Distracting spectacle but disappointingly empty of ideas and full of franchise "stuff" (mild SPOILERS)

Rating: Null/10 (21 September 2011)

I had heard a lot of good things about this film before I eventually saw it. I had decided that I wasn't going to go and pay loads of money to sit in noisy cinemas and be bombarded with disappointing blockbusters this summer, but I figured that this had enough good word of mouth to be worth seeing. After watching it I browsed through the user comments here of writers I generally trust and found that most of them had loved it too; so why did I find it to be all a lot of fuss and nonsense that ultimately amounts to very little?
I came to Thor with some worries despite the good word of mouth, I never cared for the character generally and he always seemed a little silly to me, with the Nordic god dialogue just making it worse. As a result I guess the script could have been worse because it would have been bogged down in this stuff but it never was, however this is not to say that it worked well. What it does is take us from point A to point B without ever really doing a huge amount of interest. It has enough humour in to stop it being too serious, but not enough to actually be light and fun. It has enough character in it to avoid it feeling wooden, but not enough to make one care. It has enough drama in it to set up the action, but not enough to provide actual tension or a sense of danger. To me it didn't seem to do anything in particular. I was looking for more sport to be made of this silly God once he was on earth but it didn't happen. In particular I was looking for Loki to be a more interesting "baddie" since he could have been a tragic, haunted character – but we don't see this outside of his actions.
This all came together for me to limit my interest in what was going on. The stuff in the heavens was all too full of mock Shakespearean shouting but without dramatic substance, while the stuff on Earth was too fleeting and lacking fun and entertainment value. For sure the film provides spectacle but again I just found it to be rather hollow as I watched it, enjoying it for the noise but not much else. The cast are varied. Although limited, Hemsworth is well-cast because he has the body and big voice to fill the character. He needed a good opposite number though and in Hiddleston he doesn't have it – he doesn't have the presence needed or the depth of character. Portman has almost nothing to do and it shows in her performance, she is here for the sake of it and you could have digitally removed her from this film and made no difference to it. Ditto Skarsgård– at least Dennings provided some light relief. Hopkins adds a bit of gravitas to proceedings, while Elba has the frame and voice for his character. Like everyone else it surprises me still to think this was directed by Kenneth Branagh, but it is a smart career move for him to show he can do big budget effects movies – if it does nothing else, it shows that.
Thor feels like a film that had to be made rather than one that was created on its own merits. Of course, as part of The Avengers, this is true but it is irritating that you feel that way while watching it. It has noise and spectacle for those looking for that, but it lacks too much in the way of character, danger, humour and good old fashioned entertainment. You know when you buy a new product and the first few days it is shiny and great but then, in using it you spot lots of gaps and think "why didn't they do this?" and "why did they not expand this function?" – well Thor is that product, shiny and noisy but ultimately one is left wondering why the makers didn't do a lot more in some regards and a lot less in others. Not an awful film – but just a bog-standard one with a massive effects budget.