I feel like every time I watch ‘Thor’ I walk away with a
different opinion of it. At times I walk away with the impression that it might
actually be an under appreciated entry to the MCU that deserves more critical
praise than it receives. But then on other instances I kind of understand why
Marvel have gone for a slight course correction with the character. On this
instance I find myself gravitating towards the latter option.
That being said I think there are many unique and
interesting qualities to ‘Thor’, most of them brought about by director Keneth
Branagh whose specific additions to the movie are intriguing to say the least.
In fact like much of the film there are aspects of it which work brilliantly
and aspects that are baffling inclusions. Branagh’s world building is excellent.
He frames Asgard in such a way to endow it with real mythic weight and stature.
Though he doesn’t quite flesh out the world to any great degree (a task that
should have befallen the sequel, but we’ll cross that bridge later) you
understand enough about their basic atmosphere and system that you become
engrossed in the eventual fate of the world.
But where Branagh’s direction exceeds on an establishing
front, it somewhat fails on a more momentary basis. The elephant in the room
would be the overuse of Dutch angles which are so utterly unmotivated that they
are more baffling than noticeable. I’d be lying if they said they greatly
disrupted my viewing experience of ‘Thor’ but it certainly makes the viewer
raise some questions over why the camera is constantly on a tile. Even in
moments of humour or levity I still find that specific angle creeping its way
back into the story.
I’ve always maintained that if you are able to notice
something this kind of problem on a regular basis, it speaks to some degree for
how engaging the story is as well. So that leads me into another issue with ‘Thor’,
namely that its narrative is quite simplistic to say the least. Thor’s central
arc is painstakingly predictable from the outset and there really isn’t any
variation in how that development is presented. If anything it comes across as
being rushed and a little contrived, but ultimately it is still believable and
affecting to a certain degree.
I’d say the cast follow a similar pattern in that certain aspects
are terrific and others are Cat Dennings. I feel a little bad saying that as I
usually don’t like to single out individuals, but both Dennings’ performance
and the character the script provides her with are drastically out of tonal
synch with the rest of the movie. Natalie Portman also feels slightly flat as
Jane Foster. She shares decent chemistry with her on screen romance but just doesn’t
seem to flourish as an individual character. Whether that’s the fault of the
script or Portman not bringing enough energy to the role, or both, it’s hardly
a huge detriment to the film. It’s just one of the aspects that makes the
narrative feel somewhat contrived when I’m asked to invest so heavily in this
relationship even the narrative seems to be uninterested in.
But outside of that the titular character is brought to life
brilliantly by Chris Hemsworth. For starters there is no denying that Hemsworth
completely and utterly embodies the role of a literal god on a physical level. The
way he struts around each scene, exuding charisma and carrying himself with
such grandiose is immensely entertaining to watch when the character is both in
and out of his comfort zone. He’s also perfectly countered by Tom Hiddelstone
as Loki whose performance is the complete parallel. Loki also exudes charisma
but it’s of a much more villainous nature that does wonders for his sense of
menace. Hiddelstone’s performance single handedly works to elevate the
narrative since his portrayal of Loki feels like a genuinely prevalent threat
that needs to be dealt with.
‘Thor’ is a mixed bag in every regard, but it still contains
enough unique elements to be interesting at times as well as frustrating at
others.
Result: 5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment