A triumph of pure mediocrity

Rating: 6/10 (24 January 2012)

I have to admit that it is a lot of fun to review bad movies that provide an easy opportunity to sparkle with witty humor, to give vent to your suppressed negative feelings, and to be sarcastic and full of biting irony.
On a rare occasion, it is also quite nice to indulge myself with reviewing a good movie and with reflecting on the multiple thoughts that the movie provokes. It is fun to enjoy praising a visionary director, a talented actor, a moving soundtrack, or some exceptional special effects.
There are movies, however, and "Thor" is among them, that are no fun to review, no fun at all. The problem with these movies is that they are average, solidly built popcorn flicks so perfectly mediocre, so utterly derivative, so shamelessly fake, so amazingly shallow, that watching them does not awake any strong emotions or feelings, and does not leave any particular memories or any aftertaste whatsoever.
The story and the dialogs in Thor make the script of "X-Men: First Class" look like a Shakespearian play. I cannot help thinking that this is a case when too many cooks spoiled the broth. The story was re- written multiple times: first to lower the movie budget from $300 million to $150 million, then because the change of the director, then for some other obscure reasons.
The directing was "okay", although it is hard for me to comprehend why Kenneth Branagh, mostly known for directing Shakespearian dramas, operas, and the other psychologically nuanced movies agreed to work on a film with such a primitive story. The only explanation that I was able to find was that "Thor" was among his favorite comic books. Who knew? Oh well, we all have our weird little secrets, I guess
The visual effects definitely suffered from reducing the projected movie budget in half. Sadly, they were quite unoriginal and not even particularly realistic. Sometimes "Thor" reminded me a slightly modernized version of these old Japanese "Godzilla" movies with the pitiful "Destroyer" somewhat clumsily playing the Godzilla part. While I did not expect the special effects to match those of "Avatar", or of "The Lord of the Rings", it was still disappointing to see such an underwhelming effort in a movie that by definition should have had great special effects as its main strength.
Somewhat surprisingly, a previously little known Chris Hemsworth did not disappoint as the title movie character. While having not demonstrated any particularly strong acting abilities, he was still refreshingly genuine, enthusiastic, and energetic as Thor.
The strongest performance in the movie, of course belongs to Tom Hiddleston, who was quite convincing as Thor's cunning brother Loki. Loki, by the way, was the only movie character that had a little depth in it, as a striking contrast to all the other characters that were so perfectly one-dimensional and so disgustingly primitive.
The primitivism of the characters is the most likely explanation why such talented actors as Natalie Portman and Stellan Skarsgård were so awful in the movie – they just did not have anything substantial to impersonate. Even Sir Anthony Hopkins did not seem to be fully himself, brutally constrained by the outrageously simplistic script.
Personally, I did not feel I gained anything by watching "Thor" – a triumph of pure mediocrity. However, if you are excited about "The Avengers" hitting theaters in May and are willing to spend some of your free time learning more about the characters involved, watching "Thor" might not be a bad idea for you.
knowyourmovie.blogspot.com