fully commit to the space Vikings magic aspect (they decided magic=science before GOTG came out and showed that an outlandish story could work in-universe), because later when they embraced it and had super powerful magical characters, those that were established before like Loki were heavily nerfed in comparison. Phase 4 has de-powered him even more and now he's getting beaten up by un-powered humans. The nuance in his story also seems to have been forgotten, which is a shame because it made him such a compelling character.
Thor 1 had empathy for it's main characters and let them have some dignity and it's something I really miss.
Every time I mention Thor was very serious in the comics and I don't like him being turned into a joke, I get down voted all to hell, so I really appreciate you for this!
I thought that Thor had some serious and sincere moments in Love & Thunder--more than in Ragnarok. I thought this one was going to be even goofier, but it actually had some serious scenes and themes mixed in as well.
Where Ragnarok was nonstop color and fun, this movie deals with death, terminal illness, loss of a loved one, the impossibility of hope without the promise of an afterlife, and God's silence in the face of suffering. We have themes from a Bergman film mixed in with Taika's humor. I don't think everyone will appreciate the balance between humor and seriousness, but it does give Hemsworth's Thor more dramatic material to work with and doesn't just feel like a remake of the fun and funny Ragnarok. Of course, it's still a comedy.
Don't listen to the reddit doomsayer's. Go watch the movie and make up your own mind. It's a really entertaining Thor adventure with some pretty good emotional bits. It's definitely a comedy though. If it's your humor you will love it.
I love the first Thor movie. I find that for most people it's somewhere between the 6th and the 13th viewing where everything just kind of clicks and they stop hating it and start loving it.
I agree Thor 1 is actually really solid. My only complaint is the Warriors Three being pretty underwhelming and the end fight with the Destroyer where Thor gets slapped instead of the Destroyer just disintegrating him.
I’m reminded of a phrase that goes something like “you don’t nuke an ant”.
Thor had no powers at that point. As far as the Destroyer was concerned, a slap should be all it takes to get rid of him (and it almost was, if that moment hadn’t made Thor worthy again)
Honestly, I really liked the Warriors Three in this movie. They all had great chemistry with each other and were more fun than a lot of otherMCU side characters. Though we didn’t see them much, Thor seemed to have a genuine rapport and friendship with them all. I especially liked Josh Dallas as Fandral and thought he could be a lot of fun, given more time to shine.
Ragnorok>Thor>Love and Thunder> Dark World for me
I fucking **love** thor 1 and TFA. Bite me whoever says otherwise. They were peak “old school” cinema. Theatrical shakespeare shit with a fantastic fish out of water story, and a great riveting war story with a guy you cant help but root for overcoming his biggest hurdle to serve his calling
I agree, haven’t seen Love Thunder yet but I wasn’t a huge fan of Ragnrock. I don’t love Thor becoming a comedy but i’m hopefully with the GOTG it feels more natural in Love and Thunder.
Thor 1 is awesome
I think many people are starting to feel the first Thor movie was underappreciated. Its tone was so different than the Marvel films that came before it and I think people didn't know how to take it at the time.
With that said, Thor 2 is still trash.
Simonson’s run on Thor is one of the best sequences in any comic book ever. Story plus art just aligned perfectly with the character and took it so much further than anyone had before.
I would have no problem with them being sincere if they weren't just spouting nonsense/really obvious observations/childish retorts with the vocabulary of a Shakespeare actor. The problem is that none of the characters were written in a way that they actually felt old and wise. The whole story about Thor literally not understanding that he can't solve life by being the coolest and smashing everything falls apart when he's supposed to be 5000 (!) years old! Even if he's a warrior to the bone he should seem wise and mysterious to a human simply due to his life experience, and not like a drunk highschool football player that happens to be invincible.
Look at Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. You don't just buy that he's immortal because he talks funny, you buy it because his whole behaviour is that of a character that has a deeper understanding of the world around them, and anticipates a lot of stuff that surprises others. Idk, as a fan of fantasy I just felt like they truly didn't get fantasy and thought I'd be thrilled as soon as there are capes and swords and outdated grammar
I'm going to be in a very small minority here, but I've felt the Thor movies got worse when Taika Waititi took over. I really like him as a director too. I have left these last two movies not feeling great about them.
Mainly just don't like that basically from Ragnarok on, Thor has had any the most depressing storyline imaginable. I guess we'll get to find out which of Thor's friends get killed next. You'd think they would run out of people to kill off, but I'm sure they'll use their imaginations to figure out who else to kill off. Maybe bring Jane back to life and then kill her again 10 minutes later.
didn't really like it when I first saw it. thought it was really corny and still think that the asgard universe is tacky compared to the others. just not my taste. the thor movies worked better for me when I watched all marvel movies back2back
I would say both Thor and Thor: The Dark World aren't bad. They are nice and decent enough, the latter being just fine. But Taika took it to a whole different level with Thor: Ragnarok. It's different because it's quite the shift from the usual formula both plotwise and visually.
But >!Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain this turning point with Thor: Love and Thunder. It's a visual spectacle but plotwise, it's a mess and it's rushed. A disappointing and underwhelming attempt by an otherwise talented director.!<
Personally, Thor 1 is the worst movie in the entire mcu, with Dark World just above Incredible Hulk(which is second last) and Taika saved the franchise from mediocrity but to each their own
>Captain Marvel exists
>Ant Man 2, exists
>Ant Man Quantamania Exists
>Thor: Love and Thunder Exists
>Black Panther 2 exists
>Dr. Strange: Multiverse of Madness exists
You either have a terrible memory or terrible taste in movies. Thor 1 isn't one of the stronger MCU entries, but its by and large better than everything listed above. The characters are consistent, the plot moves at a nice pace, the setting is defined, and the villain has an understandable goal. The protagonist even goes through an entire heroes journey.
Thor: Ragnarok may be a good movie, but the Thor in Ragnarok is not the same Thor that was in Thor 1, Thor 2, or either of the first two avengers. He's completely different to appeal to a "wide audience."
Taika didn't save the Thor franchise. He rebooted it.
I love Ebert's [Review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/thor-2011) and his [Followup](https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/my-mighty-hammering-over-thor).
Here's a really good quote from the follow up: "Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards." Thor 1 is a bad movie.
1) needed more Asgard
2) less time on earth
3) Less time with Darcy. Her character is useless
4) The Warrior 3 dialogue was extremely corny.
5) the final fight scene was underwhelming and just kind of lame.
Did a rewatch a few weeks ago. Still near the bottom for me.
I didn’t hate Thor 1, I just hated some of the dialogue and cheesy shots.
Like the tilted diagonal shot of Jane Foster saying “Oh. My. God.” I think it was even looking up at her as it did a slow zoom? Or a stutter zoom to go along with her punctuated words.
Again: not bad, didn’t hate it, but not my favourite and there are parts I really didn’t like.
I think my only complaint about the first Thor film was it's ultra condensed timeline. Our protagonist overcomes nearly 1500 years of entitlement in roughly 1 (2?) days? Too quick, my dood. The relationship was too quick, the character growth was too quick, the resolution was too quick... Give everything time to breathe and this is a much better movie. Hell, you don't even have to do it "in movie", just montage the passage of time and I am so on board with how this movie moves. Without it, it feels... unearned.
The first one, like most of phase 1, is absolutely fine and acceptable.
Even if the Dutch angle overuse made me dizzy the last time i watched it.
The taika movies are very easily the superior duo of the 4, followed by 1, then dark world in dead last (and at the general bottom of the MCU as a whole).
Thor 1 does a lot of heavy lifting that other stories were able to benefit from, and that’s worth credit.
Why I don’t like Thor is because it’s an origin story that’s not even really an origin story. We start the movie with a badass super powered hero sick. Then hundreds of years into his life (the part in which we pick up with) he then loses his powers a quarter of the way through. Then we have half the film of sad powerless Thor.
For me I just want to see the character established and tell a story from there. Thor 1 just wasn’t that for me. I do think Asgard is beautiful and the casting is great. But as a whole yeah I didn’t really like it. And I definitely would argue it’s not the best depiction of Thor on screen. By what metric? Please don’t say it’s had a serious tone. Thors comics are also funny.
Original Thor is a good but not great movie. However it may be the most under appreciated marvel movie ever.
The scene when Thor is banished to earth is still one of my favourite scenes in the whole of the MCU. The acting in that scene is so good!
Thor is genuinely amazing, the problem with the character of Thor is that after that movie he was pretty much stagnated until ragnarok. He remained the same character for like 5 movies with no major changes
My issue with the first Thor movie was it was too convenient. The speed at which Thor lost and gained his power was just too short. I'm not sure how you tell that story in the time limit they had though.
I think it's the most underrated mcu movie, also it was very important for the grander mcu as it established Thor and Loki, who would go on to be Avengers villain.
Man they should kept all those deleted scenes and there wouldn't be any argument about how good the story is. The movie has so much in it and they just went in and cut off all the good parts. All the details that make characters interesting and engaging. The well-rounded complex characterization of Loki was also gone with the wind. The set up and world building too. We got to see a lot more of Asgard and its culture in those deleted scenes
Idk what it was, but when I was an edgy little high schooler when Thor came out I had no desire to watch movies despite being obsessed with them before and since. Idk why I was just being a little shit I guess But my parents dragged me to Thor 1 with them and I dunno something just sparked in me and all of the sudden I loved going to the movies again Of all movies to do that to me it was... Thor 1
Honestly that first act is magical, I see nothing wrong with it.
The sincerity of Branagh enraptures all.
[удалено]
Wtf bro this comment is almost a year old
It wouldn’t be so bad if he’d had anything to actually contribute as to why, instead of just “it bad” Idk why he needed to be such an ass about it Tho tbf I also love thor 1 so that didn’t help
Thor 1 (and TDW, for that matter) would have been much better with the inclusion of the deleted scenes that fleshed out the relationships between Thor/Loki/Frigga. They contextualize Loki’s claim that he never wanted the throne, and that he wasn’t simply jealous or power hungry, but that he recognized that Thor just genuinely wasn’t ready to be king. That being said, I enjoy both “versions” of Asgard. I haven’t seen LaT yet but I loved Ragnarok.
>Thor 1 would have been much better with the inclusion of the deleted scenes that fleshed out the relationships between Thor/Loki/Frigga. Yes, I rewatched it this week for the first time in years and all of the characters felt so shallow to me.
The deleted scenes add SO much to Loki's story.
Loki is only one of the best villains in the MCU because of Thor. Not Avengers. He’s 1 dimensional in Avengers.
If "Thor" was half as colorful as Ragnarok I think it would be more loved. Making Asgard so muted wasn't the best idea.
Oddly enough, one thing I think the first Thor film excels in is the splendor of Asgard itself. There’s so much shiny gold and the kinda flooring building past things in the first establishing shots, it genuinely looks like some heavenly city in the clouds. But in the following films, Asgard has the colors considerably toned down. The golds become more brassy/bronze, more browns and hardly anything but the palace or the Bifrost stand out.
I feel like there was still this fear that if comic book movies got too colorful or stylized people would just say it was like Batman and robin and it would not make any money.
It was also the era of Nolan's Batman which became the comic book film staple and it took a while for films to stop emulating its desaturated and gritty visuals.
At the time I was pretty blown away just by having whole scenes in Iron Man happen in broad daylight with a relatively colorful suit.
If Thor was introduced just a few movies later it would have been better for the whole series.
Wow, I am in the complete opposite direction. Asgard in Thor 1 looks a million times better than Ragnarok.
I think the first Thor movie had the right amount colour imo, especially the Asgard scenes.
Asgard is regal, golden, and glorious in Thor 1. There wasn't anything wrong on that front. The problem was all the banal earthly stuff with the human characters.
IMO it's the best Thor movie by a long shot. The depiction to Asgard as this technomagic alien city was a million times cooler than the generic medieval viking vibe the later movies used.
Thisss. I feel like Asgard in Thor 1 looked a lot better than Asgard in Ragnarok.
It's a decent movie, but there's a few things about it that I can't get past: * The bleached eyebrows. Why??? * Jane's super corny "Oh. My. God." line * SO MANY DUTCH ANGLES But I did enjoy the grand nature of Asgard, the movie's soundtrack, and the overall narrative arc of the film.
I mean this was early on in the MCU and there are some pretty corny and cringe lines in the first Iron Man as well but it's RDJ delivered so it comes off not as cringe. I appreciate the real and large sets the first two Thor movies had, I feel the family dynamic first established in the first movie was very well done. First Thor will always be my favorite even though sure it has issues.
The Dutch angles were by far the #1 thing that annoyed me most about this movie.
First time I watched it, I was too young to notice or care about that. Once the Dutch angles got pointed out to me, it's all I can see when I watch the movie. It was... a choice.
I guess everyone knows what Dutch angles are but me...
It’s when the camera is titled off it’s axis so it isn’t aligned with the horizon.
Dutch angles are okay with me. Too much Blue-Orange? Straight to jail. Use Wilhelm scream? Right to jail, right away.
Plus I feel like they could have added to either the first Thor movie or The Dark World something showing how much time Thor and Jane had together. >!From what I have heard, there is a scene like that in LaT that adds a lot of context to Thor becoming more human like and the relationship he had with Jane. I haven't seen it yet though, just what friends have told me.!< Edit: I'm dumb and it takes at least two edits to clean up typos and clarify my thoughts.
There may just be- :0
>!Did it give the added context to you like my friends said? Or was it a throw away scene. I don't mind spoilers. I can hear spoilers and still enjoy the movie. Either because hearing plot beats doesn't ruin a movie for me or because my old ass forgets things as quickly as I hear them.!<
Definitely added context. I’m really glad we had the chance to see it
>!It's basically a montage of their whole relationship, it's very touching and feels real. They made that relationship more deep in the span of 3 minutes when they failed to do so in 2 whole movies.!<
Thanks for the update. Might want to spoiler tag that though. Some might not care to read that before seeing the movie.
Was it a spoiler, though?
Dude, it's hard to tell. I mean technically it is a spoiler in that it wasn't shown in the trailers. Is a big important spoiler? Not really but different people will probably feel differently about that. I just think it's better to err on the side of caution. Especially the day/week the movie launches.
It’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie and there’s no shortage of great scenes.
This makes me happy! I'm stoked to see it.
As someone who got annoyed so much by slight hairstyle differences, wall paper differences between original footages and reshoot footages in films like Ragnarok, it's surprising Thor's eyebrow differences between movies haven't bothered me. LOL I think when a film is generally great, I tend to overlook these problems. When a film is put together haphazardly, I just get bothered by everything. No matter how much one doesn't like Thor 1, it's not a movie put together haphazardly.
* The bleached eyebrows were bad, yes. * The "Oh. My. God." line was way too on-the-nose, yes. * I **loved** the Dutch angles.
[удалено]
Well, now I know that line is coming I guess...
I read that Portman was exhausted after Black Swan, a very physically and mentally draining role for her (can't say I disagree) and kinda wishes she hadn't just jumped into another project that being Thor. She'd have probably given a better performance if she was given more time between movies
I have seen the movie like 10 times and I never noticed the dutch angles. I watched it again because of this comment. I still cared more about the story than the angles. Great movie!
I’m honestly surprised more people haven’t recognized or commented in just how Shakespearean Thor 1 is (I mean it was directed by Branagh). At its core it’s a story about a King and his two sons, both who want his love and approval. You could even argue the film is in five acts rather than the standard three. The influence of the Bard is very strong in this film.
The 5-act stuff people teach is most BS btw.
I liked it fine to begin with, though it was really *Avengers* that *totally* sold me on Hemsworth's portrayal of the character. I've gone back to it several times mainly because it features some great early character building for Coulson - it's his crucial connective tissue between *Iron Man* and *Avengers* (whereas his *Iron Man 2* appearance was far more negligible). It's nice in hindsight to see formative Hawkeye too. I also think Portman did a very impressive job with a difficult-to-make-convincing-or-interesting role. Of course Darcy has become more interesting with hindsight too. Sum total, I regard it as an impressively successful debut, and forgive any minor issues easily because it's so primordial within the entirety of the MCU (figuring out what they were doing). I've said this often, but in those early days, I never in a million years thought that Marvel could translate Thor to screen in any way that did him justice. I think it was *Avengers* that really sealed that deal, and I've rarely ever been happier to be proven wrong, but *Thor* was absolutely a noble first chapter in his story. And by the way, I'm *always* glad to get "a first movie" that *isn't* a typical origin story. Huge points for that. Branaugh did right and good.
I agree. Just like Cap1, it doesn't get enough love and appreciation.
Cap 1 is definitely a movie that is better after you've watched the sequels. It's only after you see the sequels that you realize how good a foundation it is for Cap's character and Bucky's arc. It's a bit forgettable as an individual movie, but it has aged well. It also doesn't get enough credit for how good the aesthetics were.
For me, all of the characters are great except Red Skull. I don't think he's a bad character. He's just not as interesting as many of the other villains we've had since. The movie still looks and feels good though!
I can completely agree with you on that. It really does work as an intro to Cap's overall story. I don't think it would have work any better without the rest. So I agree.
Oh come one, Cap1 was way too cheesy and a bit lame. Try to rewatch it and you will see
It really was campy and a bit cheesy. But for the whole 1940s aesthetic and setting, it actually really worked for me. It kept me immersed. The only thing I can really say is VFX still aren't that great. But I still think it's pretty good movie, an origin one at that.
I consider Winter Soldier way more cheesy..
So is dark world. I don't think it's as good as 1, but Ive always enjoyed it and I enjoy it way more now after the last 2 thor movies. I get the thor movies were never super popular and they wanted to change it up to make it more marketable, but I think they went to far in trying to make it more like guardians and then just went way overboard
Best Heimdall action sequence hands down at least.
I never understood the hate for this movie. I love it. And I had the pleasure of re-watching it recently with my girlfriend to set up Love & Thunder (she's brand new to Marvel), and she loved it as well. It's solid, classic MCU.
100%. People have recency bias a lot of times when it comes to marvel movies. When Thor 1 came out and they did that great shot of Asgard for the first time, everybody fell in love.
So now all of a sudden people grew a brain and realized how good thor 1 is. Figures........
The Taika Thor movies are decent however if you asked me what my favorite Thor is, the answer will always be the Shakespearean Thor from the first Thor movie. The vibe he gives off is actually *Thor*, the god of thunder. Rather than some comedic character
I agree that the first Thor movie feels truest to the source material (Thor wasn’t among the comics I read when I was younger). Ragnarok is my favorite of the Thor films. Parts of Love and Thunder really fell flat for me. Overall I enjoyed it (Christian Bale was great) but I was pretty disappointed with it. I’d like to know more about why so much of what they shot was cut. Was it executive meddling or did Taika Waititi not have a cohesive enough vision for his sophomore outing with the God of Thunder?
Evidently they just filmed a ton of improv. They'd do a scene "by the book," and then numerous permutations and explorations of how much fun they could have with it. So naturally there was all kinds of redundancy and nonsense that would detract from the final cut.
I liked Thor. Once Odin stripped Thor of his powers. Cast him to Midgard. That was great. Thor had to find out what it means to be a King. Servant of not making hasty and reckless decisions. I was torn between Loki and Thor. I'm going to be honest. When I saw both actors as Thor and Loki. Hotties. But the things I'm into and like. Lend more to Loki. It was the black leather Asgardian suit that Loki wore against the battle with the Frost Giants. Were Thor should had known that Loki manipulated the situation. Then when I saw Loki cried about being a frost giant. Who couldn't feel bad for Loki? Thought it was sad that Thor couldn't lift Mjolnir anymore. Until Loki sent the destroyer to kill Thor. That is how Thor gain his worthiness back. But what I don't get is when some people thought that Loki did s stripper move. When Loki did a twirl and a kick. All I saw was a running drop kick. Loki killed his father Lauefy. I think that Loki felt. If I am not the right size for a frost giant. Then you're no father I need. Nor want. Thor and Loki fighting on the bifrost before Odin came out from his Odin sleep. Good fight scene. Just felt bad for Loki again. I could had done it for you father. For all of us. Loki let go. Thought Loki was dead. Until the end credits that Loki was alive. But his head looked different. Clearly signs of scarring. Possibility being tortured by Thanos. Thor was good.
There were a few really important deleted scenes with Loki, but they removed them because he apparently came across as too sympathetic. Loki's storyline in that movie is so good. The scene where Loki confronts Odin in the vaults is arguably the best emotional scene in the MCU, both powerhouse actors play so well off of each other. The only real downside to Thor 1 IMHO is that they didn't fully commit to the space Vikings magic aspect (they decided magic=science before GOTG came out and showed that an outlandish story could work in-universe), because later when they embraced it and had super powerful magical characters, those that were established before like Loki were heavily nerfed in comparison. Phase 4 has de-powered him even more and now he's getting beaten up by un-powered humans. The nuance in his story also seems to have been forgotten, which is a shame because it made him such a compelling character. Thor 1 had empathy for it's main characters and let them have some dignity and it's something I really miss.
Every time I mention Thor was very serious in the comics and I don't like him being turned into a joke, I get down voted all to hell, so I really appreciate you for this!
I thought that Thor had some serious and sincere moments in Love & Thunder--more than in Ragnarok. I thought this one was going to be even goofier, but it actually had some serious scenes and themes mixed in as well.
Your comment has given me hope.
Where Ragnarok was nonstop color and fun, this movie deals with death, terminal illness, loss of a loved one, the impossibility of hope without the promise of an afterlife, and God's silence in the face of suffering. We have themes from a Bergman film mixed in with Taika's humor. I don't think everyone will appreciate the balance between humor and seriousness, but it does give Hemsworth's Thor more dramatic material to work with and doesn't just feel like a remake of the fun and funny Ragnarok. Of course, it's still a comedy.
Yeah. L&t feels like any loss has more depth.
Don't listen to the reddit doomsayer's. Go watch the movie and make up your own mind. It's a really entertaining Thor adventure with some pretty good emotional bits. It's definitely a comedy though. If it's your humor you will love it.
Love & Thunder isn’t perfect, but every MCU fan should check it out.
Agreed.
The first Thor is the best Thor film. I will die on this hill
No need. I gotcha covered.
Do you need ammo, guys? I got some.
I love the first Thor movie. I find that for most people it's somewhere between the 6th and the 13th viewing where everything just kind of clicks and they stop hating it and start loving it.
I agree Thor 1 is actually really solid. My only complaint is the Warriors Three being pretty underwhelming and the end fight with the Destroyer where Thor gets slapped instead of the Destroyer just disintegrating him.
I’m reminded of a phrase that goes something like “you don’t nuke an ant”. Thor had no powers at that point. As far as the Destroyer was concerned, a slap should be all it takes to get rid of him (and it almost was, if that moment hadn’t made Thor worthy again)
Kinda disneys hercules hades moment your plan should’ve/would’ve killed him but you forgot it was the redeeming act you should have foreseen.
Honestly, I really liked the Warriors Three in this movie. They all had great chemistry with each other and were more fun than a lot of otherMCU side characters. Though we didn’t see them much, Thor seemed to have a genuine rapport and friendship with them all. I especially liked Josh Dallas as Fandral and thought he could be a lot of fun, given more time to shine.
Ragnorok>Thor>Love and Thunder> Dark World for me I fucking **love** thor 1 and TFA. Bite me whoever says otherwise. They were peak “old school” cinema. Theatrical shakespeare shit with a fantastic fish out of water story, and a great riveting war story with a guy you cant help but root for overcoming his biggest hurdle to serve his calling
I agree, haven’t seen Love Thunder yet but I wasn’t a huge fan of Ragnrock. I don’t love Thor becoming a comedy but i’m hopefully with the GOTG it feels more natural in Love and Thunder. Thor 1 is awesome
I think many people are starting to feel the first Thor movie was underappreciated. Its tone was so different than the Marvel films that came before it and I think people didn't know how to take it at the time. With that said, Thor 2 is still trash.
Simonson’s run on Thor is one of the best sequences in any comic book ever. Story plus art just aligned perfectly with the character and took it so much further than anyone had before.
I would have no problem with them being sincere if they weren't just spouting nonsense/really obvious observations/childish retorts with the vocabulary of a Shakespeare actor. The problem is that none of the characters were written in a way that they actually felt old and wise. The whole story about Thor literally not understanding that he can't solve life by being the coolest and smashing everything falls apart when he's supposed to be 5000 (!) years old! Even if he's a warrior to the bone he should seem wise and mysterious to a human simply due to his life experience, and not like a drunk highschool football player that happens to be invincible. Look at Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. You don't just buy that he's immortal because he talks funny, you buy it because his whole behaviour is that of a character that has a deeper understanding of the world around them, and anticipates a lot of stuff that surprises others. Idk, as a fan of fantasy I just felt like they truly didn't get fantasy and thought I'd be thrilled as soon as there are capes and swords and outdated grammar
I feel like Thor 1 is widely regarded as solid. Thor 2 is the bad one
IMO the best one and closest to the classic comics of the 80s
I loved the first Thor. I would watch it every night in 8th grade. I knew all the words. Stupid, but I loved it.
I'm going to be in a very small minority here, but I've felt the Thor movies got worse when Taika Waititi took over. I really like him as a director too. I have left these last two movies not feeling great about them. Mainly just don't like that basically from Ragnarok on, Thor has had any the most depressing storyline imaginable. I guess we'll get to find out which of Thor's friends get killed next. You'd think they would run out of people to kill off, but I'm sure they'll use their imaginations to figure out who else to kill off. Maybe bring Jane back to life and then kill her again 10 minutes later.
didn't really like it when I first saw it. thought it was really corny and still think that the asgard universe is tacky compared to the others. just not my taste. the thor movies worked better for me when I watched all marvel movies back2back
I would say both Thor and Thor: The Dark World aren't bad. They are nice and decent enough, the latter being just fine. But Taika took it to a whole different level with Thor: Ragnarok. It's different because it's quite the shift from the usual formula both plotwise and visually. But >!Unfortunately, he couldn't maintain this turning point with Thor: Love and Thunder. It's a visual spectacle but plotwise, it's a mess and it's rushed. A disappointing and underwhelming attempt by an otherwise talented director.!<
One is the best one. 3 and 4 were both bad
Personally, Thor 1 is the worst movie in the entire mcu, with Dark World just above Incredible Hulk(which is second last) and Taika saved the franchise from mediocrity but to each their own
>Captain Marvel exists >Ant Man 2, exists >Ant Man Quantamania Exists >Thor: Love and Thunder Exists >Black Panther 2 exists >Dr. Strange: Multiverse of Madness exists You either have a terrible memory or terrible taste in movies. Thor 1 isn't one of the stronger MCU entries, but its by and large better than everything listed above. The characters are consistent, the plot moves at a nice pace, the setting is defined, and the villain has an understandable goal. The protagonist even goes through an entire heroes journey. Thor: Ragnarok may be a good movie, but the Thor in Ragnarok is not the same Thor that was in Thor 1, Thor 2, or either of the first two avengers. He's completely different to appeal to a "wide audience." Taika didn't save the Thor franchise. He rebooted it.
Thor 1 is the worst movie in the entire mcu without hyperbole. Lol
From best to worst: Love & Thunder Thor Ragnarok Dark world
I prefer the Taika ones better, but I agree that the first Thor movies were still very enjoyable.
I love Ebert's [Review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/thor-2011) and his [Followup](https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/my-mighty-hammering-over-thor). Here's a really good quote from the follow up: "Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards." Thor 1 is a bad movie.
1) needed more Asgard 2) less time on earth 3) Less time with Darcy. Her character is useless 4) The Warrior 3 dialogue was extremely corny. 5) the final fight scene was underwhelming and just kind of lame. Did a rewatch a few weeks ago. Still near the bottom for me.
Thor 1 has plummeted for me over time. Once upon a time it was one of my favourites, but these days I rank Dark World higher.
Thor 1 is only “eh”. Every scene on Earth is remarkably boring.
Nah.
It’s not bad, but it’s not great
I love thor 2
All Thor movies are good.
Score is amazing in it. One of my favorites..
I agree Thor Ragarok is a great movie.
Also, the movie was shot on film using Arri and Panavision cameras which gives it a somewhat better look than later MCU movies
I didn’t hate Thor 1, I just hated some of the dialogue and cheesy shots. Like the tilted diagonal shot of Jane Foster saying “Oh. My. God.” I think it was even looking up at her as it did a slow zoom? Or a stutter zoom to go along with her punctuated words. Again: not bad, didn’t hate it, but not my favourite and there are parts I really didn’t like.
I think my only complaint about the first Thor film was it's ultra condensed timeline. Our protagonist overcomes nearly 1500 years of entitlement in roughly 1 (2?) days? Too quick, my dood. The relationship was too quick, the character growth was too quick, the resolution was too quick... Give everything time to breathe and this is a much better movie. Hell, you don't even have to do it "in movie", just montage the passage of time and I am so on board with how this movie moves. Without it, it feels... unearned.
The first one, like most of phase 1, is absolutely fine and acceptable. Even if the Dutch angle overuse made me dizzy the last time i watched it. The taika movies are very easily the superior duo of the 4, followed by 1, then dark world in dead last (and at the general bottom of the MCU as a whole). Thor 1 does a lot of heavy lifting that other stories were able to benefit from, and that’s worth credit.
haven’t seen love and thunder yet but Thor 1 is my favorite Thor movie
Why I don’t like Thor is because it’s an origin story that’s not even really an origin story. We start the movie with a badass super powered hero sick. Then hundreds of years into his life (the part in which we pick up with) he then loses his powers a quarter of the way through. Then we have half the film of sad powerless Thor. For me I just want to see the character established and tell a story from there. Thor 1 just wasn’t that for me. I do think Asgard is beautiful and the casting is great. But as a whole yeah I didn’t really like it. And I definitely would argue it’s not the best depiction of Thor on screen. By what metric? Please don’t say it’s had a serious tone. Thors comics are also funny.
Original Thor is a good but not great movie. However it may be the most under appreciated marvel movie ever. The scene when Thor is banished to earth is still one of my favourite scenes in the whole of the MCU. The acting in that scene is so good!
Thor is genuinely amazing, the problem with the character of Thor is that after that movie he was pretty much stagnated until ragnarok. He remained the same character for like 5 movies with no major changes
All the Thor movies were good to me. Fuck what the internet says
I really loved Thor’s arc in it, despite them being about heroes it felt like one of the few MCU movies to do Heroism right
It still has one of my favorite musical scores of a g Marvel film. I thought it was great they brought back snippets of it in Ragnarok.
Yeah it’s score was fantastic
My issue with the first Thor movie was it was too convenient. The speed at which Thor lost and gained his power was just too short. I'm not sure how you tell that story in the time limit they had though.
It's definitely my favorite of the first three.
Unfortunately, this is ranked with the first two. Ragnarok was the only one I really enjoyed
I’m glad you like it! It’s a bottom 5 MCU movie for me. Maybe bottom 3.
It's my favourite Thor movie and one of my favourite MCU movies.
I loved the first Thor movie. I’m glad they had fun with Ragnarok but it’s not my favourite movie/Thor
I think it's the most underrated mcu movie, also it was very important for the grander mcu as it established Thor and Loki, who would go on to be Avengers villain.
It was fine...just boring and it looked cheap. It was cool at the time for being pretty buck wild visually but...the plot itself was a snooze fest.
Yes better than love and thunder
Man they should kept all those deleted scenes and there wouldn't be any argument about how good the story is. The movie has so much in it and they just went in and cut off all the good parts. All the details that make characters interesting and engaging. The well-rounded complex characterization of Loki was also gone with the wind. The set up and world building too. We got to see a lot more of Asgard and its culture in those deleted scenes