Entertaining, BUT ...

Rating: 7/10 (14 May 2011)

Thor is the Norse god of thunder, among other things, and is still revered as such in some places. But this is not about religion although most of the story's framework is drawn from it.
I first learned about the God Thor reading about him in the pages of my parent's encyclopedia late at night by flashlight. I think I was about 10. To me, Norse mythology was just more interesting than the Greek or Roman. Among the things I learned, Thor also represented fertility and was the protector of mankind. Not altogether bad things for a movie hero. So, I was hoping this film would turn into one of those guilty pleasures, not in least part because I can also remember reading the comic book when I was a kid.
The title character is played by Chris Hemsworth, who has a modern day comic book physique to fit the part. He's actually best when he's more serious. He doesn't do the comedic parts of the film nearly as convincingly. Writing him in as completely clueless about human culture on Earth doesn't fit well for the part of a God.
Thor's love interest is amply provided by the stunning Natalie Portman as Jane Foster. Portman, for her part, adds a lot to the film both with her excellent characterization and just by beautifying the screen. She is just one of those people you have a hard time taking your eyes off of. I liked the comic elements she was in, her's is the kind of face you like to see happy.
The supporting players, Anthony Hopkins (as Odin), Rene Russo (subtly underplaying Frigga, wife of Odin and Queen of Asgard), Stellan Skarsgård and Tom Hiddleston are all terrific. I am struck at the range I've seen in the performances of Stellan Skarsgård. Is this the same guy who played the palpably evil Cerdic in "King Arthur"? Of course it is. It's also the same guy who sang and danced in Moma Mia as Bill. That's some wide range of talent. I think he's one of my favorite people to see on screen. He's always doing something interesting and he ads subtle touches here that provide some connectivity and explanation. Tom Hiddleston added something great as one of the film's villains. He didn't over do it either. Thank you for that.
But one of the best new actresses around, Kat Denning added marvelous relief as Portman's quirky and funny assistant. I am looking forward to seeing her do a lot of great things in the future. I hope the filmmakers also see that she's not just funny, but can be really sexy too.
Overall, however, the film left me wanting more. I tried to understand why I felt that way. I think the most disappointing element was the story. It wasn't bad, really it wasn't, just disappointing. I was hoping against hope that it would more closely follow the original Marvel comic I remember so well. In those, Thor was sent on a mission to Earth by his father, Odin. He lived life on Earth as a disabled doctor, Dr. Donald Blake, who then became the superhero when he was needed by tapping his cane on the ground. Then his cane became the magic hammer Mjolnir and he was magically transformed into Thor to do battle against evil.
Well, that's not the plot of the movie. The plot of the movie is considerably weaker and it seems the lighter, comedic elements were an afterthought to prop it up. The comedy, perhaps, saved the story from becoming trite. There's nothing wrong with some comic relief, but it shouldn't feel like it was NEEDED.
In the film, Thor is cast out of Asgard, presumably to learn a lesson. He must become worthy to return, but the film's Asgard is overwrought, hardly seeming like the kind of place a playful young pagan God would care to go back to (How much more entertaining would have been the participation there of Freya, goddess of love, beauty, fertility and war).
The makers of the film (including the director Kenneth Branagh) might have taken some council from the old movie, The Vikings (1958) and the celebratory banquet hall in it, presided over by the obviously hedonistic Earnest Borgnine. That setting seemed a far more desirable candidate for a Viking Asgard than the stark sterility of this film's sets. Borgnine's version seems like more the place a warrior would like to be swept into Valhalla by scantily clad Valkyries. The injection of the other kind of reality would have been far more entertaining than all the CGI nonsense here. It just wasn't interesting at all.
While we're there, the use of 3D in this film was my second big 3D disappointment recently. It would have been nice to see it well used but it goes by without hardly any notice. It made me feel cheated out of the extra admission price.
Some of the other CGI effects were very good and much more original than some other recent offerings. The film's use of color and space was fairly stunning. But I'd like to send a note here to the film makers, Gods should not need any kind of mechanical apparatus to wield their power. That would be more impressive than what was done here.
In the final analysis, it's worth the trip to the theater, you'd definitely benefit from seeing this on a really big screen. However, you won't really miss anything if you opt for the digital version and skip the 3D.
By Bruce L. Jones http://webpages.charter.net/bruce.jones1/