Mindless, Family-Friendly Action Picture

Rating: 6/10 (19 May 2011)

When I was a child in the 70's, I was a real comic book nut. If this movie had been put on the big screen in 1976, I would have been beside myself with joy. For my middle-aged self today, however, I must say that Thor left me feeling somewhat indifferent.
I liked the fact that Thor is an old-fashioned family film. There's a lot of violence but it's cartoon violence, not realistic, so it doesn't nauseate you like most action movies do today. Thor is also not salacious, which is refreshing; there is only one kiss and no lovemaking. The only person who shows any skin at all is Chris Hemsworth as Thor, and if I had worked as hard as he has to develop his musculature I would demand to show it off, too!
The film is lavishly produced. The costumes were fitted beautifully and the armor and capes were blocked as perfectly as a Philip Treacy hat... and were equally as outlandish! The sets, lighting, effects... all beautiful, even surreal. When I'm relaxing with a flagon of mead, staring into the gigantic firepit in my cathedral-like living room, there's nothing I like better than to wear full dress armor and a cape! And the Asgard skyline with the inexplicably floating geometric buildings made a fitting homage to classic Thor artist Jack Kirby. I did feel a little sorry for poor Natalie Portman as Jane Foster; the nicest outfit she got to wear was t-shirt and jeans! But everything was lovely to look at... if somewhat lacking in inspired artistry.
The main problem with this movie is the character story, which is weak. How and why do Thor and Jane Foster fall for one another? God only knows! Jane must only be thinking with her crotch because Thor is stunning; nothing else seems to happen between the two of them. I mean, this picture makes Legally Blonde seem deep. And Loki as the quasi-villain... I won't spoil the ending by going into his motivations but the writing and Tom Hiddleston's performance are not very convincing.
Nor does the plot make very much sense. I mean, everything mostly works but the story seems very formulaic... such and such happens on page 27, the climax on page 82, etc. Does the climax of the picture really make any sense? So much that happens in Thor seems pointless and anti-climactic, however grippingly it is presented... the script feels less than heartfelt.
Kenneth Branagh's direction and Paul Rubell's editing make this picture flow along with great pacing, and are really a triumph of movie magic over substance. Patrick Doyle's score is gripping and effective without leaving one with any memorable themes. Anthony Hopkins as Odin really submerges himself in the character to great effect, and Chris Hemsworth is a terrific Thor, full of bravado and bonhomie and hail-fellow-and-well-met swashbuckle-yness. Natalie Portman does a great job with a largely thankless role as the love interest. And the rainbow coalition of racially integrated actors forming the supporting Nordic gods do a fine job... although what they're doing in this Scandinavian realm is beyond me. The special effects are great, beautifully done. It's a very nicely made film and a fun ride, if a little boring in places and lacking in inspiration overall... but check your brain at the door, because there is nothing under the hood. And watch for Chris Hemsworth's beautiful upper body exposed about halfway through, because that's all the skin you're going to see in the entire picture!