At least his Hamlet must have had a better script-writer. I always thought Hamlet was best on the rocks, in print.

Thoughts:

1) The villain, Loki, is largely a sympathetic character as an adopted child up until somewhere in the second act, when he starts behaving like a villain for the sake of the plot. Similarly, Thor is a childish, arrogant jerk up until he starts behaving heroically for the sake of the plot. We are given no cause to root for him.

2) The action scenes in this movie become gradually less impressive. The first, where Thor and his merry fellowship battle ice giants, is somewhat exciting. In the second, Thor manages to fight government agents seemingly without the aid of CGI. But the climax of the movie was mostly a swirling mass of colors and flashing lights.

3) Natalie Portman went from an Oscar nod to acting horny over a man with large muscles.

4) Kat Dennings gave the finest performance of the movie as Portman's more attractive and funnier assistant.

5) Who expected the screenwriters of Agent Cody Banks to deliver a screenplay with any level of nuance?

6) I'm annoyed that critics have used the word "Shakespearean" to describe this mess of a movie simply because Kenneth Branagh was involved. Or maybe it wasn't because of him; X-Men has also been described as "Shakespearean." Perhaps "Shakespearean" has been redefined to mean "containing tropes."

7) I do not understand why critics and audiences alike enjoyed this movie so much. I cannot begrudge them their enjoyment; I just can't share in it.

If you return to the source material, the comic books, that metal giant is called the Destroyer. It's part of the comic book lore, which has about nothing to do with the mythology aside from the character names. I presume that the Destroyer is there to try and kill Thor before he can become worthy enough to wield the hammer again.

As for the speaking English? He's a god. They can do things like speak and understand all languages. That's why they're gods. It's quite obvious that you're just too good to read the books that the movie is based upon. But reviews coming from the realm of ignorance can't be taken seriously either

At least Thor took a silly concept and tried to make it entertaining.

Forks over knives takes an important notion and wrings the life out of it. "this movie may save your life." is it's marketing line, which is compelling to say the least. Too bad the movie is humorless, meandering and as entertaining as looking at an amoeba on a slide for 90 minutes. I'm afraid very few will be persuaded by such a boring argument.

Couldn't agree more about "Thor," although all the mythology stuff (I just finished a course on Greek mythology so that's why I bring it up) you mention is an interesting angle I didn't think about, but probably because the script and the characters are so one-dimensional and overacted that I didn't give that the time of day. But the reason this movie is so ho-hum, so par-for-the-course and so unmemorable is because you are right: it is a business, a marketing ploy for the upcoming Avengers movie. I wrote about as much on my blog, noting that this is something that Marvel has been doing since they became their own studio (http://cinecismonline.com/wordpress/?p=231). "Thor" is loaded with Easter eggs for "The Avengers" (never mind the post credits teaser) that I simply groaned at every time I noticed one. I'm sure you spotted Jeremy Renner's cameo but may have missed that he's Hawkeye and likely has his own origin story coming up to wring out a few more dollars. Thanks for this blog post: it served as just a casual, fun review that I very much enjoyed reading.

Maybe Branagh's Hamlet should be shown at next year's Ebertfest. Judging from this review, people may need to be reminded of how great a director he can be.

Ebert: I did show it, maybe six years ago...

I have not yet seen Thor, Roger but I can understand your feeling about this movie. I read and collected alot of comics as a kid and still occasionally pick up an issue or two today. Thor has always and still is my least favorite because I found his character to be one dimensional at times and boring. Thor did become more interesting in the comics when he would revert and have to deal with his human persona of Dr. Donald Blake. Odin created the Blake persona for Thor to teach him humility. If the writers had included the Blake story arc in the movie it might have improved on the overall character of Thor. The reason Donners Superman is my favorite superhero movie is that the writers, director and Christopher Reeve gave Superman humanity and made him fallible even when he was in the cape, which gave us alot of moments to enjoy even when Superman wasn't being Superman.

The Greek gods sure seemed to come alive for me in the works of Homer and Aeschylus. The myths of the Greeks and the Norse certainly contain powerful stories. Aeschylus gave some of the best lines in The Eumenides to Athena. She tames the Furies, calls Athenian jurors to the first murder trial, sets the precedent for innocent verdicts and hung juries, and even calms the vengeful Furies, converting them into The Kindly Ones (The Eumenides), establishing the triumph of mercy over vengeance.

What's not to love?

Oh. You're talking about Hollywood, about the crummy movies they make. My mistake.

I've never actually wondered if you watched a movie before...

The film establishes at the very beginning (during Odin's narration and afterward) that Thor and the Asgardians are aliens who came to Earth and were worshipped as gods. So yes, as they continually mention, Asgard is a planet. (In the rooftop scene, Thor even shows Jane WHICH planet it is on her map.)

The "metal giant," (which is called the Destroyer and is a storied part of the source material) is used at the beginning of the film to stop the Frost Giant incursion... But it's destruction comes not from a sword through the spine, but a few minutes later at Thor's hand. And is not even the climactic fight. That honor goes to the fight between Thor and Loki on the Bifrost (the rainbow bridge from Norse myth that you failed to understand).

As for the Bifrost, it led to the Asgardian's method of interstellar travel. Heimdall was both gatekeeper and transportation operator. He aimed it at the planet the travelers wanted to visit.

I don't deny that the film had some issues, but really. Did you even watch it?

I took our family to last Friday's 4pm matinee as our movie night choice. They liked it.

I saw the beginning, slept through most of the movie, woke up near the end. (Guy behind me kicking my seat because I was snoring?) I don't think I missed anything.

My son, 12, bought a Thor helmet and hammer with his lawn-mowing money. So, the marketing works.

Usually I agree with you, but I have a few issues with this review:
-The "Taming of the Thor" angle was really as long as it needed to be, since there is no film cliché more tired than the out of place barbarian adjusting to civilization. I, for one, am glad that they kept these instances to a bare minimum. Too many films that utilize this trope devote too much time to the same formula of "barbarian witnesses something unfamiliar, local explains it to him/her, barbarian reacts with frustration, resulting in 'wacky' hijinks". In Thor, there's the initial chuckle brought on by Thor smashing his cup, then Jane tells him we don't do that on Earth, and Thor accepts this because he's not a complete moron.

-Why SHOULD the metal giant (the 'Destroyer,' I believe the film calls it) destroy the Golden Gate bridge or the Trump Tower? He's a mindless being from another, detached plane of existence, so to it, a building would just be a building. It landing on Earth and blowing up famous, recognizable landmarks would just be a cheap ploy for audience investment, banking on our familiarity with the location for us to get interested, like, say, all of the Roland Emmerich disaster flicks. Also, the sword didn't kill it, since we see it reassemble itself soon after (you know, what with him essentially being an empty suit of magic armor) and continue the fight until Thor regains his powers and beats it into scrap metal.

-I dunno, given the movie's logic, if wormholes from space were touching down on Earth and you were an astrophysicist, wouldn't you go riding around the desert for them? I suppose this is a suspension of disbelief issue, but in a movie about Norse gods in New Mexico, that particular bar was set kind of low for me.

As for the other points, such as whether the dialogue or characters are interesting or not, I don't know how much I can say. Those points are largely a matter of opinion. For what it's worth, I found them interesting, save Kat Denning's irritating ditz character.

This may be mildly off topic, but I've been meaning to mention this. Clams are officially the oldest living animals. Sclerochronoligists recently discovered a specimen "between 405 and 410 years old." Clam shells have growth lines similar to tree rings. The clam scientists just added 'em up. Ming the clam was a contemporary of Shakespeare. (sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/07)

The problem with the story is that it's a mish-mash of story arcs and sagas from the comics. The original story: Dr Donald Blake, a brilliant (neuro-?)surgeon, but a man in personal pain (think Dr House with the limp and the cane but without most of the attitude), comes to Norway to vacation among the fjords and enjoy the primal, rock-meets-sea landscape. There's an extraterrestrial invasion with a small landing party, beings of such power that they come only a half-dozen in number to conquer the whole world in a few days. Caught in the crossfire, Dr Blake is trapped inside a cave by a landslide, and comes across an ancient staff. After trying unsuccessfully to dig himself out with it, he strikes it against the ground in frustration. When the staff makes contact with the ground, it transforms into Mjolnir, and Dr Blake into Thor, who realises (or remembers) that, to teach him a lesson in humility, his father wiped his thousands of years of memories and gave him a mortal life to live until the day he would find the hammer again....

These villains lack adequate interest to supply a climactic battle, so the movie fabricates a Metal Giant

Actually, the Destroyer was fabricated by the lunatic imagination of Lee and Kirby.

ebeert you had nothing good to say about this movie. Every movie has at least some good points. Didn't you write that piece of trash Beyond the valley of the dolls? that's right you did! well to be fair I have nothing good to say about your pic. Goes without saying that those with no talent become critics. Branagh has more than you

I liked Thor it had character.
You are just a fa--less piece of crap now

Mr. Ebert I am one of your biggest fans. So it saddens me that we have such dissenting views on this film. I actually expected you to have a positive outlook on "Thor". So many superhero movies are constant action, "Thor" bucks that trend by making him powerless for the majority of the run-time. Its in those sequences we get a sense of Thor's personality. The film firmly establishes Thor's feelings of entitlement and his arrogance. Its resolved by his willingness to sacrifice himself for lesser beings. Isn't that the character development you look for in a superhero movie?

I also don't understand the need for The Destroyer (big robot) to blow up famous landmarks. That's done in so many movies that its became an obvious marketing ploy. Kudos to Branagh for breaking that mold. I got all the landmark smashing I need when I saw 2012.

Familiarity with the source material would help you understand the portrayal of Asgard, The Rainbow Bridge, The Devourer and a few other plot points. However, I don't think its needed to enjoy the film.

I have to question how much you actually paid attention to this film because of your description of the sword in The Destroyer's spine. In fact, it was a spear, and it didn't kill him. It barely slowed him down. He was stopped when Thor regained his worthiness and was able to again wield Mojlnir (the hammer).

There are only a few movies we disagree about, and this is one of them. Napoleon Dynamite being another, but I digress.

Quick necking with Chaz and pay attention to the film next time.

Was their crack at Ebertfest? Judging by your blog (I can't even call it a critique because you apparently watched some other film), you sure smoked a lot of it.

At least get how The Destroyer died in the film right. Something tells me you paid very little attention to anything in this film. I mean we're talking about a guy who calls the Obadiah Stane one of the best comic book movie villains of all-time.

Loki confronting Odin about his true heritage ..... Thor and Odin arguing over what to do with the Frost Giants treachery ..... The argument and ensuing battle between Thor and Loki ..... Are you kidding? No personality in this film with these characters? I guess if Christian Bale showed up growling throughout the entire film like in The Dark Knight, you'd sing it's praise.

If anything Triple H (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, and Hopkins) carried what many feared would be campy material.

That 79% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a clue that you might be out of touch, man. The movie was consistently entertaining, surprisingly so, and with a twisty-minded villain that I'll remember more clearly than Obadiah Stane for a while to come. If that's me being brainwashed by marketing, well, fine; we aren't going to see eye to eye on that, Roger. My wife was resistant to seeing the movie, and came along because I wanted a nice night out with a movie I wanted to see, and came away grinning and fully entertained. Viva la frickin' marketing, then.

Are you telling me I've been a rube all this time? Why didn't you tell me?!

I hope I a3m not too shallow, i enjoyed this movie!

The destroyer (metal giant) wasn't killed by the sword, it stopped it for maybe a minute. Then it got back up. This was pretty obvious, maybe you took a toilet break at that point?

Many valid points, although I did still enjoy the movie, despite being a bit anticlimactic.

Of all mythology, Norse mythology was my favorite. I can't remember any film doing it justice. Beowulf (2007) was well made and in a Norse setting, but it's not strictly Norse mythology, it's Anglo Saxon.

I feel I should like Kenneth Branagh. I certainly don't dislike him, but I've never been thrilled by his acting and I've always been disappointed by his directing. I didn't like his Hamlet at all because he tended to yell when the words begged to be whispered, he tended to over-articulate when the phrase wanted mumbling. I find he's constantly going over the top. I remember Mel Gibson doing a much better Hamlet, and though I've only seen a short clip of it, I believe Ralph Fiennes is one of the few actors able to nail the essence of that role.

But Kenneth Branagh as a director is hopeless in my opinion. He just never seems to go anywhere with his stories. I believe he's borrowed some kind of stage clout from Shakespeare and uses it to convince various studios that he can lead a film crew, but as Motorcycle Boy said in Rumblefish "If you want to lead people, you have to have somewhere to go."

I saw Thor and liked it, mostly for the "Taming of the Thor" bits, which were pretty good. I've seen Fast Five and Source Code since, and man are there some better action movies out there right now.

Reviews like this remind me of the old saying "Those that can't do, teach". In this case I would have to say "Those that can't make a movie, citique." as an aside-" I remember Mama" should be on you top 100 movie list.

With Thor, a trend I was fearing became apparent. The Marvel Studio movies (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk) are all too restricted and familiar. They all have similar plot structures, themes, set pieces, and continuity (which will lead to the Avengers movie and beyond).

This completely takes out any chance of this movies being wildly imaginative and original. Nolan's Batman movies would not be made in this system. Donner's Superman would certainly not be made in this system. All we are getting are routine, mediocre movies.

I liked Marvel Studio's first film, Iron Man, quite a bit, but I think that was just the exception.

Excellent commentary as usual, but I'm curious as to why you couldn't post this as an actual review less than one week after the film opened? Surely "better late than never" hasn't been abolished from the modern film critic's quotationary?

Disappointed in your review and I am a fan of your work. I can't believe you saw the same film I did. Maybe the audience experience was bad. The popcorn?

Anyway... Thor had a very good story line, sufficient action, terrific special effects, comedy (not corny either), beginnings of a romance (I rooted for Thor and Jane to get together), extremely solid acting by all actors (especially Loki), and plenty of great comic geek moments (for example... The appearance of Hawkeye) to make one understand that Thor's director, Kenneth Branaugh, understood the material (had a Shakespeare quality to it) and who he mostly would be catering to.

Watch the film again and seriously stop overthinking it. It's a comic book movie that rivals Iron Man pt.1. Maybe not Superman the Movie, The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2, but still a good film.

Thumbs up for me.

Can we look forward to a star rating to go with this less than glowing review?

Kenneth Branagh has now officially established himself as Hollywood's go-to guy for silly robots tramping through the desert.

(Wild Wild West - remember?)

He is to silly robots as Billy Zane is to sinking shiops!

An honor to post a little comment on a Roger Ebert journal entry. I saw Thor when it opened here in Mexico City. I thought the first act was good. The second act was boring but ocasionally funny. The third act was not as good as the first but better than the second.

So it was like good>lame >sorta good. It kinda reminded me of one of those Hallmark TV movies. The duller ones with a plastic feeling to them where color and customes seem more important than plot.

To me Spiderman 2 still reings supreme as the top cow of superhero movies.

It seems you didn't watch the movie, Roger. Some of the things you complain about are EXPLAINED in the movie.

"
Why can't the Metal Giant attack the Golden Gate Bridge or scale a Trump Tower somewhere? Who cares he if turns a 7-Eleven into a fireball?" The Portal opens in New Mexico. That's where it happens to connect to Earth. If it opened in SanFrancisco, then yes, he would've attacked the Golden Gate Bridge.

"Later there's a meteoric event in which Thor's hammer hurtles to earth and becomes embedded so firmly that it can't be pulled lose by a pickup truck or even the federal government." I hope you're joking. It's not embedded firmly. It can't be wielded by anyone other than Thor. Thor cannot wield because he's not yet the Hero he is destined to be which is why he was sent to Earth to begin with, as a right of passage. Think of it as Spider-man 2 when Peter Parker loses his powers because he no longer has the desire to be a hero.

"I believe, but cannot promise you, that Jotunheim and Asgard are linked by a bridge, although this bridge also seems to be the way Thor reaches Earth, so perhaps it's more of a gateway through time and space" Did you not pay attention? Or I guess you just didn't care to. Fair enough. The Bridge leads to the Gate and the Gatekeeper. The Gate is a portal to the 9 different realms, one of those being Jotunheim, another being Asgard, and another being Earth. This is very clearly an precisely explained on several occasions.

Usually you take into effect that a movie "wasn't made for me". You've done it in plenty of your reviews over the years. You recognize that a movie isn't your cup of tea, but it does WELL with what it's supposed to do FOR its audience.

Thor is for the comic fans, which, you are not. I know you are not because you gave Ang Lee's "Hulk" 3 stars and a positive review. You gave "Daredevil" 3 stars and a positive review. Those 2 are enough to prove that to me.

Thor isn't perfect, and I agree with some of your points, but for me, I can overlook them because this movie entertained me and it solves a piece of the puzzle needed for The Avengers. It has a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes because it's an entertaining, fun, different super Hero movie than we are used to getting. I get sick of all these "realistic" Dark Knight movies. Dark Knight was good, but you gave it 4 stars I believe and you never touched on all the inconsistencies and plot holes that movie has.

A friend and I had to go to the very edge of town to see this in 2D in Paris. It wasn't worth it, to say the least. The film comes off like an overextended trailer for The Avengers.

I think by comparing the film to the Dark Knight, Iron Man and so forth you might have missed what Thor was going for. The former were grown-up movies. They are the progeny of the more recent era in comic books, where comic producers realised that the largest group of people buying their wares were the same people who had followed comics since they were kids but were now in their twenties and thirties. Hence, gritty, mature realism became the name of the game for every major superhero.

Thor, on the other hand, is more in line with what comics were originally about. It's cosmic fantasy for children and adults who want to unhook their brain for a while. It's about a preposterous good guy who has to fulfill a task or learn a lesson so he can go back to bashing monsters. It has no loftier goal or more complicated plot than that. It's trying to be Spider-Man, not Spider-Man 2.

Sorry Mr. Ebert, but this review shows again, that you are too old now to review a movie made for a new generation of movie-goers.
You ask, why the rating on RT is 79%?
Answer is simple, this rating is correct!
Please aks youself, why so many critics,(and movie-goers) are not sharing your opinion?
Maybe because you are wrong?
Think about it!

Sorry Ebert, but I think you are slightly missing the point here.
For me it was a pleasant surprise.

Thor is absolutely silly - always has been, both as legend and comic book, now as film. I was impressed they managed to forge as watchable a film as this out of such unpromising material.
It's not a classic, but I honestly thought it was going to be a total trainwreck a la Wolverine, and while it is a lot of things, its not that.

As for Brannagh, he delivered exactly what he was hired to do - make a fun film for kids and kidults, and pull in a decent cast to do it. He did very well I thought.
Marvel are doing an excellent job of honing the formula which you reference in your review - play it straight only most of the time, and leave room for a touch of humour, and acknowledge the camp.

Finally, I know that Nolan's Batmans have become something of a sacred cow for somehow being above this. If they are its not by much. They are superior film-making technique applied to an equally empty vessel ( a Nolan trait).

I didn't enjoy this either and am kind of surprised it's done as well as it has. Much of it was just boring, even with all the flashy (but crappy) special effects. I am tired of the whole Avengers tie in and it seems they are giving us mediocre films just to tide us over for that. I am hoping it fares better.

Wow you really suck as a critic. Seriously. You can literally feel how full you are of yourself. Your review is so full of incredibly pathetic points it's not even worth mentioning. I honestly am baffled by why you are supposed to be this famous movie critic if this is the best you can do

What a terrible review. Im not 100 percent he saw the movie, sounds more like he saw a very in-depth trailer for it. He says things that are clearly shown to happen in the movie but yet he does not understand why they happen.

Was he not paying attention when ODIN speaks to the hammer and tells EVERYONE that only someone worthy may lift the hammer. Not a bunch of rednecks or the greedy government, Its not because its so deeply imbedded in the ground Robert, its because its MAGIC.

When he mentions special effects not evoking a place.. WTF would you call a completely CGI Asgard Looking very beautiful and full of life?

Sounds to me like he should just stick to his TYPE of movies. If i were a movie critic i would try to learn a few things about the story i was going to see before or after i saw it to give it a decent review. The Asgard we see in the movie is not the Asgard of Norse Mythology, ITS FROM A COMIC BOOK!!!

Has Roger Ebert never been to a small town in the middle of nowhere? One road in, One road out? He complains that the town in New Mexico just stops and runs into the desert. Well Roger, that type of *beep* occurs in super small towns like that. I suggest you take a ride through this amazingly vast country of ours and take a gander.

Who really gives a *beep* what he thinks of anymore.

BTW Gene Siskel would have loved THOR.

There are not "three scientists" in this movie. There are two: Jane and Dr. Selvig.

It IS mentioned when Thor lands on Earth that he is mortal now. He tells his friends as much when they arrive to save him: "I am just a man..."

The Destroyer is not killed by the sword through its "spine." All that does is slow it down for a moment. It is killed later when Thor gets his hammer back.

And I cannot believe you are criticizing the fact that the Destroyer messed up a small town in New Mexico. I thought that was a welcome departure from the big city destruction we see in every other movie of this kind.

You will always be my favorite film critic, but sometimes you get so many details wrong that it is difficult to take you seriously.

Thanks for warning me off this one. I hate it when I wind up lured in to a theater only to be disappointed.

Well,Roger,tell us how you REALLY feel.

I saw this movie twice last Friday, once with a friend I review movies with (2guystalking.com) and once with my nine year old daughter. I enjoyed it both times. I am a fan of the original source material, the Norse myths, and a bigger fan of Marvel comics. I recognized the Destroyer, the “Metal Giant” from the comics and thought it’s inclusion in the movie was great. My nine year old didn’t have any problem understanding that the Destroyer was sent to kill Thor; I’m not sure how you missed that plot point as there were admittedly few of them to miss. I think you must have started typing this review before the movie was over as the “sword through his spine” did not in fact kill the Destroyer. Call me crazy but I don’t think the third act needed a giant mechanical spider that destroys famous bridges and landmark buildings.

The story was rushed, and some of it was obviously intended for fans of the comic. In this respect I think the movie could have used an extra twenty minutes or so. The movie was indeed a setup for the Avengers. Some of the actors were sadly just cashing checks. As a fan of the Thor comics I can tell you that with few exceptions the characters portrayed in the movie were spot on for their comic counterparts. I saw this in 2D, I agree with you about that at least, and had a good time at a movie theatre. There has to be something said for that.

Clearly, I saw a different movie. I'd recommend watching the Thor I saw, which was a fun adventure movie with witty writing, likeable protagonists and beautiful settings. (No, I've never read the comic.) A movie not without flaws, but made with love and skill.

I'm sorry, Roger, but with some of the weird asides in this review (such as the one about the location of Asgard, or the idea that the characters somehow break the fourth wall or comment on the plot), I really feel that all you saw was the movie you wanted to see.

I quite enjoyed Thor and will be bringing my kids to see it (my 2nd viewing, their first). I guess I have a different viewpoint as I am a huge comic book fan, but I am also a business professional, and single father in my 30's so I am quite against the normal stereotypes.

Thor did what it had to do to be an origin story (of sorts) for Thor who will be critical in The Avengers movie (you will understand if you stayed after the credits).

1 - It established Thor as first the brash arrogant warrior who believed he was better then everyone. Then once he became human he was forced to deal with his morality and realize that more then just a strong arm is required, sacrifice and compassion is necessary as well.

2 - Loki is a very nuanced character and it is clear to see why he did what he did. At first he did his mischievous acts because he was jealous and wanted to mess with Thor. Then when he realizes who and what he is he was furious and lashed out in the only way he could. There are issues with his battle with Thor, but I quite enjoyed the character.

3 - The large metal monster, Destroyer, is integral to the entire Asgard mythos and was represnted in an excellent fasion...I did think it was dealt with too easily in the end, but still it was very well done.

4 - I will agree that the cast was relatively thin, but that is OK, this is a movie about Thor and his journey, not Jane Foster's. Shje is simply there to help shape Thor into a better person/God so he can redeem himself and save the day in the end.

5 - It is a Movie. About Asgardian Gods. It was fun. It was respectful of the COMIC BOOK source material. which again was about ASGARDIAN GODS! (just to point out that this is not war and peace we are talking about)

6 - At the end of the day this movie is a setup for the Avengers film and it did a great job, I think the reason it is rating well is because many current film critics do love comic books, do love a fun movie and this is what was delivered. Was it perfect? No, but it was good fun and did the job of representing Thor that needed to be done.

Would it be TOO much to ask you Mr. Ebert sir to do a BIT of research into Norse mythology and how the realms of Asgard, Midgard, and Nifelheim ect. connect together VIA (Yggdrasil) the tree of life before you make a blog post in which half of it you are decrying how these places are connected and how one travels between them unscathed ect.?

I mean honestly. Whatever happened to people questioning things in films enough to look them up and educate themselves?

Hell, I'm not even asking you to crack a textbook...seven minutes at the Wikipedia entry for Asgard will tell you all you need to know.

...and let's not use the argument that the film should have explained it for you, because I am sure if they did that you'd have issues with pacing or infodumps ect.

Even though in the past I've taken issue with similar gripes that had no purpose in your reviews, like your complaint about believability in THE MUMMY RETURNS when Fraser can outrun the rising sun...in a film where they have RAISED a MUMMY from the dead and Egyptian deities run rampant, you were concerned with the fact that Fraser can run superhumanly, I usually find myself respectful of your reviews.

All I am asking is spend five minutes looking up your issues.

Another person you ought to look up is Loki. He's not meant to be disguised as good. He is evil through and through. The god of Mischief in fact...so mentioning him needing to wear a sign saying he can't be trusted is ridiculous when his purpose in EXISTENCE is evil and bad things.

Sorry, but this review is poorly presented in my eyes, and from someone who's reviews I normally respect. Every once in a while I feel you stumble VIA some prejudice you have. Which kind of sucks.

I wish movies would just abandon the obligatory "love" interest if they're not even going to try to do it right.

Why is Thor so in love with Natalie Portman's character? She doesn't DO anything. She doesn't have much of a personality. She and Thor really didn't seem to do much bonding aside from sitting by a fire for a couple of minutes. Why does Thor, who is a god and presumably meets a lot more fascinating people on a day-to-day basis, fall for the blandest "astrophysicist" in the nine realms?

The answer, of course, is because the plot of the movie demands it and shall not be denied. But during the movie I sat in my seat and echoed Michael Bluth by saying, "Really? Her?"

While I was college, I used to so admire the Great Roger Ebert. Alas.

As far as Thor is concerned, I enjoyed it to a large extent. Not every movie can be an academy award winner. Perhaps, Mr. Ebert, you've seen too many films and just can't seem to enjoy the popcorn flicks anymore. They're just not smart enough for you. They're beneath you.

On the other hand, nerds, such as myself, enjoyed the wonder of other worlds and mythology being transferred to the silver screen. Inaccurate? Definitely. Fun to watch? Undoubtedly. I suppose the reason why you cannot remember "Loki" is because you've lost some of that sense of wonder and have become slightly cynical towards these type of films. As you stated, it was no "inconsolable loss" not to watch it in 3D.

Unfortunately, in the 21st century, the era of Twilight Sagas, not every film will make it to the Criterion Collection and some will be above average fun, but about 70% will still be mediocre or just pure "shit," as you so succinctly put it. Nevertheless, I agree that 3D is unnecessary in 99% of the films that have used it.
However, some are just fun to watch in that overpaid, overused, oversold method of pandering. I got to see the film for free and thought it was enjoyable, 3D unnecessary, but wouldn't mind taking my family and paying for the tickets the next time. Special effect/Visual effects are commonplace, unfortunately, and work well for a lot of movies. I think Thor is one of those movies.

As a piece of advice from someone who's been watching/reading your reviews for the last decade, perhaps you ought to stay away from all these films in the future. After all, they are no "inconsolable loss."

Be well, sir.

A faithful reader.

I'm going to stand up for this film. I normally think Roger is right on the button but this review was a bit mean-spirited, I think. Especially comparing it unfavourably to the likes of Iron Man and Spider-Man 2. Thor was one of my favourite comic book heroes as a child (along with Iron Man) but I think this was a difficult one to crack and Branagh and his team have done it proud. It is what it is - a comic book hero movie. Hemsworth is really fine and ably supported. One could go deeper and argue the critique of the god characterization, for example. For starters, they are not gods but aliens who have been 'adopted' as gods by humans. Therefore, they behave like gods - including the arrogance. Thor himself gains a lot from his interaction with humans. As for Loki, well he's mischievous and pretty all-powerful. Surely makes for a great villain and one to knock the likes of Obidiah Stane out of the park (however much one thinks Bridges the better actor - which is questionable). Add to this his complicated family relationship with Thor and it's all pretty satisfying. But enough of this... it's great fun! And well done. That's why people like it. The effects are fine, of this type, and at the end of it I'm sure most people will go into The Avengers completely accepting Hemsworth's Thor when he arrives stage left into the proceedings. I agree about the 3D, though. Tiresome in most films.

I'd still love to know what Roger thought of Sucker Punch, though! I can guess.

Roger: You've often said that a critic's job is to help you determine whether or not the reader would enjoy the movie reviewed. In that case, your review of “Thor” has failed -- a rarity in your case.

I suspect that after Ebertfest you may have spent less than full attention to this movie. You indicate, for example that "Thor's hammer hurtles to earth and becomes embedded so firmly that it can't be pulled lose [sic]". Not so - Odin put a spell on the hammer that meant it could only be lifted by someone worthy of it's power. Neither Thor, before his lesson in humility, nor Loki could lift the hammer. It also explains the very clever way that Thor immobilizes Loki in the climactic battle: he just puts the hammer on Loki's chest.

Aside from the factual error, I completely disagree with your opinion of the character of Loki. You say “Consider even the comparable villains (Lex Luthor, the Joker, Doc Ock and Obadiah Stane). Memories of all four come instantly to mind.”

Seriously? The Gene Hackman Luthor was an ineffective buffoon, Spacey was completely unmemorable. If you remember anything of Stane, it is that he was played by Jeff Bridges, but name one interesting thing Stane did or said as a character. Molina was fine as Doc Ock, but in both that case and Bridges, CGI carried the bulk of the “acting”. I’ll grant you the Ledger Joker was more interesting but that was a once-in-a-generation performance. Nicholson’s Joker was camp, with a capital C.

But revisit Loki’s character arc: He grows up alongside his brother Thor, knowing Thor is the one destined for the throne, knowing also Thor is inadequate for the job. He subtly provokes Thor and his allies into an unwise assault on the Frost Giants, but risks his own life to join them on the sortie. Loki discovers that he is immune to the Frost Giant’s touch, and then is informed he is himself a Frost Giant, adopted by Odin and raised as a God. When Odin falls ill at that point, a lesser character would have tried to kill Odin on the spot. Loki calls for aid. Even his supposed plan to have the Frost Giants kill his father is a ruse so that Loki can disable the Frost Giants himself.

Loki is thinking three steps ahead of everyone else in Asgard, and upon examination, genuinely seem to have Asgard’s best interests in mind. He is defeated, not by Thor, but by the interference of his beloved father. There’s a reason both Odin and Thor mourn the supposed loss of Loki. They both truly love him.

This movie is indeed Shakespearean, but as in Julius Caesar, the critical character is not in the title, but the supposed villain. Were it not for marketing, it should have been named “The Tragedy of Loki”.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The most surprising thing is how positively this film has been received by mainstream critics and comic book fans alike. In a world where we've seen movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight, how does a movie this middling and unremarkable get a pass?

Sadly, I must completely disagree, as this is my favourite film of the year so far (although admittedly, that isn't saying much). Watching Thor reminded me of seeing Star Trek a couple years ago - yes, in terms of intelligence and brilliance, it didn't get close to blockbusters like Dark Knight or Inception. But it mixed action, CGI spectacle, romance, comedy, and just a big bunch of fun to create an enjoyable time at the movies. It's been so long since I've seen a film (been watching a lot of great, but depressing, indies lately) and actually had so much dumb fun at a movie theatre. Call me crazy, but I'll take a well made dumb movie like Thor by a director like Branagh over a lazy fifth entry in a lazy action series like Fast Five.

So yeah, I don't agree. I even would go so far as to say this is maybe the best Marvel movie yet, although Spidey 2 is still probably the champ. In all fairness though, it also helps when you're watching a film with a girl you love and every minute her face lights up and she whispers "God I love this movie!" Do you believe in movie love through osmosis, Roger?

I don’t think you can expect something award worthy from this type of movie. It excels at what it’s meant to do, to entertain the audience. Maybe you were tired when you saw this film at a Monday night.

Instead, if I look at The Dark Knight, that is a film given a rating for higher than 90%, for what? I didn’t find anything great about that movie except The Joker. That was it.

Also, when you said 'Why can't the Metal Giant attack the Golden Gate Bridge or scale a Trump Tower somewhere? Who cares he if turns a 7-Eleven into a fireball?”

I suppose that Metal Giant is there because Thor is there too for killing him is the mission. Why destroy Trump Tower, when Thor is dining a in New Mexico? But this will look like an argument between two fanboys in a comic bookshop instead of a discussion in critic’s website.

The problem with Thor is he was never that interesting a character. Whatever movie was going to be made about him was going to be rather thin. I did enjoy the movie slightly more than you. Maybe that's a testament to Branagh's directing. In retrospect, I do feel like I was conned a bit by a couple of charming actors, easy throwaway dialogue and an abundance of cgi.

Being a collector of the Thor comics, I am certain I enjoyed this movie more than those with no previous knowledge of the graphic novels.

Various parts of the movie would be lost upon you if you did not know, for example "Dr Donald Blake" was Thor's alter-ego in the comic, or that Clint Barton, is Hawkeye of the Avengers.

The history of the Warriors Three and Sif's strained relationship with Thor are hinted at in the movie but never developed. Simply put, there wasn't really enough time in the movie to explain all of the back story of all of the characters. Like Harry Potter, you need to read the book before you can really appreciate every scene in the movies.

Chris Hemsworth did a spot-on interpretation of the character of Thor. Yes, Thor was a brash egotistical, shallow, arrogant young man. The purpose of his banishment was for him to learn humility, or in the movie, the value of self sacrifice. This was essential character development and a pivotal story point, also the significance may have been lost due to a lack of character development to begin with.

This was the material they had to work with. I believe they struck a decent balance between remaining true to the comic book, while keeping it fresh enough to develop a new audience.

Listening to the people in the theatre during the credits, the happiest seemed to be those comparing the movie to the comic book.

Wouldn't you say it's a little refreshing to see the camp brought back to comic book films? "Thor"didn't take itself too seriously, so I can respect it for that. It was just trying to be fun. Also, as a side question, what did you find so fascinating about the villain in "Iron Man?" He seemed pretty two-dimensional to me. I agree that this film pales in comparison with "Superman," but you can't find anything positive to say about it? The visuals? The acting? Anything?

I was honestly a bit annoyed that my friends were so eager to drop $21 on an IMAX 3D movie that I wasn't even interested to watch in the first place. However, I begrudgingly watched my way through the dimly screened movie. In spite of myself, I found myself enjoying it. I had never found any interest in Marvel's rendition of Thor, and in fact Thor was never even my favorite Norse god. And while I watched the film I was nitpicking at all the details of the movie (That's not how Odin lost his eye, Loki's not pure half frost giant, etc). I was also never very enthusiastic about the obligatory SHIELD storyline that these Avengers movies are going through, as it interrupts and even eclipses the actual story that the character arcs are supposed to be following (Iron Man 2 was the first, Thor is the current one). But for some reason I left the theater somewhat enjoying myself. The movie never was too serious about its hero, which is good, because I could never take a superhero god with wings on his helmet and a hammer seriously.

I'm not gonna say anything to try and change your opinions, but if I go into a movie like Thor and walk out with a smile on my face, than in my opinion its a good movie. It's based on a comic book for christs sake! Lets not forget that Ebert gave Transformers 1 a glowing review and your going to tell me that that movie is better than Thor? I enjoyed both but Transformers is mindless action and doesn't need to be anything more, Thor I would put on par with the original Iron Man and thought the casting was perfect and Brannagh did a great job with the toughest superhero adaptation to date.

I'm not sure what movie you were watching, but you got a lot of things wrong. I don't refer to your opinion of the movie, but rather some factual and logical errors on your part for not liking it.

"The land (sphere? state of mind? heaven?) known as Asgard is described in Norse mythology as being near Troy, or perhaps in Asia Minor. In the movie, as nearly as I can gather, it is not of this earth and must be elsewhere in the universe"

Well this movie is not an adaption of Norse mythology. It's a film based on a comic book. In turn, the creators of the Thor comic book series used locations and names and abilities from the mythology, but in no way attempted to recreate the myths into a modernized form. They used some of the concepts to nearly identical and some they changed according to comic book universe. Such as in the actual mythology, the Gods would be the most powerful beings, but in the comic books they are not. (just one example)

"Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on"

Does he? What do you based that on? The actual Norse mythology? Or the comic book?

"The land (sphere? state of mind? heaven?) known as Asgard is described in Norse mythology as being near Troy, or perhaps in Asia Minor"

If you actually knew anything about real Norse mythology, you would know Asgard is not their version of Heaven nor is it in Troy or Asia minor. Asgard is separate from Earth (called Midgard).

"I believe, but cannot promise you, that Jotunheim and Asgard are linked by a bridge,"

Well if you don't know for sure, then don't bring it up. You don't (or shouldn't) make a review based on unverified assumptions.

"I mention she's an astrophysicist because behaves more like a Storm Chaser, cruising the desert in a van and peering into the skies, which won't get you far in astrophysics. "

So now you're an expert on astrophysics when you couldn't even get Norse mythology right. If she is studying/monitoring a phenomenon, then driving out to it is essential. In the movie, it seems it did get her far.

"Later there's a meteoric event in which Thor's hammer hurtles to earth and becomes embedded so firmly that it can't be pulled lose by a pickup truck or even the federal government."

Being embedded firmly is not why no one could get it, it's the spell that Odin placed on it.

"These villains lack adequate interest to supply a climactic battle, so the movie fabricates a Metal Giant, sends him to the New Mexico town, and has him blast fiery rays that blow up gas stations real good but always miss his targets. He is apparently killed by a sword through his spine, but why does he need a spine since when his mask lifts we can see his head is an empty cavern?"

Most "bad guys" miss their targets in tons of movies. He wasn't apparently killed through the spine. The Warriors 3 (their comic book name) probably didn't know how to kill Destroyer (your metal giant) seeing as it was usually locked away. A hollow head doesn't equated, necessarily, a hollow body.

"Why can't the Metal Giant attack the Golden Gate Bridge or scale a Trump Tower somewhere? Who cares he if turns a 7-Eleven into a fireball?"

I am starting to wonder if you even watched the movie. Loki ordered the Destroyer to kill Thor, Thor was in the little town, not Trump Tower or the Golden Gate Bridge.

"I wonder with a dread fear if someone in Hollywood, stuck with a movie about a Norse god,"

It's not a movie about a Norse god, it's a movie based on a comic book character. The comic book character (and subsequent related characters) are taken from the mythology, but the books were not meant to follow the mythology completely.

I'm not upset over you not liking the movie, but I do believe you should have had some better reasoning, especially with a public review.

I found the broad, unembarrassed hokeyness to be refreshing after a number of uber-realistic comic adaptations in recent years. I appreciate a return to a time when extravagantly-costumed heroes and villains shouted at each other with ultimatums of doom. It reminds me of why I liked comic book movies in the first place as a youngster.

While I agree this movie won't win any Oscars, I had a good time watching it.

Some of the movie reviews I read from you seem to be tainted by a lack of understanding of the source material. Like when you say Thor's hammer struck the earth so hard, it embedded in the ground and couldn't be removed. Mjolnir (the hammer) can't be wielded by anyone but those who are worthy. That's in the comic books (it's also mentioned pretty clearly in the film). It can't be removed by a truck or the average New Mexican because they aren't worthy to wield it's power. That's also why Thor can't get it immediately after arriving on Earth.

That being said... it was a bit thin on what exactly he did to become worthy. There's the cliche "I totally learned what it's like to be Human from the Humans" angle, but it seems like it was a cliff-notes version of that cliche. The "romance" between Portman and Hemsworth also seemed to spring out of nowhere.

There were other problems with the film, but overall I had fun watching it. I don't watch movies for a living like you do so I don't have the skills necessary to properly review a movie, but this review seems like it was a review for other reviewers.

This movie is a failure if you are comparing it to the 70mm version of Hamlet. It does not fail if you are going to watch a magical viking smash things with a hammer.

They can't all be The Dark Knight...

I've been reading comics since I was seven years old. It may not be with the same voracity these day, but I'll still pick a few up each month. So when I say that this movie was terrible, know that it is from someone who could see what they were TRYING to do. I can swallow a lot of bullshit when it comes to superheroes, but this was just unacceptable. This movie could have been so much more than another setup for the Avengers movie. It boggles my mind how they squandered Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman to such a degree. This movie wasn't about redemption blah blah blah. It was about how Marvel Studios has decided that special effects are enough to pull a profit on a movie that they clearly weren't interested in making.

You are an old man and a fool

Ebert: Thank you for taking such care while drafting your comment.

I didn't go see this as a comic book movie, but more of a new take on Norse mythology. To me it was more of a retelling of The Prodigal Son with stuff blowing up. That's what the Bible parable was missing all along!

I actually really liked Thor the character, moreso in the beginning of the film when he's acting like a prick to his friends, his father, and his brother. His brilliant one liners, such as, "AND YOU ARE AN OLD MAN AND A FOOL!" just sprinkle with wisdom far beyond his years as an adolescent god of Asgard. His master battle strategy of attacking the Frost Giants (really, what could be a more brilliant name for your enemies?!) and assuming he'd get out alive is exactly how most wars should be fought. Why can't all armies of the world take some advice from good ol Thor and just attack without thinking?! It always works out in the end!

Which brings us to Earth, and Thor's fish out of water reactions to us Earthlings, particularly sweet Natalie Portman, who is instantly smitten by our big oaf. All of the characters in this movie are supplements to Thor's arc, and hey, let's be honest, at least he had a little bit of character development, even if it was purely in service to the absurd plot. Chris Hemsworth does bring some charm to Thor, it's just tragic that Thor the character is so lame! I kept waiting for him to say, "I crush rock with hammer! Haha!" At least his six pack abs gave me something to swoon over...

God Bless You, Mr. Ebert.

I can't understand why people like this movie.

I went with three friends. I told them it was going to be terrible - the trailer made this quite clear. But the Rotten Tomatoes review meter convinced them otherwise so I thought, heck, why not?

Turns out that by the first five minutes, we knew this was more or less an abomination of a movie. If nothing else, though, I can say it's an adequate comedy - the contrived, meaningless plot turns and hollow, soulless characters can create stupidly comic situations of grand proportions. The line about the Hubble telescope had me laughing for a good two minutes. What human being, let alone a paid screenwriter, would commit these words to ink?

Anyhow, thank you again for this review. I've been waiting all week for it, hoping you would get to the bottom of its ridiculousness and you most certainly have. God Bless You.

Kenny Branagh direction = pretentious production
Kenny Branagh acting = preening actore-ish performance

Source material = comic books? Really?

As it happens, Loki was on my mind for quite a while after the film, since I could not for the life of me figure out what his deal was. Was he seeking the attention of his father? The throne? He said that he never wanted the throne. Did he want to destroy the Jotuns to erase his origins? Did he care at all for his brother Thor and the kingdom? And why did he have the metal giant turn away from Thor only to back-palm him a second later.

All in all, here is a character that could have been made really deep and interesting, yet somehow comes short of that expectation.

As for the rest of the movie: we've all seen worse, but also much better. In the end, some viewers are probably satisfied with good-looking special effects and seeing comic books on the big screen, and know what to expect from a movie such as this one.

Well, I loved Thor as a kid and as a young adult and as a no-longer-young adult. If you went back in time and showed 1965 Little Gary this movie, he would have been mostly thrilled beyond reason, but a little dismayed that Dr. Don Blake was a throwaway and not a crucial element in Thor's early career. Little Gary would have especially good things to say about the character of Loki and the actor who played him to perfection. He would have wondered why the Frost Giants came with chins like Aunt May as drawn by Sturdy Steve Ditko.

Nice to get in touch with my Inner Child again. Thanks, Rollickin' Roger Ebert!

Holy crap - Kenneth Branagh directed Thor???? Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Er, no pun intended.

So, what would be your star rating for the film?

It seems you quite despised it.

While I truly enjoyed Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man, I can't say the same for the other two you mention.

For me, Batman Begins was far superior to The Dark Knight. The Joker was never a worthy nemesis for Batman; he's just a mad dog that needs to be put down.

Superman, which I've commented upon elsewhere, was a pleasant film, but it didn't portray the awe and majesty of all that Superman represents. Compared to the comics, its divergent take on Jor-El troubled me when I was younger, and to this day seems more of a cheat to showcase Brando in an inflated role.

As much as I liked I Iron Man, I thought Stane was the weak link.

I was a huge comics aficionado in my youth, so I was looking forward to the Thor. Your reviews are usually dead-on accurate, but I will still hope for the best.

Here's a Thor joke I heard a while back:

Thor would often travel to Midgard, disguise himself, and find pleasure with the young female mortals. After one particularly energetic liaison, he felt guilty with his deception, so he revealed his true identity to the comely beauty.

He said, "I will not lie to you, I am Thor."

She replied, "Tho am I, honey, tho am I."

The vehement hatred that pours out of the computer screen; an almost unrelentless assault on the latest comic-to-film Marvel MacHero deemed too stodgy and one dimensional. Behold, Bile Man arises!

My wife asked me if I was interested in seeing the new Thor movie. I told her that Ebert still hadn't posted his review, which made me suspicious. (Nothing about the character or previews did anything to arouse my interest, mind you.) We just read it together, over much laughter. The movie itself may offer nothing of value, but at least your review is entertaining!

I'm old enough to remember summers before Big Movie Events became the standard (Jaws, Star Wars, etc.). Now these movies--"franchises"--have become not only the standard, but, well, STANDARD...as in merely adequate. And when I see "reviewers" and fan boys alike jumping on these over-hyped and half-baked bandwagons, I am reminded of nothing so much as dedicated sports fans, ready to support their team come hell or high water regardless of the current line-up's merit on the field. And God forbid that someone with taste (ie., adults) should dissent from the Pavlovian.

Thanks, Roger!

The trend lately in comic book super hero movies is to take what is essentially ridiculous, set them in the real world, and make it seem possible but unlikely (Iron Man, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight, Punisher, X-Men). This movie takes fantasy and presents it as such.Like if Superman had taken place on Krypton. There is a logical leap of faith one must be willing to take to get the most out of these movies, and I completely understand when people aren't willing to. I am the same way with horror movies.

You criticized the realm of Asgard's design (it was repeatedly referred to as a realm throughout the movie - one taking a critical look, even if they hated it, ought to have picked up on that). What would you have it look like? Think of the garish monuments the pharoahs had constructed to celebrate their own god-like personas. It is not as if those who are worshipped as gods or perceive themselves as such are in any way bound by modesty. The design has to be indulgent and garish to be true to it's own mythology.

Also, I am getting mighty tired of the cynicism pervasive in the criticism of this one movie - how it is merely a set piece for the Avengers movie. These comic book movies are being produced and creatively controlled by a comic book company. These are movies by the geek, for the geek, of the geek. Naturally, they are huge budget, and any company looking to stay afloat would hope they earn lots of money, but Marvel is doing something that few studios have had the guts to attempt - multi movie, multi character story arcs told over a span of 5+ years and uniting them all into a single franchise. I admire the ambition, and have been pleased with the efforts so far.

I will agree with you on one point however - all this talk of Shakespeare really needs to stop. Thor is a comic book inspired by, but not bound by, Norse mythology.

I can't really argue against the points you make. The movie is loud and dumb and yes, full of stuff getting blowed up real good. And yet... I liked it. I liked Hemsworth as Thor and Idris Elba as Heimdall. I liked a lot of the humor, slapstick though it may be. I really liked the look of Asgard, which reminded me in favorable ways of Ming's capital in the1980s Flash Gordon film (a resemblance which would have been enhanced had they gone with the original plan to have BRIAN BLESSED playing Odin).

I do agree that the gods themselves make for boring main characters on screen. Any story that puts a god at its center tends to be rather dull (including things like The Passion of the Christ). They work much better as supporting characters either helping or hindering our hero (see: Clash of the Titans, The Odyssey, the stories of Heracles and really most of Greek mythology in general, though a story about Zeus' affair with Ganymede could be interesting).

Despite these flaws, I think there is a lot of entertainment value to be had here. All the Asgardian actors are at least fun to watch and it does seem like everyone had a good time making the movie. And while I'm not a comic book nut and have never read a single issue of Thor, there were enough in-jokes that I caught to make me happy.

So, yeah, not a perfect film. On the other hand, a less-than-great movie made by Branagh is still light years better than a "good" movie made by Michael Bay.

Roger, don't worry about the slings and arrows you're getting here. I haven't read a Thor comic in some years, but I enjoyed them reasonably well. However, just because the comics could be fun doesn't mean this movie is any good.

P.S. Fellow readers, remember that you can enjoy something without it being "good," and everyone doesn't have to share your tastes.

I haven't seen "Thor", so I can't comment on it. But, if I may, I will comment on the comments that have been left here.

I'm kind of amazed that so many people have no idea what film criticism is about. The goal of criticism isn't to be hip, trendy, or in touch. Instead, the goal is simply to "call it like you see it". A good critic isn't necessarily one who agrees with the majority of audience members. Rather, it is someone who can articulate their opinion of a movie clearly and persuasively. (And by this definition, Roger is unquestionably a great critic.)

When Roger watched "Thor", his job was not to ask himself, "Now, what will most people think of this movie?" His job was to ask, "What do I think of this movie?" He saw the movie, and he had an opinion on it, and he wrote about it in such a way that his opinion was clear. If he had done otherwise, he would have been doing a disservice to his readers. In other words, regardless of anybody else's opinion of the movie, he wrote a good review.

For the record, I don't see every movie the same way Roger does. I loved "Dead Poets Society" and "Gladiator", was lukewarm on "Dark City", and hated, hated, HATED "Slumdog Millionaire". But I continue to read him because of the quality (and humor) of his writing, and because of the clarity of his viewpoints. That is, I read him because he's a good critic, not because I always agree with him.

If you want to find out what most people think, check out the Rotten Tomatoes. If you want to read good reviews, hang out on this site. And if you insist on being hateful, cruel, and mean-spirited at Roger's expense, grow up.

Roger,

I respect your opinion and generally agreed with your reviews from previous superhero movies. But I politely disagree with your review on the movie Thor.

I think in order to enjoy this movie...you have to accept the premise that its based on a extraterrestrial prince Viking god who has a Shakespearean conflict with his family and is banished to another planet without his powers and learns to adjust to his new-found humility. So there is a certain amount of ridiculousness and absurdity to be expected.

Also, you criticized the character of Thor in the fact he does not have a deep or complex personality like Batman or Iron Man. One can compare Thor's character arc to Superman. They are both alien beings with god-like powers who were sent to Earth by their fathers. They both fall in love with "mortal" Earthling women. And they are both fairly straightforward with respect to personality. I just do not understand why there's a double standard with respect to your acceptance of Superman and the rejection of Thor.

And I also believe it's unfair to compare this movie to The Dark Knight, Spider-man 2, and Superman:The Movie since they are based on "upper-tier" comic book heroes with richer background material.

If you look past the silly premise...you'll find rich performances and great chemistry amongst Hemsworth, Hopkins, and Hiddleston. I thought Hopkins brought the right combination of power and sage wisdom to the role of Odin. And Hiddleston's performance of Loki was spot on with respect to his inner conflict between the love of his father and the resentment and jealousy of his brother. And Hemsworth like Christopher Reeve in Superman...brought forth a charismatic performance in which he played along to the absurdity of the events of the film.

True...the script could have been more fleshed out and the action sequences could have been more imaginative.

But if you decide to go see Thor again... wait until you're at the same mood as when you gave a 4 stars review to the Angelina Jolie movie Salt (in which was enjoyable but completely ludicrous). It's entertaining if you allow it to be.

Vic M.

I saw Thor and Fast Five on the same day, and I liked both of them. Given your review of Fast Five, I thought you'd have the same kind of reaction to this movie - enjoy it for what it is and don't expect it to be (boring) Oscar bait.

I was strongly considering seeing this movie, and waffling only because you had not reviewed it. Thanks for saving me the money.

Looks like that makes two awful movies in a row for Natalie Portman. Is there a rule stating that after you win an Oscar you can star in as many bad movies as you like?

From your review(i hate to even call i that) it seems you dislike the movie for not explaining how the Bifrost works or how they live on that mountain.

How is it you can take other movies that pit you in the midst of unexplainable elements(inceptions ability to go into ones dreams) and accept them but with Thor you bash the living shit out of it because of that.

"Here is a film that is scoring 79% on Rotten Tomatoes" That can be misleading. Many critics agreed with you and wrote that the plot is silly and the characters are one-dimensional, but felt that the movie is nevertheless entertaining, and that's why their reviews were classified as positive.

I am one of those puzzled by the positive reactions to this movie. I found it to be dull, plodding, and confused. My opinion for this is that Thor is trying to be two movies and, as a result, does not succeed at either.

The first is a story about a god who is forced to become mortal in order to learn humility. The second is a fantasy movie about Norse mythology set in Asgard. Either story would make for a good movie (though I, personally, think that the first has a much more interesting set-up) but trying to combine them meant that the filmmakers ended up splitting their efforts and couldn't do justice to either. Each plot is half-baked, hitting the requisite notes without building up their characters enough to make us care.

This is especially true of Asgard, which comes off as the sort of run-of-the-mill fantasy kingdom that Dungeons and Dragons games are based around, instead of a vibrant and colorful world. Compare the difference between Asgard and the Shire in Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson invested a lot of time in building up his fantasy world and making it feel like a real place. Brannagh does not.

I don't mind Marvel creating movies to build up to its upcoming "Avengers" movie. The interplay between different franchises was one of the most entertaining parts of their comic universe and I think that the opportunity to set a variety of superhero stories in the same cinematic universe was an inspired idea. I just wish they'd taken more care with this particular installment.

I am a late "silver age" comic reader and Thor perfectly met my expectations. It had enough of the old comic's sensibilities balanced with some contemporary popcorn movie tricks of the trade.

I love the fact that all of the superhero movies coming out these days have different tone, style and purpose. I can be blown away by Dark Knight or enjoy the movie savviness of Iron Man, and even the back-up feature goofiness of a Ghost Rider.

Anyone who collected comics knows this is exactly how comics were/are - stories produced month after month, ultimatley achieving the full spectrum of epics of the ages to epic silliness.

In comics, there are different writers and artists all the time trying diverse approaches. I enjoyed Thor - congrats to the team who created it.

I am a late "silver age" comic reader and Thor perfectly met my expectations. It had enough of the old comic's sensibilities balanced with some contemporary popcorn movie tricks of the trade.

I love the fact that all of the superhero movies coming out these days have different tone, style and purpose. I can be blown away by Dark Knight or enjoy the movie savviness of Iron Man, and even the back-up feature goofiness of a Ghost Rider.

Anyone who collected comics knows this is exactly how comics were/are - stories produced month after month, ultimatley achieving the full spectrum of epics of the ages to epic silliness.

Comics had different writers and artists all the time trying diverse approaches to their stories and characters. This is OK for the movies as well. I enjoyed Thor - congrats to the team who created it.

I too am perplexed by the film's positive response, both from critics and fans. I thought it was an awful film, and I'm pretty forgiving about this stuff (I even kind of liked Iron Man 2). I'm glad that I have you and Armond White to agree with me, which is a rare occurrence.

I loved the "I need a horse" line, though.

Just curious, did you find the abundance of tilted shots to be a terrible distraction? I realize that it's a tradition of some (often lesser) comic book films, but honestly it gave me a headache, seemed to have no purpose, and made the editing feel choppy. I'm surprised you didn't mention it, even though it is the least of the film's problems.

Dear God, please send me the money to make a really bad movie so that Roger Ebert can review it and I can read it. I promise I'll use John Travolta with some kind of head-shaping makeup.

Remember when Sir Laurence Olivier started taking dopey parts for big money? How they said he must be saving up a nest egg? Is that what Anthony Hopkins is doing now?

You long familiar with my film critic's career know I have the true answer for Kenneth Branagh's being tapped for director. Dollars to donuts he directed the whole thing with his shirt off. Click on my name. Scroll. Don't wait for me to use that joke again.

It was years before curiosity had me look at "Battlefield Earth," finally, after one of my favorite Ebert reviews ever. By jove, it was the most expensive high school pageant ever made, just as he'd written. It'll prob'ly be years for this one, too.

Maybe more. I'm still reeling from that World Wrestling Federation version of "Beowulf" where Anthony Hopkins didn't growl or grunt nearly as much as he may as well have.

I'm one of these honest passive aggressive movie viewers who couldn't even stand Mel Gibson's attempt at the Passion Play. Thankya Jesus I didn't grow up Druid (they're still around, y'know) or I'd probably be swinging an axe at a screening of "Thor," by the sound of it.

It's an interesting question: how to translate major myths that fascinated people for thousands of years onto screen with actors and all those egos? I've winced at every one of them... except "Sita Sings the Blues."

Anyhow I think Wagner probably did get some of the music right.

"The failure of "Thor" begins at the story level, with a screenplay that essentially links special effects."

"perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children."

And yet, Avatar gets 4 stars? Compared to that film, Thor's story is rocket science. I honestly thought Thor was very good, pushing the superhero genre in a more fantastical direction. However painful it may be for some people, special effects are the future of blockbusters. Branagh uses them in really cool ways, as Campbell no doubt will in Green Lantern. As for evoking a time and place...Branagh creates a whole new world; Nolan creates...an ordinary, boring city.

"Thor to begin with is not an interesting character. The gods of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology share the same problem, which is that what you see is what you get. They're defined by their attributes, not their personalities. Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on. Thor is a particularly limited case. What does he do? He wields a hammer. That is what he does. You don't have to be especially intelligent to wield a hammer, which is just as well, because in the film Thor (Chris Hemsworth) doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in Asgard."

I don't think I've ever been quite as disappointed with anything you've written as I was with this paragraph. With one stroke, you dismiss two of the defining mythological traditions of the Western world. It is one of these points of view that is so profoundly wrongheaded that I find myself at a loss as to where to even begin to address it.

I mean, what do you even do with a sentence like this? "Odin is Odin and acts as Odin and cannot act as other than Odin, and so on." A character behaves with internal consistency, and is therefore boring? It's such a staggeringly indefensible argument that I'm not even sure where to attack it. And to say Odin is defined by only by his attributes ... these are wisdom, self-sacrifice, a strong sense of justice, love for his family, compassion for other races... how are these "attributes" and not "personality?" The Odin of mythology had even more complexity of character than that, but even if we confine the matter to the traits that he showed in the film, your position makes no sense.

It doesn't bother me when I disagree with you on a movie review (as I did for this one). It is more disappointing when you make broader declarations that seem to come from a place of willful ignorance, such as your facile rejection of both Greek and Norse mythology.

Ebert, you lost your mind! Ripping on this and then giving Bridesmaids 3.5 stars and giving True Grit 4 stars and ONLY giving the new Star Trek 2 stars takes away and credibility to you as a critic.
Honestly, just retire already, you mislead your readers to watching stupid movies. Lets retaliate, you gave THE HONEYMOONERS movie 3 stars, you also gave the Chris Rock film "Death at a Funeral" a rave review and then gave the Usual Suspects 1 star.
I don't get you Ebert, I really don't.

Ebert: Sigh. Star ratings are (1) absurd, and (2) not absolute, but based on generic intent.

Agreed, Grayson

Roger is my favorite critic ever but i've never disagreed with a review of his so much since the mid-80s, when i think he was often way off the mark (as much as Siskel maybe even.)

This is clearly written when having a bad day. It is meant to be entertainment and it is damn fine entertainment. He wasn't even trying to enjoy it. You either lighten up or this movie isn't for you.

I have read many commentaries decrying the linking of the Marvel Franchises as pure marketing. I would like to point out a few things that some seem to have missed.

One, in all of film history as far as I know there has never been a persistent world behind multiple protagonists. There have been spinoffs, but never a persistent world. The attempt to weave four franchises (Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, and The Hulk) into a single movie (The Avengers) is a historic event as far as I'm concerned. That the individual movies, excepting perhaps The Hulk, are each all successful and entertaining is to me nothing short of astonishing. I haven't seen a single movie critic mention this as the unprecedented event it is.

Two, these are comic books we're talking about here. The magic of comic books is derived from their entertainment value and their ability to convey deeper emotions, describing a spectrum for which readers will place themselves. The Hulk fundamentally is about "HULK SMASH" for entertainment and the soul searching of Bruce Banner's burden of id for the depth. Thor is about Thunder God BOOM for entertainment and the value of humility for depth. Iron Man is about Richie Rich gone badass and about human frailty and how it is masked. Captain America is about Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Smashing Evil and about being a hero by leading through example. To compare these things with Shakespeare is to compare Hamburgers with a Japanese tea ceremony; McDonalds makes burgers, and so does Gordon Ramsey, but that spectrum has no parallel in the world of traditional form. Why critics seem to bemoan the lack of elegance in a movie about a big lummox with a magic hammer is something I find perplexing.

Three, the reason comic books have crossovers is because people who love these heroes want to see them interact. Who doesn't wonder why Superman can't help Batman out sometimes? Who can't help but think while the Fantastic Four are battling Dr. Doom in the streets of Manhattan, "where's Spidey?" These characters live in the same world - it's simply common sense they would interact. I find it jarring that we'll never see Spider Man or the X-Men in this new Avengers world, thanks solely to licensing.

And finally four, we have seen a sea change in the genre of movie fantastics in the last decade or so. The day of James Bond, Flash Gordon, and 50s Superman has passed and we're now in an era where our heroes are expected to be human as well as superhuman. Being iconic is no longer enough. We are no longer looking for inspiration from our heroes, we're looking for sympathy. All of these Marvel movie franchises are feeding that need, and by crossing them with each other they are building something greater than the parts can be alone. We are seeing not just characters and story, but a world where these characters and story influence each other and as such influence us to see the connections in our own world between our own great characters and stories. As I mourn the loss of individual icons, I also celebrate the birth of something inspirational through this framework of sympathetic community. That's something special, I think.

Wouldn't you agree that Thor was amusing in its badness compared to Transformers or almost anything else by Michael Bay? Shouldn't Thor be graded on the curve?

In these days of enhanced 3D movie EVENTS, I was happily pleased with Thor. I saw it in IMAX 3D and was blown out of my seat. I was entertained. Isn't that what a movie is supposed to do?

I agree with Roger.

This was a children's movie .. and not a very noteworthy one at that. The acting was overbearing and obvious, and without the special effects and marketing budget it would have dissappeared without a trace. I think some of it was so grandiose & silly that it was meant to fall in the so-bad-it's-good niche.. but this didn't hit that bar either for me.

The only interesting character was Loki. He was the only one who seemed cleverly devious and unpredictable ... but he wasn't nearly enough to save the movie.
I'll bet Ken Branagh is glad it's over, and now that he's got his big payday he probably wants to be a real actor again.

Dear Mr. Ebert. I'm a long time reader and admirer; in fact I teach several Writer's Craft courses in a high school and run the school's film classes, and we read your reviews and articles on movies regularly. I have to say, however, that this "review" (is it a review? Nevermind the lack of a rating, it doesn't seem to be balanced or thoughtful at all to be honest) has greatly disappointed. I had to constantly ask myself if you had even seen the movie, and if you had - were you paying attention? I believe the factual errors in your review has been amply pointed out by other posters, but my gripe goes deeper.
The review reads like a harangue of (if you pardon the visual image) of an old man yelling for kids to get off his lawn. It has none of your usual eloquence, wit, humour, or thoughtfulness. I can understand your beef with over-used CG, or that the majority of people will no doubt see Thor in 3D (on which subject we are both in perfect agreement). I can understand that there are coincidences and Deus Ex Machina a-plenty throughout Thor. What I cannot understand is that you either neglect to mention anything of worth about the movie. Everything you talk about you seem to pooh-pooh. Odin acts like Odin. Yes, because he is Odin, but more importantly - what about Anthony Hopkins as Odin? I think he does a marvelous job. You decry Loki as being cartoon-y "Hi I can't be trusted!", but ignore that he probably has as much if not more character development in the movie as Thor (and a great deal more depth). Even Thor's character shows human frailties and foibles - he can be proud, stubborn, arrogant, but he can also be a loving son and brother, a penitent son, a gentleman (as indeed he is in the movie toward's Portman's character), and a stalwart friend. But is there anything in your review that could actually hint that the actors, the director and the writers actually manage to pull this off? No, and I fear that you have done them a great disservice with this "review". Perhaps the season of summer blockbusters drives you into range, but please try harder next time? Thank you.

First, let me ask everyone to please stop making vindictive comments about Roger not seeing the film. He saw the film. He's a conscientious critic - he wouldn't review the film if he hadn't seen it. I can understand that you're annoyed that he got some of the smaller aspects of the plot wrong - but, honestly, I don't think these details would have changed his opinion much. And seriously - "stop necking with Chaz"? Come on.

In any case, I enjoyed Thor. It had lots of problems, certainly, but they didn't lower its overall quality enough for me to dislike it. I liked the open-eyed wonder of it all - and I think it backed it up with good acting and lots of very awesome (if digital-feeling) eye-candy.

As far as the characters go, I liked them. I liked Portman's flirting. It was endearing, funny, and in all honesty, when faced with Thor, how could she resist? Did not Margot Kidder do the same thing? I only wish Portman was given more to do in the script, which spent way too much time on the "Warriors Three", who were in no way essential to the plot, and were way out of place in an Asgard that longed to be taken seriously. I understand they play a large role in the comics, but the way they were portrayed here, I could have lived without them. And whoever did that one guy's hair should be shot. He looked like the cowardly lion.

I also liked Stellan Skarsgard and his character in this. His scene with Thor in the bar was nuanced, and gave us a good look at the response of an intelligent (and human) person faced with a situation he can't understand. He does what he thinks is right, takes a drink to ease the confusion, and bonds with the big guy in spite of it all. I actually think he had more chemistry with Hemsworth than Portman did. More time could have been spent on his plotline as well, instead of on the Kat Dennings character, Darcy, who was irritating, and also served no real purpose.

The main characters in Asgard were fun for me - I enjoyed Hopkins - he gave Odin lots of power, even if I think he went a little over the top sometimes. As for Loki, I'm surprised Roger didn't like him. Yes, it's pretty obvious he's the villian, if you're looking for a villain. But he was given a very dynamic edge by Tom Hiddleston, and it's not hard to imagine the other Asgardians liking him, even through his mischievous nature (until he really gets nasty, of course). The way he was handled on Earth (his invisibility, how we could see him, and no one else could) was subtly creepy, and gave a dark validity to his power and his character. Although one could ask, why does he need to wear a suit on earth if he's invisible? (I liked the suit anyway.)

Special kudos go to Idris Elba for making Heimdall frankly awesome, even through that ridiculous costume. He was what made the gateway to the other realms magnificent, beyond the special effects and visual artistry.

And Thor . . . I liked Thor. Yes, he's a jerk in the beginning, and yes, his transformation is too fast, and yes, he's defined by his ability to wield a hammer, but despite all that, Hemsworth gave him charm. He's a good actor, and good actors can make a predictable character work. Much in the way Christopher Reeves did as Superman, although I don't think Hemsworth was quite that good. And even though I could see it coming from miles away, when Thor gets his hammer back, I couldn't help but feel a bit of a tingle in my spine. I haven't felt that kind of thrill in a superhero movie in a long time, and while I enjoy and respect films such as "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man", I do miss that feeling. I think that in an era of introverted, earthbound movie superheroes who have the same problems as the rest of us, it's somewhat refreshing to simply have a hero that makes you say "hell yes" when he flies to the rescue in a blaze of innocent virtue. I suppose you could call it a guilty pleasure, but it's a pleasure, nonetheless.

If you don't understand that Thor's mjolnir wasn't stuck in the ground but that only Thor can lift it, it really is a waste of a review. I was surprisingly entertained by the movie. Every superhero movie is short of dialogue, and most have corny lines, but you don't seem to have a clue to this movie.

Roger,

I think what you should take from these comments sir is this:

Something has tainted your reviews of late. It's like you stepped into the elitists club where popcorn movies that are escapist fare (even simplistic escapist fare) don't qualify at all to be given good marks.

Last time I checked, most people go to movies to escape to something fantastical on the big screen. If we are dazzled and entertained, then who are you to parade around talking down a film that doesn't fit into the grand scheme of what you deem a superhero film should be?

Most of your review can actually come across as completely nonsensical in fact. Anyone with half a brain would go out and get an origin trade comic of the Marvel Thor character, probably 30 pages of comic reading tops, and READ THE COMIC the thing is based on. I'm not saying that the film shouldn't inform us, but MOST people who go to see the film are AWARE IT IS A COMIC movie.

You go out expecting THE DARK KNIGHT in anything that isn't the 3rd Nolan Batfilm...you will be disappointed. I don't know how you can expect a THOR film to be a crime drama like TDK? I also don't know how you can expect it to be SPIDERMAN 2, which is a character piece that DEPENDS on the first film as origin....that's ludicrous. Seriously. IRON MAN even, Stark's character in the comics for years has been ridiculously multi-layered...so expecting that as well is just idiocy.

I think it might be time to leave the film reviewing to someone with a more modern sensibility. As it seems like you have some hidden Film Yardstick probably from a film in the 70's or 80's, and nothing measures up properly.

Films have changed, but you have sadly decided to stay mired in the past. Films are once again trying to entertain us....I don't care if it does so on the basest level....if the audiences and other critics have anything to say...it's that your review of THOR is completely off base, ridiculously worded, and very poorly researched.

Other critics might view this as a sign of the changing of the guard, but I am convinced you don't have it in you to see past your overinflated ego.

I was never a doating fan of Thor. His character just seemed mindnumbingly stale as moldy cardboard, like The Hulk. They should adapt the greatest superhero of all time: Herbie Popnecker! Of course, it would be easy to turn such a concept into cinematic vomit, but on the flipside, intelligent writers could spawn a very entertaining, funny franchise.

PS -- Not sure if you've checked out "13 Assassins" or not (I know there's the "At the Movies" review), but haven't seen it twice already, I have to praise the bloody masterpiece as hands-down my favorite film experience of the year so far. Not sure if you've ever reviewed a Takashi Miike picture before, but if you haven't, that is the one to start on! Especially if you enjoyed "Samurai Rebellion," "Harakiri," or "Seven Samurai." Audiences need to flock to behold "13 Assassins" on the mountaintop and leave "Thor" lying in the ditch.

One thing I did enjoy about this movie. For once, (just for once), there was no female objectification. No female nudity, no babes in slinky dresses to cat it up with Tony Stark, so bedroom scenes. If nothing else, that was refreshing.
It's a pity it didn't have witty dialogue and better plot, though.

Boo! I too enjoyed Thor. Though I find your meditations (on movies and otherwise) generally enlightening, this review felt like you weren't impressed by the movie on a gut level (i.e. "underwhelmed", as you put it in the beginning) and then justified your mild disappointment by nit-picking at a pile of inconsequential side-notes.

Like, "Whether he is human himself is a question the film sidesteps" and "[she] behaves more like a Storm Chaser, cruising the desert in a van and peering into the skies, which won't get you far in astrophysics" and "Thor luckily speaks English" -- as you suggest, these are covered by suspension of disbelief, which for this movie, pretty much has to be astronomical in its own right.

And the film does manage to accomplish a few things, aside from simply being a light-hearted action episode in The Avengers Limited Series. It spends a good deal more effort on the courtly drama than other superhero films, weaving together the arcs of two royal brothers and a vanquished but dangerous enemy kingdom, and resolving it mostly through maneuvering of loyalties. This is why the action was fairly minimal for a CGI comic book romp. Further, Loki is a genuinely successful villain, a brother who is wily and calculated, but also torn between loyalty to his kingdom, desire for power, and jealousy of his favored brother. A conflicted character is always more sympathetic, and Loki was more sympathetic than any of the villains you cite in this piece.

I don't think you're necessarily out of touch, and I don't think it's obligatory that you like this plastic toy of a film, but I think you channel your disinterest into snark, and thereby overstate the failures of a movie with a reasonable claim to merit.

I am surprised you didn't mention the actors in your review. I mean, sure, the movie had its problems, and the action scenes and relatively simple plot were among them.

However, I believe, like Iron Man before it, that this movie will be remembered for its acting more than anything else ("Iron Man" should really have been called "Tony Stark," because that was what the movie was really about).

Chris Hemsworth was, in my opinion, incredibly entertaining as Thor. Sure, there were a few spots of humor that seemed to be trying too hard, but his smile and demeanor kept the movie working.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in your opinion, but I am curious to know what your opinion was on the actors. I will admit that Loki was underdeveloped, but I thought that the actor and director created an interesting villain that just needed an extra scene or two to really establish him as a character. Furthermore, I am really looking forward to his return in The Avengers.

Well, this will probably rival the time[s] you said you-know-whats aren't art.

I realize it's inane to post a review of a review, but I was truly compelled to point out some failings in this review of Thor. Normally I read everything you post and in some way, whether negative or positive, it informs my viewpoint, but today I felt like you had missed the mark with some of your points. Most disappointing of all to me was the acerbic tone throughout; Thor may not have been brilliant cinema, but neither was it worthy of such a scathing review.

I found Hemsworth's portrayal of Thor to be intelligent and nuanced. I was looking at a story about a man who desperately wants to please his father, and is focused entirely on that. Thor may be the golden boy, but at the beginning of the film it was clear that in his mind he was 'ODIN'S Golden Boy.' Everything he does, from his child's boastful speech at the beginning to his bungled attempt to storm Jotenheim, is in order to glorify himself in the name of his father. His identity is tied to this more than anything else. When his powers are stripped and he finds himself on earth, he logically views it as a means to reconcile himself with his lost heritage, or as a test. But it's false bravado.

The scene where he cockily strides up to Mjollnir to reclaim his lost godhood, and finds that he is, in fact, still unworthy, was perfectly done. Thor isn't a thinker; he's not going on an existentialist journey of angst over his loss of godhood because he doesn't DO that kind of thing. He's a man of action, which is why he's unfit to rule in the first place--a fact that pretty much everyone but he recognizes. Once the pressure of leadership is off his shoulders, he can relax, and figure out what he really wants.

Hemsworth plays the post-god Thor as almost relieved, now that he can just hang and be a normal guy (as normal as someone who looks like that can be, anyway). And once he is told that his father is dead, he has no goals anymore; his only trajectory, to glorify Asgard in the name of Odin, is gone. I don't know what it's like to lose my godhood and be forced to deal with that reality, but I certainly know the reality of losing everything and having to start over.

It is entirely possible that I am reading too much into these characters, but to me these tropes were clearly defined and well-executed, if maybe a little familiar. But a hero's journey is a hero's journey, however trite it might seem. I found Thor to be an intelligent, charming realization of a comic book informed by Norse myths.

I was also appreciative of Natalie Portman's portrayal of an astrophysicist, especially as she would be the one to reunite them through her work. Was she giggly? Certainly. And the character's motivations did seem a bit uneven, but I appreciated the proactive role she took in their relationship and in the plot.

In no way am I telling you your opinion is wrong Mr. Ebert, but this review came across less as a review than as a vilification, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy yourself as much as I did.

I grew up in a town with one general store, and no other commercial entities. We had no suburbs, no gas stations, no grocery stores, one elementary/middle school, and one church. The town was spread out, but that was because it was located in the pine barrens and there were minimum acreage requirements for every plot of land. If the houses could have been closer together, they would have been.

You want to act like the town in the movie was unrealistic and impossible? My response is that I'm sincerely offended by the implication that humans can't live anywhere without suburbs and strip malls. Thank you for marginalizing my entire childhood and adolescence and writing off my life experiences as unrealistic.

I'm grateful that we got a superhero movie that, for ONCE, didn't take place in a major metropolitan area. You should be, too.

Yeah, you kinda screwed the pooch on this one. Please watch it again and try to pay a little bit closer attention. You should enjoy it more.

Thor may not have been great, but I think its being called Shakespeare in terms of how the Asgard characters operate. I really liked Loki's struggle with his own actions. He said he was doing it for Odin, but we know it was too make himself feel less like a freak. The lingering, background question was a pretty interesting thought for a comic book film.

Personally I enjoyed Thor, though speaking as a fascinated student of Norse history and mythology, it was fairly problematic here and there, comic book source material be damned. Odin lost his eye in battle with the Frost Giants? Such rot! But that's not for here...

However, I must raise the question, though you've undoubtedly already heard it; what exactly puts Thor, a seemingly perfectly capable and entertaining genre piece that has a definable and coherent plot (based upon its own internal logic and rules), below the favourably reviewed Clash of the Titans?

That was a movie with a plot that makes almost no sense when held under close scrutiny, decidedly boring action sequences (head out on the scorpion trails, anyone?) and some truly heinous performances. It seems that the repeat value on DVD comes almost solely from being able to point out its myriad flaws for the sake of a good giggle.

The two movies are, thematically, largely on par. They let outmoded immortals wander in mortal realms where they're no longer really believed in, with most of the movie concerned with the search for an object that will help them defeat the Big Bad Villain at the close. What was it about Clash of the Titans, a movie with one tone of dull bronze, that made it more entertaining than Thor, which had to have been one of the first actioneer movies in a while to actually put some colour into its palette, metaphorically and literally (in the case of the Bifrost bridge) speaking?

Do understand I don't mean to call you out on the review, which I enjoyed very much; I'm simply interested in the points of comparison between two seemingly similar movies. Thanks if you can enligten me!

Once upon a time, this blog had a blurb claiming something to the effect of, "...some of the most intelligent comments of any popular blog etc". That blurb isn't there anymore, and for good reason. I used to read the comments fairly religiously, but "h8erz" and Randy McMasters' 40 comments per entry (just an illustrative exaggeration) blew it off the rails.

This comments section has become something painful, not far removed from a Yahoo News comments section. I understand a desire not to censor, but wading through some of this drivel is agonizing. "eebert your a moron dont like thor" adds nothing to a discussion and wouldn't be worth reading even if it was true.

Please. Moderate (verb).

Boy. I liked this movie a fair bit, but a lot of these negative comments are awful. Jesus, people, someone can dislike something you like and you don't need to be a jackass about it.

I liked Thor because I liked the leads--I thought Hemsworth was a pretty convincing arrogant-God-who-learns-to-be-a-hero and I thought Hiddleston was a pretty decent jealous-brother-who-turns-to-evil-out-to-gain-his-father's-approval.

People have used and abused the word "Shakespearean" when dealing with the film, but I think it actually is applicable beyond Branaugh's involvement. Shakespeare's genius wasn't really in his plots, but his plots do have a fairly distinct quality to them--that is, they tend to involve family and inter-personal conflicts that rise to melodramatic heights. Loki's plan to have Thor banished recalls Iago's plan to destroy Othello--Jealousy at the regard given a brother-figure and leader, which leads the villain to exploit the hero's dramatic weakness and cause him to wrongly commit a terrible crime for which he must be punished.

Of course, the film doesn't end there, and adds in a route for Thor's redemption. But, still, Loki is never an entirely despicable villain--Though he tries to kill his brother (the rival for his father's love), he spares the lives of his friends and doesn't descend into evil-for-evil's sake. He attempts to destroy a world, but his motivation isn't hatred but a desperate need to win his father's respect. His evil is pitiable and human, despite his status as a god.

Thor, meanwhile, undergoes a nice inversion of the usual "the hero gains the will to fight" resolution. Thor, of course, gains the will to resist fighting. Yes, ironically this is what restores his ability to fight, but this fits in well with Marvel's general ethos of with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility. The Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Thor movies have thus far all followed that basic ideal, where someone gifted with power undergoes trials to learn not to abuse that power. And while it wasn't as good a film, I think Thor 's ethics and politics are a little less confused than Iron Man's ended up being.

I definitely don't think the film was great--not as good as the really good comic book films that Roger mentions--it was entertaining with a pretty decent story at its core.

Yes, but is it art?

Hey Roger! Seeing this movie made me want to know the differences between the norse mythology thor and the marvel mythology thor. It was a pretty interesting read, especially for someone who likes the idea of parallel universes. I also enjoyed the movie more than you did, so that might have something to do with it

I also have to give props for this guy's comment, a direct quote from the movie.

"You are an old man and a fool."

It made me laugh, and if it's any consolation, at the end of the movie, the character who said that came around, and changed his mind about that particular opinion.

I kind of wondered why so much ink (our in this case pixels) for such little fare. I must admit, though, it made me lol like when I read Dave Berry.

I'd like to try watching Thor by skipping the New Mexico scenes and seeing if that works, then watching New Mexico alone to see how that goes. I have a hunch each one works as a self-contained story. The plot's attempted marriage of an epic and what is essentially a comedy are what do it in.

For all its flaws I enjoyed Thor, but I came in wanting to like it.

Roger- Wouldn't it be a better use of your time to reply to some of the more substantive comments rather than address the meaningless complaints of bitter Thor fans?

I find it fascinating how sensitive people are when you disagree with them. I cannot imagine how anyone say you do not enjoy pop films when you positively reviewed Fast Five.

Sorry Roger, I think I disagree with you.

Why do great directors go bad? I haven't seen this, but trust your review. The other one that comes to mind is M. Night Shyalaman.

Is it Hollywood? Success? Many directors are able to be intriguing for decades--why do some seem to slack and stoop? Do they just need money?

Kenneth Branagh and M. Night have, in the past, made some of the greatest movies of all time (imo) -- what makes people of such talent turn to schlock?

Sorry Roger, but I think I disagree with you.

HI Roger, this is the first time I've ever commented on any of your reviews, though I've treasured your opinion for many a year now. I loved your show with Gene and truly appreciated your love of movies all these years. And most of all, the humanity that came thru lots of your reviews over the years, that you really underline that yes, you are a professional critic, with laurels on everything, but, as it is with wine, It comes down to if you like it or not, it's your particular taste above the critique. You might like Ghosts of Mars, just because, or hate The ghost and the darkness or Kick-Ass just because your taste dictates it, over what ever technical o storytelling expertise might be offered on screen. And now it's Thor. I particularly thought it was entertaining a good addition to the superhero genre that's seems to be overpowering the studios as of late. I too pine for the days of To kill a mockingbird, or The wild bunch, or Jaws. But I still appreciate the entertainment value in something like Thor. And I could never single it out, versus Fast five, or Water for elephants, as a lesser experience. So ,yes, it is your column, and you are entitled to your opinion. But sometimes it's all too fickle how you pick what goes, and what doesn't . Kenneth Branagh is entitled to have some fun working on his craft. I think he enjoyed his romp with Odin and Thor quite a bit. And it shows. I enjoyed it , oh, and I saw it in 3-D, in a huge screen in Mexicali, Mexico, where it opened a week before the U.S. and the crowd ate it up, and cheered in all the hero moments. I had one of those movie movie moments where everything's in sync down to the good popcorn.
Take care Roger. Just choose better enemies to take it out on than Thor. I thought Thor is on this side of a good movie experience, and you thought it was Shoot em' up? . I wish you all the best. and look forward to your reviews for many many years to come.

"You wonder why Rotten Tomatoes says 79%? Because you're WRONG, Roger!"

When did going with the flow become a virtue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Methinks that people are confusing the terms 'fun' with 'good'. There are many terrible, terrible movies out there that are a lot of fun to watch. I admit to watching movies that are fun in that vein but it doesn't make worthy of a three or four star review, either. I would also surmise that with your extensive movie viewing that you and I would have different definitions of fun as well. A poorly crafted and executed movie has to be uncomfortable for someone who has seen the very best of cinema around the world while I just gloss over it.

In six months from now, people will be buying it on DVD or Blu Ray but the conversation on superhero movies will still revolve around the ones you mention at the end of your post. It'll be one of those movies that gets tossed on the screen when people are bored from watching the others ones. It'll be a footnote or (potentially worse) remade like Hulk movies were in the past decade.

I appreciate your honest opinion.

The word MEH was invented for flix like Thor. It wasn't terrible, but I have in my cupboard detergent that leaves a better film.

I'll just repeat what almost everyone has said here: you did not bother watching the movie then why bother writing about it?

It looks likes you fast forwarded through the entire thing like Adam Sandler in Click. Most of your issues are all plot points easy for anyone to understand and repeated throughout the movie - and I've never read the comics and my knowledge of Norse mythology is rudimentary.

I'm not defending the movie, only disagreeing with the way you reviewed it (see my first point).

This is not the first time you do it and it makes me wonder. Not that you will ever care as your tweets prove.

Shows you how subjective movie criticism is. Robert Downey Jr. played himself in Iron Man and he came complete with his typical cheesy quips and rambling puns. Hopefully they'll soon reboot it with an actor who can disappear into a role and give us a film that isn't corny. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised by Thor. I found the character interesting, charismatic, and I enjoyed his arc as he grew up and shed his childish ways. I rooted for him. To me, Loki was sympathetic, interesting, and frightening. Obadiah Stane was forgettable and it's one of the few performances Bridges has given that felt absolutely phoned in to me. It's like you and I saw two different films.

I'm kind of surprised at the number of vehement defenders this film has. It really makes me wonder if we saw different cuts in the theater.

To those who call back to the comics as source material: If it ain't on the screen, it doesn't count. No, I haven't read the Thor comics. I haven't read a lot of comics (save The Sandman series and other early 90s Vertigo stuff). I enjoyed Iron Man just fine without ever having heard of the character before. If a movie isn't comprehensible without extensive knowledge of the comics it's based on...you are severely limiting your audience.

To those who insist one must apply knowledge of the original Norse myths to understand what's going on: same thing. If something about those myths is integrally important to the plot -- for instance, the bifrost -- that element had better be explained in the movie *as it pertains to the movie.* Since we're already dealing with characters who AREN'T the Norse gods (these are very powerful extraterrestrials, right?), explaining how the bifrost works is kind of critical WHEN YOUR CLIMAX DEPENDS ON IT.

I sat through the climax of this movie and said, "Glad to see CGI guys are still getting a lot of work." There isn't any emotion invested in that scene though. We don't know what the rules of the bifrost are -- why would we expect that what Thor is doing would end all contact with Midgard? aren't these uber-powerful beings almost gods? -- and we have no idea what any character has invested in this moment until we're TOLD after the fact.

Likewise, the "stirring" moment when Thor gets his hammer back...uh, what? Why does this happen? How is this moment earned? Oh that's right: it's not. Thor simply needed to get his hammer back, and a cheap emotional plot point (we know he's not dead, he's the title character) is not enough to earn him his powers back. He just gets them back, mostly for plot reasons.

I like fun popcorn movies. I just wish Hollywood would make one that wasn't actively insulting to my intelligence or my emotions.

wow, first time I completely disagree with Roger. Even when I like the movie he disliked I think: "Well, he's got a point". Now I think he completely missed the fun spirit of the movie.

The last line of your review made me laugh. I bet that's exactly what happened. I wish people making superhero movies would watch some early Fritz Lang. The Testament of Dr. Mabuse is practically a Batman movie, and I know Tim Burton's Batman was influenced by the art deco of Metropolis. If you want to make a good superhero movie, yeah your right, you need a great villain, but you also need to make the town or people needing heroes, Metropolis, Gotham, or Asgaard, or wherever an interesting character in it's own right. Like Fritz Lang did in M, making German society itself one of the main characters. Then you need to understand the archetypes behind each specific characters and which archetypes play off each other best, and in what way. There are so many ways Hollywood could be doing it better. But what do I know, I just watch movies off the internet for free, lol.

I do apologize if I came off as rude Ebert I just reread what I wrote and I was out of line. I still read your ratings lol

wow, first time I completely disagree with Roger. Even when I like the movie he disliked I think: "Well, he's got a point". Now I think he completely missed the fun spirit of the movie. There's often factual errors on the reviews but one ignores them cos they're so well written, but this review makes it seem like he was asleep for half of the movie. Loved the geeky stuff (Hawkeye!!!, agent Coulson Son of Coul) the witty banter, Kat Dennings, the sweet love story, Loki's struggle , and most of all, the unusual setting one wouldn't expect for a comic book movie

I love Roger's writing (I'll never forget the Steak n Shake piece and the anti Horoscope one) but this review just seems lazy and mean spirited for no reason, even implying that those of us who enjoyed Thor are merely moronic victims of marketing. I would expect such argumentation from a hipster douche, not from Roger Ebert.

I can't wait for The Avengers.

Hang on, now. Am I to understand Mjollnir wasn't even NAMED as such in this shitty movie!? These people decided Loki, son of Laufey and Farbauti, is ODIN'S SON now!? And that far too many movies are shot in Norway, and too few in New Mexico!? That Asgard hosts Mongoloid and Marronoid people in addition to Norwegian (yeah right, wouldn't I like to think so) ones!? That Thor must be no older than thirty-five!? [looks at I.M.D.B.] TWENTY-EIGHT!!!??? If this Thor added fifty pounds of muscle, he *might* be able to pass for actual Thor's young miniature sidekick.

If you want a version of Thor who is no less than fascinating, you'll find him (and quite a lot more) in Douglas Adams' best novel, 'The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul'.

Ebert: No, he's the adopted son.

Hey Roger, be honest ..... how many times did you post under a different alias on your user comments in attempt to break up the otherwise staunch defense of this movie which you so blatantly misunderstood and barely even watched?

Ebert: Your question is shameful.

I can't even explain why, but this review makes me sad, kinda like when your parents tell you that Santa isn't real, let down by those you trust.

I know everyone has an opinion, and Roger is completely entitled to his; but this review is just wrong, it's not a review it's a list of complaints. I didn't agree with the Star Trek review either, but at least it was amusing and entertaining to read; now Mr. Ebert seems to miss that not every movie has to make complete sense and be about something, sometimes fun is just fun. I don't think it's a bad review because I don't agree with him, as this has happened many times (Garfield, Speed 2, the Honeymooners), but because it seems lazy and even insulting to the readers.

I still don't want to believe those that allude that Roger is out of touch because of his age; he still writes fantastic and crisp reviews (besides this one).

Sorry Roger. I think that Thor is one of the best superhero movies. I loved it and felt like a solid Marvel movie that had the best examples of Lee Kirby Simonson JMS and Copiel depicted in a film for general audiences

Roger, I agree.

The film would've been more fun if the superheroes had interacted with Earth beyond a tiny desert town, and Asgard just feels as sterile as an inanimate chunk of gold. Maybe Thor could be banished to Chicago next time?

Dull characters, with just one exception. No, it wasn't Loki, he was a confusing, very unfrightening, anticlimactic mess of a villain. It was Samuel L. Jackson after the credits - he struck me as a man who'd had better things to do than participate in this boring adventure.

I saw THOR twice in a 24 hour period.

I'm not a rube falling for carnival tactics anymore than you were a rube for falling for all the praise heaped on The Dark Knight (don't get me wrong, it was a good movie...about 30 minutes too long, but a good movie).

But, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie so much that I had to go back to the theater and see it again. It was fun, it was entertaining...it is what I want my movies to be. Also, I've been reading comics for 30 years and when I see a movie based on a comic, I want that movie to give me the same feeling I have when I read the comics...THOR gave me that. I haven't had this much fun since I saw "Star Trek" a couple of years ago.

I don't expect everyone to enjoy a movie like THOR...it's not for everyone, I just totally disagree with them!

I haven't seen this movie, so I can't comment on what Mr Ebert may or may not have missed within it. But I do want to point out the utter irrelevance in comments such as, "It's quite obvious that you're just too good to read the books that the movie is based upon. But reviews coming from the realm of ignorance can't be taken seriously either".

Going back to the source material should never be necessary to understand, much less enjoy, a film. A movie is made as a movie, to appeal to movie-going audiences. It absolutely must not depend on everyone in its audience having a thorough familiarity with the source material. Many of them will not, and they cannot be expected to. It is the job of the filmmakers to supply all the information the audience for the film needs to enjoy the film, and whether or not the makers of this movie have done that (again, I don't know whether they have, because I haven't seen it), any suggestion that Mr Ebert should not review the film because he hasn't read the comic books is absurd.

Is every person who goes to any film which has source material now expected to familiarize themselves with the source material before they are allowed to comment on the film? Are you not allowed to say that "21" was boring and formulaic if you haven't read "Bringing Down the House"? Do you have to have played the Super Mario Bros. NES game before you can say that the film of that name was cheezy? Is it a requirement for any reviewer of "She's the Man" to first go and see a stage production of "Twelfth Night", which they can then not comment on until they've read the actual text (the source material for a stage play), which they in turn cannot comment on until they have read the older plays and stories on which Shakespeare--who rarely, if ever, wrote anything original without source material--based it and his other works on?

Rubbish. A movie is not its source material, and an extensive knowledge, or even just a working knowledge, of a movie's source material cannot be assumed or expected of a viewer of a movie. The movie has to stand or fall on its own merits, independent of the source material. It's not enough to say that this or that plot hole or skimmed-over reference was explained better in the book. The question becomes, "Why didn't they explain it in the movie, then?" After all, we're not sitting in the movie theater reading the book--or in this case, the comic books. The movie has to give you everything you need to enjoy it within the movie itself, or it fails as a movie.

There's nothing at all wrong with saying that a familiarity with source material will enhance one's enjoyment of a film, making it a richer experience and making the viewer smile at the subtle nods to continuity and whatnot. But to say you have to know the sources to even be qualified to discuss the movie is flat-out wrong, and ridiculous.

Mr. Ebert...I've been a fan for a long time, but I think you missed the target with your Thor movie review. The movie is certainly no "Gone With the Wind," but it does make good use of the 1960s comic book source material. And the little boy in me who remembers reading these comics in the 1960s enjoyed the movie alot and so did my grandson.

It was as close as I've ever been to viewing and enjoying a live action silver age Marvel comic book illustrated by Jack Kirby and written by Stan Lee.

I respect that you didn't like the film, but it wasn't trying to be a classic novel. The movie was trying to be a comic book and I think it succeeded.

After I saw the movie with some nephews, another relative asked me to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. I gave it an an 8, with this caveat: you have to like Marvel Comics (of the Stan Lee era) to like it - which I did. If you don't like those comics, there's not much reason to like the movie. I probably was a little generous with my 8, because Stan Lee gave me a lot of pleasurable, light reading. (I wonder if my collection of "Thor", "The Hulk", "The Avengers", and so on from that era might be worth something.)

The bridge was an Einstein-Rosen bridge, i.e., a wormhole. Try to keep up with modern physics. I kid, but Dr. Sean Carroll (of "Cosmic Variance" fame) was a scientific consultant for the movie.

Dear Mr. Ebert. I'm a long time reader and admirer; in fact I teach several Writer's Craft courses in a high school and run the school's film classes, and we read your reviews and articles on movies regularly. I have to say, however, that this "review" (is it a review? Nevermind the lack of a rating, it doesn't seem to be balanced or thoughtful at all to be honest) has greatly disappointed. I had to constantly ask myself if you had even seen the movie, and if you had - were you paying attention? I believe the factual errors in your review has been amply pointed out by other posters, but my gripe goes deeper.
The review reads like a harangue of (if you pardon the visual image) of an old man yelling for kids to get off his lawn. It has none of your usual eloquence, wit, humour, or thoughtfulness. I can understand your beef with over-used CG, or that the majority of people will no doubt see Thor in 3D (on which subject we are both in perfect agreement). I can understand that there are coincidences and Deus Ex Machina a-plenty throughout Thor. What I cannot understand is that you either neglect to mention anything of worth about the movie. Everything you talk about you seem to pooh-pooh. Odin acts like Odin. Yes, because he is Odin, but more importantly - what about Anthony Hopkins as Odin? I think he does a marvelous job. You decry Loki as being cartoon-y "Hi I can't be trusted!", but ignore that he probably has as much if not more character development in the movie as Thor (and a great deal more depth). Even Thor's character shows human frailties and foibles - he can be proud, stubborn, arrogant, but he can also be a loving son and brother, a penitent son, a gentleman (as indeed he is in the movie toward's Portman's character), and a stalwart friend. But is there anything in your review that could actually hint that the actors, the director and the writers actually manage to pull this off? No, and I fear that you have done them a great disservice with this "review". Perhaps the season of summer blockbusters drives you into range, but please try harder next time? Thank you.

I guess I am going to have to rent it, based on your review. I was going to see it because if I remember right, Christy and Ignaty both recommended Thor on your show. I also don't get all these losers that are so mean to you because you hated this movie.

I can understand if someone hates the film, but to give a review to a movie that you didn't even bother to watch (which is evident on the statements you made in your review) is lazy and irresponsible to the filmmakers who spent months and months trying to make this movie. Your review here is almost trollish, you barely seem to understand anything in the film.

Ebert: I have often been mistaken. I have never been dishonest. Of course I watched the movie.

I understood all about the hammer. I'm not sure you understand all about humor. From the POV of the humans, that hammer was stuck.

I agree with you until a certain point. Firstly, yes it is a movie with an astounding plot thinness. Thor and Loki must be so evolved that they don't need any kind of deeper reflection to change bad behaviors just like a magic trick. Portman's character does nothing to herself instead of looking to Thor with strange desire... Strange because the guy is seemingly mentally disturbed, if taken from a point of view of someone who had never ecountered anyone with similar attitudes.

But I don't think it's a bad film. We're obviously not talking "Batman - The Dark Knight" here, since that movie had an amazing story development, with proper character deepness. I guess The Joker there more than speaks for himself. But Thor's villain, Loki, didn't remind me of God Loki. That's because, unlike you said during your critique, Gods in Roman, Greek and Norse mythology are as complex as human beings. They have personalities and elements that represented them but they were not limited to it. We see Zeus, for example, as God of the Gods, but he's not only that. He can be the God of Beggars for instance, demanding humans to be gentle with passing voyagers who need shelter and do not have any money for an inn or something. Loki has the same deepness. He's not only the bad guy, the God of deception. He, just as Dionisus, is needed for his trickery, for the chance of tasting alterity. He's playful even if he has a darker side of himself. Not many comic book script writers could make justice to such a character. Thor should have the same level of deepness as well, but people seem to just think he's the guy who controls Mjonir and that's it. Limited and boring.

Mostly, that's what one should think of this movie. But the unusual setting, the supporting God characters at Asgard (namely Odin and Haimdall) give the main characters some level of insteresting entertainment which makes one WANT to keep watching. It's not cheesy like I thought it would be. I never enjoyed Thor as a superhero, and always thought him somehow silly, since I hated how shallow God characters became on comic books. At this point I had no surprises, but I think the plot develops to a point where the audience will not reject the movie on it's entirety. I say that because a lot of my nerdy friends who loved Thor went and got out somehow amazed, which I think it's no little a accoplishment for a movie that was INTENDED for this kind of audience.

Mostly, if it had been a more condescedent critic I might have agreed. I know it is a limited movie and that it is not the best of movie of the year (it will never be, from my point of view). The point is: it is agreeable to watch and not rejectable. This is what make it have a 79% level of acceptance on Rotten Tomatoes.

I must say Mr. Ebert, I feel for you on this one. Reading many of these comments has disturbed me. While I wholeheartedly disagree with your review, some of the vitriol thrown back at you is a bit hard to take.

First off, let me say that I found Thor to be a goofy, funny comic book movie. I also thought it displayed a level of innocence that is lost in many modern comic adaptations and I found that refreshing. I don't mind that it's not as deep as Dark Knight or Watchmen because it has no desire to be. Now, with that being said, my first reaction upon reading your review was one of surprise, not blind hatred. Surprise because I thought you would see some of the same things I did in it. I knew you wouldn't love it, but thought you might see it for the goofy fun that it is. The fact that you didn't does not fill me with rage; you are a critic and I respect your opinion no matter what. I believe you have more than earned that over the years. You and Siskel made film criticism cool and accessible for my generation. And if we disagree from time to time, well that's part of the fun isn't it?

I have been a frequent reader of yours for years and I love reading your blog posts and reading the (generally) intelligent comments. I have never commented here before (I know lots of people say that but it is true) but felt compelled to after reading through much of the venom that seems to be permeating a lot of these comments.

Fellow talk-backers: Calm down. Just because the man got some facts wrong does not mean his review is to be taken as nonsense. Also, just because he did not like the film does not mean that invalidates your enjoyment of the film. Criticism should be about discussion, i.e. this worked for me and here's why, now why didn't it work for you? Criticism is not about shouting at someone because they did not think exactly like you did. Sure, it's fun to call people morons if they like something you found utterly inane, but it should always be said in good fun. This is film criticism, not politics.

Mr. Ebert: This must have been an annoying process from the beginning. I can only imagine how many comments or questions you got about why you didn't review Thor the day it came out. Everybody will whine about that, but if you didn't review Forks Over Knives the day it came out, I bet nobody would give a rat's ass. Then, you review the damn movie and everybody whines about how 'you didn't get it'. For the record Roger, I think you got it just fine. I just got something else out of it. Anyway, I look forward to reading your reviews and blogs for many years to come. I look forward to our agreements and disagreements. And I hope this comment section goes back to being as well written and informed as it usually is.

I'm not sure "Thor" is trying to compete with "The Dark Knight" or "Iron Man". I think what made it fun for me was that it was campy and over the top. This is a pretty absurd subject to begin with. I think the film has some fun with that.

I also think its a great looking film too. The story takes a backseat to the visuals, but the visuals are just plain fun to watch.

It's these caliber reviews that continue to cement me as a huge Ebert fan. It's not sufficient enough to merely dislike a movie, you have to snap in little bits of smart assery and cynicism in a bad review. And as the years progressed the reviews have gotten more hilarious with your dark sense of humor. I much prefer your review of the Friday the 13th remake to the ones you did in the 80's. The 80's Ebert gave credence to a slasher movie thinking it destroyed youth and the 10's Ebert totally said I'm too important to give a crap.

I personally liked Thor but this review is awesome. You might not like it but your the best cynical pretentious old man in the business.

Ebert: Can I quote you on that?

Ebert: I did show it [Branagh's Hamlet], maybe six years ago...

I'm sorry I missed it, then! Guess I'll have to make do with the DVD version from the library, once SIFF is over (starts next week).

I am soooo glad I'm not alone in thinking that this movie sucked.

Apperantly the 79% on rotten tomatoes is because the movie is "fun" and "entertaining" but I was bored throughout the entire movie. The action scenes and special effects were unimpressive and the I felt a personal disconnection between the characters and everything going on that I just coulnd't care what was going on. I think that something that this movie did wrong was that it really didn't explain a lot about the mythology (the cubes, Aasgard, stuff like that, people who aren't familiar to the source material would've been confused)

Oh and like others have said you got how The Destroyer (or as you call it the Metal Giant).
And the hammer wasn't stuck to the ground Odin put a curse on it saying that only someone who proved himself worthy could lift it or something like that.

Oh, and how we'll forget about Loki in five minutes, guess what?
He's the main villain in the upcoming movie The Avengers, the movie that has all the latest Marvel superheroes together.

1) Thor is a big arrogant jerk who is manipulated by Loki, rejected by his father (which should be significant enough to at least START humbling anybody) and dumped on a strange planet with nothing to show who or what he really is. He is shown the symbol of his power and has no way to use it with no explanation as to why. Then he is told his father is dead and the last thing Thor said to him was that he's an old fool. He's humbled for the plot? Use your own mind and fill in the holes without being spoon fed the details. Humbled for the plot indeed.....

2) Loki was a manipulating jerk with ambitions of his own. He cared little for the people of Asgard, hence the letting in of the Frost Giants and the death of the palace guards in the beginning of the movie. One might assume it's his jealousy of his father obviously preferring Thor for the throne. He later finds out that he's a Frost Giant himself and his inadequacies are glaringly obvious when he screams at the man that took him in and cared for him as a son. Also the realization that he never was planned for the throne of Asgard at all. I assume that he was meant to take over the throne for Jotunheim and be an ambassador for piece between the two worlds. He instead uses the throne of Asgard to further push his own agendas and further manipulate those around him with no concern for anyone but himself. He made a fine villain to hate, given his lack of care for the only family he ever knew.

These two characters were rich and thought through given the limited amount of time a movie has to flesh out characters and provide an interesting story. These superhero movies often require you to know a little about the characters already. I won't take away from the fact that you didn't like the movie. I personally thought it was very well done and enjoyed it thorougly. A great movie that is family friendly is VERY hard to find these days.

I really wanted to like Thor but when I left the theater the only feeling I really had was "so what?" The movie felt like the first thirty minutes of a much more interesting movie stretched out. The fights, with the exception of the first, felt like they were added because the script had no where else to go unless there was a fight so that something could happen in it.

Compare this with, say, Iron Man. When Tony goes to Afghanistan to kill some bad guys he does it because of the plot. Yes, the narrative is advanced, but the action is there not only to move an otherwise tepid movie along. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, or just crazy, but it seems pretty clear to me.

The sequence with the Destroyer, or whatever it is called, bothered me on a whole other level. It's in this yawn-inducing action sequence that we are treated to Thor's supposed apotheosis. Yes he was a "god" before, but here he develops even further--finding new depths to his soul. Except that at this point the only things we've seen are him being an arrogant prick, some comedy (breaking a coffee mug, trying to buy a horse at a pet store), and him watching a fire in a hibachi with Natalie Portman while on a roof. Oh, I suppose he goes drinking too. The point is that we have barely been given a reason to care about Thor (or anyone) in the movie. And so when he decides give up his life to save everyone else, it's a totally flat moment.

It's almost as if Thor is reading a couple pages ahead in the script and sees what he really needs to do and so he just does it, not because he really feels like it, but because that's what the script says he does. Maybe he has his own version of the instant cassettes from Spaceballs.

So what if the movie wasn't perfect. It was a fun ride.

If you think you can do better, give Disney a call before they start work on Thor 2.

I also agree with the other readers. You didn't pay attention to the movie.

I think the most entertaining part about posting a movie review in your blog is reader responses. Sometimes when I read your reviews I wonder how how others would respond if there were a comments section. Who would have guessed that a review of the ultimately generic Thor would invoke such venom? This makes me think that a comments section under your normal reviews would be supremely entertaining. I mean, how would your review of "Atlas Shrugged" be received? We may never know.

Hello from Japan. I haven't watched Thor yet because all the theatres in my neck of the woods (Sendai) aren't up and running again, and movies often take longer to get here anyways, but when it does arrive I'll be happily attending Thor. I'll turn the intellect dial down to 3 and enjoy me some hammer-smashin' fun. It's pretty obvious that if you're not in the mood for this then your not going to like it, and I guess Roger wasn't in the mood for it.
I read lots of Thor comics as a kid in the 70s, so I often stopped during this article and thought to myself "well they can't have forgotten to explain that!" and it seems from the message boards that they didn't, Mr. Ebert just missed (alot of) important points. Hopefully he missed them because if they weren't missed then they were ignored, snubbed and spun to fit what appeared to be a pre-conceived agenda.
I'd checked out Thor's score on metacritic and started to worry since its... let's just say, less-than complimentary; so when I started reading this review that worry quickly escalated, but just as quickly vanished- as the sourness and grumpiness of the writer exposed itself. In fact, it made me want to see Thor even more- preferably while standing on Mr. Ebert's lawn.

Roger says it doesn't compare to Donner's Superman- Have you seen THAT movie lately? That's the one where he spins around the world until it goes backwards and he turns back time and makes everything O.K. If you missed the ending, don't worry, he does the same thing again to fix everything in the end of Donner's Directors Cut of the 2nd movie which is another movie critics seem to love. I'm pretty sure the 12 year old Thorkids that are polluting this movie's theatres would call Bulls**t on that!

I agree that it was a horrible movie, but after reading this review, I honestly wonder if you even watched the movie... there are several details that you failed to understand entirely. Actually, the way you respond to them makes it seem like you didn't even TRY.

a) Thor's hammer is not "embedded with such force it cannot be removed." The hammer of Thor is able to be lifted only by those who are worthy. To all others, it is unimaginably heavy. This is why Thor was able to lock Loki beneath it in the final battle. Outside of Asgard, only one man (Captain America) has been able to lift Mjolnir, and even he had a helluva time picking it up.

b) The bifrost was explained very clearly in the movie, so I'm not quite sure which part of it you didn't understand... unless you were asleep?

c) The Destroyer was in fact NOT stopped by a sword through the spine. if you were paying literally ANY attention you'd remember that the destroyer twisted itself around, tried to blast the woman with the sword, and then ripped the weapon from his chest as if nothing had happened. the team never managed to defeat the Destroyer, he simply simply left... which is equally as bad, but hey.

d) The astrophysicist's interests in the storms was explained in the dialogue of the film, if you paid it any mind at all.

My point is, if you're going to criticize the movie, criticize it on valid points. Cite the predictable plot, poor characterization, shallow writing, etc. But it's hardly fair to lambast the film for things that aren't even accurate.

I'm afraid I too must disagree with your analysis of Thor, Roger. I thought that Thor was a fine film. The acting, visuals, pacing and action were all top notch. The only really glaring flaw with the movie was writing. It seemed as though Mr. Branagh misplaced several pages from the middle of the script that would have expounded upon Thor's character change, his relationship with Jane and Loki's motives. Other than that, the movie was largely error-free. I think you may have misunderstood the film. Thor was not supposed to be a "brute" in the traditional sense of the word. He was a proud yet kindhearted product of his environment. His misunderstandings with human culture do not come from his natural stupidity but rather his ignorance of earth and its customs. This is why the "taming of the Thor" seems to happen so quickly. It was just a matter of him learning how to be human, not changing his whole personality.
Furthermore much of your synopsis of the movie was just plain incorrect. The film does not sidestep whether or not he is human. The movie clearly states that he isn't human, he's an Asgardian. Hence the abilities that no normal human possesses. The movie does not need to go into detail in explaining Asgardian biology because quite frankly all we really need to know is that he isn't human. The Superman and Hellboy franchises spend little time actually exploring the biological makeup of Kryptonians and demons, and I don't remember you criticizing those movies for that fact. The movie also clearly states that Thor's hammer cannot be lifted by anyone except those who are worthy to wield it, not that it is embedded too deeply to remove. The Metal Giant is not stopped by a sword (or a spear, which is what it was actually stabbed with). In fact being stabbed slowed it down for approximately 10 seconds. It is defeated by Thor once he proves himself worthy of wielding Mjolnir once more. As for the town, it was a small town in the middle of New Mexico that didn't really affect the plot. It didn't need to be bigger than it was. The Metal Giant was sent to Earth to kill Thor, not to attack humanity, so to say that it needed to attack a landmark seems to betray a lack of understanding of the basic elements of the plot. I know you're an extremely intelligent individual who is more than capable of understand this movie, so I'm guessing you just didn't pay as close attention as you usually do.
This was supposed to be a fun, exhilarating, entertaining adventure that work both as a stand alone film and an introduction for one of the major characters of The Avengers. In my opinion it served its purpose exceptionally well. Lastly, I must question your criticism of Loki. To me he was one of the more complex, fascinating and well-acted villains in comic book movie history. I haven't seen the original Superman so I can't comment on Lex Luthor's quality as a movie villain, but Obadiah Stane? Seriously?? He was by far the weakest part of Iron Man. He was barely developed and as a result he largely failed to make an impression on me. In fact I have seen Iron Man no less than 4 times and I still can't remember what Stane's evil plot was. Not that it was Jeff Bridges' fault. The writing for Iron Man was just as sloppy as Thor's, if not moreso. Iron Man's script was rushed and unfinished so the dialogue had to be largely improvised. Iron Man was still a fantastic movie though, as everything besides the writing was top notch. The same could be said of The Dark Knight, which has plot holes galore (how is it that none of the bank robbers from the beginning of the movie grows suspicious of the Joker's plan? How does Bruce know that the Joker is about to crash his party? How do Batman and Rachel survive falling off a skyscraper onto a car? Does the Joker just leave the party after Batman jumps out the window? Why? Why wouldn't he just keep looking for Harvey Dent like he wanted to in the first place? How on earth does the Joker's nonsensical speech convince Harvey to become Two Face? How is Harvey able to talk after half his face was burned off? Why don't Batman and Commissioner Gordon just get rid of Dent's body and say the Joker killed those people?). I loved The Dark Knight, but the story needed some serious work. In any case, those are my two cents.

I'm shocked that Ebert liked Iron Man but not this one. For the life of me I cannot see how anyone could say Iron Man was better than Thor. I thought this movie was one of the most entertaining films I've seen in a while. I thought Roger would give a thumbs up to Thor. Ebert and Armond White often manage to surprise me, and while I don't always agree with them, I get a kick out of reading their reviews. I never know what you guys are going to say. I guess it's part of what keeps me reading your stuff. You and White are like Houdini to me. "What's he going to do next?" Who the hell can guess, but I want to find out.

See, I actually enjoyed it, but only because I'm one of those dudes that is an actual comic geek and basically seeing the classic characters on the screen makes us slightly biased in that sense. I think Branagh did a decent job with the material, though I confess I'm waiting to see what Chris Evans can pull off with Captain America come July.

And you get to see all five of the guys together next year in The Avengers, Roger, so that should at least warrant an extra star for the crazy ass spectacle it may be.

6) I'm annoyed that critics have used the word "Shakespearean" to describe this mess of a movie simply because Kenneth Branagh was involved. Or maybe it wasn't because of him; X-Men has also been described as "Shakespearean." Perhaps "Shakespearean" has been redefined to mean "containing tropes."

People seem to be preoccupied with comparing the movie to Shakespeare simply because Branagh was available--
I, however, already knew of Branagh's non-Shakespeare mainstream-film track record, and though I had dreaded, was surprised to find out that the movie was, in fact, BETTER than "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein".
Granted, that's not exactly hard to do. ;)

(I also did not possess a white-hot urge to symbolically burn this week's box-office-headline movie at the stake just for being--ick, poo--3-D!!!
It's a little quality I call maturity.)

All the berating comments directed at Mr. Ebert only leads me to believe that all persons 18-years or younger, or burdened by arrested development, or never get laid, shouldn't be allowed to read movie reviews by Mr. Ebert. I have been more than convinced that "Thor" is wrong for me, thanks Mr. Ebert. And I love "The Dark Knight" because it's more post-modern noir than typical "blockbuster," and I loved Mr. Ebert's review of that one.

With all this immature backlashing, I don't believe Mr. Ebert should be reviewing movies like "Thor" anymore either. Because geeks don't deserve the time of day. And because we, the smart ones, obviously need Mr. Ebert spending time reviewing movies that matter like "Forks Over Knives," "Twelve Thirty," "Queen at Play" and "Cave of Forgotten Dreams." All of which I haven't seen, but thanks to Mr. Ebert, I now want to see.

Last swipe: If you haven't seen "Citizen Kane," "Spring Summer Fall Winter... and Spring," "GoodFellas," "Vertigo," "Aguirre the Wrath of God," "Chinatown" and "Dark City" then you shouldn't be allowed to write a nasty/thoughtless comment on this site.

You are absolutely spot-on in your assessment of “Thor.” I saw it in 3D (yuck) on opening night with some fanboy friends of mine. It was a passable entertainment. Most of these superhero movies strike me as the Mr. Potato Head of film. Switch the back stories, switch the costumes, switch the abilities; same damn potato – white to the core. And there you have it: white, male-dominated Hollywood can’t get enough of the white, male-dominated Marvel and DC comic book universes. It gives me a deeper appreciation for what Gene Roddenberry did.

P.S. To your list of the superhero movie standard-bearers, I would add “Watchmen.”

Can't we demand more from an artform? Why are people liking this movie so much? It occupies a grey center of mediocrity. It's ok to make comic book movies, just, next time, make a better one.

Also, you're kind of an old man but not a fool.

You're still the best reviewer that has ever lived, but I feel like you really short changed this one.

I think everyone needs to calm down a bit though. Do I think Roger was wrong? Absolutely. Does that detract from the fact that I (and we) seemed to like the film a lot? Not in the least.

I'm glad I saw it before I read this. I generally agree with you and this review would have likely led to me skipping what was a fantastic comic book adaptation.

Katie Couric wants to know what comic books your currently read.

Mr. Ebert, I'm a fan, but... this was a pretty lazy review. Sounds to me like you had your mind made up before you even saw it. And the "faults" you specifically pointed out are rather silly.

Why didn't the Destroyer blow up the Golden Gate Bridge? Well, they were in New Mexico, for one thing. And the Destroyer's mission was to kill Thor.

And you seem to have completely missed the reason why no one could lift the hammer. Only someone worthy could lift it. Thor had to first prove himself worthy, which he did by sacrificing his life to save Jane.

I really enjoyed the movie. As AfroQueen, in another comment on here, put it so well, it gave me the same feeling of fun and adventure I had when I read comics as a kid. That's not easy to do in comic-based films.

I didn't walk in expecting to see a future Oscar-winner. I was hoping for a fun, entertaining movie, and that's what I got. You seemed to be expecting "Lawrence of Arabia."

Oh well, I guess you're entitled to phone it in once in a while.

I saw "A Small Act" at Ebertfest, and it really touched my heart. Most especially seeing Hilde Backe after the film. My wife and I had a deep discussion about it afterwards, the idea that it is just as easy to be charitable as it is to be cruel.

When I got back, I also saw Thor. Um . . . not as dazzled.

I confess that I do not have much knowledge about the legend of Thor. I don't know his legacy either in Nordic mythology nor from Marvel Comics. I confess that my knowledge of ancient mythologies doesn't extend beyond the borders of Clash of the Titans. Therefore, this movie is my introduction to the whole enterprise and, by that introduction, I can say that it didn't make me want to do any further reading.

"Will you be thinking of Loki six minutes after this movie is over?"

Actually, yes. Loki saved the movie for me, which I admit was a sloppy mess throughout its New Mexico scenes. When I think back on Thor, I find I'm thinking about Loki and little else.

I give movies a lot of points for ambition. Unfortunately, in a comic book movie, filmmakers often find it unnecessary to try very hard. (Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, Iron Man 2, and so, so many others). Slap enough special effects on it and the "rubes," as you say, will go.

Thor, for its part, tries. Branagh was hired not because a producer confused Norse gods and Shakespeare, but because Loki was written as a Shakesperean bad guy, with extra dimensions and everything. He could have just been wicked for the sake of wickedness and nobody would have blinked. I mean, that's who he IS, right? He's frikkin' Loki. You know, from the library. But the screenwriters put in the extra effort to frame the Loki/Thor story as a spat between noble brothers, which Shakespeare (and Branagh) know a thing or two about. Loki is a little bit Edmund, a little Iago, and a lot of comic book splash. Like Doc Ock, Loki actually had real motivation for doing what he did, and I even felt a touch of emotion for the character at the big climactic moments.

Is Thor a home run? No, and if the movie had spent one more minute in New Mexico, it probably would have passed out from its own lightheadedness. But I still think Thor was a damn sight better than most comic book movies not in the holy quartet you named. Maybe one day I'll stop scoring on an ambition curve, but for right now, I'll take an ambitious mess over dull competency every single day.

In 2D, that is.

I liked Thor. I didn't love it. I guess I align myself more with Vishnevetsky's and Lemire's opinions. It was a fun movie, but Roger's right about the lack of character development. I liked Thor, but I actually thought that Odin, Loki, Jane Foster, and Odin's wife (Did Rene Russo even show up?) weren't developed as well as they could have been. And the romance? Please. That was a "hey, you're hot and saved my life, I'm the lead female, you're the lead male, so therefore we must fall in love." Still, Thor pleasantly surprised me in some scenes, especially between Hemsworth and Hiddleston.

What I'm really hoping for is that Warner Bros. will blow Thor out of the water with Green Lantern. I have full confidence that it will at least beat Thor in the box office. What is certain is that the Green Lantern of the comic book world has a stronger following, better characters, and a richer mythology than Thor.

One of the limitations of comic books movies compared to the comics themselves is that the characters are not larger than life in terms of stature: of not only muscles, but just sheer size.

If you look at Juggernaut in the comics, his hand, just his hand, is literally about as big as Wolverine's whole body.

Here's a picture of Juggernaut crushing Thor like a little bug (as thor is also, only about as big as Juggernaut's hands).

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsJuggernaut15.jpg

So, comic books have their work cut out for them to try to appeal to us in other ways.

About my last comment about the size of comic book characters (and lack there of in films), I'm saying that, like if you look at Juggernaut, there is a kind of feeling of awe at looking at him. So, I think movies need this kind of feeling of awe and wonder about them. I'm not saying it out of some male wish fulfillment or something (as reading Marie Haws comment reminded me that my comment might have seemed as such and I just wanted it to be clear that that's not what I'm talking about).

So, I think you need that kind of feeling of awe and wonder: probably for All movies, not just comic book movies.

So, I mean, I'm looking at the movie (or previews, I haven't seen the movie), and I don't get that feeling of awe from looking at the size of the comic books characters: meaning the movie had better be very good in giving me that feeling of awe.

It doesn't seem like it does. It seems a lot of movies are forgetting that. If you look at, like, "Bonnie and Clyde", the violence in that movie was shocking; there was a kind of awe about it as well, as something that is going on (rather than as something that is just happening...to quote John Lennon; I love the lyrics in that song...and the song too: talking about "Nobody Told Me").

Back to Thor again (or superhero movies too), not only is there not a really a feeling of awe with the look of the characters, but it's also kind of missing from the look of the film too.

If you notice about a lot of CGI movies (as that's pretty much what they are: meaning...) you'll notice that there is a kind of darkness to the look of it: which no doubt is trying to cover for the incongruity of the lighting that comes with CGI (meaning, you can tell it's fake when you can actually see it); so it really is more of a CGI movie than a Movie movie, as it seems they are thinking more about covering their tracks in the CGI department than about the awe that is supposed to come from watching the movie.

I actually really liked the movie...

I liked it more than ROger, but not by much. The final battle was so incredibly blah, and the moment when the hammer came back to Thor was an unfortunate reminder of the scene in Peter Pan where they have to clap to make Tinkerbell come to life.

And I totally agree that you should not have to read the source material to appreciate a movie. In fact, if you have to, I'd say the movie is a failure. The best adaptations take the source material and make it work onscreen. That's why I disliked Watchmen so much.

First time poster. Love your reviews and blogs, Roger, although I'm confused as to why "Thor" was deemed unworthy of a formal review. I also would have liked to see a review of "Sucker Punch", which despite being a narrative mess, confirmed that Snyder is still one of the best young visual directors.

As another poster pointed out, your blog's comments are in desperate need of better moderation. So many of the posts here are embarrassingly juvenile and/or offensive, and add nothing substantive to the discussion.

Man oh man. I wish that, whenever he has a less than stellar review of a genre franchise movie, Roger would always post it as a blog post rather than a normal review, because the splutterings of outraged fanboys are highly entertaining.

I enjoyed Thor a lot more than Roger did, although the action scenes were almost incidental to that (I wonder if that is a flaw of the movie itself, or just a symptom of our current age of CGI overkill).

It occurred to me after the fact that the parts I liked the best were the little moments of interaction between Portman's and Dennings' characters. Yes, I actually liked Dennings in this - weird! I would be happy it if each of the future Marvel movies would have them do a cameo, just sitting off to the side, an astrophysicist and her useless sidekick who makes snarky comments about what's going on. Sort of a Geek chorus.

I too had problems with the Small Town set. It just looked...wrong. The curbs too fresh and sharp, the sidewalks too skinny. There's even one place where the street inexplicably changes width in the middle of the block, with the skinny sidewalk wrapping around the corner - a feature I've seen only one other place, the Downtown Sunnydale set on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show.

The sad bit of your critique is the paragraph about the town. Roger, my friend, you live a sheltered life. I cannot count how many towns in the high desert of the southwest are just like this one. Some are past their expry date. Others are just as they always have been. They just are.

On 15 between Vegas and Barstow, there is a pit stop named Baker, CA. It splits off toward Death Valley. You can see the end of town from the beginning of town. That is just the most famous of these little places. People do live there, mostly prisoners of the D.O.C.; but they are there; somehow managing to carry on living while saving their shopping for trips into Nevada. These strange denizens somehow don’t need Trump This and That to justify their lives.

Sure, they aren’t quite as important as the glorious on the Mag Mile. But, if you prick them, do they not bleed? No? Filled with dust, I suppose.

Now, I understand your point. Why did he land in this place? Why not in Chicago where civilized, cultured humans live? Someplace that matters? I know your meaning very well.

Maybe you can take heart in the sequel. “Thor: Battle for Marshall Fields.” Whoops, lost that already, did you?

I saw part of Thor at the new 3-D Imax theater in Wichita, KS.
Talk about supersize me! Giant screen, and, unfortunately, GIANT SOUND! Before the movie started they showed a 3D high-def video of a space shuttle launch. It was so loud I had to cover my ears. Then Thor started and it was EVEN LOUDER! (sounding like Owen Meany, here, sorry). After a half hour of being continuously bombarded by a body shaking and ear shattering soundtrack, I'd had enough. Feeling a headache coming on, I left and asked for a refund.
Guess I didn't miss much, after all.

Sorry, Mr. Ebert, but what are you actually complaining about? The source material? The script? The research?

I am not likely to see Thor, so I have no idea if your review would accurately reflect my impressions or not, but some of the comments here are beyond insulting and almost painful to read. What is it about the internet that makes people behave so unkindly to others? In any case, don't lose heart, and keep up the good fight. I enjoy reading your opinion even when it does not dove-tail with my own, and I suspect this is true of the vast majority of those who do check in here.

You are an old man, and a fool.

Well, so am I, so at least we're starting off even.

For all your estimable career, you have had a recurrent flaw which has asserted itself many times:

Frequently, when you know little or nothing about a given subject, instead of admitting this, you try to bluff the review.

I've seen this happen most often in cases of pop culture, specifically when it's something that you consider beneath you.
Examples would include movies based on old TV shows, classic detective fiction, and as here, comic book adventure.

By bluffing, I'm referring to the way you spout "knowledge" of the given subject that turns out to be wrong in almost every respect. Exhibit A would be your mangled expertise on Norse myth and legend, demonstrated above. When the comics readers can correct the Pulitzer-winning University instructor, it does come off as a tad unseemly.

Exhibit B might be your Great Movies essay on Superman, wherein you either didn't see or completely forgot the Fortress Of Solitude sequence, and otherwise showed willful ignorance of the entire Krypton mythology, largely because it didn't jibe with your own set-in-stone views of whether a relationship between people from different planets was possible.

I still recall with a wince your pan (basically deserved) of The Spirit, which you concluded with a disdainful mention of Will Eisner, the creator of the character. Apparently you believed that Frank Miller's film was a faithful representation of Eisner's work - thereby indicating total unfamiliarity with the latter. Fans of Will Eisner's original Spirit hated the movie more than you did; unlike you, they had an actual reason for doing so.

Some other time, we can go into how your disdain of TV serves to falsely inform your reviews of the feature versions of old shows. As it is, my available time here is limited.

So here, as a kind of summing-up is another
Semi-Irrelevant Anecdote!:

After Jackie Robinson broke the color line in Major League Baseball with the Brooklyn Dodgers, The other big league teams followed suit - some more quickly than others.
The last team to officially integrate was the Boston Red Sox, which did not have a black player until 1960 (the immortal Pumpsie Green).
But the story goes that the Red Sox actually had a shot at Willie Mays before the New York Giants did.
It seems a Boston sportswriter set up a tryout situation for several young Negro League players and invited the Red Sox to send someone to watch. The scout the Red Sox sent was one of their old-liners who (depending on who's telling the story) was either a Southerner or a Boston Irishman - neither of whom would have been (at least in those days) particularly receptive to the idea of a Negro player.
Anyhow, the scout came to the field, ostensibly to see Monte Irvin, Willie Mays, and a couple of other players. He only stayed long enough to see the other players hit a few and field a few, then got up and announced loudly "I've seen enough" and left.
Believers in the Red Sox Curse have cited this story as a source ever since.

You may think this is an unfair comparison for me to make ("false equivalency" or whatnot).
Tough.

So I'll restate my case this way:
Sometimes you have to meet the movie halfway.
When you don't - when you say "I've seen enough" even if you haven't really been paying attention - you aren't doing your job.
And even if you've got 45 years on the job, and Pulitzers and best-sellers to boot, you ought to still be at least a little conscientious.

End of lecture.
(Although I won't see an answer from you until Monday at the earliest.)

If I can defend Roger on this. Bridesmaids seems to have a credible screenplay. True Grit was loved by many besides Roger Ebert. And Star Trek suffered from what Thor suffers from...game actors and expensive special effects supporting a lightly entertaining but empty screenplay.

Not sure I can defend The Honeymooners. LOL

"Thor" hasn't arrived in my little town yet, so I'll have to wait and see, but I get concerned when folks begin worrying about source material.

Living in a little town with no cable and where the movie theater is only open on weekends, I have a lot of spare time, so I wrote my own book (this part is a plug: "Wodin's Day") which deals with some of these Norse characters as well.

In telling my story, I decided to draw on my cultural memory rather than on a lot of research -- that is, I have run into these characters throughout my life, from comic books, to Wagnerian opera, to mythology classes in college. And in the end I decided to rely on my readers' same vague understandings. That is, I don't want them to worry about whether Thor is really Loki's brother or not, because in the way I decided to tell my story it is not important. I wanted to explore some questions about power and revenge, and the ancient setting gave me a frame for that story.

Filmmakers have the same freedom. I don't think they have to absolutely adhere to a previous version, though it seems to me that we as a society allow more deviation from little known or "less serious" works than we do from, say, Shakespeare. I'm not sure that's fair, but it seems to be the case.

In the end, "Thor" is a take on a comic book, which in turn is a take on the legend, so where exactly does the violation of the sources begin?

Ian R wrote:
I don't think it's a bad review because I don't agree with him, as this has happened many times... but because it seems lazy and even insulting to the readers.
DC wrote:
This is not the first time you do it and it makes me wonder. Not that you will ever care as your tweets prove.

I will add my own contribution to the shaking heads of "Badly done, Mr. Ebert, BADLY done", and search to find some explanation for how we got it in the first place.
While Roger's particular religious views (no, not for Norse gods, although that does seem to enter into it when he happens to find all world pantheons "boring") have been discussed elsewhere at length, we are seeing that particular aspect common to You-Know-What's: The belief that he is the Persecuted Defender of Reason, who must keep watch for anything that might Delude a Sheep-Like Public, and protect them for the world's own good...While, of course, spitting on them for being "sheep" in the first place.
While the legendary Ebert Pan does, at its best and worst, often sound like the gay-snarky line-by-line deconstruction of Michael Medved's Golden Turkeys, there does seem to be the distinct tone of swatting the fly with the sledgehammer, no irresistible pun intended: If it was last week's goofy summer box-office flavor of the week like "Fast Five", or a next week's like Pirates 4, we'd have gotten a simple description of goofy plot holes. But here, there almost seems to be the tone of PUNISHING us for going to see the movie--Who was the Evil Carnival Barker who hypnotized us into paying our innocent dollars to seeing something we shouldn't have, and ignoring such a sweet old Swedish grandma? (And say, wasn't there an evil circus hypnotist way back in the Marvel silver-age comics?--Eh, that's too far back.)
Aw, c'mon, Roger, what, no knee-jerk "Decline of society as we know it" column, or are we saving that for Transformers:Dark of the Moon's inevitably cheap one-weekend box-office anomaly taken hysterically out of context?

Case in point: I have no idea what a "Meet-Cute for the Gods" IS.
No, seriously, I'm lost--I know what a "Meet-cute" is, I just haven't the faintest clue why the movie "shouldn't be" one. (If anything, the Fantastic Four movies had the insufferable yuppie Friends-coffee cuteness I associate with a "meet-cute", and this, dear readers, is thankfully no Fantastic Four.)
What I know a "Meet-Cute is, is a Roger Ebert Trademark[tm]. That's what we're asked to read. It's not a review, else it would be in the news columns with the other reviews presented in Chicago's own respected Sun-Times. What we have is the Roger Ebert vs. Thor (picture the iconic Wolverine vs. Hulk cover)--Watch his sword of Snarky Cynical Reason thwart the evil world-domination plot of a vile foe that thoiught to steal our money with his crafty marketing, and his evil 3-D machine! And while cult-of-personality may be the prerogative of owning a blog, Roger, I've taken credit for inventing a few movie terms of my own that have now become common parlance on Internet movie forums, and you don't see me going around selling them on t-shirts, now do you?

That Thor was a good movie, and accomplished what it set out to do in a genre where it has demonstratably been so very, very easy not to, is a personal belief I will leave aside. It does, however, emphasize that a variant of Mr. Wes Craven's advice lives to this day: Just keep telling yourself, it's only a movie review, it's only a movie review...
(And while some might wish to apply it to the commenters here, It seems that Mr. Ebert is most immediately in need of such medicine at the moment--Intravenously applied or not) :)

Thank you very much for this review. I needed an honest counter-point to what I've been hearing and not necessarily believing.

Roger, you and literally every other reviewer I've read have made the same mistake: Loki is NOT Thor's brother.

Longtime fan and I love your brain, but I disagree with you this time. I enjoyed it as intended, as a comic book fantasy.

That being said, I'm sorry that others here who disagree are so rude and disrespectful.

I will probably be one of the minority on this, much as yourself, but I did not find Thor interesting. Perhaps it is the fact that I know far too much mythology (Bullfinch's Mythology) or the fact that I've read the comics off and on since Journey into Mystery (the first appearance of Thor in the Marvel Universe), but the movie didn't hold much attraction after a while. Yes, there are special effects galore, yes, the plot really doesn't have much connection to either the original mythologies or to the Marvel Comic stories, yes, the characterizations were weak and not really fleshed out the way that they were with the Iron Man films or the first two Spider-Man films.

But it is a typical Hollywood summertime popcorn CGI-fest. Special effects-ladened films are the rule of the day now, and they do the job Hollywood asks of them, namely drag in audiences for a week or two, take their money, then be marketed at Wal-Mart for $22.99 while being pushed via Pay-Per-View on cable services, Netflix, eventually landing in endless rotation on FX, Spike and TNT. (To which point I thank the gods for Turner Classic Movies as I'll still be able to find something new to watch or re-watch an old classic.)

Sorry, I just noticed I was ranting once again over the way Hollywood markets movies today. It makes me feel like I'm stuck in another episode of Short Attention Span Theater, which is really what these movies are designed for: people with short attention spans and don't want to invest the time into thinking on the film they're watching. (I'm still waiting for Another Earth to be distributed, now that is a film that looks intriguing and interesting.)

The metal giant was in New Mexico because he was sent by Loki to fight Thor and that's where Thor was.

Kudos to the comment "You are an old man and a fool." Very clever use of the film in a retort.

I didn't know what to expect from the film. It's not the Norse mythology of Thor, but the Marvel Comics mythology, which has changed over the years.

The rainbow bridge remains, as does Mjolnir (his hammer, for those of you not keeping up with the story). Loki is still the mischievous brother.

I believe the film succeeds in one area, setting up the character of Thor for the movie The Avengers. With Captain America set to debut this summer, next year will feature an ensemble cast for the Avengers film, featuring the Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow (Iron Man 2), Thor, Loki, and Hawkeye (played in Thor by Jeremy Renner), along with Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury.

And in that sense, it was very successful.

Thor begins as a god lacking in humility, and ends the film having found humility and grace as positive character traits. His gratitude to Loki as he's being lied to, and his apology to Loki, are moving.

He knows he's wronged his brother, and offers his life to defend the innocent.

That's a superhero by any measure.

Mr. Ebert, You are wrong for all of the reasons mentioned by your wise and comic-rich talkbackers. Your comments about Asgard, and the hammer (Mjolnir) reveal your profound ignorance of popular culture. You need to skim through some volumes of Silver Age comics, because dude, Captain America is up next, followed by The Avengers, and I for one think in all fairness you should familiarize yourself with these characters before making any more sweeping statements. One more thing. Tom Hiddleston gave an intense, skillful performance as Loki - he was excellent. Far more effective than the usual cliched bombast doled out by actors who play villains.

To quote a movie that is on you Great Movies list, "That's just like, your opinion man."

Quote may not be word for word...

I really enjoyed your last paragraph. I don't know if it's true about Mr. Ebert transforming disinterest into snark (although, despite my faith in him, it seems to be likely), but I agree with you that the film had merits that went unacknowledged, while the flaws were blown out of proportion. Very succinctly and well put.

Why is it that critics like Ebert here are such morons? Sometimes a thing is just fun to watch. Stop comparing this brainless shit to some epic drama trapped in that skull of yours. Relax and enjoy life.

The reason there are so many vehement defenses of the movie Thor, for every unfavorable review or comment on the entire WWW, is that Thor "cannot fly" if all of the boys and girls don't say, "I do believe in Thor. I do. I do."

Some movies reveal

Important Truths

that affect our lives and our self-image. "Apocalypse Now" showed us a different viewpoint on the war in Vietnam. Didn't answer the question of whether stopping Communism was worth all the lives.

"Thor" didn't reveal any Important Truths. It offered dubious explanations about Norse mythology, how the rainbow bridge allows travel between planets, how gods like Thor deal with treacherous relatives.... it was a good story, but lacked relevance.

Over at "Ebert Presents At The Movies" those two traitorous cohosts gave "Thor" two thumbs-UP and said they had fun.

Why did "The Dark Knight" resonate? At least it said something important about the nature of Evil in today's world. Same for "The Godfather."

Sometimes I check Google News and try to find Important Truths that are worth a movie script. Maybe you can suggest one.

Thanks for the review. I liked Thor a lot more than you did but I should have guessed the gods part wouldn't resonate with you. The most I can say for my viewing experience is that one of the reasons the Marvel universe is cool is because grand concepts like Norse mythology and the science fiction of Spider-Men coexist in the same space. A big part of Thor was the idea that the Norse "gods" coexist with Earth's denizens. The disparity between the larger than life Asgardians and us Midgardians was a discovery for Jane and to a lesser extent Thor. Psyche yourself up for Captain America in the summer big guy, 'cause I want to read your review of that too.

Marie Hawes--

You're a Neil Gaiman fan, but only read Batman comics? Huh.

In any case, I think you're deluding yourself a little if you think Batman isn't as much a power fantasy as Superman. A wealthy billionaire who's a super-genius and the greatest living badass gets to exact vengeance on the people who wronged him while being persecuted by The Man and hooking up with a cat-girl with a leather-fetish? Come on!

Almost any superhero is or isn't a power fantasy depending on the reader and the writer. What elevates many Batman stories to literary status is the quality of the writing--which, as you point out, was very high under Frank Miller.

Frank Miller also wrote Daredevil, of course, as well as Wolverine--I'm not sure why you seem to ignore those. Daredevil is rather less of an obvious power fantasy than Batman. His super-powers exist entirely of superhuman senses, which primarily serve to compensate for the fact that he's blind. In addition to a similarly tragic past, Daredevil comes from a working-class background in Hell's Kitchen and despite becoming a lawyer he continues to work there and doesn't become obscenely wealthy. While obviously any highly-trained butt-kicker can be a power fantasy, Daredevil is always a qualified one, and Miller's writing (and later Bendis's) brought plenty of nuance and literary merit to the character.

Branagh should've cast Vincent D'Onofrio as Thor; after all, he already played him in Adventures in Babysitting,/i>--nailed it, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiOu5FP8VHM&feature=related

Thank you so much for staying grounded, Mr.Ebert. I watched this film and felt completely disrespected by the filmmakers who failed to to show any regard for my senses. It wasn't emotional, it wasn't intellectual and it wasn't even beautiful. That's three stikes out in my book.

As for the RT ratings, they are inexplicable. Sucker Punch at 22% seems like a masterpiece compared to Thor at 78%.

Roger,

I have always wanted to tell you how much I love your reviews. In my humble opinion, they hold a place among the short works of the greatest American writers.

This is one of your best. Bless you, sir.

Sincerely yours,

Dan

I don't know if anybody else has said this, but I'm really getting sick of superhero movies. At this point, it feels like we're really reaching for stuff to adapt. For instance, I don't think I'd ever heard of "Thor" before the movie was being made.

Part of the problem for me is that it seems like each one has basically the same story. Guy discovers/trains/has superpowers, finds big bad threatening to destroy the world/take over the city/gain more power, takes him down. Sure, comic books are like this, but it seems like there should be some kind of fresh take if we're going to see this story five times a year. The only movie that sounds like it has an original twist on this is "Super," where the "good guy" is less interested in fighting evil than getting revenge, and apparently becomes just as twisted as the man he's fighting.

Do you think the general public is ever going to finally say enough? Sure, 90% of the comic book industry is based on superheroes, but it certainly doesn't seem like they're doing blockbuster business. At this rate, it feels like we'll be reduced to "Aquaman 3D" or "Hawkeye: The 27th Avenger" by 2015.

Hello Mr. Ebert.
I disagree with you, and I'm not sorry about that. How rich is the world where there are different views, including the movie world.
I hope you'll like more the film when you see it again (only if you want of course).
And thanks for all your work through the years, your reviews are very helpful to understand many great movies that I did not consider before.
My best wishes to you and your family.

I love your reviews. You are one of the people I've looked up to in this business for many, many years. I just happen to disagree with you here. "Thor" is what it is...a fun, summer diversion. Chris Hemsworth is charismatic. Natalie Portman is beautiful. Asgard looks pretty cool.

Maybe I don't ask enough of my movies. Maybe you ask a bit too much of this one. I dunno. But I liked it.

I enjoy good comic book movies. This was not one of them.

-Ryan.

I wonder why everyone commenting here feels so obligated to override Ebert's opinion with their own varyingly successful analyses. It's even more astounding to think that people would come here to leave statements that are nothing less than classless and inhumane against someone they've never met and never will meet in person.

I disagree with Ebert's overall viewpoint on this film, like many of you, but how that makes him worthy of ad hominem attacks I won't ever understand.

It is also important for people to realize that it is perfectly reasonable for two individuals to have diverging opinions, and for neither to be wrong.

Hey Roger

I totally agree with your review on the picture Thor. I read Armond White's review and he was also disgusted with the picture. Why do people think this film is great? I don't get it. Roger I hope you never retire. You haven't lost your touch when critiquing films.

P.S. Will you write anything on this year's Cannes Festival? Which picture do you hope to do some good?

I suppose every opinion is, at best, 'to each his own', and I certainly don't begrudge anyone their opinion. That being said, however, I think Thor was consistently entertaining (which is more that can be said for most of the movies which have been released this year so far) and stayed away from the endless, mindless, CGI-enhanced action-sequences which define so many movies today.

I love Kenneth Branaugh. I loved his version of Hamlet, and watch it every Christmas Eve as a sort of tradition. He was funny and quirky in his bit-role in Harry Potter, and he made 'Othello' entertaining by casting Laurence Fishburne in it. I must say that I appreciated his low-key take on Thor, as well. There are so many ways this movie could have gone wrong (although I realize you must feel it has already gone wrong), camp being the least of its problems.

One of the main problems with many superhero/sci-fi/fantasy movies is that the directors do not respect the source material. With some films, that flaw is evident throughout. For instance, take 'Eragon'. The first-time director the studio chose did not read the book (which was mediocre to begin with, but was at least entertaining), and as a result wound up cutting many major characters and stunting the studio's shot at a sequel. Many fans refused to see the movie, and with good reason. It was crap.

Another example of a film with somewhat less-noticeable flaws is the recent take on 'Percy Jackson', directed by Chris Columbus of Harry Potter fame. Columbus apparently didn't read past the first book, and made the same mistake as the 'Eragon' director: he severed the studio's shot at a sequel (although I'm now hearing that a sequel is, against all odds, ramping up production).

This all leads me to 'Thor'. The comics were mediocre. Die-hard fans may protest, but I've never been much of a comics guy, and I found the Thor comics to be a cheap cash-in of a vague and enigmatic-sounding name from Norse mythology. They were pretty camp: during a hiking vacation in Norway, a scientist becomes trapped in a cave as aliens attack earth. He finds the hammer of Thor in the cave and proceeds to turn into a stereotypical, fur-wearing he-man commonly found in cartoons from the 80s. But I digress.

The point is, the concept of Thor was campy to begin with, but by treating such campy material respectfully, Branaugh was able to elevate it from its original mediocrity into something delightful, fantastical, mythological, and dare I say romantic. Somehow, the 80s-era he-man became a halfway intelligent film that incredibly does not rely endlessly on CGI and uses it as a storytelling device to create beautiful realms like Asgard or terrifying winter wonderlands like Jotunheim.

The dialog is more intelligent than the dialog found in 'Fast Five', a pointless, loud, and boring film which shockingly received a decent review from you. I'm not begrudging you your opinion, but if you're going to give 'Thor' one and a half stars, at least have the decency to give a loud, unoriginal cash-in like 'Fast Five' the review it deserves.

I suppose this is all my opinion as well, and I am entitled to mine as much as you are to yours. That being said, I feel as if this review doesn't even do the concept justice. At least give the film technical credit, if not acting credit. Everyone knows 'Thor isn't going to win any Oscars come February. But at least they enjoyed it, judging from the 79% positive rating it currently holds.

Good God, Roger, you brought the geeks out of the woodwork with this review. You woulda thought you said video games aren't art, or something silly like that.

The reason Branagh's film of "Hamlet" had a better script was because HE wrote it. Not to mention, it was the first time somebody had earned a screenplay Oscar nomination for a straight adaptation of a Shakespeare play. His only involvement with "Thor" was with the direction. I honestly thought that "Thor" was a very entertaining movie, partly because it finds humor in something as sad as a God forced to live as a man. Still, I agree that it isn't his best film, not even close.

Roger,

I normally love your reviews, but sometimes I wonder if you miss important points and then rail against the movie makers for messing up. Then I'm left wondering if you didn't like the movie because of the acting/directing/script, or because you think a pick-up truck should be able to move Thor's hammer. To help you out, Thor is the brother that uses brute force to get things done, while Loki uses his intellect for lack of physical power. Loki is known as the trickster, for he constanly provoked his brother through pranks. This is known from both legend and the comic books. So if you don't like the Thor character for being a dim-witted brute, then you did not understand the dynamic between the two brothers.

For myself, I seem to remember that everything you thought made no sense was explained plainly in the movie. With a movie like Thor, you've got decades of material in the form of comic books that the writer, director, etc are working from. In a perfect world every single movie ever made would be award worthy, but that just isn't the case. When I walk into a movie like Saving Private Ryan, I expect a high bar. When I walk into lighter entertainment like Thor, I expect a high bar for different reasons.

As Stan Lee would say... 'Nuff said. :P

"The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets." Now THAT I would pay to see.

Well folks, opinions are like you know whats, everyone has one. Roger just happens to make a living sharing his opinions about movies. It does not mean he is right or wrong and you can make your own judgements about the films he reviews. I myself enjoyed Thor. A masterpiece it is not, but it was fun. And I do think Roger's review reflects either a lack of understanding or failure to pay attention to the movie, which has been pointed out and explained in numerous posts above, so I won't regurgitate it here.

Reading all these comments and flack that Roger is getting for his review is a sad reminder why Hollywood releases tripe like this: it knows it will make a lot of money either way.

What's even sadder is that critics with integrity and respect for the art of film-making are fewer and fewer and get railed when they don't follow the crowd and rate a film based on it's mass appeal.

Don't change Roger. I wish there were more critics out there who had your education and respect for this business. It will be an end of an era when you decide to finally put down the pen and retire the thumbs.

how do i write this? I am conflicted on the movie, and on the review as well. For the movie i shall go into further depth, for the review i just have this to say. Mr. Ebert's opinion's are usually close to my own and he constantly points out things i miss even after viewing something many times. His opinion is his opinion and i respect him for that, also people THIS IS JUST A MOVIE!!!! its not like he wrote about wanting to murder your children, grow up.

I enjoyed Thor, but will probably never be interested in watching it again. it achieved its purpose of setting up the character for the Avengers movie. Remember that movie is going to feature a lot of characters and if you have man in iron suit (got it), genetically modified monster (ok), uber patriotic man (believable), and then The God of Thunder (huh?) working together without some back story the movie simply wouldn't work. X-2 was better than X-1 because most of the first movie was setting up who all the characters were.

my biggest issue with the movie, and i'm sure i'm reading to much into it here, is that for supposedly immortal beings they sure do worry about dying alot. Why is there even the issue of who is going to inherit Odin's throne, when he is never going to die? Does one retire from being the Allfather? that and them running completely roughshod over norse mythology and turning Loki (one of my favorites) into a whining ass hat.

The next is the confusion of throwing in real mythological characters into a comic book universe, here the blame lies with marvel not the film makers. Comic book characters are modern myths, with the same purpose of old myths. They represent aspects of the universe purified into human form. the best example is batman, and his unending battle with the joker. one represents order and rationality; while the other chaos irrationality. the reason neither ever really "wins" (kills the other) is that both are constants in our universe. By having a real "god" (and lets set aside they are super aliens thing, because from our perspective they are gods) in a comic book movie it just confuses things.

The third issue is the whole boring, stupid, purely formulaic love plot. Why was it there? it added nothing to the movie and I'm still confused exactly why either character is in love with the other. if merely being handsome and kissing a girls hand makes them fall deeply in love i have clearly been pursuing the wrong strategy for far too long.

that being said one thing i really liked about the flick was the 3-d, and not even in the movie itself, that was annoying. during the credits with all the beautiful flying through space shots, i really could see the nebulae and galaxies in a way i had never before. makes me wish someone would convert the hubble images into 3-D. I still left with the usual 3-D headache though, they really have to work on this technology or step up and give us real holograms.

ambivalently,

mike

I can't comment on the film because I have not seen it. But I can state, rather emphatically, that those of you you who claim or imply that Ebert didn't like it because he didn't get that it was intended as comic book fantasy don't seem to realize that he's probably seen most of the popular comic book fantasy films out there (at least as many, if not more, than you). Really, doesn't "it's a fun fantasy film not intended to be realistic" amount to a poor excuse for thinking a film is good? It's either a good film, a mediocre film, or a bad film regardless of its subject matter. For those of you that assume he was expecting Lawrence of Arabia or The Dark Night, show me where he makes those comparisons in his review. On the other hand, The Dark Night was comic book fantasy and it was great. Why not expect greatness from this film, too? Why not, as a viewer, hold it to a high standard when you're paying good money to see it?

I developed a sixth sense of being able to feel when I wouldn't like a movie. This one I doubted my original feeling because of all the good reviews. Now I'm glad I wont waste 15 dollars. I will trust my reasoning that Bridesmaids was released as R because it must be a good film.

Lol.
You totally put this review on your blog just to infuriate people, didn't you? This reminds me of Battle: Los Angeles. Once again, I'm disappointed by the general public. I honestly don't understand all these comments... People actually want to knowingly watch mindless entertainment? And they scold you for disliking it? Because you never watched it for what it was...? I feel the real reason here is that they don't want to feel like idiots for enjoying what they know is childish.

People like criticism that tells them what they want to hear. For this reason, I enjoy Armond White. When you hear someone's opinion, take what you want from it, people... You don't need to have a fit.

Why's everyone so sensitive?

Mr. Ebert

After reading all these varied and impassioned comments, I'd be very interested in hearing about your history as a critic, specifically in how you deal with people who disagree with you and claim that, as in this instance, you've never seen the movie. When I look at all these comments, my first thought is to immediately add in my retort (which would be, how could any sane human being think Thor is a good or entertaining movie?).

But then I realize that you have refrained from doing so, perhaps because for so many decades there have always been a few people, or as in this case hordes of people, who feel differently than you and are incensed at your opinion. What has been your experience with this, I guess you might call it anti-criticism?

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised by "Thor". I suppose I might be a bit swayed by the fact that Chris Hemsworth had a shirtless scene which distracted me for quite a while, but I also thought the Asgard scenes were beautiful (Bifrost especially was quite a treat to behold, with the way it lit up between the horse's hooves), and if the characters weren't entirely three-dimensional, well, I don't expect much from a comic book movie. I really felt it embraced some cliches lovingly and took fun in subverting others, and had a great time watching it. I'd gladly see it again. It may not have had the complexity of the first "Iron Man", but that's entirely all right. It was a different kind of movie about a different kind of hero.

Dear Roger,

I’m sorry. I feel like an ass. I really do. I know you don’t want to (and for the most part will not) explain why you haven’t reviewed a particular film and I know you want us to stay on topic when we post on your blog. You can guess where this is going…

You’ve opened my eyes to a lot of things. I was ten years old when you and Gene reviewed Diva on your show. I don’t remember what you said about it but I distinctly remember desperately wanting to see that movie. For a kid obsessed with all things Star Wars, this was quite an achievement. Your writing also helped me realize the power of the documentary. You once wrote "We live in a box of space and time. Movies are windows in its walls." Hoop Dreams, Gates of Heaven, Michael Apted’s Up Series, The Fog of War and Herzog’s “nonfiction” search for an “ecstatic truth” all have the capability of knocking down those walls entirely--they have the power to change our world.

Where am I going with this? Tonight, right before I’m typing this, I saw a film that moved me in an indescribable way. It made me want to change this world. It made me think of another quote from one of your reviews, "In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to." The movie was the 2010 Oscar nominated documentary, GasLand. I sincerely hope you will bring it to the attention of a wider audience.

Thank you.

Well, I'm heartened to have been joined by so many defenders of Thor. Why wasn't the review in the proper section? Even if late? Clearly because it was not a proper review. Credit to Roger for posting a Twitter link alerting people to the extent of the support for the film in these comments. I now challenge him to do one better... watch the film again...properly.. and give us another review!

I think I've solved all the problems that relate to reviewing Thor lately... It's not that it's a bad movie (in my humble opinion). I think when you understand that it's essentially a family movie aimed at children it makes it that much easier to swallow.

When you take it in the vein of the Marvel adaptations that have come out lately (that ultimately set up the world of the Avengers) this is a pretty valiant effort. I disagree with people who say that the characters are not likable or that they are unintelligent. They are likable, they are intelligent; but in the manor that old-fashioned characters used to be in adventure films like The Sea Hawk, Treasure Island and Jason and the Argonauts.

I understand the state of movies today. It is a shit, shit world we live in full of corporate greed. The movies often reflect that as well as their marketing. Much like in real life, I think the beauty of existence can take place when you realize that nothing was meant to be taken so seriously and that you should just "go with it". Chances are, if I could do it better than Branagh, I suppose I'd be directing Thor; but for what it's worth I'm not him.

Also, on a final note. I personally grow tired of all these "fanboy-isms" that people like to attach to others in regards to analyzing films of this nature (fantasy/sci-fi/comics/special effects etc.). Films are films, period. It doesn't have anything to do with the personalities of the individuals (what dispositions or tastes they have in movies). If a movie is good, it's good period. That's what all the so-called-movie-nerds recognize. It just so happens that some of those movies may be like Captain America. For instance, if you set the characters, acting, and drama and dialogue quality of Harry Potter in a contemporary law firm chances are people would still like it.

Interesting review; but why were you not as critical of the unoriginal (seen it done before) 3D garbage Avatar? The writing there was just as bad if not worse.

The film (THOR) follows the comic which is the point of making it. Avatar stole from comics, other movies and even the music was lifted (seeThe Time Machine: Dreamworks SKG) )from others creations.

It's the levels of understanding:
Literal
Moral
Allegory
Esoteric

Thor is a literal "morals" play; that is it.

Roger I still like this movie but I understand your points on it people could be so damn ignorant in these comment threads.

I disagree with many aspects of your review. I saw this movie with my mother, who was a huge comic book fan in her hay day, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it, though love would be a better word for my end. Neither of us had seen anything but the occasional tv spot for Thor, so to say that what seems to be a mostly positive out look for the film is just the achievement of marketing, may not be at all true. Not that I'm saying that my mother and I are the sole contributors to this opinion, but judging by the many comments here that disagree with this review, it's quite obviously a very sturdy counter to your consensus. .

It really is a pity that some people here aren’t even going to give the movie a chance because of what it written in this review. The opinion is not wrong, an opinion can‘t be wrong, heck I do completely agree that many things could’ve been more fleshed out etc., but like others have mentioned, some complaints given are more than a little unfounded. I won’t get into them because other commenters have and they’re right. I noticed that you commented back to someone mentioning the humor, but that’s obviously backtracking. There are points that are wrong and you were being called out on them. I’m speaking of the reply to Daniel, where you mentioned that you were referring to the humor of the hammer situation, but that is definitely not the tone you gave it in the review.

“Will you be thinking of Loki six minutes after this movie is over?

Honestly, speaking for myself and many others on a few separate web sites, I can tell you that the answer to this question is a resounding yes. Loki and Tom Hiddleston were utterly fantastic. And to be completely honest, I only remembered who Stane was when other people elaborated on the character in their comments. I’ve seen Iron Man many times, yet I couldn’t even remember the name of Jeff Bridges character or the majority of what he did. In all seriousness, all I can remember with certainty was that he was bald…which is also what I remember for the most part about Lex Luthor. Would it have helped you if Loki was missing a bit on the top?

Maybe I should make a point clear, I haven’t read a single page of the Thor comics and I know very little when it comes to Norse Mythology, but I completely understood the movie Thor and I loved it.

Now, some have mentioned that just because it was “fun” doesn’t mean it was “good”. All I can say to that is, just because Thor’s “fun” and people enjoyed it despite it’s flaws or it’s lack of seriousness, doesn’t mean it wasn’t “good“ either.

Ebert's job is to give his opinion, which may or may not act as consumer advice. He didn't like Thor, he said so. He should not be the subect of attacks. So you liked Thor and he didn't? Don't attack him. He's being going to the movies longer than most of us and has seen more movies than most of us ever will. I think he knows a thing or two about what makes a good movie.
One can never be "too old" to be a critic. If anything, with his age, he's in a better position to review a movie than ever. At least he can recognise a poorly crafted, cynical marketing exercise like Thor when he sees one.

Firstly, thanks for the lame reply
u clearly didn't get that I was quoting the movie
coz I was and it was meta of me to do it
kindly stop reviewing movies

You are not worthy
of this response
u old fool

From "Raging Bull"
Joey, I hear ya saying a lot of things—but I'm not hearing you say the right things.

I haven't seen the movie. For the purpose of this discussion, that might be a good thing. The counter arguments for the film—if you can call them that—are slim on specifics about the merits of the film. Nevertheless, just as a thought experiment, I'll take a whack at the logic behind Roger's essay.

First things first, favorite line in the essay: "I know aliens from other worlds are required to arrive in New Mexico, but why stay there?" Hah-hah.

There's this Woody Allen joke from the sixties. Someone calls him up and says they want him to do a commercial. Woody responds by saying, "I'm, an artist. I don't do pander." The guy on the other end of the line says, "That's a shame, we were going to pay you $50,000." Woody says, "Wait a minute. Let me get Mr. Allen."

While it is true that actors and directors sometimes yield to temptation and take