Thor Could Have Been Mighty Bad

I was pretty lukewarm on the artistic merit of Kenneth Branagh's Thor. The script was okay, the acting was good enough, and the production design erred on the side of the 90s. Ken's camerawork is almost always shallow, and I think Thor is probably his worst showing yet in that department. Watch it and tally the number of times he uses dutch tilt--it's in the hundreds. On the other hand, I love it, because I have a massive soft spot for the character Thor. So here's hoping I'm not too biased talking about the sequel.

Thor: The Dark World has already grossed more in its opening weekend than the first film has to date, so maybe I'm not alone in thoroughly enjoying it. I disagreed with some reviewers who found the first hour to be slow, others who said humor saved the movie, or Roger Ebert's comment that it was visually a "step back from Thor." More than anything else, I left thinking, "This movie could have been so bad."

Think about it--it's a superhero movie set in space, on a pseudo-Medieval fantasy world with science fiction technology. The hero goes to Earth and participates in a contemporary comedy, then plans a heist, runs a blockade by winning an X-Wing dogfight, resolves a royal family drama, and then battles to save Earth from invading aliens. This is eight movies, not one. If you thought Krull was artistically torn between ripping off Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, this is like that with additional helpings of The Great Escape, Meet the Parents, Superman, The Tudors, and Independence Day.

Miraculously, it's pretty engrossing. I think the movie carves a dangerous but ultimately successful path through all these genres. Regular HBO director and Game of Thrones helmer Alan Taylor knows his priorities. Character comes first here. That's why, as some people bemoaned, the first hour of the movie is spent setting up for the payoffs during the second hour. It's basic storytelling. How ADD are we that we can't handle a little exposition? At least Taylor does what Spielberg and Scorsese can't bring themselves to do--he tells a story in 2 hours.

Taylor's also put a masterful touch on Asgard. Its people are rich and textured, finally given the attention needed to make them feel real. Branagh's Thor basically ignores the existence of a local population. We don't see many details of how this society might actually function, or who comprises it. In Thor: The Dark World, we visit pubs, prisons, battlefields, and get a little view of the other people in the Nine Realms. There are all sorts of interesting artifacts peppered in various shots that add depth and nuance to the world.

Ooooh, we're Vikings now.

And the acting's good. Natalie Portman plays a more defined and believable Jane Foster this time around. Her romance with Thor is, ironically, a little less predetermined in the sequel, which I liked. Branagh kind of accidentally sells women short in some of his movies, and I thought both Ms. Portman and Kat Dennings did much better under a director who believes that women have value outside of sexuality. Tom Hiddleston manages to breathe vital life into the movie without upstaging the Thor-Jane relationship. Anthony Hopkins, who had some great moments in the first movie, was going through the motions a little bit here, which is too bad. Chris Hemsworth delivers as Thor. He's settled into the character since his first go, so that's nice. To be fair, though, the most challenging part of his role is maintaining his physique.

Most Improved goes to the script. The story's tight, coherent, and has a balanced pace. It's funny but not too funny, dark but not too dark, and manages to play the characters for everything they're worth. Loki's at his most devious, but also his most vulnerable. That was a very satisfying arc, aided by some last-minute scene additions at the end of post-production. I loved seeing him and Thor try to figure out what their relationship is post-Avengers. Sure, Chris Eccleston's Malekith is a simple if forgettable villain, but I thought the way in which his threat presented itself both visually and mechanically was more than gratifying. There's a fight sequence toward the end that's particularly inventive.

Why are the reviews mixed? My guess is that critics went in expecting The Dark World to be another generic sci-fi blockbuster like the poor showing we had this past summer. And, to some degree, there's no escaping that. It's a save-the-world story. We've had enough of those for one year. But what this has more than Pacific Rim or Man of Steel or Star Trek: Into Darkness is heart, nuance, and women that aren't objects. I'd put it up against any of the summer blockbusters, and against most of Marvel Studios' "phase one" films.