I would rather read one of your reviews than watch a comic book movie any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. No movie should need a glossary of terms in order to be understood.

Flail on, Mr. Ebert - there is no better entertainment (and it didn't cost me $25, either, although I missed the popcorn!)

I am a comic book fan, and these sorts of knee-jerk reactions (and honestly, you should see some of the criticism these same folk lob at actual comics and their creators) are just embarrassing. But I'm sure you realize that.

I've never read a single Thor comic book in my life, and I still thought your review was extremely silly, as is this non-apology.

I find it particularly strange that you insist on finding Thor inferior to Spiderman II, a movie so amateurish it is actually embarrassing to watch. No, I don't read Spiderman comics, either. But where Spiderman II was mostly hollow, badly-written and badly-directed nonsense, Thor actually engages some serious themes - on top of being quite funny and enjoyable as an action movie. With its treatment of war and arrogance and father/son relationships, Thor is by far the more adult film. Nowhere is there anything as moving as Anthony Hopkins' performance as Odin in Spiderman - or in Iron Man, for that matter. And frankly, I'll take Thor's pursuit of wisdom and restraint over The Dark Knight's glorification of Bruce W. Bush any day.

Finally, I must say that the stereotypes you seem to believe in when it comes to other people are rather sad. It was much the same with the "games cannot be art" discussion. Not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of childish geekery, and it's rather foolish of you to keep implying so.

Love how you constantly state opinion as objective fact.

I never claimed that Thor was a good movie, nor did I claim you hadn't seen the film. All that was pointed out was that you seemed woefully unfamiliar with the original material that it was based upon.

I also expect that, if the film makers would've done a better job, they could've made an excellent movie. Poor stories do not continue for nearly 40 years in serialized form if they don't at least contain a good percentage of entertaining stories. Pity that didn't make it to the big screen

So, on the basis of you overall opinion of "Thor" (since I have yet to see it), what kind of star rating would suffice for this picture?

Just FYI, Destroyer is enchanted armor made to defend Asgard. There's a quick little bit about it but it is easily forgettable. Also, I believe the third scientist is an intern from the local college. I swear Portman says something about getting a new intern or some such thing. Not meant to correct, just letting you know. I wasn't thrilled with this movie either, and I'm a big collector of Marvel comics. I even outlined how it could have been more fun if they HAD stuck more to the comics, where Asgardians slap each other on the back and laugh in the face of battle, Frost Giants are, indeed, giant, and Norse Gods don't look like they are in an Abba video.

Ebert: Enchanted armor. Which is why only the Hammer could stop it.

It was a reader who told me Kat's character was merely a friend. I had the impression she had some kind of a scientific function.

Roger, a few notes I wanted to leave.

First of all, I didn't say anything about the initial post because everyone had already done such a great job going apeshit that I felt like it wasn't even worth getting into that brawl.

However, your mistakes were pretty bad. I was with a whole group of my friends. A couple of them are far more schooled in comic lore than myself, as a kid, I focused on X-Men, Batman and Spiderman comics to the ignorance of the rest out there. So I've been going into all of these Marvel movies, outside of Spiderman, in complete ignorance of the backstories and such.

Despite that, I caught things that you clearly didn't. Maybe it's because I was more entertained by it than you were. I enjoyed myself, and I wasn't bored, either. I'm glad that you've addressed these things, because I was upset at how you seemed to totally blow the whole Destroyer story when anyone paying attention to the movie would've gotten it.

Also, I wanted to say that I hated the Ang Lee version of the Hulk. Just terrible. No one I know liked it at all, and we much more enjoyed the Ed Norton version. I enjoy plenty of smart movies too (L.A. Confidential being my all-time favorite movie), but I don't understand the love for Ang Lee. I've never really enjoyed his work at all, and the Hulk flat-out sucked under his work.

That's all I have to say. Most of the time, I appreciate and enjoy your work, so I hope you keep on going for quite a while.

Your first review was fine. I was underwhelmed by Thor's weapon also. And I didn't give a damn about the movie either.

Nor, rarely for me, was I able wade through all of the fanboy comments. Same with the video games aren't art thread. I'm just staying out of the way.

Movies may be a letdown for a while anyway after EbertFest. Thor was just for my boys.

"There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie 'good' because you 'like' it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies."

Please, Mr. Ebert. Tell us some of the bad movies that you liked! Can you finally admit that you actually did like 'Rapa Nui?'

I wish the smelly, jabbering nerds would leave Roger alone.

Ebert: In space no one can hear you smell.

I'm surprised you decided to go out of your way to respond to the peanut gallery.

I think anyone who can't read your tone is likely not a regular reader of yours anyway.

I honestly have gone out of my way to read some of your 1 star (or less) reviews because I think it's entertaining, just as you've described above. It's not meant to be mean spirited.

I only hope you don't reconsider writing a review the next time you see something as bad as "Nutcracker 3D". :-)

I can't believe that you have spent any additional time "explaining" yourself and your review of THOR... you have completely wasted whatever time you spent writing this, unfortunately, because you're simply never going to convince these idiots that THOR is a terrible movie, nor should you try. It's like arguing with a Glenn Beck fan that FDR didn't make the Great Depression worse. Give it up and write about something else, Mr. Ebert, please! Pick some other battle.

Tell you what -- if Superman: The Movie is considered a "great" movie, then Thor is a good movie. As a big Superman fan who cares nothing about Thor as a character, nonetheless I still believe those first two Superman films are vastly overrated....

I respect movies that assume the audience has some knowledge of its genre, versus watering it down and wasting time explaining it all so everyone understands. The movie is title Thor, not 'movie starring fantastical men', going in you should respect the film enough to at least understand a bit of the universe. Is this exclusionary? Sure, but far less people as geek culture is now the norm. One of the largest attended movies year over year are superhero or fantasy animated movies. These movies target the mind space their audience is in. Just like a romantic comedy doesn't explain the concept of love any 5 year olds that might be watching, today's popular culture movies thankfully don't spend their on screen time explaining their universe to those completely out of the loop.

One of the largest gathering in the US is Comicon, its tagline is "festival of the *popular* arts". Given the audience size (over movies, theme parks, books, etc) may I suggest you take that line to heart. It is no longer fringe culture, it *is* the culture, period.

You say that "liking" a movie doesn't make it good. It seems to me that a "not liking" a movie doesn't make it bad. Thor is not a bad movie. Is Spiderman 2 better? Yes. However, you say in your review of Spiderman 2 that it is the best superhero movie of the genre's modern era. Thor shouldn't be dismissed because of Spiderman 2's greatness.

I have never read a Thor comic book, but I still thought it was good. It is certainly better than Spidey 3, Xmen 3, Wolverine Origins, Incredible Hulk and Superman Returns.

"Thor" is a gem among Marvel's live-action films.

You are the greatest film reviewer of all time. Also, I find you to be an inspiration. Probably the closest thing to a saint this atheist will ever believe in. Unfortunately, everyone makes mistakes. This is one of yours. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of critics and fans disagree with you so the film's success won't be greatly altered by your dissenting opinion.

Peace and Love,
Dusty

Nuts to these whack jobs, Roger. Your review and your rebuttal are hilarious, hit the mark, and are both delightful.

I am thrilled that people got angry because it meant you got to write more about this ridiculous film! I hope you have to respond again! Keep it up! Don't give in!

Roger,

May the devoted fans of Thor the almighty now relax, and not attack you for your thoughts on the movie.
Speaking of remakes... what the hell is this "Spider-Man" remake nonsense?? Raimi's films were adequate, were they not? Any thoughts on that?

Anyone bashing you for not knowing the ins and outs of the Marvel Universe is guilty of a great absurdity. Responding to criticism of your review as if everyone who found your review wanting did so because you do not know the ins and outs of the Marvel Universe is an equally great absurdity.

The flaw in your review was not that you didn't have the knowledge of someone who has been reading "Thor" comics for 40 years, but rather that you didn't have the knowledge of someone who had watched the movie "Thor" for 120 minutes.

You don't have to apologize for anything. 'Thor' had some amusing moments, some cool moments, and was well-acted for what it was, but, in the end, it's just another "fast food film" that is already crumbling in my memory. Let's not talk about it, anymore.

It strikes me as quite odd that people forget your chosen career is 'Film Critic'. Aren't you supposed to criticize film? Aren't there more than a few 'Film Critics' around, for good reason?

Methinks Thor's hammer may be a bit too embedded in some peoples' brains.

Let's see if that virtual bridge can take us back to 1960s Chicago. If so, I'll meet you at Lou Mitchell's for some mile-high lemon meringue pie and we can forget all this nonsense for awhile.

A 'loyal' fan,

ebert wrote

They brought more to that dismal film than it brought to them.

just like you did with 'knowing'. god that movie sucked"

Roger, as someone who is a big fan of yours and who, while not a comic reader for many years now (since childhood), still remembers them fondly and understands the basics of the Marvel Universe, I will explain one thing in these comic book movie reviews that bugs me.

You don't just review the films as films. Though admittedly ignorant (more or less) of the source material - which as you say is completely fine for a critic - you often end up reviewing the comic book characters themselves. Based just on the movies. This appears to be more the case in the heroes you seem to know less about going in - The Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Thor. So because, say, The Fantastic Four gets really shoddy movie treatment, you appear throughout your review to think it means the characters themselves and their book must suck, and is easily outdone by other Marvel properties that have had superior movies. But Fantastic Four, for example, is a classic book. It was the book that launched the company. They're referred to fondly as Marvel's First Family, and are just generally beloved and considered by fans to be inherently interesting and not at all lacking compared to the other superheroes.

If you just review the movies themselves, and don't try to review the characters and their worlds (as you interpret them based solely on having seen the movie adaptation), you'll be on safer ground I think, and less likely to offend - although obviously there's a large contingent of fanboys out there who'll be offended by anything. But I'm talking here about people who have some reasonable grounds for offense. Iron Man got a great movie. You probably didn't know much about him going in, but your review didn't seem to indicate you thought Iron Man was a relatively lame character, or his universe a relatively lame universe, in the canon of Marvel heroes. But comic readers know that in fact Iron Man is second or even third tier among the Marvel "stars," has no real rogue's gallery to speak of, few classic story arcs to speak of compared to most of the other big names, and often is simply not that compelling a character. The movies are the movies. The comics are the comics. The characters and their worlds, if they're to be judged the way you often appear to judge them, are properly those of the comics.

Hope you can appreciate the distinction I'm making. I just remember reading your Fantastic Four review and actually feeling offended on behalf of those characters, who are every bit as classic as Spider-Man or the X-Men, and who in the minds of generations of boys (and girls, for that matter) have a kind of dignity that you seemed to dismiss out of hand by declaring them lame, all because they got a lame movie made about them.

These characters are our mythological figures, they're our hero and villain figures, and pathetic as their adult fans are, the characters themselves really do have a dignity all their own and to a certain extent ought to be treated with more respect. When you review Troy, you don't (or shouldn't - altho you actually kind of did) review Achilles the character, or the world of the Iliad as a world - you ought to review just how well or how poorly that figure and his world were portrayed, ie, how good or bad the movie was. The characters and their worlds are obviously good and interesting or they would never have survived this long and become iconic.

I saw Thor today. I never read any of the comic books. I enjoyed it, I thought it was a lot of fun. As for what you missed in the film, the Destroyer was mentioned twice in the film before he actually landed on Earth. And Thor did draw the map for Jane showing that Asgard and Jotunheim were separate planets and how they and the other 5 planets were connected by the bridge. Maybe you dozed off on that part? I also thought it was pretty obvious that Thor couldn't move the hammer because he wasn't worthy. I thought the same thing when his brother couldn't move it either. But, in any case, if it didn't grab you, then I can see how maybe your mind may have drifted away from the story. There was good humor in the film. It didn't take itself too seriously, I felt. Not an Oscar choice, but a good popcorn flick.

Perhaps your problem is that you actually read and engage the comments left on your Blog/Facebook/Twitter by trolls who'll never be happy with anything you write.

Problem or not, one of the qualities I admire about you is that you do take the time to read comments and engage your readers.

Take the bad with the good, I guess....

Ebert: The reason I ran that as a blog entry was to take advantage of the comments.

It's really getting boring hearing people complain that somebody didn't like the same movies they did. I used to think that way, then I graduated from junior high.

The amount of details they cite in trying to disprove you is depressing. "Character X isn't a scientist!" "Character Y is adopted!" "The robot's name is Destroyer!" Just how much do these details matter in the bigger picture of the movie? I would say (without having seen "Thor," and never planning to) not much, seeing as how a movie critic can forget about them while reviewing the movie.

I wonder how many people who are this obsessive over comic book movies were complaining about Tom Bombadil being left out of the "Lord of the Rings" movies.* Not everything about an adaptation needs to be dead accurate to the source material. And to quote an Internet recapper, if a movie requires you to know all these things going in, then they should hand out pamphlets when you go into the theater. (And look how well that worked for "Dune.")

Also, "I might indeed question how many other movies some of my correspondents have seen, since they confused 'Thor' with a good film" is a great line. Can't wait to see if this becomes another "Transformers 2" argument.

* You have no idea how tempted I was to troll and say he'd been left out of the "Harry Potter" movies.

Ever see those films where the famous gunslinger has the little twerps trying to make a name for themselves by always following him everywhere to challenge and taunt him? But - they're obviously not remotely at the gunslinger's level and never will be. And yet, they keep trying.

Sure you do. You are a Writer, Game Designer, and Filmmaker so you are at least as expert as Roger Ebert on knowing such things. Probably MORE, right? So keep calling him out, Jonas!

BTW - what did you write, design, film, anyhow?

I saw the movie, enjoyed it, but enjoyed your review just as much, nodding along amused. There was/is a group of persons on IMDB generating positive reviews for Battlefield Earth not out of love for Scientology but because they love the sci-fi genre and want to give the movie points just for belonging to it.

I work in a comic book store but don't see many comic book movies. I'm behind. I haven't seen Watchmen. I don't think I need to, knowing that parts of the book have not made it into the film. I also don't want to be the guy who complains about how the movie is different from the comic. A good chunk of a comic fan's serialized comics spread out of 20-40 years may not make any sense in that span. The 'cannon' of the comic is going to be inconsistent due to the number of artists and writers who go through the revolving door over the decades of that character's existence.

Spider-Man 2 is a fun movie. It's vivid, wild, exciting, and isn't awfully paced and too packed with too much exposition like certain other franchises. But I ask myself, every time, during the scene where Doc Ock gets hurt in his lab experiment, "why are they trying to simulate fission in someone's loft?" Anyone who has taken a science class that had a remote conversation about nuclear fusion should question why recreating such an amazing feat isn't done in someplace a little more...controlled. With less glass. You know, because it's almost impossible. As someone who studied a bit of journalism, I'm amazed that the reporters aren't immediately wowed by an almost-Ai four-armed contraption. It's not fusion (which any science journal/ist would recognize the need for something a little more protective to wear in its replication upon seeing the lab in question), but it's still kind of an amazing scientific breakthrough, no?

A customer started a discussion about being disappointed by various 'comic book' themed movies, and I realized what I was dealing with when he mentioned that he didn't like the Dennis The Menace movie when it came out. That was what, the mid-90's? This person looked older than myself and had to be in his mid-30's or so when it came out. I asked why he saw it in the first place, and he said that he was a fan of the genre and had to be supportive.

Thanks to people like yourself, and perhaps Mort Drucker and the Usual Gang Of Idiots, it's fun to take the time to ask questions that these movies attempt to not address. So keep it up.

LOFL. Any Thor fan of any kind

But yea, can we get Roger Ebert fired? (from what exactly?) He ruined our basement masturbation session devoted to a golden-haired Norse metrosexual who uses a "hammer" as his weapon of choice. And here I thought homosexuals had taste...that's what I get for stereotyping.

Asgard isn't another planet (I really don't know what fan could have told you that). Asgard is on another plan of existence, and so is all of the other worlds as described in Thor (i.e. Jutenheim). To get to these other planes of existence a "bridge" is needed and that is the Rainbow bridge, which is a worm hole that allows this kind of travel.
...
You were totally right in how you described the relationship between Thor and Loki. They are brothers no matter what you say and should be treated as such. And speaking of Loki, in the context of this movie, he is a lesser villain than that of Doc Oc or Osbourn. As any fan will attest to, Loki's real cunning and power's of manipulation is only really appreciated when it involves other characters in the Marvel Universe, not just the citizens of Asgard or Frost Giants. Only when Loki can make enemies within families is his true power can be appreciated. If you can ever read SIEGE, last years Marvel event, and the events that led up to it, you will see what I'm talking about.
...
I can see where people can think THOR was a bad movie because in all actuality none of it was for non fans. Fans love it because it got everything write. It probably could have gone the whole movie without naming any of the characters and it would have been loved by us fans. And as for it's plot, it's simple. It's for children, even children not fans prior, to enjoy. It's only so deep or so dark you can go before it's not even a THOR movie.
...
Also, what it is very important to remember is that THOR is just a introduction of a character for the upcoming AVENGERS movie dir. by Joss Whedon. And THOR does that perfectly. You can even get a pretty good idea of what the movie will be about if you ever read The ULTIMATES I and II by Mark Millar on Marvel's Ultimate Imprint. It came out a few years ago.
...
With all that said, we comic book loving fans deserve better movies, that also can please non-fans of the book it's based from. Special Effects is great, but a better story can never be sacrificed.

Ebert: Another comment i just posted tells me Asgard is a planet. You guys hash it out.

ebert wrote

They brought more to that dismal film than it brought to them.

just like you did with 'knowing'. god that movie lsucked"

i had no problem with your review. keep writing 'em just like that.

For the most part, I do believe this movie is loads of fun for children and comic book fans, but where I believe the adult themes lie is in the relationship of Thor and Odin. A very proud son seeing his old father weak in his eyes. All Asgardians know is war and all that comes with it. Diplomacy to a boys eyes in that kind of world is weak, and something should be done about it. So why not do what you think your father, the King of your land should do? The films message (one of them), as I can see, is what to do with your son when he's disappointed you, and how can he overcome it and be great.

Here are some odd choices I have with movies; I prefer Tron over Star Wars and Temple of Doom over Raiders. Mock me all you want, I can take it. I realize I am wrong. History (as well as basic story telling) has proven me wrong. I don't care. I feel as if I am grown up enough to come to terms with this and see little point in acting out as a cranky troll on forums because people tell me I am wrong. Their opinions in no way diminish my enjoyment of these (among other) admittedly odd film choices. Mr. Ebert has every right to call my judgements in cinema into question. He's seen far more movies then me and I feel he has more
then earned a right to his status as one of the beat reviewers of our time. One thing I will say about this criticism Mr. Ebert, is that you have a typo while talking about the Frost Giants. You should say "It" instead of "I". You should probably take care of this before people who want to find reasons to criticize suggest you not only didn't see the movie, but can't write. I'm saying this with my tounge fully in my cheek, and am in no way affiliated to the kind of "literalnet" devotees who need a movie like "Brazil" explained to them.

I've never read a Thor comic either. My knowledge of the movie came from the movie, and that's why it seemed to me you misunderstood some things. I don't think the film was fantastic, it's just that your particular criticisms didn't make sense because they were based on a misunderstanding of the plot. The tone also implied criticism of the movie because it didn't follow the mythology when the source material is the comic, not the mythology (and the two have little to do with each other).

Mr. Ebert, you couldn't have written a better review of Thor. I came out thinking, "Well that wasn't very good." So did my friends, but we were all having trouble putting it into words. Besides the ridiculous costumes (they look like children’s Halloween costumes, of which I’m sure there’ll be plenty) and the characters I didn’t care about, I wondered what was lacking. Thank you for pointing it out. The villain was atrociously bad. Here was my biggest question about him. The Asgardians seemed to be aware of Norse mythology, so why didn’t they just pick up a copy of whatever book was in the movie and give that a read? I’m sure they’d find lots of stories about how Loki betrays them. It would have saved them a lot of time and grief. I cannot understand why this movie got a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes. You seem to be one of the only sane reviewers out there. Honestly, if you think this is a good movie, you ought to consider watching a few more films. It’ll change your life.

So....anybody who writes against Ebert now has to admit that they don't have any plans on a Saturday night....right?

Trying to tell an avid comic book fan that their beloved source material has been made into a bad movie is tantamount to convincing an evangelical that gay marriage is acceptable. Or a GOP leader that tax hikes are necessary. These are futile, albeit noble, endeavors.

Tangent alert -- I'm wondering whether the corruption of the Playstation network will cause gamers to read a book (one sans pictures) or see Thor a few more times. I'm thinking the latter. Studios should really start crashing gaming networks during tentpole release weeks. Just seems like good business.

I do believe that a certain amount of fealty to source material--regardless of source--is fair to expect. Otherwise, why bother with source material at all? That said, no story--regardless of medium--should outsource mandatory information. This was my greatest qualm with the Star Wars prequels: In nearly every conversation I have had concerning them, too many of my questions have been answered with some version of, "Well, it was explained in [insert book or comic book title]." I should not need to consult extraneous materials to fully comprehend a story.

One thing that seems to elude too many of my fellow geeks and fanboys is that it may not be appropriate, or healthy, to fill in gaps of omission or to mentally revise inconsistencies between an adaptation and source material. Doing so assumes that an adaptation must adhere to a non-existent paradigm.

Especially in the realm of comic books, I am stunned whenever a viewer will balk at deviations from what they consider sacrosanct. I'm sorry, but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that readers will spend years reconciling continuities, time-travel conundrums, retcons (retroactive continuity changes) and all those kinds of things that accompany the countless incarnations that have seen print over the years, and then cry foul that a film version isn't a panel-by-panel recreation of their personal, definitive ideas of the characters and situations. Come on, people. You can't tell me you made perfect sense of the Chris Claremont run on X-Men, but can't accept a Thor movie not explicitly citing chapter and verse from the comics.

You've lost it old man. Time to retire.

Ebert: Hey! Isn't that a line from the movie? :)

There's no real significance to where the rainbow bridge leads to specifically on any given planet, I don't think. You were reading too much into it, as if everything must fit into nice boxes. Why LA? Why San Francisco? Why anywhere else? If anything, I'll give you a hint: Thor was being exiled to the middle of nowhere because he was being exiled. He wasn't supposed to be noticed, simply exiled. Why exile him to a city where the wormhole could have caused major destruction? The middle of nowhere is a rather explicit "duh." No offense.

I'm not a Thor fan. I've never read the comic books at all. I didn't know the name of the machine, the Destroyer, either. I didn't know of its significance before the film but the first few scenes were far more explanatory than you give credit - it's obvious he was one of their big weapons and simply a robot which takes orders. He was given the order to go after those who violated the king's law - including Thor. The Rainbow Bridge took the Destroyer where it needed to go: where Thor was. Why destroy the town? Seek and destroy (it's in the name) might be my guess - or basically anyone else's guess. It didn't know where Thor was until Thor showed himself. The fact the Destroyer didn't bother going after any other parts of the town, having executed "seek" enough, gives away the whole destroy now part.

What he's called is insignificant, and it's rather silly for the true believers to call you out on not remembering its name. Nevertheless, it was mentioned in the movie. Its name, however, doesn't matter. The fact is it went and did what it was supposed to do.

As for the whole spine thing, you have to admit that it was poor reporting and simply a mistake on your part. I don't think there's any excusing that. It doesn't matter, though...

... because the movie had all it needed to give the viewer an idea of what was going on. You probably crossed a few lines equating this film's fans with Atlas Shrugged fans considering the latter was such a horrid caricature of the original book that even I, as an avid Ayn Rand hater, can't be bothered to use the movie as a mark against her or her philosophy. The Atlas Shrugged movie barely made sense even to fans of the book.

I don't deny that a lot of fans went into the movie theater knowing the entire history of the Thor comic book character much like Rand fans did their own movie - their defiance of your critique shows that clearly. You, however, are also at fault for coming into the movie theater with presuppositions of your own. It's clear as day from your original critique and now your defense that you went in with whatever knowledge of Nordic mythology you have and expected more adherence to that than was wise of you. In a way it can't be helped - we go into things with our experiences and knowledge on our backs. The rabid Thor fans who ravaged you with the rage of a thousand thunder strikes did the same exact thing, and you've suffered their lashes by keystroke. It is of note, however, that they have plenty of reason, although little good excuse, to act this way. The difference is they're not paid to take the content of a film and critique it objectively. That is the primary difference between the fan and the critic.

As both a comic and movie nerd, I happen to agree with Mr. Ebert. Thor was a shockingly inferior movie. What I did take away from it was the idea it had potential to be a good movie...maybe even a great superhero movie. Thor is, as source material goes, pretty primed for Shakespearean influxes, and political play is largely avoided in most superhero flicks.

However, potential is not actual, and the Thor we do have is silly. The romance is, even by comic standards, pretty sub-par; actions seem to have variable consequences; and Loki's ambiguity is either subtle or an accidental product of sloppy writing.

Thor is not a terrible movie, but let's not go crazy and call it "good" either.

Having said all that, I should have noted that I didn't think the film was all that great, either. I didn't expect too much from it and got out of it exactly that. I think I went more to watch Kat Dennings more than be entertained by the plot and action.

I'm going to be fair in my acceptance of the film, though. I don't question whether you actually watched the film, you obviously did. I'm just wondering if you were either too sleepy to give it the attention it deserved or if, as you said, you "just didn't give a damn" enough to give it that attention. It's much like the problem with juries and the trials they're in; if the jury is tainted before the trial, it can affect their judgement. I have the feeling you went in not giving a damn and, the movie failing to impress you, left you with little else to give - including the effort to make an objective critique.

This is no Iron Man, nor is it a Watchmen or Spider-Man II. I won't argue with you there. I'd put this movie somewhere between Electra and the Star Trek XXX movie that just came out (which is awesome, for the record). As I said above, I'm willing to give it a fair trial.

Having said all that, I should have noted that I didn't think the film was all that great, either. I didn't expect too much from it and got out of it exactly that. I think I went more to watch Kat Dennings more than be entertained by the plot and action.

I'm going to be fair in my acceptance of the film, though. I don't question whether you actually watched the film, you obviously did. I'm just wondering if you were either too sleepy to give it the attention it deserved or if, as you said, you "just didn't give a damn" enough to give it that attention. It's much like the problem with juries and the trials they're in; if the jury is tainted before the trial, it can affect their judgement. I have the feeling you went in not giving a damn and, the movie failing to impress you, left you with little else to give - including the effort to make an objective critique.

This is no Iron Man, nor is it a Watchmen or Spider-Man II. I won't argue with you there. I'd put this movie somewhere between Electra and the Star Trek XXX movie that just came out (which is awesome, for the record). As I said above, I'm willing to give it a fair trial.

Roger, I simply love you. You're kind and diplomatic, but still possessive of that perfect snobby wit that attacks when most needed and appropriate.

And thank you for echoing the sentiments of all true *film* loving people that Ang Lee did, indeed, deliver a beautiful and better Hulk.

I almost feel I need to apologize on behalf of comic book geeks. I happened to have enjoyed the movie (and I was not a fan of Thor in the comics). My girlfriend and I had a very good time at the film and came away glad to have seen it. However, to be hammered over the tiniest details from the comics is ridiculous. Shouldn't these films be intending to go beyond the comic book audience? It's just like the Christian films my friends who are as such insist are great (Facing the Giants, for example). However, the movies are just plain awful. Shouldn't it be better made and reach a wider audience? Wouldn't that be more effective?

Anyway, it is ridiculous how people get. Relax, folks, it's a summer movie meant to entertain...not some kind of scripture. Sheesh.

Hey man, if you hated it, you hated it. I liked the review--and the crucial word here is "review"--but the movie sounded deadly before I read it. Isn't the point of reading someone's review of a film to get their opinion of it? You gave your opinion; that's what I was looking for, job done. If I disagree I for sure don't take it personally. We as a nation are mightily easily offended these days,

I'll wait for Cap'n America and hope.

And just when this "controversy" starts to die out and the fanboys crawl back into their caves, good ol' Jim Emerson will reignite it on "Scanners", and we'll have two more weeks of winter. But it's good for ad revenue, I s'pose.

Yes, that did bother me as I was reading this. Roger, I love your reviews, but I hate it when people state any form of opinion as fact,and those who say that a movie being "bad" is a fact, and moreover, you lose points for calling who don't see something as being bad, idiots (I know those words aren't actually there, but that's what I got from reading this).

As for Thor, I enjoyed it very much for what it was, a lighthearted piece of entertainment with some effortlessly charming performances, especially from Chris Hemsworth, and I love that the movie doesn't take itself seriously at all. That's my prblem with Spider-Man, it takes itself way too seriously and thre are scenes where you can feel the melodramatic strings with every line that is uttered (some part of Spider-Man are amazing, especially the second one, but it does have a lot of flaws). I also think the Nolan Batman films, as visionary and ambitious as they are, take themselves a little too seriously, and I sometimes feel Nolan is too in love with his own ideas to ever have fun with them(I thought Inception had some of these same problems). All I'm saying is, Thor is entertainment, two hours to laugh and be excited for two hours, and I think as that it mostly succeeds.

"Not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of childish geekery, and it's rather foolish of you to keep implying so."

Mr. Ebert was pointing out that much of the outrage over his Thor review was childish geekery, not implying that anyone who disagreed with him did so out of childish geekery. The difference between the two is enormous.

Anywho, I get what Mr. Ebert's saying. I'm a comic book fan myself and not only have I witnessing the outraged nitpicking he's talking about but I've engaged in it myself. But the fact is that studios don't make comic book movies for comic book readers. They make them for a wide general audience. And Mr. Ebert doesn't review movies for comic books fans. He reviews them for that wide general audience, people who don't know the preconditions for lifting Thor's hammer. They have to entertain those folks and let them understand what's a happening without a crash course in Thor continuity.

And to whatever geek told Mr. Ebert that only Thor could lift the hammer, shame on you. My favorite non-Thor person to lift the hammer was Beta Ray Bill although I did get an intense geek-girl thrill when Wonder Woman lifted it in a Marvel/DC crossover. That's the problem with getting childishly geeky. There's always someone out there more childishly geeky then you. As further proof someone may soon pipe up and say my info is outdated (I last read Thor enthusiastically when Walt Simonson was turning him into a frog) and Thor's been ret-conned. *sigh*

Proponents of THOR seem to give it a pass because it faithfully aligns itself with its comic book lore. This is no way to critique a movie. THOR should still stand on its own as a movie. I admit that it's not the worst movie ever made, but it's not that great either. Why give it a pass when it has superfluous characters like Darcy Lewis (because she brings comedy relief! They say) or when the romance between Jane and Thor seems forced (But Thor has killer abs! They shout). The movie is two and a half stars at best.

Don't worry, Roger. I thought it was a bad movie too.

Mixed emotions leading up to this movie's release. First I was excited by the prospect of seeing a widely-released Kenneth Branagh film again (that's a rare phenomenon these days). Then I saw the trailers, and my excitement sunk, but it looked, quite frankly, awful. Then I read all the glowing initial reviews, which got me excited again. Then I read your review, and disappointment set in again.

Ya so then I saw the movie.. Spot on, Rog.

Marvelites, why weren't you this outraged when Spider-Man made a deal with Satan Himself to annul his marriage? When Joe Quesada decreed it was preferable for kids to see Wolverine murdering people with metal claws than smoking a cigar? Or when (because this trend is nothing new, alas) Professor X and Alicia Masters retroactively turned out to have been replaced by shape-shifting imposters?

One of the largest problems critics face, that most people don't know about, is that press screenings are typically held at something like 10am on the Tuesday before the movie comes out. It varies, but the atmosphere is the same-- a critic sees a movie in a vacuum, often ignoring (overly wordy/gushing) press materials, and must then formulate an opinion based solely on this solitary experience.

The critics readers, though, DON'T see the movie alone. Well, they might, a year after its release, on home video or instant streaming, but for the most part they'll view any movie, especially Thor-- as I did-- in a packed theater with 500 people happy to be there. They laugh at the jokes that work, groan at the ones that don't, cheer the good guy and boo the bad guy. Thor had moments that covered all that. It's tough to get caught up emotionally when you're seeing a film in an empty or near-empty theater. Seeing a movie with a crowd is a communal and visceral experience.

Having said that, I give Thor a B. The writing was adequate, the acting was acceptable, the direction of the actors was decent but the direction of the film was terrible. The first act of the film is actively unwatchable, more pointless generic CGI, as we wait too long to get back to the opening scene in the desert... though the film does gain back some ground in the final two-thirds.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people happy to nitpick every little thing (especially on the internet). Though Mr. Ebert didn't get all of the facts right initially, which he addresses above... even if he had, people still would have complained. Because it WAS a fun time at the movies. Not one worth watching a second time, maybe, but does that really matter? Transformers 2 made $200 million domestic. Marvel has bills to pay.

Ebert: I saw it somewhere in between, at the Webster Square mutiplex at 8:50 p.m. on Monday. The theater was perhaps 40% filled with a quiet audience.

Fanatic

–noun

1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

–adjective

2. fanatical.

Origin: 1515–25;

—Synonyms

1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee.

Ie: I can get excited about stuff too - insert BBC Doctor Who - but there's a line between really liking something, and needing to defend it while hoping to bend others to your will by way of abuse.

And why getting publicly angry with a film critic for not liking "Thor", strikes me as akin to announcing to the world that you're trapped in a state of arrested emotional development and or possible signs of mental illness.

"The clannish anal-retentive fanboys were MEAN to me!"
No: The percentage of reasonable discussionistas on the forum--who have a secret tendency to indulge their inner adolescent in more refined adult perspective--cautioned you that a rather less-than-open-minded column overstepped its bounds.
Perhaps it was OUR mistake--We'd been so accustomed to being adults able to put less refined pleasures in context with our own lives, that the attempts to point sniggering fingers at "somebody else's" mania craze was one that such readers did not find as amusing or instantly gaining of sympathy as the writer hoped it would be.

"But I guess that's what I GET For being such a curmudgeon in todays' wacky Wi-Fi world! :p "
Well, for something, anyway. It's said that the wisest words one man can utter in his lifetime are "Me and my big mouth". (In the words of Ralph Kramden.) The core Athie may believe otherwise, but there is, in fact, no joy or benefit in having the public give you dirty looks. It is not, and has never been their fault for doing so.
In other words:
If I had my piece on "Thor" to write over again, I think it would be more bemused and whimsical. My tone was off.
...Hell, yeah.

The "apology" was rather less than apologetic too: "I was pelted with rocks and stones for not knowing the name of a giant robot!...Go figger, huh?"
Well, I believe it was for not following the general plotline, and THEN piling dismissive abuse on the movie for "not having a plot", but nice bit of reducto ad absurdum. For the record, the Big Giant Robot's name was never mentioned more than once in the script, so don't feel like you'd personally been nailed to a cross JUST for not remembering it.
But if it makes you feel better to fantasize that every single bit of censure you received was simply for nitpicking by goofy obsessed fans, then I suppose we all need our Happy Place.

There is a larger question here.
...There is? Oh, good.
For a while there, it looked as if the question had been about YOUR professional conduct, and whether you had realized any insights from the public complaints it had received. But that was our mistake, because it was REALLY about some larger philosophical issue that we can all intellectually smokescreen ourselves with, and wring our hands about the Temporas and Mores, because those who do are always enlightened enough to be free from blame.

Judging by the videogame threads, it's reasonable to assume we'll get a third "Why is ever'body always pickin' awn me?" column, followed by the inevitable "See, somebody really important and intellectual doesn't like icky comic book movies either!" attempt at self-justification...And then a quick discussion-steer back to school memories.
But these are neither here nor there. You had been called out for your professional behavior and your song and dance went thump. Courtesy--if you remember it--requires recognizing the opinions of those around you, or you have done nothing. But then, it was probably a slow posting week anyway.

What makes this entry just as obnoxious as the original blog posting, is that everything you missed and attribute to being explained in the comics (while insulting fans of the comics), is actually in the film. While THOR wasn't great, it was nowhere near as bad as you think. Paying attention while watching the film is something I generally expect from you.

This review was just an unprofessional disappointment.

Good point about separating immediate amusement from lasting standards. I laughed during "Thor", and didn't wish I was elsewhere, but never would I go into a superhero movie ancitipating such underwhelming sterility.

I didn't make it all the way through the comments on your original post, but I can't believe there are actually people who found "Thor" better than "Spidey 2", "Iron Man", or either Nolan Batman film - let alone its dull excuse for a villain.

Hopefully the plot of "The Avengers", in which Loki will inevitably appear, involves him consuming a vial of Diabolical Pizzazz.

And don't forget the Wacky You-Tube video, folks, hyuck!
That's what comic-book fans look like, y'know! :D

(....Oh, to live in a world where everyone who might possibly disagree with you is a cartoon character.)

The comparison with the Ayn Rand devotees is spot on. Both the Randians and the Thor/Marvel maniacs are treating the source material for the object of their devotion as some sort of holy writ, which tells you a *lot* about them. Treating any attack on a comic book franchise as well as its big screen adaptation is ridiculous. Whatever the appeal of Ayn Rand's celebration of childishness and assholishness, criticism of either the recent film adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged" or its source material (a pretty crappy novel to begin with) shouldn't be seen as some sort of blasphemy. I doubt Catholics and Protestants in 1965 were nearly as hepped up against critics who panned "The Greatest Story Ever Told", a film known around my house as "I Was a Swedish Jesus".

As a side note, it probably won't happen, but I hope that any box office success for Thor might help lead to a US video release of Branagh's film version of "The Magic Flute". Not holding my breath, but i can hope!

Dear Roger,

I did enjoy "Thor" but I also enjoyed your review and do not feel any apology or explanation is necessary. I do think you should be a bit kinder to Kenneth Branagh, one of my favorite artists, who frankly needed to make a film that people would actually go see. Hopefully young people who like "Thor" will be interested in seeing Branagh's masterpieces and learn about Shakespeare, Pinter, and film noir (referring to "Dead Again" here). Branagh did manage to make a much better film than the awful "Iron Man 2" and "Fantastic 4" films, so it's not like he was totally slacking off. He probably made the best possible "Thor" movie. For you, and maybe for me, that is not enough, but for children, teens and fans of the comic, who knows?

Your lifelong fan,

Andy

Don't sweat it Roger. Even Marvel comics artists and enthusiasts acknowledge that Thor is one of the silliest superheroes ever created, and one only needs to look up the tomatometer for 'Garfield' to realize that a critic's opinion is still just an opinion, there's no accounting for personal taste.

I never liked Thor until watching the new Avengers cartoon, (Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes) that fans of the comics are calling the first animation to get it right. Thor is actually kind of cool, in a clueless sort of way. I still haven't seen the movie but intend to. Still, where's the Black Panther movie? An African prince who is also a ninja? Now THAT's a movie I want to see. Think Calvin Lockhart from 'The Beast Must Die'.

I meant to share this link to a review show from Vancouver you may not be familiar with in an attempt to understand video games and gamers. They also review theatrical and dvd releases, so it might be of some professional interest to you. They liked the movie, but blast the slew of videogames linked to it's release

>Reviews on the Run

Yeah, you may have gone overboard, but it was not a great movie. Being the fanboy of Norse myths that I am, I loved the hell out of it. I pretty much wet my pants when Anthony Hopkins teleported to Jothenheim, but I was well aware that this was not a good movie. I too had trouble reconciling the Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet with Kenneth Branagh's Thor.

Ok, granted that Thor is not the best movie ever (100%), but certainly we can agree that its not the worst movie ever (0%). Yes it has its faults and its a popcorn flick with less plot than a saturday morning cartoon, but for what it was it was done well. From your review it was horrible (25%). I'd like to argue that it was at least worth watching if you like comic book movies (50%). Perhaps thats what the problem was, the movie was obviously not aimed for your audience.

Yes, its a movie to sell toys and to build hype for the Avengers movie. (I personally would love an Ant Man movie ^_^) Yes its Marvel cashing in on their old comic book properties. But surely they did a half-way decent job with Thor, even with all its faults.

Wow, here I am trying to argue with Ebert over a movie review. I must be mad. I might as well try to extol the virtues of Flash to Steve Jobs...

Well, this is disappointing.

First, let me say that I have a huge amount of respect for you. I think the way you tackle film criticism is admirable (we actually used it as a model for assignments in some of my college courses) and even when I disagree with you I respect your opinion. And actually, it's usually because you go way to easy on a movie I can't imagine anyone liking. I've also read some of your brilliant pieces on life in general and religion in particular with a great deal of admiration. But I have to say I don't respect this post or your previous quasi-review at all. In fact, I think it's disappointingly condescending, something that I don't generally associate with you at all... except when it comes to video games.

You say: "There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. " That's true enough (you've definitely liked some bad movies), but it's also true that just because a reviewer doesn't like a movie it doesn't mean it's a bad movie. That's a fairly obvious statement, but I suppose it's one worth making because you seem unable to really understanding the generally positive critic reviews and word of mouth.

I think the most galling thing about the review is that you made so many mistakes totally explained by the movie without any need to know anything about the comic at all. And when those sort of mistakes are made, to me that's more of a sign of a reviewer not caring enough to give the movie enough respect to pay attention to it. That, combined with brushing it all off as something for children was pretty much guaranteed to raise some fan's ire. I found it slightly odd, actually, for a piece of entertainment I personally found a well-acted and well-directed bit of fun (loved the production design too) evoked such a strong amount of disdain from you. I do think the tone was a bit off on the first piece, so I'm glad you recognized that.

Just a few notes for clarity:

The reason why it's strange (to the point of being almost hilarious) not knowing where Asgard is has to do with the fact that we fly by all kinds of stars and planets and things before the slow reveal of Asgard. How could it possibly be on Earth? No comics reading needed. Also, Thor explains the relationship of Asgard, Earth, and several other "realms" (planets) later in the movie. He even draws pictures.

Also, the "Destroyer" (er, you call it the Destructor at one point here... just saying) is called by that name several times in the movie. Also, who says Sif was totally thinking she could kill it? She was just trying to do SOMETHING to save her friends. That doesn't seem too complicated nor does it require a ton of thought.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Darcy is a political science major who is on the project for college credit. She is not Jane's friend, so some commentators seem to have lead you astray. Again, this is the subject of a couple of jokes several times throughout the movie and shouldn't be too hard to pick up. Again, Darcy is not a character in the comics. All that's needed to understand her character or why she is there is paying a modicum of attention to the movie... not reading up on the "lore."

Interesting to read your return to this topic. Having been one of the people who wrote a defensive comment after the Thor review, I can also say that this is a strange phenomenon we're witnessing. I never read Thor, and I wasn't any more of a comic book devotee than most average kids in the 90's.

However, your negative review of the film hit a strange note with lots of other people, including me. For some reason, I think many of us saw Thor as a harmless kid trying to entertain everyone, and though there is no place for "fairness" in criticism and the public forum, we saw your review as somehow unfair, picking on the kid for things he's entitled to be forgiven for. I can't explain why this phenomenon happened to manifest at this particular moment, but I don't think it was simply because of the comic book fan-base.

Anyway, thanks, as always, for your thoughtful and edifying reviews, and I -- as with most of the commentors, I hope -- never had any intention of holding you in contempt for writing something I disagreed with.

I don't think you were too hard on this movie. The fanboys will be fanboys and their masses will never seize to throw their trivial logic about comic books around as if it the end all. Books mind you, that consistently contradict themselves as it already is.

They treat these comics as if they were the bible, which is fitting. Just as we can have fanatics, we too can have our fanboy idiocy. As Jonas in a post early points out; "Thor actually engages some serious themes", but what Jonas fails to point out is that they where handled with the depth of a Powerpuff Girl episode.

Furthermore, Thor made the worst sin of all, it was f'n boring! Now you can tell me I'm wrong, but it is a fact: I was bored with the movie before me. I have read the comics and I am a fan of comic books, but comic books in no way give a free pass to the movie made of it.

Roger your opinion is respected, and I wouldn't worry to much about fanboy arguing over trivia! As you quoted before "There are some folks that, if they don't know, you can't tell them".

Actually, I (a 20 year old) remember thinking the film was alright and that I just couldn't hold it to any higher regard in consideration of whom the chief architects were. A studio..

And your "errors" were imports of reason in such a simple-mindedly long film settling territory no farther than two hours of exposition.

But... there were indignations to be suffered by in your review, more eye-rolling than the immature arcs shoehorned into the film.

check yo tone, homie.

Well said, Mr. Ebert. Very well said. And I think there is a larger point to make here when it comes to movies being 'faithful' to their source material.

I used to be of the opinion (only when I had actually read the source material of course) that a movie adaptation should reflect it's source completely and absolutely or else it's a failure. It is only recently that I have realized how wrong I was and that was due to me tuning in to the new HBO fantasy series, Game of Thrones. The show is based on a series of novels unread by me (and very likely to remain so).

Talking about the series with people who have read the books has provided for some of the most maddening conversations I have ever had. People explain character's origin stories to me that I have no concept of and that add nothing to my overall opinion of the show. Scenes I found pointless and needlessly expository have been explained to me as 'necessary for the future'. You are very right that people often treat source material as 'Holy Writ' and therein seems to lie the problem with adaptations.

Five years ago, I would have read your Thor review and blasted you for not understanding the comics and not knowing what you're talking about. Now, I realize that movies and TV shows need to stand on their own, separate from the source material. If I've read the source, my opinion might change a bit, but I should try to keep that aside and view the film or TV show as it's own work of art. It's a delicate balance, but it is ludicrous to expect people to (1) read every comic book and novel in the world and (2) to change their opinion on a film once the source material has been properly explained to them.

I really enjoyed Thor - and I can respect someone for their opinions, if they have valid reasoning behind it. You don't seem to be able to validate your opinions anymore, however.
Every time I read one of your reviews, there's also something that you say that is just plain wrong or doesn't happen in the movie, or that you interpret incorrectly - something you snidely acknowledge in this article, except that you imply from a pretentious point of view that one can only understand the plot points that YOU didn't understand only if they are familiar with the comic....something entirely ridiculous and inaccurate. Even if someone will counter your ignorance, you will keep - as Mr. Tom Strong's comment above says - stating opinion as objective fact. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're just incompetent and unable to understand simple plot points, or listen to dialogue in the movie that explains exactly what you don't seem to comprehend?
You say, "Didn't I realize it could be lifted only by Thor, after he became worthy of it? Yes, I realized that, but what I wrote was quite accurate from the POV of the earthlings in the movie, who kept tugging at it."

Excuse me? Since when should you state an opinion as fact that is based off of the "POV" of the characters in the movie? Of course the people acting in the movie attempting to pull the hammer won't know about the need to be worthy to lift it...because they are IN THE MOVIE AND THEY AREN'T REQUIRED TO KNOW THAT. They didn't hear Odin whisper the words before sending it to Earth, but WE DID.
Your astound me with your "logic".

You've lost your way, Mr. Ebert, and I really think it's time for you to retire.

You have always been people's reviewer than a reviewer's, which is what makes you so useful (no offence intended).

I find it somewhat disappointing that age and comic experience have somehow entered the arena of how good a film is.

When Scott Pilgrim came out I saw the most disgusting usage of ageism on both sides of the supposed spectrum now revisited with Thor. The added "benefit" of Thor is to show that you have to devote your precious time on Earth to study old, usually terrible comics to snarkily comment on a review that is online-only and so wonderfully satirical that it saddens me anyone could miss out on the tone.

Ah well, I'm sure there are people angrier about this than your pieces on evolution - and that brings me to an even sadder plateau.

There is a larger question here.

O-kay, it's late at night, it's early in the thread, I can play the game:
(ahem) Mr. Roger Ebert's Larger Question, That Doesn't REALLY Have to Do With His Acting Like a Snide Narcissistic Jerk:
Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards.

On a larger sense, it DOES:
What makes a movie "Good"? (Now there's an abstract intellectual-trap Ebert column headline if ever there was one...)
If you're studying movies academically, there are a hundred standards...If you're paying for them as a diversion, there is one standard that immediately springs to mind, and the other existing academic ones are discussed afterwards on the way home--Namely, that if the movie was biling itself as "entertainment", were you entertained?

No, this is not a dismissive "Aw c'mon, it's fun!", it's tapping into the psychological reactions we have when watching a movie: If we "Like" it, it did something right. If it does something Wrong that it was SUPPOSED to do Right--either in terms of bad acting, or badly realized production, or a badly interpreted idea of the storytelling it was supposed to deliver, like the Green Hornet movie--then the curtain was pulled aside, the artifice we sought to enjoy was spoiled, and we were NOT entertained. And an entertainment product that did not Entertain, like a singer who can't sing or a dancer who can't dance, may be called a movie that failed at its goal. If one did not like the movie--on, ahem, its own terms, not one's own--then it is very probable that the movie made a big Boo-Boo.
(I myself have rushed to the defense of many movies that were publicly attacked as "bad", yet never would I admit to their being "Bad", as I could readily point out something the movie technically did Right that lesser movies could learn from....I do not enjoy movies by mere accident.)

We have seen many comic book movies, from Fox, Sony and Warner/DC alike, make many, many boo-boos in many wild and woolly forms.
One might, in the right allegorical frame of mind, even compare the glut of comic-book movies this year to the glut of CGI movies at the beginning of the 00's: First one big hit attracted attention, then the same studio put out another one that made it look easy, and then every studio jumped on the bandwagon, and for a while everyone thought they were coming out of One Big Studio...And then, after the bodies cleared, someone noticed heyyyyy, WAITaminute--All the quote-fingers "good" ones seem to be coming out of one particular place! Maybe those are the ones we liked in the first place! (And then we all tried to nominate Pixar movies for Oscars, because we were having fun indulging our inner-childs on Rolls-Royce production values.)
If you're not at that stage where you can step back and make qualitative X vs. Y comparisons, and judge that there are some things in the particular execution that can make Movie A within a particular genre "good"--ie., successfully entertaining without big boo-boos, and Movie B "not good" for making some particular mistake that others have made in the past--then you will be likely in the position of just thinking some Mean Person is dumping a whole bunch of these movies on you just to bother you.

The rest of us who have passed this stage will indulge in a hobby we call...what was it again?...Oh, yes: Film criticism.
And not acting like snide, narcissistic jerks. :)

Roger, you're above this. Don't waste your time.

It wasn’t your unfamiliarity with the Destroyer that upset people (Okay, the fan boys were pissed). Rather, it was your claim that the film’s makers fabricated it and threw it into the story simply to amp up the action. Quite simply, however, the statement was incorrect and completely made-up on your part. It made the tone of your initial reaction seem more malevolent than you had intended.

There other basic plot points you didn’t seem to pick up on either, but as you said,
“With some films every frame seems to register. Others have a strange quality of slipping wraith-like through my mind without hitting any brain cells.”

The goal of the film makers was obviously to entertain and engage (even if only on a basic level). That “Thor” failed to do that for you is not your responsibility, and people should stop responding to your last entry as such. There were some posts that dissented from your take in a classy way. It’s a shame that the majority of the community could not find it in themselves to do the same.

Although not having seen "Thor," I understand what you mean. I've done my share of flailing at movies in such a way as to incur the wrath of their devoted fan base. Example: a certain concluding (or middle depending on how you count them) episode in a cartoonish series that came as a cultural juggernaut, with a lot of influence over the thinking of its target audience, and which reduced Natalie Portman to playing one of the worst weak woman stereotypes in recent memory.

Don't worry Roger. The comments section on your last couple of blogs have been filled to the teeth with childish comments. The average internet user and movie goer is far too casual to understand what you're trying to say. They eat up generic films like Thor because their level of understanding doesn't go beyond the realm of special effects. It's unfortunate that Hollywood spews this garbage, but as long as the average movie watcher remains clueless and brainless, Hollywood will continue to rake in the cash.

Oh if only there were more fantasy directors like Hayao Miyazaki. You know, the type of person who perfects their project and cleans out cliches and conventions brought by modern film. He's the type of person that makes a film that can be rewatched generation after generation because it's so timeless and high quality. I just wish most studios would quit producing crap and start really thinking more deeply about their films. The same can be said about the audience, but you can't just raise the intelligence quotient of the world and hope people will quit being stupid!

And yes, dear fan-boy commentators, I called your opinions stupid. It's my opinion that your opinions are bad.

I have to admit, with no shame, that I very much enjoyed "Thor". I am an artist and have, for as long as can remember, been fascinated by the visual world created in films. I spent a lot of my time in the cinema picking apart the special effects looking for flaws while hoping to be stunned. "Thor" and more particularly, its portrayal of Asgard did that for me. Visually it was very appealing and beautiful. I must admit however, that although I had great fun viewing this film, you're statements on the emptiness of its plot are factual. When asked if it was any good I always reply, "I really enjoyed it, it was funny, but it won't win any awards." I must say therefore that although I am in some way a fan of this film I completely agree with and understand your criticisms and continue to appreciate the wit in your delivery. I have no knowledge of the source material and I suggest to you Mr. Ebert that those fans who react in outrage at your statements are of the selfish view that these films are made solely for their benefit.
I wish you continued health. God bless

As comic superheros go, I'm more entertained by Ace and Gary, "The Ambiguously Gay Duo" on SNL tonight than I was by Thor.

Okay, back to the sniping.

Wow. I had not read the comments on the previous post. I read your review, understood where you were coming from, personally enjoyed "Thor," and that is it. You did not like it, and I completely understand why, although I enjoyed it because I enjoy this genre.

At the same time, although I am a fan, I do not approach comics as "holy writ." Although I respect you, please understand that many of us contain multitudes. I get a kick out of comics, but I am a seminary student, so my holy writ is, well, holy writ. Indeed, one reason I had not known about the internet dust-up was BECAUSE I have other things to do.

You have taught me a great deal about film, and one of the reasons I appreciated you as a critic was a review you did of a Shaw Brothers movie called "Infra-Man." I was a child, but I had seen the movie one afternoon on a UHF station, and of course I LOVED it. I watched you and Mr. Siskel, and one Christmas my parents gave me a collection of your reviews. Your 2 and a half star review of "Infra-Man" was in it, and I realized you could appreciate silly, crazy Asian cinema just like a 12-year-old might.

Reading that review made me feel a little less alone. I appreciated knowing that you did not condescend to such films, that a person could appreciate "Paul Blart, Mall Cop" as well as "Winter's Bone." Bad movies could have their pleasures. You recognized this, and I took that with me.

Is "Thor" a bad movie? I suppose so, but I have a bias for the genre, and I found pleasure and humor in it. It is certainly not the best movie Kenneth Branagh has ever made, but I thought he worked with elements in the material that he thought could enable the film to transcend its source, much as Jon Favreau was able to do with "Iron Man." I think he managed some success in this endeavor, although I think his task with this character was much more difficult that with Tony Stark.

I always appreciate your insight and your reviews. This week, you review movies that I would want to see more than Marvel's latest, such as "Meek's Cutoff," "Everything Must Go," and "Bridesmaids." I am terrified of the possibility that my life will change with viewing "Forks over Knives," but your reviews are a window to movies that do not have the kind of marketing and distributing that, in a just world, they would. In light of the kind of work you do, getting annoyed at your review of popcorn film seems so very, very trivial.

Readers who were angered over your review have some maturing to do. If they like it, they like it, and they shouldn't be angered that you don't share their feelings. I've disagreed with some of your reviews, but everyone's entitled to their opinions. I believe that Thor, to any movie buff who is not a big comic book fan, was mediocre at best. Chris Hemsworth did a good a job as was possible to play such a silly role. Most of the other actors just seemed like they were there to get a paycheck. Even greats such as Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman and Rene Russo just didn't seem emotionally invested in their characters. Whenever the group of scientists were on screen or any cutesy flirting scenes between Thor and Portman I would find myself checking my watch. I felt that the actor who played Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has a lot of talent and he could have made a great villain, but he just wasn't fleshed out enough. I won't spoil what his ultimate plan was, but let's just say I was very underwhelmed. And Kenneth Branagh is a great director but I sensed a lot of studio interference of script changes during shooting because it just didn't feel like the story had any flow to it. I enjoy super hero movies for the most part and I see most of them that come into theaters. The best among them are Spider-Man 2, Hellboy II, Batman Begins and Iron Man. Thor truly did not hold a candle to those films. I'd place it one step below The Incredible Hulk and one step above Ghost Rider.

It didn't bother anyone else that Heimdall was black? And what about the japanese guy, with an accent? I like samurai movies as much as the next guy, but we're talking about the frigging norse pantheon here.

I am not a comic book fan. Last time I read one was probably 40 years ago. I am a huge movie fan, everyone in my extended family knows that. I'm a huge Ebert fan too (though in my youth I preferred Gene's perspective more). I prefer indie over mainstream and drama over action.

All that being said, I liked Thor. I was entertained for a couple of hours. I agree there were a few missteps in the movie, but I enjoyed it and it fully met my expectations. Better by far than the worst of the superhero movies, but not as good as some of the best. I would watch it again if invited.

Dear Mr. Ebert. You wrote a response to your original Thor 'review', and I think that once again you blew a chance for a balanced and thoughtful review. You concentrate on plot and its shortcomings which only helps your critics. What about other parts of the movie? What about the actors? The special effects? The actors have not been mentioned at all in your first review or this one, and the special effects received one nod in the sentence. What about the dialogue? The camera work? If these elements are all inferior - if actors don't perform very well, if special effects suck, if the dialogue is stale, and the camera work is pedestrian - by all means say so! Those would actually be even more relevant criteria on which to dismiss Thor as a bad movie! That would actually lend the credence and justification to your feelings on the movie far more adequately than haranguing your readership about the silly plot and the deep issues of what makes a good movie good.

P.S. "I don't consider my reviews instructions to readers about whether they should see a film." Wait, what? Then what are your reviews for? Sure, some of them are a joy to read on their own (and I use them in my film class as I mentioned in the other thread), but most of the time people read critic reviews to determine whether or not the movie might be something they'd enjoy. Not to belabor the point further, but just this week in your review of "Forks over knives" you pretty much tell people to go see the film as it can save their lives!

Guys, guys, guys, it's a comic book movie. Can we argue about something really worth arguing over? I personally liked Thor--for me it was what would happen if The Lion in Winter and Nordic mythology had a baby. But there are way better movies that are worth spending our time arguing about. All of us.

"The average internet user and movie goer is far too casual to understand what you're trying to say. They eat up generic films like Thor because their level of understanding doesn't go beyond the realm of special effects. "

Thank you "Robert" - This is the perfect example of the sort of eye-rolling smugness that the tone of the initial blog feeds into, something which Roger's own work almost always rejects. Which is why some fans can be a bit hyper-sensitive.

There are people out there who are confident enough in their likes and dislikes that they can see the virtues in all kinds of entertainment and don't feel the need to condescend or try to prove their point by painting dissenters as having some inferior sense of what is good "cinema."

I'd rather be an overenthusiastic fanboy than a sneering faux-intellectualist any day.

I don't think you were too hard on this movie. The fanboys will be fanboys and their masses will never seize to throw their trivial logic about comic books around as if it the end all. Books mind you, that consistently contradict themselves as it already is.

They treat these comics as if they were the bible, which is fitting. Just as we can have fanatics, we too can have our fanboy idiocy. As Jonas in a post early points out; "Thor actually engages some serious themes", but what Jonas fails to point out is that they where handled with the depth of a Powerpuff Girl episode.

Furthermore, Thor made the worst sin of all, it was f'n boring! Now you can tell me I'm wrong, but it is a fact: I was bored with the movie before me. I have read the comics and I am a fan of comic books, but comic books in no way give a free pass to the movie made of it.

Roger your opinion is respected, and I wouldn't worry to much about fanboy arguing over trivia! As you quoted before "There are some folks that, if they don't know, you can't tell them".

Roger,

I usually love you're so articulate and I usually love your reveiws, but I really think you missed the boat on this one. Is it possible that you weren't engaged by the movie early on, and just checked out?
I'm unfamiliar with the Thor comic book history, but I was able to follow the movie - and I really enjoyed it.
Perhaps you're not the target audience, and you just weren't feeling it?

As a fan of Thor comics who also liked the movie, I have to wonder if I'm the only one of us comic nerds who really didn't have a problem with your review. Yeah, you didn't like it. So what? Your review was an opinion piece, and even though I didn't agree with most of your critiques, I thought that you at least articulated them well enough for me to see where you were coming from.

The review that I've been giving people essentially went along these lines: If you like superhero/mythology movies in general, then you'll really like this. If you normally don't, then this isn't going to be the one to change your mind (like "Batman Begins" might have).

While I loved Thor and thought it to be a good movie with a good story and good characters, I think its shameful that you would be attacked for disliking the movie.

Aw, C'mon now! You purposefully chose to run a lengthy review in your "Roger Eberts Journal" online column instead of just the plain old reviews column to mess with all them comic book fans, didn't you? ADMIT IT!! Hilarious stuff, my friend. I'm a comics fan, and plan on seeing this movie, but of course its a giant goofball enterprise. Pure escapist fantasy, but hopefully just fun. I know you were just messing around for the fun of it, because you devoted TWO "Eberts Journal" columns to it. I can't remember you EVER doing that with a goofball superhero movie, or any OTHER type of goofball subject matter. Again, HILARIOUS. All hail Mr. EBERT!!

What's the point of pointing out all the little facts that Roger got 'wrong'. Even if he got them right, would that have changed his opinion? Of course not. It's still a bad movie whether we know Asgard is a planet or not. So, from a comic book fan, all you guys criticizing Roger need to grow up!

That said, I'd like to know what you thought of the sets, Roger. I personally found it so unimaginative to make everything (including most of the costumes) so metallic, cold and sterile. It felt more like a sci-fi film. And all the same color. Even Jotunheim was so monotonous.

Asgardian buildings should be made of stone and the armor should look like they were made of animal hide with a bit of metal here and there.

Also, it's been 1.5 years since Avatar. Couldn't they have thrown in a tree or two?

Honestly, I think the problem with your "review" is that it was so vitriolic. When I read it, I felt slightly offended, as though you were saying you thought less of anyone who genuinely liked the movie -- and I DID genuinely like it. I suppose I just have too thin a skin, but yes, it does bother me when strangers seem to imply that I am stupid for having a contradictory opinion.

You can hate the movie if you like; that's fine. I had a very good time watching it and I don't think that makes me any less of a person. (...for the record, I really hated the Spider-man movies XD )

I never read a single Thor comic. But I enjoy what a film offers in the moment. I am not watching a film to "learn" about it's universe, but to enjoy the action and the experience at the moment. "Thor" is fun while it's running, the action is fun and the visuals are cool. The details don't really matter as long as I don't feel confused. I wasn't ever confused, and I enjoyed it. I figured many of the critics who enjoyed it feel the same way.

I respect your opinion, Roger. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the film. But you don't have to explain yourself. Sometimes, a film simpy doesn't jive with us. We all know how that feels. It's part of being human and it can't be explained. Thats simply how it is. And that's okay.

It's incredibly surprising to me that people reacted so violently to your review. As a young man I collected Thor comics, and found that the movie, while aimed toward children, woefully lacked the silliness that made the books so much fun. It was just a set of perfunctory effects shots strong together by cruddy exposition and barely serviceable performances. Idris Elba seemed to be the only one having fun, or maybe I'm only saying that because it's strange to see Stringer Bell dressed in that outlandish costume (though, to be fair, everyone's costume was equally outlandish and badly designed. I just associate Elba too strongly with his wonderful work on "The Wire," so his appearance in something like "Thor" strikes me as weirdly disjunctive).

I also just realized that accusing this film's costumes of bad design is probably a compliment, given the source material...

Anyway, everyone should calm down a bit. Disagree, but calm down. Life is too short, and too significant to those who bear it, to get this worked up over a film that apparently no one put much thought into making. Ebert's treatment of the movie is more interesting to read than "Thor" was to watch. I find that his writing often redeems the experience of watching a bad movie. It allows me to share a sort of dejected, ironic amusement through the act of reading. This, at least, softens the blow of wasting two hours of my life.

What about poor Rene Russo? This is a good actress, right? All she's called upon to do is appear stately for all of three minutes maybe. In her "big scene" she rather dismissively gets whapped across the chops and is sent flying. Good Lord, Mr Branagh, why don't we just hit her with a cream-pie while were at it . . . .

Your mistakes were so trivial that only a serious, hardcore Thor-nerd would notice them. I thought your review was not only a good description of the movie, but also very funny. I've emailed the link to your review to friends. Keep up the great reviews, Roger.

Ah, the fanboys...! So mightily oblivious to everyone else's utter disinterest in the object of their fandom... ness... itude.... ry.

Flail on, dear Roger.
As someone already said up there, I'd much rather read ten of your reviews than sit through one more comic-based flick - I plead the Murtaugh Amendment on the whole genre.
That is perhaps the one aspect of your job I would find less than desirable: having to sit through friggin' everything that comes out. I know, I know you don't watch EVERYthing but come on - you recently saw I Am Number Four. That alone gives you leeway to at least one weekly review consisting of nothing but 5 paragraphs of fart sounds ending with "Sukkidup Fanboys!"

It seems there are attempts to explain, exaggerate, and yes even (from the tone of the fanboy mass); pontificate. But thou'est doth protest! Let me extenuate!

Fanboys, oh fanboy! Thee use of thou largest vocabulary, and belittling tone, doust not make thee godlike!

Pick apart Thou Eberts commandments, as thouset will! But Thou'est will never... NEVER (yes, I'm crying and yelling)! Never be the final word.

Taste and time will have the final say. So get back to me in ten years how the metal robot, has some truly meaningful propose and I missed the point, and will then see the light that is brightly shone from this God! (of course I mean "comic god", lets not get the fanatic invoked, its already ugly enough).

Oh wait! The the movies "meaningful"! Right? No wait! Never mind meaningful, it's :entertaining" and "good" because it has some comicbook logic, that we will really care about in ten years.

Sure it does, in ten years, you'll still be arguing the aspect of comic book mythology, and I will care even less. So lets just say here; there are those... and there are the others. The greater your comic numbers, will never make a movie good from your trolling thunder!

Mr. Ebert... Read this and write a response so I know you do listen to your fans.

I am a fan. We don't have to agree on every review, but I respect your opinions. With that said, your review of Thor was as far off base as any review I have read of yours. I wonder if we even saw the same film.

First off... You don't have to be a comic book fan or a Thor aficionado to like or understand the film. Just being a person of feeling, energy, compassion and life experience can enjoy Thor. How???

The character Thor starts out as a loud, arrogant, abrasive person who is shunned and exiled by his father. His father may have been enraged when he exiled him, but being a father who loved his son, you could see his pain in having done so. Loki, his brother, jealous and secretly relishing his brother's banishment. Loki's ultimate motivation is simply to earn his father's love and respect. The brothers fight and become enemies.

These are real life situations, except it had the cloak of "superhero" surrounding it. Does it make it any less heartfelt? Absolutely not.

The film Thor is filled with several real life situations as previously mentioned. Family members fighting, not talking to each other, feeling anger, fear, jealousy, love, humor, redemption, and regret.

My point is... Watch and enjoy the film period and cease immediately trying to compare it to others that fit the same genre. That's not fair.

Now, is Thor better than Superman the Movie, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight??? In my opinion, no. These are amazing superhero films. Yet, Thor is equally as good as the first Iron Man, The Hulk (with Ed Norton), and the first Spider-Man. That's terrific company to be in.

And... I believe that last statement to be true because here is an example of bad superhero movies... Superman 3 and 4, Daredevil, X-Men 3, Batman & Robin, Spider-Man 3, and Wolverine: Origins. It is impossible to place Thor in these rogues gallery.

I applaud Kenneth Branaugh's direction, and all the actors. A great job all around. Fun, amusing, memorable, and enough geek moments to keep it's fans talking about it for years.

We are all human and make mistakes. You made a big one with Thor, yet I will still continue being your fan and reading all your reviews. Thanks.

Mr. Ebert:
I too felt 'Thor' was lacking, and I am a big fan of the comic book; it's one of my favourites. However, the main drawback of the film, I felt, was one you did not touch upon, yet you have done on other films that suffered from the same problem (e.g 'Quantum Of Solace'): poor direction and editing of action sequences. I was also looking forward to 'Thor' for it was directed by Branagh, yet I believe that his direction turned out to have been insufficient for the film because it is evident that he cannot properly direct the sort of action scenes necessary for a superhero film to work as it has for others (e.g. Lee's 'Hulk' [and its sequel for that matter]; 'Watchmen;' 'Superman Returns;' 'X-Men II;' 'Casino Royale;' 'The Bourne Identity;' 'Sherlock Holmes') - that is, action sequences which allow the viewer's eye to follow the choreography of battle. Zack Snyder is particularly competent at this (although he was rather slipping himself in the dismal 'Sucker-Punch'). The action sequences in 'Thor,' (as in 'Quantum,' in the two 'Bourne' sequels, and in the first 'Transformers' film [never saw its sequel]) were filmed with far too much close-up camerawork, so the they are blurred and frenetic, and are impossible to follow, or to appreciate any sort of stuntwork or animated effects. Note in the films mentioned above as examples of proper direction how many of the action sequences there show the figures from a medium shot which enables one to enjoy the manoeuvre of the melee, sometimes utilising momentary slow-motion to freeze the action for emphasis; indeed, this is a wonderful way to capture the quality of a well-rendered frame of a comic-book battle. Furthermore, Branagh failed to capture the wonder of flight in 'Thor.' The fleeting flying sequences are unimpressive. Branagh was the wrong choice as director. The Destroyer battle scene was a little better, but I was already watching the movie with a sense of disappointment from the frenziedness of the poorly-directed, opening battle scene against the frost giants. 'Thor' was a well-acted, and well-written comic-book yarn that was poorly realised by the direction of Branagh. Here's hoping the 'Captain America' and 'Green Lantern' films will be superior realisations of the source material. Thanks for your time and attention to my comments, Mr. Ebert. Be well and happy. ~J~

Having just watched Thor, there were numerous moments where I just had no idea what was going on, so getting plot points wrong is completely understandable. Little made sense in the movie and I feel that only if you were an avid fan going in would you truly understand the movie. However, most people who will see Thor will probably not be avid fans, and probably won't be fans at all prior to this movie and won't be fans after leaving it.

Your initial instinct was the right one. There's no shame in flailing especially if it is as articulate and witty as you do it. We need a good controversy it's been do long since Huck Finn vs Video Games.

I read the comics, which were kinda terrible, and liked them. The movie was just as terrible. As far as I'm concerned your review was quite accurate in just about every way. Terrible goddamn movie.

Mr. Ebert,

Rule #1 of Internet publication: always end everything with "imo". Better yet, "imho". It appears that the underlying flaw of your review is that you did not do this.

Ebert: I thought that goes without saying.

My biggest problem with the film is that his self-revelation happened just half-way through the story. All it took was for daddy Odin to take away his toys for a few minutes and for the presence of a good woman to show him some humanity and Thor goes from arrogant bastard to humble soldier before I can reach for my second handful of popcorn. That was a hell of a lot of character improvement with very little work-it felt like a cheat, and made the last third of the film almost an epilogue, or at least a long trailer for The Avengers film.

What this film does well is to present a very complex story-world with texture and detail that a lot of people really respond to. For some, there's just too MUCH detail, but I think this film succeeds in giving us something close to being in Stan Lee's brain around 1963, a fertile mind that as part of the Marvel Universe, and with Jack Kirby, was overflowing with ideas and imagination. So for at least trying so hard to put me in this world, I am grateful.

Roger, I love your style of reviewing movies in which you rate movies based on how well they accomplish what they're trying to pull off. Like you've repeatedly explained more eloquently than I am able to, you just can't compare the Matrix to Casablanca, or Jurassic Park to The King's Speech.

I think that perhaps, in some people's minds at least, you've made a slight mistake by putting Thor in the same category as Spider-man 2 or The Dark Knight. Like you said, Thor isn't trying to be that complex, semi-believable, and emotionally touching.

Instead it sets the bar a little lower, and aims to be a highly entertaining action-packed "popcorn movie". At this, Thor is extremely successful. Of course, you can't get too narrow with your categories of movie types ("of all the CGI-heavy comic book action movies based on Norse mythology, this is the best one I've ever seen!") But I think some people would agree that Thor and The Dark Knight might not belong in the same category, and shouldn't be directly compared.

Does Thor deserve a four-star rating? Of course not. Does it deserve a thumbs up? Maybe, maybe not. But your review gives the impression that you didn't give it a fair shake, and perhaps even went in with a negative impression of it and didn't want to give the movie a chance.

This is due to the incorrect movie details in the review... and honestly, you even complained that the giant robot didn't follow cliche and attack famous landmarks. This feels like the kind of review a documentary about Barack Obama would receive from Fox News. (OK, I'm sorry, that was going way too far... you didn't write the negative review in an effort to corrupt people's minds and profit from it... but I think you get my point.)

Thor was, in my opinion, a pretty bad film that had bits of coolness in it and some fun performances and a few pretty CGI scenes to look at. Never read the comics altho I do love certain comics and graphic novels (Dark Tower!) and I see why fans probably did get a kick out of it. But Im pretty sure that even if I was a fan of the comics and loved the movie, I would still be able to admit, from an objective POV, that its a pretty trite and crappy film that is nothing more than a cash in and a lead up to yet another superhero film. Which is fine.. Avengers sounds pretty cool and Ill see it but if Mr. Ebert doesn't like it ill probably understand why and enjoy reading his review anyway :) Altho I can't help but think wow all that money and time that is blown on these pretty ridiculous films that could be put to such incredible use by talented filmmakers and writers. I would just so love to see something new and original :(

"If you just review the movies themselves, and don't try to review the characters and their worlds (as you interpret them based solely on having seen the movie adaptation), you'll be on safer ground I think, and less likely to offend"

No offense to previous commenter who wrote that - but um, I hope you don't follow this advise. When you go off on those slight tangents - the whole 'given this world within the film, what if X?' kinda thing - I enjoy it. I go with you and often find myself either saying to myself "yes, why doesn't that make sense" or "that is extremely silly but now I'm going to think about that" - and in either case I'm amused. Going off on tangents is only wasteful if every review is an exercise in making an argument rather than, as you said, having a conversation.

As a comic collector geek myself I don't have a dog in this fight - I collected Batman and Gaiman's Sandman. Husband is the Thor fan, so I'll have him to give me the Thor-geekery after the film. And having read all the Thor-fodder here I'm still going to see Thor tomorrow, happily in a 2D screening so I won't get dizzy while eating my popcorn. I may end up agreeing with your critique but I have a feeling I'll enjoy the film anyway - the popcorn and special effects usually make certain films worth the trip for the big screen viewing.

Roger, as George Carlin once said, "Don't sweat the petty things (and don't pet the sweaty things)." Don't sweat it. The fanatics can go on being fanatics, mistaking "enjoyable" with "good," and you can keep being a helpful guide to those of us who want to know about a movie on its own merits.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if you had just refused to review it (so much begging, it was unseemly, people...!).

And how do people not undderstand that your job is to give your opinion, not to adjust or include anyone else's?!

I've no desire to see this kind of film and wouldn't even bother reading your review, but this post-review was worth a read. I like that you talk back, intelligently, even when some of your critics are less than intelligent, or even make sense. Way to rise above it all, Roger. You rock. As ever.

p.s. why does it say my captcha is wrong when it is clearly correct?! sigh.

I think it's the same argument that readers use when they say "the book was better than the movie." Duh, it's not the same medium. They want to let us know that they read. There really isn't a concrete argument. The comic readers just want you to know that they read the comics. Jerks.

People are impassioned about all sorts of things...

I thought about going to see THOR,
But it seems like a horrible bore.
With lots of Norse gods,
Scientists who are clods
And Avengers commercials galore.

There once was a critic named Roger
Who criticism managed to dodge-a,
Then he attacked THOR,
And the fans all got sore,
And called him a stupid old codger.

Burma Shave.

I only knew the robot was called Destroyer because that's what it's called on the soundtrack album. :)

Personally I like reading your reviews. I haven't even seen Thor. Your reviews are well written and you're funny when you want to be. I love it.

Please don't change your style because of some arrogant nerds that think they can "school" you

Also why would anyone want to even see this movie? If I walked out on The Incredible Hulk starring Edward Norton, I'd do the same with this movie.

The movie you really misjudged was Giulio Petroni's "Death Rides A Horse" some 40 years ago.
So enjoyable man..................
I wish you'd give a chance for some Western Spaghetti fan base to harass you for that.

At least it didn't cost a dime.
The ethics of mindless entertainment.

I like "Thor" for not taking itself too seriously. In my review I wrote:
______________________________

It lacks the philosophical themes behind “Watchmen”, the gritty atmosphere of Nolan’s Batman films, and the realism of Shyamalan’s “Unbreakable”, but make no mistake “Thor” seeks neither this nor that. The film succeeds purely through entertainment.

_____________________________

When I saw the posters and trailers I didn't expect to see a great film in the vein of "The Dark Knight", "Unbreakable", or even "V for Vendetta". I expected something light and entertaining with humor, action, and special effects thrown in the mix....something like "Hellboy". Although "Thor" didn't entertain me half as much as the "Hellboy" films.

I got a similar wave of angry comments and tweets from fanboys when I bashed "Iron Man 2", but it didn't change anything for me because I still hate that movie. I criticized the film for having Tony Stark create a new element on the scientific table (pfff please). It was too far fetched, then again it's a superhero movie and we can't criticize based on scientific facts and logic. I also hated that they introduced us to so many armour suits, because our hero's suit became less impressive..or seemed less special. But the thing that really ruined it for me was the formula 1 fight with Rourke's character.

I wrote: "The location is a lame desperate excuse to make the standoff a fireworks show." to which someone on twitter replied "You ignorant idiot, he did it to show people Stark wasn’t invincible". I assume "everyone" forgot about Jeff Bridges using Iron Man as a metallic frisby in the far superior original.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share a similar response I got for another superhero movie. I hope it doesn't attract "Iron Man 2" fanboys to this blog post :P

It's not that the comics explained all of those plot points you complained about. They do, of course, but you can still enjoy the film if you don't know anything about the comics, because I know several people where this was the case.

The point is that the movie itself also explains these plot points. Odin is seen commanding the Destroyer earlier in the film to protect the weapons vault (it's the thing that vaporizes the Ice Giants who try to steal the Casket) and moments before it comes to earth to fight Thor Loki is clearly seen activating it and ordering it to travel to earth, find Thor and destroy him and everything around him.

As for Bifrost, the rainbow bridge, the fact that it ends in New Mexico isn't really relevant. It is described as being a wormhole, however, several times, even. It is specifically mentioned as being the link between Asgard and the rest of the Nine Realms, also on several occasions. There's no reason why it shouldn't lead to New Mexico, and it is implied that Odin did the whole thing on purpose. It is mentioned that everything he does has a reason, after all, and he is shown to have some array of supernatural senses and understanding throughout the film as well as great wisdom.

It was just a sloppy, rather mean-spirited review filled with complaints about problems that were the result of not watching the movie properly. By which I mean that you don't seem to have been paying any kind of attention. That's unfortunate, because you might have actually enjoyed it if you had been paying attention.

Me and my father watched thor last weekend. My father said you don't need to be familiar with the comic books if you have read norse mythology. The characters and stories are right there. As for your review, it just simply reinforces what I have said for years about your style of movie reviewing. You set a bar for each movie you view and if the movie does not meet that that bar you will give negative reviews in negative tones and if it exceeds your standard then you will praise it beyond belief. You are right when you say that the superhero class is now an established genre, like drama, action, and horror. Yet, to compare superhero movies to one standard is completely ridiculous. Should I compare Eyes Wide Shut to a drama movie that you find only one star in? Not everyone wil agree with you Mr. Ebert and some have already written you off as just another lousy movie critic but I rather enjoy reading your reviews past, present, and future. One last point, the summer is still young and we have so many more superhero movies to go, I wonder what your mail box will look like when its all said and done.

Roger: you are a film critic. We are your readers. Your job is not to agree with us, and we are not obligated to agree with you. I would say I agree with you a bit more than half the time. (And for some perspective, I began reading you when you were on CompuServe.) But it does not matter if our opinions match; what matters is whether or not, from reading your review, I am able to tell how I will feel about a film. On this point I'd say you're batting a thousand (or very near it).

The number of incredible films I have seen based solely on a review of yours is legion. Nothing else should matter. You have no reason to apologize for a review or explain yourself. So don't.

There are a finite number of reviews in you, and I fear the number will diminish if you become an apologist for them.

Beauty! Praise the heavens!
Oh, but I get ahead of myself. Roger, please, allow me to explain.

First, I'm not a comic book reader. My knowledge of comics or more appropriately their stories, is limited to watching them at the movies. I am as familiar with the canon and history of most comic books as you are with quantum mechanics. That is to say I get the gist of it but am by no means an expert. Basically, I'm not a fanboy.

Second, as my former comment indicates, I am an avid reader, you might even call me a fan. If I were to encounter you during my travels I'd act like a little girl and follow my request for an autograph with one for a picture, whatever you should be up to at that given time be damned.

Lastly, I have never had the urge to do this. Sure, Ive disagreed with you time aplenty and the thought "WTF man?" has crossed my mind many, many times. But hey, we're all different people, we all have differing opinions and I left it at that, and those were happy times.

That said, and as I am sure you've deduced by now, we have a problem. In my years of reading your reviews never have I been more in disagreement, were these different times I might even be one of those aggravating people who sends a letter voicing their displeasure at what have you. As I finished reading the review the thought actually crossed my mind, however fleeting "I follow this man to dictate what I should view?".This represents your most complete and absolute failure as a critic and I am comforted by the fact that this represents the nadir out of the hundreds (thousands?) of your reviews that I have read and Inshalla, it will never again be repeated.

Excusez moi for the rant, other than the aforementioned keep up the great work and thanks for the countless free hours of reading you've provided.

That's just the FanDumb to you.
People forget all the time that your reviews reflect your opinion from an objective POV (well, kind of...). They forget they can still watch the movie and enjoy it even if you didn't like it.

I can't believe the time, energy and brainpower spent on debating the merits of a comic book movie. It's sad. As someone who read and collected comic books into my teen years, I was excited about the possibilities for this genre. Filmmaking techniques had finally developed far enough to really bring these fantastic stories and characters to life! For a while, comic book movies surpassed my expectations. Then they served up Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Iron-Man 2, the Incredible Hulk, Superman Returns, the Fantastic Four, and now Thor. Ugh. These are just bad, bad movies. Mindless, noisy, poorly executed. Like a star collapsing under it's own weight, the comic book genre has lost all of it's bright potential. When I read about all of the upcoming plans - Captain America, the Avengers, the Green Lantern, and reboots of at least 4 titles (Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four) I don't feel any excitement - I feel like puking. Let's all go watch the same movies over and over again every couple of years, and argue over whether they're great or not. Depressing.

I always hate it when someone says, "Just because I liked the movie, I understand that that doesn't mean it was a good movie.". With the exception of certain so-bad-they're-good, midnight-style movies, that's not true. If you like a movie, it DOES mean you thought it was a good movie, at least on some level. I wish people would have the integrity of standing behind their opinions.

For the record, I thought "Thor" was a good movie.

Rule #1 of Internet publication: always end everything with "imo". Better yet, "imho". It appears that the underlying flaw of your review is that you did not do this.

No, this became a "rule" because people forgot the basics of intelligent discourse. It goes without saying that any time someone expresses an opinion, it is their opinion. Especially when the content is something like, say, a movie review. Prefacing opinions with "IMO" is redundant and further bastardization of the English language.

I pity the young fools who never had the joy of watching you on TV, giving glowing and glowering reviews. I'm lucky (and old) enough to have watched you on PBS with Gene Siskel, then for many years on your syndicated series.

As I read each of your reviews now, I can't help but put your voice to your words, and sometimes it just makes me laugh. How can one not laugh at your sarcasm of the Scholars of Thor for their tearing you a new one for NOT knowing some minor fact about their comic god? (I love comics and graphic novels, btw - most Wednesdays I am at the comic shop picking up my latest issues.)

I did not interpret this article as an apology as some other folks who commented apparently did - I read it as a combination of an explanation of your movie review style mixed with a touch of William Shatner on Saturday Night Live in his "get a life - move out of your parents' basement and get a life" skit. ;-)

Don't sweat it Roger. Your review was spot-on. Thor was a yawn-fest. The character was drawn as a vapid, war-loving pretty boy and played perfectly by... oh who cares? That he chose Natalie Portman over Kat Dennings is just one more deficiency on a list of many.

What is that Youtube link at the bottom of the review? That's awesome!

Wow. I'm surprised how defensive some fans can get. Ebert's job is tell us HIS point of view. Ultimately, it's up to moviegoers to decide whether or not they will see a film and if so, whether or not they enjoyed it. If the decision to see a film was reinforced by Ebert's POV, that's dandy. If not, there's really nothing stopping moviegoers from still enjoying their personal preferences in cinema.

So strictly speaking of Thor, from my point of view, I just wasn't sold by the trailers and might not watch it. Maybe if it looked more like Braveheart rather than Lord of the Rings, I'd give it more credit. If there's one thing comic book film adaptations lack it is a guaranteed translation of exclusiveness or fandomness. In trying to make the film more mainstream, it loses what made the source material special to begin with. But then again, how do you explain the enduring appeal of an adult man in a glistening black rubber bat suit fist-fighting a clown?

Eventually, Batman rids Gotham of crime. And he won't get to put on the batsuit anymore and cruise the streets in his pimp mobile. But he loves it too much. The drama. And drama sells tickets. Maybe Bruce should become the new Ras Al Ghul after all.

In all fairness, I have noticed a fair amount of errors in some of your reviews; I would see a movie, read your review of it, and find that we two understood the plot in completely different ways, including vital details and fact.

It's nice to see you address these points, though. I fear sometimes you come off as flippant or mocking when you try to, as you put it, "play with the logic" of a movie, and that can (understandably, I feel) upset fans of the movie or source material. I've seen you write that you review movies based on who they are for--well, if superhero movies are for the fans of the comic and the summer blockbuster crowd, is questioning their logic or realism really necessary?

But, by all means, question their entertainment value. I think even the most diehard Thor fan wants that.

Roger, your reviews were one of several things that got me into writing, so I always appreciate whatever you have to say. However, I have seen every one of the movies you mention here (including "Thor," even after reading your negative review) and I rather agree that you indulged in hyperbole. "Thor" isn't a "great" movie, true. It's not as entertaining as "Iron Man" or "Spider-Man II," or as deep as "The Dark Knight." But it was not the parade of ridiculousness you made it out to be. Having read your reviews for decades now, I have learned when you are allowing your negative opinions about certain things free rein, and that is why I went to see it anyway. (Plus, I am just a huge fan of comic books even now, in my 30s. Hell, I even saw BOTH "Fantastic Four" movies.)
Many comic books or comic characters of more recent vintage (i.e. the 1960s onward) are designed to appeal to the adolescent fantasies of teenaged boys. It's easy to lose sight of what that means. Movies made from these characters must inevitably struggle with some of the limitations that point of view imposes. So "Thor" seems goofy and shallow ... sure, it is, just as many of the beliefs you held when you were 15 seem goofy and shallow now. A teenager might be inspired by the heroism of a person giving his life for his friends, but in adulthood we figure out that 99.9% of us will live out our lives never having even the opportunity to commit such an act, for any reason.
That's ok, though. It's just a movie, after all.

Roger, I don't think you understood (or care to) that everything Loki says in the film is subtle manipulation. He's the God of Mischief - a trickster (fairly common knowledge - nothing to do with comic books). If you watch it again (which I doubt you would) you would see that. I'm fairly certain you didn't like him as a villian because you had no idea he WAS a villain for at least the first half of the film. He was a great villain because his main motivation truly is just to be considered an equal to Thor and to have equal love from his father. Yes, I read comics but haven't read much of Thor at all. The very basics of Thor is Norse mythology and (again) are more or less common knowledge. I really think that's all one needs to enjoy this film. Was it not crystal clear the Destroyer (and his is more or less irrelvelant anyway so that's not factor) came to attack Thor? It's not a complicated movie to follow. Why does the bridge to earth to lead to New Mexico? I don't know either but it has to lead somewhere. Does it really matter where? Pretty minor polot point. Seems like you were (for some reason) looking for reasons not to like this film. And that is what I don't understand.

This entirely ignores the religious side! Jesus said he was going to rid the world of evil people. Odin said he was going to rid the world of Ice Giants. Well, you see any ice giants?

Odin for the win.

OK, now I am going to get in trouble for not taking Thor seriously enough. Ah, well.

Roger. I love your work and view you as something of a mentor, even though I've never had the good fortune to meet you in person. You are certainly among the best in the world at what you do. That said, I do disagree with you on the following statement.

I think a movie is "good" if you like it. Good for you.

I would argue that it's impossible to develop lasting standards that make a work "good" without inserting yourself into the formula.

What makes a movie good?

Good acting

Great cinematography

An engaging story

Inventiveness

The emotional impact a work has on the viewer

Even if we establish parameters like those above, we have a problem. For instance, a movie that has a strong emotional impact on me may not have the same impact on you. Who is right? Again we're back to whether one of us liked it.

A good example of this is "Bridesmaids." Christy Lemire of AP praised it and said that it reinvented the wedding movie. I came out of it thinking it was OK, and one of my primary criticisms was that it didn't offer anything new. We've both seen tons of movies and have been reviewing them a long time, so who is right? Who's lasting standard do we use? Hers because she's with AP? Or mine because I'm an outsider more likely to represent the everyman? I would argue neither. We're different people, and that's why it's important to have a rich and varied pool of journalists writing about film.

I've seen many movies that were very well made but that I could not build any sort of emotional connection with. "Blue Valentine" is one example of that. Is it a good or bad film?

It seems to me that it's impossible to come up with a definitive answer as to whether a piece of art is good or bad. It is what it is, and it either speaks to you or it doesn't. That's why I think it's so important for one to explain his or her problems with a piece in his/her review. Then the reader can piece things together.

Your review made it clear (to me) that you missed things in the movie, that you didn't understand how the character's world worked after seeing the film. That's certainly forgivable. Any one who's been doing this for any lengthy of time has done that more than once and will do it again. In fact, I think it was informative. For you, those parts of the movie were not explained well enough. I had no problem with them, but I'm sure there will be others who have the same reaction as you.

If we want to develop a lasting standard for whether art is good or bad, I would argue that a democratic process is the only way to do it. For instance, if most critics on RottenTomatoes.com deem a movie fresh, then it is good. There you have a lot of professionals who have seen a lot of movies giving a film positive or negative reviews. When the majority say it's good, it must be, good. Right?

Even then, we have a problem, though. Lots of artists have gained respect only toward the ends of their careers or after they died. "Citizen Kane," although much loved, barely made a blip when released into theaters. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't fully appreciated (largely for political reasons). But there was no large public outcry from movie fans ... or journalists who were not beholden to Hearst. Thank goodness we have revisited that film and given it its rightful place in film history.

Perhaps it is impossible to definitively say whether art is "good" or "bad" and that's what makes it so alluring.

I think you make some pretty good points defending your review of Thor, but I have to take issue with this:

"There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards."

How can you possibly stand by this after giving something like Salt (for example) a perfect 4 stars on your rating scale? To me, that was a perfect example of not adequately separating one's immediate ammusement from more lasting standards. Many may have forgotten your review of Salt, but ever since it was published I always have to take your reviews with a grain of "salt". Every time I see that you have rated a movie 3 or 3.5 stars I chuckle to myself and think, "ok, so not as good as Salt."

I liked Thor, Roger, but it's nowhere near perfect and certainly isn't beyond criticism.

Further, I enjoy and actively seek out reviews that are contrary to what I think. You often learn much more from the opposing opinion than from those that merely reinforce your views.

That said, I kind of have to agree with the negative opinion of your review. Every critic writes a few that aren't interesting to read and I believe your Thor review was possibly your worst. Others have "hammered" the point home, but for whatever reason you seemed to miss several plot points that were adequately explained. Now, I've never read a single issue of the comic but I felt that the movie did a good enough job explaining its mythology.

Ultimately, Thor was a fun diversion. I thought it pretty similar to the first Iron Man. Neither of those are great movies, but they're both solid summer entertainment.

There have been times where I disagree with you. This is not one of them. Thor was not a good movie, it was a passable movie.
I will say that he did look kick-ass swinging Mulnir though.

I hope that Captain America will be a return to form for the Marvel film franchise, but Thor has me worried. The eventual Avengers movie will be much harder to pull off than Thor, and will require a much better script to make it seem plausible.

Thor fans who still feel upset should google Mark Leidner's review.

I don't envy your position in times like these, Roger. I'm a comic book fan but I didn't like Thor very much either, mostly because of the dull plot and Branagh's inexhaustable use of Dutch angles to spruce things up or keep things artsy or whatever his reason was. Having said that, there are a few places here where I disagree with you:

"There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies."

I don't understand this at all. I've loved a lot of movies that might be hard to defend in an intellectual arena as "good" (which I suppose means "important," "intelligent," "formally perfect") but I don't consider them "bad" just because they don't meet some arbitrary intellectual standards. How do you weigh what you "like" about a movie (and when I say "like" I mean it speaks to something inside me in a positive, although not necessarily a feelgood, way) against what is "good" or "bad" about it, and why should you? I liked Chris Hemsworth in Thor, I think he has maybe the nicest smile in movies today and he uses it well, not to mention his formidable presence. I thought he was "good," because I "liked" him, as a person. I don't think I could or should give more credence to my intellectual estimation of his acting ability (he screwed up some crying scenes) than to my visceral response to him as a person, and I would say the same about anything I "like" in any movie. Because what does something being good matter, if I don't like it? (Gandhi, The King's Speech, any Ron Howard movie...)

I also disagree with your complete reduction of Thor to an example of pure marketing...I think Marvel is truly interested in pleasing decades-long fans of its heroes, and it seems Thor's fans are pleased. With all the detail given to Asgard and the rainbow bridge and the gatekeeper and whatnot you can see that they were at least trying to give you something different. You denigrate people who like the film as corporate-brainwashed fools by labeling it as *only* marketing (and you can say that about any goddamned movie anyway -- Bridesmaids is a lady version of The Hangover, etc).

Lastly, I thought the hammer was pretty cool. When he spins it, the sound it makes, those were the best two or three minutes of the movie. I wish there was more of that.

Just the the fact that you like Ang Lee's version of The Hulk better than the new version leads me to believe that we'll just have to agree to disagree on Thor.

I enjoyed Thor. I know it is a bit crazy of an idea, but I thought the movie sufficiently mocked itself and yet took itself seriously enough to allow the viewer to suspend belief at the same time. I admit all the movies you referenced are better, though. Word of advice, though: Even if you don't actually see it, review "Captain America" and give it a positive review, but be sure not to make any references to the Nazi who takes off his mask and has a red alien-like face ("The Red Skull"), because guessing about the nature of that character without having comic-book knowledge might reveal your slackerly techniques. By the way, if you don't like a hammer as a weapon, I can't wait till you have to evaluate a shield as a weapon. Isn't a shield just a defensive tool? But just like with Thor's hammer it somehow boomerangs back to the superhero. You'd think there would be someone out there throwing a powerful boomerang at villains, but evidently that idea was taken.

Thought I would offer my opinion for those who might be interested.

My real name is Thor so I have followed the comics a little bit since I was a child, but I never really got into comics in general. Due to the loose reading of the comics I am familiar with Thor's backstory but do not know many of the details.

That said I viewed the movie as a standard exercise in comic book adaptations - nothing groundbreaking, yet solidly made. As pointed out, you can like a bad movie and vice-versa, it depends on your own opinions. The question is "Is Thor a bad movie?" If all movies were put on the same scale I believe Thor would fall right in the middle, it lacks depth and creative inspiration, however is a good execution of spectacle.

The average viewer going into the movie will be expecting a comic book movie with explosions, humor and good action scenes, and in that respect the movie delivers. There is no secret to Thor, Branagh knew the audience he was going to appeal to with the movie, as an audience we knew what the movie was going to entail. No one goes into the movie with expectation of high art, just going to be entertained and if the movies accomplishes that, then it is successful. However it is not a good movie, just successful and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

On a side note: Mr. Ebert keep up the good work, I have enjoyed your reviews for years regardless of whether I always agree.

I disagree with this passage: "Does it make a movie 'good' because you 'like' it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards."

I would've agreed with this at one point in my life but as time has gone on, I've come around to Mick LaSalle's position. In a review once, he urged reviewers to write only what they think, not what they think the piece of work objectively seems to be. He said weak reviewers get tainted by what others think and so most reviewers end up saying basically the same thing about a film, which doesn't help the public. He said it better helps the public if all reviewers say what they really think, not if they say what they think they ought to say out of fear of being "wrong" about a movie, because only through the weight of individual, honest reviews can the public make an informed review.

Too often in my younger days as a music reviewer, I think I gave albums good reviews because I thought they were supposed to be good and I didn't trust in my own judgment enough. Now I look back and cringe. And vice versa. I can't stand that I gave Green Day's "Dookie" such a hateful review when it was so good, but at the time I didn't think a pop-punk album could be good. And I also cringe when I think how others piled on the bandwagon that its "American Idiot" was good when it really is bad, IMHO.

Maybe if reviewers ended every review with "IMHO," it would remind them to quit letting others' opinions influence them so much.

Roger, you thought "Knowing" was brilliant. I thought it was horrid. It matters more what each of thinks than whether it was objectively "good." But I suspect you agree and maybe that passage was phrased hastily.

Portal my ass! Mythology calls it a bridge. The lyrics to the THOR television cartoon show calls it a bridge

’Cross the Rainbow Bridge of Asgard,
Where the booming heavens roar,
You’ll behold in breathless wonder,
The God of Thunder, Mighty Thor!

Just because they have retconned these stories to hell and back in attempts to remove elements that are either too corny or scientifically implausible does not mean the original definition "bridge" is invalid.

The only thing I know about Thor is from reading Norse mythology 30 odd years ago.

Don't let the fanboys wear you down. 90% of them would not know a truly good movie if they saw it.

This post reminds me of a essay that Isaac Asimov wrote for his magazine a couple of decades ago. He felt as he grew older he was compelled to write more and more every morning. Mr. Ebert must have needed to get a few more words out to fill his writing quota and decided to tangle with the comic book legions. Why one of the kids at the Sun Times was not assigned to write a review of Thor, I do not know--- but what I do know is this: More Cannes, less comics!

Your review was great and pretty accurate. The source material has crap-all to do with a movie. The movie has to stand on its own.

Ignore the neckbeards, Ebert. Their impotent wailing is beneath you.

I adore comic book and graphic novel movies. Two of my favorites are Ang Lee's The Hulk and Spiderman II. I was flabbergasted to read that people prefer the Ed Norton sequel to The Hulk. Did they not see how Ang Lee filmed the movie like a comic book? Agog. Aghast. But their taste in movies is made perfectly clear.

I pretty much agreed with your review whole-heartedly, though I did cringe a bit about some of the inaccuracies in it, since most were explained by simply watching the movie, and I knew it would bring out the fans in droves. Still, your overall review is spot-on. Thor is even less interesting than Superman, whom I find very one-dimensional and uninteresting (although Superman I and II managed to be entertaining movies despite this, largely due to the performances of Hackman and Reeve).

Oh, and I disagree with another commenter here. The Ang Lee Hulk was far better than the Ed Norton one, visually and thematically.

As for rebooting comic book movies, in addition to the upcoming Spider-Man reboot, you must be just thrilled with the news that as soon as Nolan is done with his Batman trilogy, Warner Bros. already has a reboot planned that will work into a Justice League movie, or some such nonsense.

Ebert-

You're fighting a losing battle against the geek-brigade. I know, as I am one. That's not an insult to geeks, but an acknowledgement of the facts; geeks can be a belligerent bunch when riled. Nerd rage is often joked about, but it's quite real. I still remember the Great Halo 2 vs. Half-Life 2 War of 2004. Every game review publication or website that favored one was guaranteed to be warmed thoroughly by a flamethrower by fanboys of the other.

Put it this way; to a lot of geeks, you're already Public Enemy No. 1, thanks to your opinions on video games as art (which I didn't agree with). It's not a matter of whether you're right or wrong in this regard (goodness knows you did make quite a few errors). You can't win this one with them, so you're not going to get anywhere at this point trying to defend yourself or make amends.

"The issue isn't with Ebert giving his opinion - it's that he's stating it as fact and coming across as being incredibly pretentious in doing so."

Good God, grow a thicker skin. He's a movie reviewer. He's not going to end every sentence with "IMO" just to please the people who can't handle written discourse like normal conversation, where people don't end every sentence clarifying their opinions.

I have realized what was lacking in the Destroyer's attack on the small town. The town needed to have a muffler shop with a Muffler Man statue outside. Seeing the Destroyer mistake the Muffler Man for an opponent would've been worth the price of the popcorn right there.

And just to amplify what someone else wrote, Kat Dennings' character is an intern, but she's a Political Science major, and is thus completely useless for the technical stuff. Portman comments that she was the only applicant for the job.

Having been to a lot of theater, I can say that after a while things become blurry, but I know that you see more films in a week than that. At one point, I tried to read every book and see every film related to the theater production I was reviewing. That took a lot of time. I don't expect that it would be possible for you do to the same with each movie.

I like animation, manga and used to faithfully read the comic section in my local newspaper before I became part of the Internet culture. I still would like to see more animation reviewed since you missed "Tangled" and more recently, "Rio."

As a child, I used to read comic books, especially since one of my piano teachers offered them in her waiting room.

It is hard to take comic books seriously because they are inconsistent. I don't mind alternate realities in movie series such as Godzilla or when a movie is re-made, but in written material it is annoying and seems like a cheat.

There are of course cultural problems that often become problematic as such as the blatant sexism of early comic books...

The re-boots, alternate realities, sexism and racism of comic books is what turned me away from my initial enthusiasm. For that reason, I have to seriously wonder about people who devote themselves to the many of the superhero comic books.

I didn't appreciate a dismissive comment in a recent review made about one of my favorite TV shows, "Dancing with the Stars," but can see your point.

As a someone who loves dance and animation, and even dance animation, I wish you'd cover more dance and animation, but that's a niche for other blogs to fill. I read your reviews of both when you do.

I thought the "Thor" review was funny and entertaining enough even though I had no intention of seeing the movie (despite or maybe because of my affection for Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet").

I can't wait for you to review the Thor video game.

The really sad thing is --- Oh, wait!
IMO, the really sad thing for you Roger, is that as a reviewer you actually have to sit through the whole movie. Sometimes, of course, a good thing but so often a waste of one's limited time and intellectual and emotional resources. I am only happy that it is your job and not mine.
For all those incensed by reviews of movies, paintings, books, music, consider this:
A review is ALWAYS only an opinion.
Have a nice day Roger

Thor aside (I haven't seen it yet) I'm just really glad to hear you say that the remake of Hulk was inferior to the Ang Lee version. I thought I was the only person who felt that way.

Ebert: I showed the Ang Lee version at Ebertfest.

Roger, given the staunch defenses of your work some contributers are mounting, do you think you may also have fanboys?

Hey Roger,

I found your Thor review entertaining but nowhere near as entertaining as the movie. I have been a fan of yours since the PBS days. I feel like I grew up with you as the cool uncle who likes to like watch and talk movies with me. I am accustomed to us being on the same page with few exceptions. Following my normal routine, I pulled up your review on my smartphone as I left the movie. I was expecting a three star review but was pretty shocked to see only 1 1/2 stars. I read the review, chuckled and saw this as one of the times where you either disliked or possibly missed some of the basic concept of the movie, and that was pretty much that.

I have sporadically read comics over the years and only knew a little about Thor going into the movie. I did a little fanboy googling about him and I was surprised to learn that he is considered powerful enough to go head-to-head with Superman and arguably win. Some claimed he would win because he was, "a god". In my sci fi watching experience, beings who think they are gods are usually just douches with advanced technology who do nothing but cause trouble for everyone else because they are self centered, egotistical hot heads. That is pretty much how Thor was protrayed through the first half of the movie. I think his father even paraphrased my sentiment. What the film did very well was how it tongue in cheek made fun of the character, doing things like breaking mugs and boasting about puny human weapons before getting zapped, while somehow making him likable at the same time. That was no easy feat. While you were looking for a super hero with depth, such as Peter Parker, the film purposely chose to accentuate Thor's shallow nature to make it a strength of the movie. By the end of the film he was much less shallow than at the beginning. For Thor, that is bigger than baby steps. I am curious to know whether you missed that or just don't care for that type of approach in general. I noticed the samething in our disagreeing opinion of The Fighter. You had described Mark Wahlberg's character as lacking personality and depth through no fault of the actor. This had to be an intentional decision by the director though. The point was that his character was so smothered by the strong personalities around him, that he wasn't able to even develop a personality let alone live his own life. Otherwise, it would not be believeable that he would put up with being pushed around his whole life. The irony was that the last thing a boxer by nature ever tolerates is being pushed around in the ring. I thought it very effective.

Well that is one super hero movie down and a bunch to go this summer. Hopefully we will agree on a few of them being good. Take care.

Once a comic book becomes a movie is out there it is fair game to judge if it stands on its own two feet as a movie. You don't have to run out to watch the whole cartoon series to know The Last Airbender is a mess the same way I didn't have to read Mario Puzo the know The Godfather is exceptional.

Simply put, if something in the film is poorly done, such as the character of Loki, and he is was unfaithfully adapted, then there should be no problem. The movie did a poor job living up to the source material.

If it was faithfully adapted - if he was just as forgettable and boring and inconsistently motivated - then you can go ahead and apply that criticism to the books as well. If he is and always has been this lame they should have improved him or left him out.

Neither fidelity or infidelity to the source material changes the quality of the movie.

I grew up reading some comics, but not becoming obsessed with any - and dumping them all when I discovered Mad and then the National Lampoon. Even as a kid I found Thor to be a minor, second or third-tier comic book character. It amuses me that Hollywood is now scraping the bottom of the comic-book barrel. (And will once again once Green Lantern hits theatres. Really? Green Lantern?)

If people want to analyze every detail of the Thor universe, that's fine with me. We all have our silly obsessions. But here's the deal - a movie is not and should not be made only for the aficionados. If, after seeing Thor, I were to be confused by the plot or world of the film, then that film has failed me. No amount of explanation by a Thor enthusiast explaining that they covered that part of the backstory in issue 374 is going to make the experience of viewing the film any better. In short - I shouldn't have to have intimate knowledge of the source material, especially source material covering umpteen years of storytelling, to enjoy this stand-alone piece of filmmaking.

Whenever I hear this type of debate, I flash on an experience I had years ago. A co-worker was railing on about how an episode of the Star Trek cartoon series had featured a storyline that directly contradicted the storyline in an episode of the original series. And. He. Was. LIVID. I couldn't figure out why he was so upset... until I realized he LIKED to be upset over this kind of thing. It seems to me there is a percentage of comic book (and movie, and music, and book, and whatever else) 'nerds' who exist solely to feel outrage, because it displays their knowledge about their obsession. They aren't genuinely angry so much as desirous to display the fruits of their labor, and to feel superior to all those who just don't get it. Or, more to the point, just don't care.

So if people are angry that Roger didn't get Thor... well, let them be. It gives them a chance to quote obscure references about a subject they've spent years enjoying. It's their moment to shine. Whether they give off a magnificent light or a dim glow is a matter of individual taste.

I went to see this movie for two reasons. 1) My husband is a comics geek and will see just about any movie based on a comics character. Mention Captain America to him and he salivates.

2) It was directed by Kenneth Branagh, whom I have loved from afar and deeply admired since I was but a wee drama major in college. I was quite interested to see what he would do with the movie.

I am not a comic geek--to the point where I infuriate my husband by regularly mixing up who's from Marvel and who's from DC--so I went into the movie a blank slate.

I thought it was pretty good. Not great, but not "dear God, what fresh hell is this?" at each new scene, a la Transformers 2. Considering it was basically Back Story: The Movie, and had to cram a ton of exposition for the upcoming Avengers film into itself, not to mention the constant stream of "MORE EXPLOSIONS!" memos Branagh must have been getting from his money overlords, it was, well, pretty good.

I did like the attempt at characterization they did with Loki. Put yourself in his place. Here you are, beloved son of Odin, ruler of everything you have ever known, ever loved. He's not just some random Asgardian. He's ODIN, who is basically a god among Asgaridan men. You somehow know in some part of yourself that something's always been a little off about your life, and that petty streak in your nature has been widening lately, but you are reassured by your father, ODIN, that you are his beloved son and nothing else.

Nooooot quite. Turns out you were adopted--no, not adopted. You were STOLEN. By your beloved father, for use as a possible future bartering chip. Your whole life has indeed been a lie, and the father you knew, loved, and venerated, who looked you in the eyes and told you your doubts were foolish ones, has been barefaced, out and out lying to you for your entire life. The people you have been trained from infancy to think of as an enemy are your real family and the people you trusted did that.

Well, how are you supposed to react? Suck it, Asgard!

Oh, and Darcy is a Political Science major who was, in these bleak economic times, the only one to apply for a position as Jane's intern. Easily the least believable thing about the movie.

Missing salient details because you were bored or "didn't care" isn't an excuse most people would find particularly effective at their jobs. What makes you think it's a reasonable rationalization in your case?

I really couldn't care less whether you liked Thor or not, but this isn't the first time I've read reviews of yours in which plot points were misunderstood or misstated so egregiously, I had a hard time believing you actually watched the movie, as opposed to reviewing the trailer, or having the DVD screener on in the background as you browsed the internet.

If you're going to write reviews, you owe it to the people who are paying you to do so, to do your best to pay attention to the movie. That's why it's called "work"

So glad you extended the invaluable discussion on "Thor." Not that it matters one iota, but the rumor that Thor is gay seems found less. Even though Odin temporarily turned Thor into a chick named Thora, he was, by all accounts, straight as a thunder bolt.

Devious Loki, in his God of Mischief incarnation, did however TURN HIMSELF into a mare so he could diddle Odin's favorite stud stallion, Svaolfan, and then gave birth to the 8 legged horse, Sleipnir. So Loki was a practicing zoophile, and engaging in bestiality is known to inhibit one's ability to positively nurture his or her personal self image, thus permanently damaging the psyche.

Look it up.

Roger, like you, I've never read a Thor Comic. (I didn't know that there was a Thor comic until last week). I too was underwhelmed by this movie (though I might have liked it more if we'd had more Natalie Portman.

With that said, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't understand why the robot went where it went, that you didn't realize that one the third woman wasn't a scientist . And I'm shocked that you didn't realize that the frost giants were on a different planet.

I suppose you might have dosed off at the wrong times. God knows I almost fell asleep on more than one occasion.

I agree with your point that "liking" a movie does not mean it's "good". After seeing "The Adjustment Bureau" I told a friend that I thought it was a "bad" movie, but I "liked" certain parts of it. All through that movie I was bored and thought the plot was quite predictable. Though I did enjoy the acting and how the film looked. Your review said the movie was "good", which I certainly respect your opinion. Most people that will see Thor (and for most movies) will go in wanting to "like" it and call it "good". Perhaps it's simply because the Thor movie franchise is new, and the bar was set pretty low? Maybe there were enough new characters and special effects that made people enjoy the movie they didn't notice it's shortcomings (or weren't bothered by them). Would people be vigorously defending Thor if it got, say 60%, on Tomatometer?

Sorry Mr Ebert,

but yours was just a bad written review, I suppose it could happen to any experienced reviewer.

All the criticism you received were well deserved, you failed to simply pay attention to your subject (being a professional, you are not allowed to blame the movie, sorry).

Anyhow, you still are the best movie reviewer ever; please, dust off and carry on.

Best regards.

I just wanted to address one small thing you mentioned--the idea that moviegoers should know something because it's covered in the book on which it's based. That drives me bananas. After "Revenge of the Sith" I kept asking, "Where did this Grievous guy come from?" and my siblings offered the advice of watching the "Attack of the Clones" cartoon series, where Grievous is introduced and a lot of the stuff happens between the second and third movies.

I don't have cable. I didn't even know "Attack of the Clones" existed. And while I'll happily spend hours comparing the book with the movie, I get supremely irritated by any movie that expects the viewer to have studied up on supplemental material (unless it's a movie in the same series, like another Star Wars movie).

One of my current great movie-going joys is seeing the Harry Potter movies with my husband. I've read all the books multiple times, and he's never read any of them. It's a great perspective to share after the movie's over: he comes to it fresh, as a new viewer; I come to it as a devotee. Any movie, whether it's "Transformers" or "Pride and Prejudice" should be able to stand on its own to new viewers, whether or not they're inclined to get the backstory. And if they decide to do some further reading at the close of the movie, all the better.

I read Mr. Ebert's critique of THOR before watching it myself and have to agree with some of his analysis. However, despite some dull moments and head-scratching logical conumdrums, I still rather enjoyed the film for what it was - a straight-up ol' fashioned superhero flick. There were a few plot holes and a bit of disjointed flow around the 3/4 mark, but all said, it was enjoyable for me - a superhero fan who never read THOR before.

The only part that I really have issue with, was, as Mr. Ebert mentioned, the sudden an unexplained transition of THOR the arrogant impulsive ego-driven brat to THOR the protector and champion of good.

When Hollywood adapts comic book stories, it usually adapts the most childish, inane material and overlooks the most interesting stuff. In other words, it focuses on superheroes and ignores the independent non-superhero titles. Sure, it's done a few such adaptations (such as Sin City, Road to Perdition, and American Splendor). But even though these films are filled with rich visual spectacle and provide compelling stories and characters, Hollywood prefers the mind-numbing men-in-tights material.

That's too bad, because there are so many great ongoing comic books and one-shot graphic novels out there that would make smart, entertaining movies. Off the top of my head, I can think of Scalped, Criminal, Incognito, Sleeper, Scarlet, Stumptown, Fogtown, Area 10, The Bronx Kill, Luna Park, Ex Machina, The Pride of Baghdad, The Killer, and Unknown Soldier.

Your response reminds me of screenwriter William Goldman's critique of the "Auteur" theory, which he suggested canonizes a certain Director's work, regardless of whether the Director made a misstep. As an example he points to Chaplin, whose most ardent disciples love everything Chaplin ever did, and he replies "I wish them a lifetime on a desert island with nothing but 'A Countess in Hong Kong' to watch."

In other words, if its a comic book movie, IT'S GOTTA BE GOOD!

I am not a comic book fan (not since I was 12, anyway) I disagreed with your review of the first Spiderman, and have yet to see "Thor" but feel that if a movie leaves something up in the air that isn;t readily discernible by the objective observer, it probably leaves something to be desired as a stand-alone movie.

Hammered by"Thor" lovers.”They said U didn't see Thor when what they should B worried about is where the REAL Roger Ebert is?

Mr. Ebert , I pose an interesting exercise, Review yourself sometime. I'd read it.

LOL, that's what happens when you don't get canon right.

You gotta read the actual comics, Roger. THOR came to OKlahoma, not New Mexico. Author Michael Straczynski said he chose Oklahoma because of the multiple Oklahoma Runestones found over the last century, leaving unexplained how ancient Vikings left behind writings from Minnesota to Oklahoma. The movie screenplay moved Midgard ground zero to New Mexico after Governor Bill Richardson offered incentives to Hollywood. The small town/diner/desolation/dusty roads scenes in Straczynski's original storyline were moved with just the license plates changed.

I'm sure Thor 2 will address the flaws of the first film. I look forward to a 4 star review.

How could a movie based on possibly one of the dumbest, most pointless superheroes ever conceived be any good?

Mr. Ebert:

I believe the entire issue revolves around "like" vs "good."

I am not an expert on the comic book but I liked the movie a lot while acknowledging it was not very good.

Homer Simpson would refer to it as 'craptacular.'

I read my brother's Marvel comics in the 60s. He's still mad at me for damaging his priceless collection. Oh, well. I'll tell you the characters I liked: Dr. Strange, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Submariner. I loved that guy. Thor, not so much. I also like the Silver Surfer.

Just read some of the hostile reaction to your previous column and, I've got to say, it's pretty damn hilarious.

Isn't it ironic that so many "comic" book fans are so humorless?

Oh, and what's wrong with being "an old man and a fool"?

Mr. Ebert,

The mere fact that you could get so many facts incorrect speaks to the still-horrid state of the comic book movie. Despite gems like "The Dark Knight," "Watchmen" and "Spider Man 2," the majority of superhero movies are excuses to show off big-budget special effects and big-name actors (much as I love Ed Norton, "Hulk" was not his best...).

A good comic book movie shouldn't leave the viewer with questions about details. For a hundred years, comics have been far more than repositories for ridiculous minutiae, acting as windows to fantastic worlds through compelling (if convoluted) stories and interesting characters. Comic book movies have sadly forgotten to include all of the above, prompting critics to despise their stories and characters, fans to rage at the lack of/incorrect details and Hollywood to beg for more explosions.

It'll be a great day indeed when comic book movies are made with love for the stories and characters, rather than trying to cram those into an explosion-fest. "Watchmen" and "Dark Knight" had the formula down nicely; it would be nice if the next "Thor" movie (there of course will be one) had it, too.

RE: Is Asgard a planet or in another dimension?

In the comic books, as best I dimly recall, it is the latter. However, the movie used scientific consultants, including physicist Sean Carroll, and they did their best to turn magic into science (as a line from the film mentions). So in the the movie, Asgard and Jotenheim are planets, which makes marginally more sense scientifically.

I hope I cleared that up - sorry if somebody else beat me to it, I haven't read all of the comments.

"Thor" is such a boring movie! Did you Thor-people really not notice how boring it is?
And the fact that it is so boring is a disappointment, because it was made by Kenneth Branagh.
And it is interesting when really good directors make big Popcorn-movies, and I really like the genre. But this film, it was just boring!
But then - if you people liked it so much, why do you even care? And get all excited and mean and insulting? OK, of course, you will want Roger Ebert to like your (boring) movie, since he definitely is the superhero of film-reviews - but "Thor" is not going to be banned from the screens of this world just because he doesn´t like it. (How could he like it, as boring as it is?)

Sometimes I can't believe you even respond to these people, Roger. I read some of the insane reactions to your "Battle LA" review, and now this. I assume you must get lambasted by crazy folk on many of your low-star reviews, as well as some of your controversial high-star reviews (I saw another commenter mention what happened when you gave high marks to "Knowing," I remember that well).

Some of this debate about your "stating opinion as fact" reminds me of David Hume's "Standard of Taste," a fairly famous essay that, to me, essentially argues that there might be a "factual" good and a "factual" bad when it comes to art, beyond individual human interpretation. I wonder if you've read it, and what your stance is on that notion.

All super hero movies are, at a base level, silly nonsense because the protagonist runs around in a costume.

And while any person in a costume can seem either silly or interesting depending upon who you are and where your interests lie, there's a level of intellectual seriousness at which it just has to be recognized as silliness.

Sometimes silliness is entertaining and I find these types of movies to be diverting entertainments. Even if some are slightly better or worse than others, few if any rise to the level of serious film-making. Other than The Dark Knight, are there serious contenders for an excellent intelligent movie with someone running around in a costume? I don't recall seeing one. No matter now much I enjoyed the first two X-Men films, I couldn't help but stifle a laugh whenever Ian McKellan as Magneto put that dumb helmet on!

I like the stuff, but also recognize that none of these movies ever rise to the level of serious adult film making.

All these furrowed brow comic book defenders. I'm suddenly reminded of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omjySV9M7wo

Ebert: "How old is Judd?"

I was somewhere between flabbergasted and horrified at most of the comments on your review. Not because of disagreement, but because of how they attacked you personally and were rude and vicious.

As someone above said, the point of being a film critic is to criticize. By definition a critique is your opinion, your interpretation, your perspective; why in the world should you have to say it explicitly every time you write a review? Do you have to put a disclaimer at the beginning of every review? Why in the world are they *offended* by what you write? If they don't like what you say or how you say it, there are several more intelligent, courteous, productive options to vitriol: don't read what you write; go find another critic they agree with if they find your opinion so infuriating; discuss the points of disagreement without attacking you personally; give their own opinions and why they have them; vent their angry feelings to their like-minded friends instead of anonymously blasting meanness. Those suggestions are just a start-- I'm sure there are more possibilities.

You know, I have thought about starting a blog. I've written all my life, been told that I write well, and thought that some of my thoughts and experiences might have value for some other people. But it seems impossible to blog without allowing comments and when I see reactions like those to your review, I think I just don't want to deal with that kind of garbage. It's the downside of the internet-- that people shoot off in a way that they would never (hopefully) do to your face. It's just too sickening for me to be able to shrug the nastiness off as trolls. I'm not sure that the thoughtful comments could make up for the mean-spirited ones.

What has happened to common courtesy?

I am glad, though, that you have the toughness to shrug it off and continue, because I love reading your reviews... and I don't even like watching movies very much. I know cognitively that they're "just movies", but I can't help reacting as I've actually witnessed the events-- life is intense enough for me without choosing to go through an emotional wringer for two hours and deal with the aftermath in dreams etc.-- and I have other things I prefer for pure entertainment. But I enjoy your reviews for the intelligence, analysis, background, knowledge, etc. that you bring to film. I love excellence in every field and am fascinated by the craft of film-making-- learning how they achieve what they achieve, how to take advantage of the medium to express a story or idea or just plain fun. I love literature, so I love the way you compare films, bringing out things I never would have thought of, analogous to literary criticism. I've watched films because of what you said about them. I like that I don't always agree with you. What's the point of only hanging around people who agree with me?-- I'd never learn anything new or discover my unconscious paradigms or get a glimpse of why someone appreciates something that I don't (and sometimes learn to appreciate and enjoy it myself).

So I'm glad that you write reviews (and even more, your blog). I'm especially glad you write things I disagree with because you nearly always write them in an intelligent and enlightening way. I'm glad you write your opinions And if you make mistakes, well, that's part of it. If we were sitting across a table with a bottle of wine, I'd point them out and laugh, maybe roll my eyes if one was especially egregious, then ask how you made them... and learn more about the art of film, how and why it may affect one person and not another, and think about how it might translate to the arts that I practice.

You write:
"Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards."

Isn't the more interesting question whether a movie can be good if you don't like it? It seems rather unlikely that "lasting standards" and "immediate amusement" would be universally aligned in the positive, if it's not in the negative.

Roger,

I think you should have waited at least two weeks after Ebertfest to watch Thor. You were so accustomed to great serious films that you experienced emotional whiplash when watching the fun, preposterous Thor.

Vic M.

Personally, I do believe that many of the objections and insults that you receive come not from the fact that people don't agree with your reviews, they come from the fact that you sound completely and absolutely pretentious when you write these things.

Honestly, I did see the movie and thought that it was alright for the audience that I had with me and wasn't too involved and deep. However, if I had not seen it and read what you wrote on it both in the original review and here, your opinion would not mean a single iota to me based on the fact that you portray yourself as being one of those people who thinks that they are constantly correct on every matter no matter what and you are God's gift to movie writing.

I would be willing to bet money that no matter what you wrote on a movie you would still catch static on it based on how you write and how you portray yourself.

Yes, I am a professional writer and honestly, what lines you find to be clever and undoubtedly made you giggle to yourself were contrite and actually quite snippy and dry.

Point being, examine how your articles make you look as a person and what perspective that gives to your readers and ask yourself, 'if I look like such a complete tool all the time, are my reviews going to effect peoples movie watching experiences as they are meant to?'

Hi, Roger.

I do wonder sometimes whether if you saw the magnificent 1990 version of the Mahabharata by Peter Brook whether you'd be able to appreciate it for what it was. I don't think you would based on your reviews of Atlas Shrugged and several other movies.

I haven't seen Thor, but as it's directed by Keneth Branagh I fully intend to see it when it comes to DVD. In truth, when you wrote how much you hated Thor my girlfriend and I immediately decided it would be worth watching specifically because of how backward so many of your reviews have been. We cannot for the life of us figure out why you would like the Dark Knight or 2012, for instance, which are horribly shallow and formulaic throw-money-at-special-effects movies. I can see if you'd have said you like the Harvey Dent character in Dark Knight, but that's not what you liked. You liked the worst parts of the horrible movie.

So when you pan movies that are lower budget and intended to require thought (like After.Life) but give high marks to shallow movies like Dark Knight, I must confess Thor sounds appealing.

I miss the days when you hated a movie at least you tried to see things to like in it. Years ago you hated one of my favorite movies, Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, but you hated it in a way I could appreciate and respect.

Why is it necessary now, good Roger, to hate movies so venemously? Have you been assimilated by the sheep? I know you're still in there. I miss knowing a review I read by you would be one clearly by one who loves movies regardless of if you rank a movie highly or not. Why do you have to write books like "Your Movie Sucks"? Why do you have to waste your talent writing poison.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for, Roger. Any film adapted from another medium must be looked at on its own terms. This is the thing "fan boys" either fail to, are unable to or flat-out refuse to understand.

I found Tom Middleston's performance as Loki more effective than you did, but I'd agree with you on the film as a whole. It's nothing outstanding in the realm of comic book movies and while Chris Hemsworth did what he could with the under-written hero role, and Kenneth Branagh's direction is capable if not extraordinary, there simply isn't anything exciting or overly involving here.

It accomplishes its mission as an "origin" film; it introduces the major players, shows the viewer how this God became a Superhero, and sets up conflicts for further installments. But that's all it does. It's like a Clift Notes version of the Marvel Thor mythology. It could, and should, have probed deeper into the character and his universe -- but Big Summer Movies aren't designed to go deep. Which is a shame, because there is a wealth of material from the comics Branagh could have delved more deeply into and still have delivered on the action/special effects front.

Oh, well. Maybe Thor 2 will correct these mistakes.

Roger,

I don't really have a dog in this fight (I think Thor is a good movie, and I can see that you don't care for it), but I will say that I don't think Doc Ock is NECESSARILY a better villain than Loki. Loki instigates a war out of boredom, and when the Frost Giant is about to kill Odin, Loki slays the Frost Giant, showing a surprising loyalty to the adoptive father who lied to him. He wanted to destroy the Frost Giants all along, but on HIS terms. I find all these actions and motivations interesting.

Doc Ock is a guy who put on a suit and went crazy. This description applies to 99% of all Spider-Man villains. Furthermore, I think Spider-Man II is the most overrated comic book movie of all time.

-Diego

I read your original post and scrolled through the comments, reading at least a dozen. It seemed to me that most of the posters were suggesting you missed facts explained in the movie - NOT that you should have known this stuff from reading the comics. I found this "apology" even more inexplicable than the original!

Dear Roger,

With respect to these people you've pissed off: Please keep pissing them off. In fact, I insist upon it. Their influence on the world of movies is corrosive. Someone needs to be their... nemesis?

We could design you a costume.

I haven't seen "Thor" and don't plan to see "Thor," but I encountered a similar fanboy outrage when I dared to praise "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," which was by far my favorite of the "Potter" films. A couple of friends of mine, who have religiously read all the books, disagreed with me, but more than that they took the position that my opinion was ill-informed, inaccurate. I haven't read the books so I'm not qualified to say whether or not the film is good or bad. As someone who has seen far more movies than they have and read and written more about film than they ever will, I was especially offended by this; it's like being criticized by a backseat driver if the backseat driver has never seen a car before.

Because I didn't realize what was in the book and thus didn't know exactly what content the film was missing, I was not qualified to judge, to which I replied with some variation of your comment: "A movie must contain whatever the audience requires in order to enjoy it." A movie should not exist to be enjoyed on the basis of its source material. It should be enjoyed on its own, be an independent entity. If the criticism of someone's review is, "Well, you haven't read the book," that criticism is not valid.

But I am optimistic about Thor, the character. Though I'm not sure how the mythic fantasy of "Thor" is supposed to mesh with the Earth-bound, more science-fiction-based "Iron Man" and "Hulk" universes, they're all being brought together for "The Avengers," which could be a big mess of a superhero mash-up, but it's being written and directed by Joss Whedon ("Serenity," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"), which gives me high hopes.

I don't understand why people are still angry. Why do people here want a apology? Its Rogers opinion that the movie sucked, there is nothing of him to apologize for. I liked the John Candy movie Uncle Buck and Roger gave it a thumbs down that I didn't agree with but I wasn'tangry or demanded a apology. I liken this to the same type of geeks, nerds fanboys, fannerd etc. that took Roger to task for the "Video games aren't art" comment If Roger said he thought video games were art would it somehow magically make games play better? Would video game fans have a skip in thier step going to buy a new game if Roger gives them his thumb of "They are art approval"? The same could be said of Thor, if Roger didn't like it does it ruin your enjoyment? If Roger apologizes(For What I have no idea!) and says its a good movie would you guys go out and dance in the streets? Most of the posters here are probably to young to remember Roger and Gene siskel reviewing movies but when they disagreed and argued about a movie at the end of the day they were still friends. You crybabies of the latest generation get your kicks out of trashing people on the net because of its relative anonimity. The only apology the angry posters here deserve are from their parents for raising such spoiled crybabies.

and now thor has merited TWO columns worth of real estate in your blog. who cares? if it sucked, it sucked, hysterical comic fans be damned. really, roger.

“’There is a larger question here. Does it make a movie "good" because you "like" it? No, it doesn't, and I have liked a lot of bad movies. It is helpful to separate one's immediate amusement from more lasting standards.’”

I believe you once wrote that your reviews were relational. Perhaps that is not the correct word, but I took it to mean that you reviewed a movie based on its intention. I complimented you once before for being able to enjoy a less than good movie because you understood its intent.
Sometimes a silly movie is just a silly movie.

More, I will go you one level larger, have movie critics met their ignorance wall? Physicians, lawyers, rocket scientists and many others have a long time ago.
Perhaps there is just too much product out there. From high-budget animated feature films now competing for best movie awards to low-budget independent films competing for the serious award of the year, can you keep up?
Will we see specialists in the film critics profession?

But Roger, for you, it’s your writing.
I have never bothered to read two reviews of a children’s film by the same critic.
Keep on keeping on.

Mr. Ebert,

Your unwillingness to admit that you simply do not like a traditional comic book flavor comes across as extremely pretentious. You do your comic book fan readers a disservice when you refuse to take the genre seriously. True, you gave The Dark Knight 4 stars, but your first line of that review was: "Batman is no longer a comic book." So that's a warrant for 4 stars, huh? There are people who still enjoy the unpretentious idea of a traditional superhero; if you do not, please say so and do not criticize an entertaining film just because you have no interest in its material.

Ebert: Huh? I don't like traditional comic book movies? I don't like bad ones, it's true.

Hi Roger, I'd love to see an article about the vile of people able to post on the internet somewhat anonymously. Whenever I post (usually on a stock market board) my self imposed rule is to only say what I would be willing to say directly to someone face to face.

That being said, I would say to someone face to face that Thor sucks, and is the worst comic book hero that made it more than 10 issues.

Dude, you should totally ban the people who defended THOR and attacked you idiotically. Then tell them "I take from you your power. And I cast you out!" They would be mad at first then be okay with it because of the line drop.

"I hoped to fend off an attack by the Spoiler Police, because the news that he was adopted comes as a surprise to Loki and many in the audience. Perhaps students of the comic books knew of this so well that mentioning it wouldn't have been a spoiler. I assume most audience members, however, didn't know it."
.
.
.
Well, we know it now.

I think a movie should make sense to both expert and naive audiences: audiences who are familiar with the source material, and audiences who have never encountered the source material before.

Saying "You would understand this if you had read the source material" isn't really a valid defense of a movie's success at communicating key plot points clearly.

This is not limited to movies adapted from comics at all--there is at least one big-budget Jane Austen movie that never explains a key plot point (which I will not expand on here, because spoiler), which confused the bejeezus out of my husband, who had never read the novel.

Thor looks like a fun picture, and I am hoping to see it soon. It's also interesting to see someone introspecting about a previous review.

I've never read your reviews, and I only stumbled upon this via IMDB discussion board. Regardless, reading your back up opinion of your original review makes me wonder, "Did he watch the same movie I did?" And I am not defending the quality of the movie at all. I liked the movie, yes, but it did not make cinematic history. However, the answers you gave to the questions or complaints received made me do a double take.
How in the world did you not understand the storyline and its characters? It was/They were quite clearly explained. The story of Loki, the Destroyer, the Hammer, etc... And I've never picked up a comic book in my life. I didn't even know until sitting in the theater with my husband it was a Marvel comic movie. But again, regardless, I believe you must be suffering from pre-movie biased expectations and plain-old just not paying attention (which you admit to here in your post to not caring and not giving complete attention to plot). As a critic your job is to be unbiased going into projects, and to give your full attention to detail to write a "good" critique. That doesn't have to be positive or negative. However, your lack of attention to the details of the movie, character analysis, prove that your loosing grasp of the job description to your hired position.

I enjoyed Thor but as you've pointed it out it had a child's plot concealed as adult entertainment. To me this is fine, out of all of the movies that Marvel has put out I go into them with the idea that I may not be seeing something with much depth, I go to be amused, and gawk at amazing special effects, or chuckle at simple comic reliefs. I go to have fun, and yet like you there are some films that I can't even have fun at, the end product is so abysmal that I can't find anything great to say about without a hint of sarcasm. Thor however I did find things to be quite well done, for instance despite the proposterous plot (which I had no prior knowledge of) I thought the performances were right on the money. I felt like Kenneth Branagh went into this film knowing that he was making a simple fun film, but im glad his actors took it seriously. Chris Hemsworth proved that he can carry a film, he's comedic moments were golden, and my biggest disagreement with your review was that Loki wasn't a compelling villain or a strong one. I think as the introductory film for Thor Loki was down played, but by the end I felt like he had reached his evil boiling point, and when he lets go and descends into w/e he's falling in to, I wanted to see that Loki now, that heart broken and defeated Loki. Tom Hiddleston I thought delivered a brilliant performance, okay maybe brilliant is the right word for this popcorn movie, but he was very compelling, I expected a more outlandish villain, but he made Loki human first, and gave you peaks at his sinister side, and left you with the idea that when this guy returns he has no honor to uphold, he means business. As far as that fun factor goes, or the child like plot thats fine by me, Thor is such a ridiculous character in the first place, I was prepared not to take him seriously, I actually have to applaud the filmmakers, actors, writers, everyone involved with getting this film done by making a film that was even watchable. I'm approaching the upcoming Captain America in the same way, I'm hoping that they are purposely making a fun, cheesy film, in case the source material isn't strong enough to hold it up - I haven't read any or most of the comic books these films are based on, I do tend to do a quick wikipedia search just to get a sense of what I might be getting myself into, but no research beyond that.
Just wanted to write and let you know that im sure some of us who enjoyed this movie, can't really find fault with people who really disliked it.
I was worried you weren't even going to write a review honestly, Friday came along and it wasn't up on your website, I always look forward to your opinions, and always enjoy it when I can agree to disagree at some points.

Roger, you've let us all know repeatedly that you're upset that alot of people would rather see a movie like Thor than read Cormac McCarthy, and you seem to bring that attitude to some of your reviews. I've seen Thor and read Suttree and I don't feel that it makes someone a better person to have done either, and I honestly don't see why anyone should be pushed or guilted into either of them. It's like you have something to prove along the lines of "Faulkner is better than comic book movies/video games/action films", etc., and I'm not sure why you care so much how other people spend their free time and seem hellbent on telling them they're inferior if they don't like the same things you do. Whether it's intentional or not, that attitude came across in your review of Thor and I think that's why you got some heat for it.

All in all you did give your reasons for not liking the movie and hell, there's no sense in trying to talk someone into liking something. It's subjective to a point. I thought it was better than Iron Man on every level, but lets be real here: it's got nothing on The Dark Knight or the original Superman. There will always be fans who will be pissed at you just because you didn't love it, but that's unavoidable and they're unreasonable for being angry at someone just for having a different opinion, but I think it's that you practically call people philistines for enjoying it that is pissing off most people.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I'm sure that the tone of the e-mails that you received from the movie's most-ardent fans was appalling, but their point about factual errors is something that you should not ignore. I understand your defense about having fun with plot points, but when you base any evaluation, positive or negative, on an incorrect summation, your argument is baseless and ultimately incorrect, too (yes, an opinion can be wrong).

Many of your reviews have factual errors, and as this blog post about "Thor" indicates, sometimes, details start blending together after a period of time. It is possible that you simply watch so many movies per day or per week that you forget or conflate events. The solution is simple--watch fewer movies and get the facts right. :-)

It's always a pleasure to read your reviews, even when I don't agree. I must say though, you made me spend some money on Amazon buying movies only because of what you said about them.
By the way, I read your book about movies you did not like!
Thank you Take care...
Thank you! Take care...

At least, with these comments, we know what kinds of movies most of the people online watch. Or, at least, what most of the ones who choose to comment watch. ;-)

Speaking of which, I still haven't seen Watchmen...

As to those people who think that Ebert (or anyone else) should add "in my opinion" or whatever it is to reviews--

--reviews are already opinion pieces. The reviewer doesn't have to say that what they write is their opinion, because that's the very nature of a review. There is no such thing as an objective or impartial movie review, and how could there be? Impartial discussions of movies that simply list the actors, crew, etc., are called "movie listings," not "movie reviews."

What you're suggesting is similar to saying that every song should include the line "This is a song" or that every TV show that isn't news or a documentary should have a disclaimer statement saying "This is all made up" or that every first-person shooter video game should have a little caption saying "You're not really killing anyone."

It's unnecessary. If you don't get that movie reviews reflect the reviewer's opinion, why are you even reading them in the first place? Just watch the trailers and read the listings if you don't want other people's opinions.

Mr. Ebert,

I seldom write responses to blogs or attack of blogs but this has become ridiculous. I haven't seen Thor and don't plan to but I do often dabble into comic books and read novels constantly. Those critising your views on the film due to the fact you do not follow the comic book have forgotten the fact that a film and a comic or two separate and independent entities. The way a film plays out, addition of movement, framing, music and performances by actors to the words in the page by definition change the nature of the original text. Sometimes to great effect and sometimes they fail. But like a comic book must entertain as a "Comic Book" as film must entertain as a "Film" regardless what is based on.

Comic Book and video games fans, and I am one of both, tend to be defensive and aggresive upon criticism since there are not highly regarded forms of entertainment. This has caused a sort of mob mentality that should not exist.
I doubt there was such an uproar like this when you criticised the film "The Great Gatsby" starring Robert Redford. Anyone unfamiliar with the novel should have noticed that the film is poor in many levels and those familiar with the novel realised how it was such a wasted opportunity to make a great film.

If anyone thought Thor was a good film, fine, I haven't seen it so i can't judge the film, but please don't fool yourselfs saying it was a good film just because you've read the source material and love it. A good film is what it is, a good film, a FILM above all else and should stand alone as a piece for consideration.

All the best

Dear lord these comments are depressing. You'd think you called Thor's mother a whore or something. Truly Hell hath no fury like a fanboy scorned.

All I can say is keep on keepin' on, Roger. I know how lonely and frustrating it is when everybody else seems to love a clearly undeserving picture (for me, Star Trek '09 and Inception). Forgive them their wayward opinions, and in time they will do the same for you.

The relevant cartoon.

I'm not sure why you have to defend your review to people who clearly won't accept anyone's opinion on it, but their own. It's like critiquing the scientific flaws in the bible to a Christian fundamentalist.

Roger,

Your outrage over Thor in your review is entirely justified because Kenneth Branagh, among other achievements, made Hamlet, and his Hamlet is a legitimate work of ART. He was the first person to ever create a Shakespeare masterpiece for film. Olivier's direction of Shakespeare is serviceable. Orson Welle's Shakespeare adaptations are great, but they go against the grain of Shakespeare. Chimes at Midnight reaches a rare level of poetry in film, but its not really a Shakespeare film, its an Orson Welles film. But Branagh uses Shakespeare's unedited texts and understands Shakespeare inside and out; his Henry V and Hamlet totally demonstrate his command over every feeling and nuance in those plays. It's sad to see an artist like Branagh, with the capacity to crate works like Hamlet and Henry V, selling out with a lame comic book adaptation. To have given a slight of hand review would disrespect Branagh the artist. I take Branagh seriously as an artist, so I am outraged that he would make a youth oriented, unvaluable, studio product like Thor.

My only hope is that he uses its box office success to get a personal project made, ideally some important Shakespeare tragedy (I can't wait until he's old enough to play Lear). I don't mean to pry or preach, but this would be a great time to take another at his Hamlet (which I remember you admired) and think about it as a great film selection. Now, in response to Thor, is the perfect time to remind people why we should care about Branagh.

I think your blog entry here accurately assesses the major problems with your review. (I'm not quite sure why people are addressing it as a "non-apology", as I don't get the impression you were dressing it up as one in the first place. It reads as an addendum to your review, which is fine.)

Typically, your reviews are appropriate to the film you're watching, a quality that is rare among reviewers and the reason you're the only reviewer I search by name, and whose reviews I actually read. In this case you were way out there for a popcorn comic book film.

But in the end, here's where I'm confused. I thought Thor was passable and entertaining, not in the league of Iron Man or Dark Knight. Maybe 2.5 star material. I'm having a hard time seeing how it's as much worse than the other comic book movies as you claim, or how the effects are any more gratuitous. I agree with many of your major points about the film's shortcomings but don't see how it adds up to so much anger and distaste. Spider-Man 3, probably one of the most miserable comic book film experiences I've ever had, squeezed an extra half star out of you over Thor.

On a side note, I don't think the constant jabs at 3D technology do your tone any favors. We get that you don't like it. Really. I can understand not liking it, it does things to the picture. It's often hokey. But ... so what? Do you get a letter in the mail each morning that says your family will be killed if you watch the films in 2D? If you noted the enhancement or damage that 3D did to each film in your review, that would be one thing, but typically it comes off as "you kids! and your three dimensions!" while you shake your fist at us. I'm interested in your opinion of the film itself, not being reminded to stay off your lawn :)

I quite enjoyed Thor, myself. But I am a comic book fan, and I have a comic book fan's weaknesses where pretty sights and sound and fury are concerned.

Branagh is a wonderful director (and actor) and Thor is placed bizarrely among his catalogue of work at a glance; it's a big vfx light show from the man who made a Hamlet that went on for four hours.

If one digs deeper, though, similar pleasures can be found.

Branagh's film displays his affinity for mirrors and mirrored surfaces throughout. The same sense of mystique he tapped when filming Hamlet (senior)'s ghost shines through, if not, of course, with the same power, during the first interaction between Loki and Thor in New Mexico.

Asgard is beautiful, too, and not simply in the way of CGI's tendency towards unnecessary perfection. There is a painterly quality here that Marvel's other superhero films have entirely lacked; despite my love affair with Joss Whedon, I will be very, very surprised if his Avengers has anything as stunning as Branagh's work here (Serenity was a well-paced and well-directed film, especially for a debut picture, but it was nothing exceptionally exciting from a visual standpoint. It was a solid film that did next to nothing new, although it did what it did with the old in a fantastic way. Its faults lie in its ties to its source, however, and it cannot escape the fact that it is lacking in sufficient emotional punch if one hasn't seen the fourteen episodes it acts as a coda to.).

Thor is not a particularly excellent film, and it acts as more or less a trailer for The Avengers that lasts far too long. What it is is lovable, disposable, simple entertainment of the kind that I can come back to and love again, the same way that I can enjoy the same kind of cookie more than once. In that way, it's more successful than most forgetful blockbusters, which I can watch once and never want to see again, like a novelty carnival act.

As a postscript, while we are still on the topic of comic book film; Roger, if I am allowed to use your first name, you really must see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, as you have, to my knowledge, yet to do. I'm certainly aware that I am not the first or the last to say so, and this is probably not the first or the last time I have mentioned it on this blog. Not from a standpoint of the argument surrounding video games that is so-oft maligned (and should, especially here, I believe, be ignored), but from one of pure and simple love of film; Scott Pilgrim is one of the most uniquely built pictures of recent years, and it's the most comic of all comic movies, in the sense of how much it borrows from the medium it adapts.

You enjoyed (at least to a degree) Edgar Wright's previous effort Shaun of the Dead, although a search tells me you didn't see his second film (as the case is with his third). Wright's skill with a camera, crew, screenplay and cast has only improved throughout the years, and his innovative editing has gotten more excitingly experimental. I'd urge you to take the time to look over his filmography, but I understand you have a busy schedule.

Whenever you have the time, though, try to fit it in, if possible. I'd love to read your opinions about these, especially Scott Pilgrim.

I haven't seen the film but there are things about it that are interesting to me:

1. When I was a young boy, my friends and I would stage mock fights as the Avengers. By best friend was Thor. His little brother had to play the bad guy, Loki. Loki always got hammered by Thor and the rest of us because he was the only bad guy, and the smallest. (He also only got to play with the broken Lego parts.)

2. Sean Carrol, cosmologist or, um, astrophysicist, of the blog Cosmic Variance served as as a science adviser on the film (or so my addled brain recalls from reading the blog). He knows that experimental astrophysicists have to travel to some scruffy out-of-the-way places to do their work, the Andes, Antarctica, Alaska. Being an experimental astrophysicist is all about tuffing it out and speaking sexy like in "I was rather hoping for a cosmically huge lambda, and oh, what a divine hammer you have!"

He also knows about interdimensional rifts, rainbow bridges, and the like.

This guy knows about the Cosmos and those who study it so I hoped the movie had good flavor text.

3. Terry Rossio, who wrote Pirates of the Caribbean and its sequels, has something against Vikings in movies. That is, he thinks that Vikings are bad subjects for movies. Many of his websites readers, especially the Nordic ones, took issue with him being so down on the V Kings as movie subjects. My feelings were that "Vikings plus alpha" would be an okay movie subject, you know, like Vikings plus the alpha of Grendel make Beowulf, Vikings plus CG dragon equals How to Train your Dragon, Vikings plus hordes of snarlingly, and spittlely subhuman easterlings makes the Vikings-look-compassionate-by-comparison 13th Warrior, and a modern-day Viking (Stellen Skaarsgard) plus Bjork equals Dancer in the Dark. So of course, Thor, the Viking plus the magic hammer equals smash movie premise to me.

I had my hopes up for Thor, so I could make an irritating comment on his forum, but if the movie ain't good enough for you, then it ain't good enough for me.

In a false quarrel there is no true valour.

I agree with this man a lot. Even when I don't, I can usually see where he's coming from. Every once in awhile he slips into what I call "Tripod-Ebert", where he woke up on the wrong side of the bed pissed off, phoned it in, and focused on the.... strangest of details. (In Spielberg's "War of the Worlds", literally half the review was complaining about tripods and their applications).

Thor's Mjölnir is found; stuck on Ebert's forehead.

i h8 u & ur reviu. long live Thor

****Members of the Ayn Rand cult... the devout precision of a Randian, a Biblical scholar or a Shakespearian.****

Members of the "Ayn Rand cult" style themselves Objectivists (specifically capital-O), not "Randians." Rand was very specific with her students and the press about not having her philosophy named after herself, but after its central principles of rational objectivity.

So using "Randian" rather than "Objectivist" is almost the equivalent of calling a Catholic a "Papist," and is the DIRECT equivalent of calling a Muslim a "Mohammedan."

I am afraid you are going to have a long summer. Maybe you should consider skipping the other super-hero films since I think they will be about the same. And I say that as someone who wants to see the others (but not Thor).

I suppose this is as good a thread as any to ask this: which type of review-complaining is more annoying?

A: The fanboy complaints, or

B: The classic "I've been a longtime fan of your work and miraculously agree with all of your other reviews, but you finally wrote a review I totally disagree with and have now lost all respect for you!"

Hi Roger:
I never read Thor comics at summer camp because 1) they were stupid, 2) they were boring and 3) they were stupid. I noted the comic is actually titled The Mighty Thor, and I wonder if this is necessary to distinguish him from The Regular Thor and The Wimpy Thor and so on. I assume there were numerous Thor’s and The Mighty one was one of many. Do you think The Cross-Dressing Thor may make a good film some day? Actually, I am ready for a serious film about Archie and Veronica. I bet she has a lot to say, even if it’s about nothing.
Now a question. If you’re going to review films in your blog, can you review some from yesteryear which you appear to have missed? I can’t find a review on line of the good film BIG, or the great all time classic Tommy Boy. I don’t see one even for the original Terminator. These omissions need to be rectified asap. (Can I say rectified in a G rated forum?)

Roger,
Five minutes before I read this post I finished your "Thor" review and emailed this to a friend: "I think he takes these comic book movies way too seriously ..."

So we agree on that. For myself, I was never a fan of Marvel's Thor comics, but I did enjoy watching him run around in the movie smashing stuff with his bad-ass hammer, fulfilling my admittedly modest expectations with gusto.