Thor: The Dark World
Year:
2013
Country:
USA
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Fantasy
IMDB rating:
7.1
Director:
James Gunn, Alan Taylor
Zachary Levi as Fandral
Rene Russo as Frigga
Stan Lee as Bus Driver
Ray Stevenson as Volstagg
Natalie Portman as Jane Foster
Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Algrim / Kurse
Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis
Idris Elba as Heimdall
Storyline: Thousands of years ago, a race of beings known as Dark Elves tried to send the universe into darkness by using a weapon known as the Aether. Warriors from Asgard stop them but their leader Malekith escapes to wait for another opportunity. The warriors find the Aether and since it cannot be destroyed, they try to hide it. In the present day, Jane Foster awaits the return of Thor although it has been two years since they last saw once another. In the meantime, Thor has been trying to bring peace to the nine realms. Jane discovers an anomaly similar to the one that brought Thor to Earth. She goes to investigate, finds a wormhole, and is sucked into it. Back on Asgard, Thor wishes to return to Earth but his father, Odin refuses to let him. Thor learns from Heimdall, who can see into all of the realms, that Jane disappeared. Thor then returns to Earth just as Jane reappears. However, when some policemen try to arrest her, an unknown energy repulses them. Thor then brings Jane to Asgard to ...
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x800 px
File Size 7833 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 1536 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x304 px
File Size 1777 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 2214 Kbps
Format avi
Download
Type iPhone
Resolution 480x320 px
File Size 907 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1130 Kbps
Format mp4
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 7833 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1777 Mb mpeg4 2214 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x320 px 907 Mb mpeg4 1130 Kbps mp4 Download


Reviews
Completely on autopilot...
Let me start by saying that I don't hate superhero films. I like them very much when they are done well. I hate laziness in films and superficiality. The problem is that pretty much every superhero film made is very lazy and most of them are entirely superficial. Marvel's initial idea of an Avengers universe was inspired from a marketing stand point but I am beginning to question whether or not it has been a failure from a creative stand point. 'Thor the Dark World' is a terrible movie. It does absolutely nothing to add to the mythos of the character or this Marvel universe. The only reason it exists is to draw up excitement for the next Avengers film.

There are no stakes to this film and there are a lot of places to direct blame. The acting aside from Tom Hiddleston is next to unwatchable. The thing is that this is a very talented cast we are working with here. Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman have both won Academy Awards. Stellan Skarsgard is one of the most fascinating character actors in Hollywood. I like Hemsworth a lot too and thought he was great in the first 'Thor' film. But none of them invest anything in the material. Hopkins looks bored and emotes nothing in his delivery. Portman's performance is terrible too and in the process of it being terrible it makes a terrible script look even worse. Jane Foster is a horrible character here. She is by far the stupidest damsel in distress portrayed in comic books recently. Portman is too lazy to give her any sort of character. She punctuates every cheap joke and many of them are just about how ditsy the character is. This kind of writing and performance make me almost agree that comic books offer a flawed and stereotypical depiction of women. Stellan Skarsgard, an actor I think has great depth, is played as a complete fool here. I hated every time he appeared on screen and I am a Stellan Skarsgard fan. I don't place the blame all on him but yeah everyone here did something very wrong in bringing these stupidly conceived characters to life.

In actuality though they are not the biggest problem with the film. The problem is that there is no threat to anything or anyone. The villain here is so completely forgettable and has a plan for evil so half assed that they movie really had no chance of working. This is the ultimate example of a conflict for the sake of having a conflict. If actor Christopher Eccleston is not rewarded a Razzie for his portrayal here than that award show has lost all credibility. Villains even poorly written ones with no motivation like this Maleketh should at least offer the actor the chance to try to ham it up with the tropes of goofy villainy. Eccleston doesn't do that. He has a boring calm delivery that evokes no response but laughter. And since Eccleston's performance is such an overwhelming failure I was drawn to how stupid his make-up looked too.

I wish I could give this a bomb rating, I really do. To be honest though Tom Hiddleston is too damn good in the Loki role to say the film is completely without merit. They don't do anything new with his character here but he's so entertaining and in every Marvel film he adds new layers and nuances to a very interesting character. A whole movie could have been made about this stage of Loki's life and it would have been so much more entertaining and compelling than this load of work. Hiddleston portrays Loki as unchained with no loyalty to anyone. This is the first film where we see him as a trickster and Hiddleston delivers suffice to say. The problem is he isn't really in the film long enough. Jane Foster, Darcy, and Dr Selvig all get more screen time than Loki.

Here's my brilliant business proposition to Marvel. Don't make any movies but Avengers films. Give your golden boy Joss Whedon the four hundred or so million you spent on 'Iron Man 3' and 'Thor the Dark World' and see what he does with it. In watching 'Iron Man 3' and this film it is clear that is where the mindset and passion are.

I hope the Marvel cinematic universe can be saved but I have to say that their track record is looking really bad right now. Kevin Feige and Disney should look back at Favareu's first 'Iron Man' film. It was gutsy and took risks and there was no guarantee of immediate endless sequels.
2013-12-08
What!!!
Come on guys!! This was blooming awful!Bad acting, clichéd story-line, iffy effects and just a lazy, cheap,gap-filler between the really big, well financed Marvel epics such as the Avengers series.

I was bored pretty much from the beginning. A hotch-potch of ideas woven into an overly complex story-line that fails to deliver on ones expectations. Token big names give the film some kudos, but again the performances are disappointing, let down by a poor script that falls into the world of geek like an Acme boulder.

And why are British actors still being stereotyped by Hollywood as villains, toffs, and idiots.

11 lines of review in order to qualify to have your message uploaded. So much for freedom of speech, minimalism of thought, sparsity of speech. I therefore have to waffle on and on cuz I've said all I'm going to say about this film, as I type i'm watching it, cringing when Hopkins struggles to act.
2014-02-21
Bland Hammer
The first THOR was a hard sell… A demigod with long blond hair and an ancient hammer isn't your typical brooding comic book hero… And so the earthlings, including Natalie Portman's Jane, a beautifully brainy love interest and her colleagues, including sarcastic hipster chick Darcy, who, using a snarky monotone, second-guesses the bizarre situation, helped make the audience believe this was all really happening…

But after THE AVENGERS, we don't need further confirmation. Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth, is very real and his home-world Asgard is in danger because of a monolithic structure Jane discovers between worlds… Part of which enters her body… And when she quickly travels with Thor to Asgard, the stranger in a strange land concept doesn't quite work like when Thor came to earth…

Although a worthy actress, Portman's tone/voice sounds more like a valley girl in a local arcade. Meanwhile, back on earth, as the scientists gather to figure things out, Darcy's forced comic relief is annoying, distracting, and downright unfunny…

Thankfully there's Thor's "brother", that instigative menace from THE AVENGERS who, locked into a permanent glass structure, is freed to help destroy the big bad (and completely uninteresting) villain…

Thankfully, the dependable Loki, like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in SUPERMAN 2… after being replaced as the central villain… keeps the dry humor flowing – some lines hit, other miss, but that's the best thing DARK WORLD has going for it: the camaraderie between two polar opposite brothers in a colorful world where dazzling special effects have an old school matte painting aesthetic, while space ships zoom around like in the STAR WARS (or current STAR TREK) universe…

It's when Thor joins the small band of earthlings to thwart the city-ravaging beast, while strategically jumping from various wormholes into either dimension, that things gets convoluted, ponderous, and with a second AVENGERS already planned, somewhat pointless too…
2013-11-08
First Was Okay, This One Was Meh
This film was just okay. Maybe my expectations were too high for Thor 2. I was really hoping it would improve on the first one (which was good but had so much more potential.) I saw some good reviews for this one and some bad ones, so I tried not to have my expectations up TOO high whenever I saw it on my own.

Don't get me wrong--it was an enjoyable movie. It had its funny moments, many of them involving Tom Hiddleston. There was also more time spent on Asgard, and Jane finally got some more screen time. But overall, the film was average. Perhaps I was expecting more from it, but it fell down from my expectations (only slightly, as I did not love the first film but thought it was just decent). I really, really wanted to love it, but I didn't. So I guess I was disappointed in it.

SPOILER ALERT

The plot of the story was mediocre. We're given a back story about the main antagonist, Malekith, and a little about Asgard and his connection to it, but it's a little incoherent. Which isn't totally bad, I guess, but Malekith's reasons for wanting to destroy Asgard just seem flat to me. He feels like your atypical I-Wanna-Destroy-Your-World type of villain, which has been done many times before.

The way they make Jane get possessed by the evil source or whatever that Malekith needs felt like a forced way to have her in Asgard. She spends a lot of time passing out or cowering behind as battles wage on. It gets a little better near the end, where Jane helps Thor defeat Malekith, but overall she isn't given much to do. I don't expect her to be superman or whatever, given that she has no powers, but I wished she had been given more to do as opposed to being the victim of an evil entity. She also doesn't have enough chemistry with Thor to make me feel like they really love each other.

Darcy was funny in the first film, and still was to an extent in this one, but there was times when she was annoying. She got too much screen time, and I believe that a comic relief needs less so that they remain funny and not get annoying. Her sidekick, or intern, also feels useless and is used to temporally replace Eric Selvig, who, thanks to Loki, has gone insane and does crazy antics for comic relief.

As I mentioned earlier, Loki was fabulous in this film, having very funny one-lines and making smart remarks. However, his motives get a little messy in this film. It makes since that he would be a sort of shades of gray character, but when (and there's a HUGE spoiler coming up here) he is supposedly killed to sacrifice himself for Thor and then appears to be alive and wanting the throne is Asgard as Thor leaves to Earth, I'm left confused. What was the point of Loki "sacrificing" himself if he wanted the throne? Was he pretending to die so that no one would suspect he'd become king? Maybe that's just apart of the mystery of his plot, and I'll have to watch the next film to see. But, as a stand-alone, it's confusing.

Odin is reduced to being a jerk for the sake of the plot. He shows little to no concern for Jane when Thor brings her to Asgard until he discovers what she is possessed with. He also basically tells Thor that the only difference between him and Malekith is that he "will win" the battle. This seems a little out of character from the Odin we met in the first film, who wanted to be a fair and strong ruler. I know why they did it-- to give Thor a reason to want to stay on Earth--but by making Odin do something that seems so rude kind of turns the audience off from his behavior.

Once again, Thor's friends (Sif, Fandral, Volstagg, and Hogun) receive little screen time or anything character development in general. Fandral, Volstagg, and Hogun say little to no words in this film; a possible love triangle between Sif, Thor, and Jane is implied and then quickly gotten rid of. These characters are fun, and I really wish I got to see more of them.

Some of the comic relief felt odd. For instance, Selvig is glad when Thor tells him that Loki dies but quickly offers Thor some very awkward condolences. I completely understand why he would want Loki dead--this IS the man that possessed/made Selvig go crazy, after all-but the audience is led to believe that Loki really has died. Maybe they expected us to know that he hadn't? I know that I didn't believe his death, so maybe that's why. But there were other places where the comic relief felt odd, too, mostly exchanges taking place during the battle scenes. At least they were funny.

And finally, the film feels entirely too short. I get that they might not want to make it longer for budget reasons, but if that's the case then they shouldn't try and throw in character development. Some things just felt rushed, and some characters feel underdeveloped. Admittedly the length is not as bad as it was in the first film, but this is mostly because we've already gotten to know the characters and they are now being expanded on.

SPOILER END

So that's pretty much how I feel about Thor: The Dark World. I guess it sounds like I disliked it more than I liked it, and maybe I do, but it wasn't a bad film. I'd watch it again if someone asked me to, and I'd laugh at the comical parts and still enjoy the movie. It's just one of those instances where a film is okay, or even good, but could have been better.
2013-11-08
Yep, they got the "dark" part right..
Well they got the "dark" part right. Does it distress anyone at all that somewhere deep in the bowels of Hollywood there are people who make many times what you make for coming up with the idea that watching a lot of banging and clanging in an alternate universe that -- at its best -- resembles Central Park at midnight is .... entertainment? If it does not, it should. The problem with sequels like this -- aside from the fact that they are actually produced in the first place -- is that they serve no useful purpose other than making the original in the franchise look better than it was. I promise you, IN THE NAME OF ODIN AND ALL THE 9 WORLDS, that half way through this exercise in controlled depression, you will long for Thor 1. (With its really clever opening -- essentially the story of a Boy and his Hammer, having been separated therefrom, and finally reunited). Tom Hiddleston steals all his scenes, in some places he is more interesting huddled in a corner reading a book than all the CGI flashbangs and associated pyrotechnics combined. Sir Anthony -- a man seemingly untroubled by how poorly this phase of his career pales in comparison to his prior work -- is lost behind his eyepatch and almost unrecognizable. Portman has never had better H&M (hair and makeup) and in the chatgroups there are fanboys prattling on about watching this with the sound off. A final factoid: In the 60s, in the days when Marvel was only comics, Thor was never top gun, it was the artwork (flaming yellow hair) and the pleasant predictability of the stories and the arcane language that carried the brand. So far, Marvel has yet to really translate this into film.
2013-12-06
Forgetabble movie, just like part 1
I watched part one some years ago and I didn't remember a thing until I was reminded in this movie. I forgot the characters and the story, I only remember that there was some kind of battle with some ancient enemy. Just like in Thor: TDW. We also have some ancient „powerful" enemy which has been defeated aeons ago, when he tried to take over control of the universe, or something like that. Now this enemy is back along with some kind of super-weapon. And our heroes evil brother Loki is also present and continues with his schemes and tricks. Our hero is - as before - invincible and in the end we have big battle on Earth and on the plant of Who-cares-heim. The powerful (read boring and forgettable) enemy is defeated and in the end of the movie we some some hints for things to come in planned sequels. Nothing new. But, I must confess that Thor is a likable hero so there are some laughs in this installment. See it if you must.
2014-01-10
Style Over Substance: The Movie
Oh was that not the name of the movie? Could have fooled me that's for sure.

When people talk about this movie they often talk about how great it looks, well the budget is 170 000 000 dollars so OF COURSE it looks good.

It would take the biggest idiot on earth not to be able to make it look good with that big of a budget, just hire a great director of photography, set director and CGI artists and everything will fall into place... Visually.

To get it right story-wise and acting-wise of course requires a little more finesse which in reality is not the movies strong parts if we're being realistic here.

The plot is messy and throw random sci fi logic (with very little actual logic) and events around like they are sprinkling an ice cream and not really seeing the full picture of what story they are trying to convey, random transportation ports and monsters for instance is very convenient to say the least.

And the acting, oh no, Nathalie Portman who I usually like a lot does the definition of a phoned in performance clearly just doing the movie for the money and the rest of the cast is not that much better.

But who cares about plot and acting in a Marvel movie right? Clearly not that many considering the high rating (of currently 7.1).

If people asked for more than just a stylish movie and didn't sucker in just because a movie looks good and has cool action scenes then perhaps we would have gotten a little more substance to it, but clearly that is not a lot of people's priorities which is unfortunate.
2016-01-03
No No No! How can this be a 7.6
Disney have produced some fantastic marvel films throughout there takeover. Ironman 1 and 3, Thor, and the avengers were awesome. They don't try to be the dark brooding DC films, they cant be, they're of a larger scope, more comprehensive in appeal. They're packed with humour, action, and riveting twists, and as a whole capture the characters spot on ie Downey jnr. This however, does not. This film is saturated beyond humour with joke after joke after joke. Thor has his lighter tales, but malekeith is a darker adversary, brooding and malicious. Thus the plot should reflect this. Yet this film kept joking and joking, so much, I didn't care about Malekeith, he didn't seem that menacing at all. He butchers millions...yet the humour detracted from that beyond belief. The twist in plot from Loki is its saving grace, as is Hiddlestone's acting, hopefully Thor 3 can recapture that which was Thor.
2013-12-05
Extremely Disappointing.
I went into this movie very excited. I love marvel movies. In fact, The Avengers was one of the best movies of the last couple of years. While I thought the first Thor movie was the worst of the first wave of Marvel movies, I went into this one with high hopes. But within the first five minutes of the movie I was bored out of my mind. Throughout the entire movie NOTHING happens. They spend the entire movie talking about doing something, or talking about things they did off screen. Even the action scenes were incredibly boring. they just bounced around from punch to punch. Nothing really ever gets resolved. Then there's the writing. The characters are very one dimensional. There dialog was very unrealistic. I mean, no one talks like they do in this movie. And there is absolutely no character development, the characters end the movie exactly where they started! Then there's the villain. I love Eccleston. But they didn't give him anything to do. He simply walks on screen, looks at something, then walks off. He's BORING! Just like everything else in this movie. All this movie is capable of is beating you over the head with all of the pretty lights. And while the movie is gorgeous. That doesn't cover the lack of story. In the end, this movie was terrible. It was one of the worst excuses for a movie I have ever seen.
2013-11-11
Thor: The Lackluster World
** out of ****

While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.

I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?

Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.

The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.

I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.

Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.

While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).
2013-12-22
×