Thor (2011) **/ 5. Panache over substance

‘Thor’ is a film overwhelmed by its special effects and fails to deliver the definitive experience it seemed to promise. The glossy production values obscure the plot or is it the other way around the plot obscures the visual effects. It is all the same with films such as this.  It will be up to the viewer to decide when they see the climactic events in the last 15 minutes or so. Thor works as generic entertainment because it has recycled clichés and makes the god of thunder more impressive for his power rather than for his character.  You know when Thor takes hold of his hammer Mjolnir a lot of power should be on display and this will help to obscure the holes in the plot. As action it delivers on an epic scale however the CGI is hardly artistic when one considers the scale of Asgard; the Bifrost Bridge and world of the frost giants, Jotunheim. There are moments when the director tries to slow the film down to reveal character but it appears tacked on.  The story is about Thor (Chris Hemsworth), heir to the throne of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), who is brash and arrogant and has much to learn. One moment of impudence which reignites the war between Asgard and the frost giants sees him banished to the realm of earth (there are 9 realms including earth) and stripped of his power. He must learn what it truly means to be a hero with the help of his love interest Jane foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist,  so that he can regain his power and establish himself as a worthy successor to the throne of Odin. His brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) however has other ideas and being the God of mischief it is no surprise that he is the main villain. In this review I will suggest alternatives that could have made the story more poignant and reflective of the grandeur that is the mighty Thor. This film does not make Thor seem more than just a poster image.

What’s good about this film?

Thor does several things right: it delivers on the action and it provides some moments of humour for the audience to keep the momentum going. The story although it is generic does have elements that make it credible. The wise Odin, having banished Thor to the realm of earth stripped of his power, hopes that his son will understand that a leader must learn to sacrifice for his citizens as much as he would for his own interest. Thor, in the beginning of the film, seems intent on proving that the might of his arms is sufficient to secure his rule on the throne. There are several moments where Thor is taunted about his immaturity and his eagerness for war. Thor leads the attack on the frost giants when there really is no need to since the source of the power for the frost giants lies safely within Asgard. It is almost fool hardy to wage war on a defeated race because there is nothing to gain, economically or politically, from such an enterprise.  When Thor finally realises that his power is gone he is humbled and must resign himself to his fate however the film does not build on this premise. This premise where the once mighty individual is forced to share food with the people he once frowned upon and then seeks redemption for his or her past arrogance is a very interesting one. ‘Oh how the mighty have fallen’.  If this film was not a marvel venture, where money is expected to roll in and so story has to be sacrificed for action, this film could have said many poignant things about this premise. This would obviously rely on less action and more dialogue about human or godly nature and would have created a more positive emotional response from the audience.  For instance let us consider that the mighty Thor has fallen what the filmmakers could have done is to do away with the bureaucratic elements which are manifested in this film in the form of SHIELD and turn this film into a genuine quest for redemption. Firstly Thor would discover the hammer and realise that he cannot lift it and he would be broken and in that small town he would spend at least several months or a year learning what it means to work for the good of the community.  In this film he learns the life lesson in two weeks it seems (too hasty which is why it does not deliver emotionally). One of the hooks in the campaign for this film was that this film comes to you from the people that made ‘Iron Man’(2008). In ‘Iron Man’ they used a clever device to alter somewhat the selfish personality of tony stark and acknowledged that shifts in personality do not occur over night. Tony stark spent at least 3 months as a captive in the deserts of Afghanistan learning to do without his wealth and being forced to seek assistance from Yinsen, another captive in the cave with him. Stark usually did things his own way. With the death of Yinsen Stark learned something in that cave about doing first for the good of the cause. He also witnessed the death of American soldiers caused by his own weapons and he says (not exact quote) ‘we have grown accustomed to a system with zero accountability’.  This means his company would sell weapons to the highest bidder regardless of political persuasion. He then decides to shut down his weapons plant and focus his creative genius in building a suit to protect rather than to destroy. His crowning moment comes when he saves the residents of Gulmira. The creators of ‘Iron Man’ realised that the learning process takes time so how could they have missed this with ‘Thor’ who is redeemed after only two weeks through an artificial romance with an astrophysicist . An artificial romance was not the element that would have redeemed Thor. Apart from the loss of his power it would have required more telling incidents to fully ingrain in his mind that his days as ‘Thor’ are over. It would have taken ‘Thor’ a couple of months or a year to fully realise his potential to be a leader. If this film had a more dramatic edge one would see ‘Thor’ painfully adjusting to his new life  working odd jobs, hanging out in the saloons speaking to Jane about his glory days. He would reveal who he is because having fallen from grace one thing people in that position do is to try and convince people that they were once great. The mind is broken at this point and so the myths of Thor would have come alive on screen while telling Jane of the things he once did when he was the God of thunder (she would convince herself that he is telling the truth because she feels for him. He could also convince her by showing her the Bifrost bridge which is, supposedly, a mythic representation of the Milky way. She would see only the Milky Way but Thor would see the bridge and this would have helped to put her profession into some context). There would be flashbacks of Thor duelling with giants and leading various campaigns (in Norse myth Thor had very interesting adventures particularly the one in jotunheim) or witnessing the magnificent sights in his own realm. This would require melding the stories of Thor in actual myth with those from Thor in the marvel comics so as to create a richer character. His chariot of goats is not even mentioned also in this film when the hammer lands on a plain that actually diminished the greatness of Thor. In actual Norse myth he was considered the god of lightning, thunder and mountains. If the hammer landed on a mountain top it would have added some gravity to the myth of Thor. In my alternative when the hammer lands on the mountain there would be streaks of lightning not a thud on the plain as it is portrayed in the film and it would be a place where the average mortal would fear to trod because of the sporadic lightning and thunder generated from the hammer. When Thor is convinced that he is ready again (and here he would be urged on by Jane or some message in a dream from Odin) to retrieve his hammer he would go to the mountain, braving the sporadic lightning and thunder and then retrieve it. In this film the hammer comes to him and he does not have to do much work and there is then no sense of redemption.  When Thor does fall from grace you get a sense of why he does miss the days of his glory and his desire to see them restored.    In this film he withholds who he is because it would make for a good moment in the film where Jane along with her co workers are stunned into (dis)belief. In this film because the exploits of Thor as a god  in Asgard, apart from his raid in the realm of the frost giants, are not given much credence you do not fully understand how powerful this man really was haven fallen from grace. The only indication in this film is in one scene where he is shirtless and the women in the audience go ooh and aah.  I believe that in the film that was presented the expediency in the story was due to box office receipts more than anything else.   The sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki is also quite generic but seems necessary for the plot to advance and so the casual viewer will take heed of it but will know that it is necessary for the story to have a villain. The twists however are not satisfying and do not follow through on the premise at the beginning so that when a certain revelation about Loki is revealed it does not hold water for hints of Loki’s mysterious origin should have been hinted at earlier considering there is no record of it in actual Norse mythology. When I say earlier i am speaking earlier on in his childhood for there is only one reference to Thor and Loki's childhood in the film. The quantum leap made by the filmmakers into the present missed one crucial element. If they hinted that Loki felt left out not only because he was overlooked by Odin but because there was something innate in him that made him seem different from the rest of the family then his behaviour would be more understandable. His connection with the giants is also not developed sufficiently so one will understand the depth of his trickery or mischief.  For instance he is able to elude the ever watchful eyes of the guardian of the Bifrost bridge: Heimdall(r) however they never show you how he is able to do this which probably means that they (the screenwriters) did not know either.

What’s  Bad about this film?

Firstly the CGI in this film did not deliver as much as I would have liked because it was quite generic. Although you see Asgard in all its magnificence there is not much interaction with the environment and so you do not get a proper sense of how magnificent it really is. The majority of the action takes place in the hallowed castle and on the Bifrost Bridge and on the planet of the exiled frost giants. There is no real description of what constitutes the many layers of Asgard. The great fantasy “The Lord of the Rings’ did this really well. When members of the fellowship would encounter a new environment it would add credence to the fact that this is what constitutes middle earth therefore the world seems more palatable or more believable. In this film Asgard is presented as one big place which could have been invented by any creative artist:  just make everything shiny and sparkling and the audience will buy it. This oversight is probably due to the scale of Thor because the characters fly in between the nine realms as if it’s a stroll in the park therefore no time can be spent acquainting the audience with a particular feature of the environment. In original Norse mythology the Bifrost Bridge was one that transported the gods in the realm of Asgard to that of earth. In this film there are nine realms (this is overkill. It is made worse because the screenwriters do not bother to explain what worlds constitute these other realms). This is why the climactic 15 minutes did not generate as much tension as it should have. The plan of the main villain was convoluted and not very thorough and it ends up almost sounding very silly and when you, as an audience member, see it you will understand what I am saying. His plan relies on connecting the realm of Asgard to that of the Frost giants(No spoilers here).  If they wished to make Loki a true villain they could have simplified it by saying point blank: Loki, following the banishment of Thor, usurped the throne from the feeble Odin knowing that with Thor gone no one could stand in his way. The once sparkling Asgard would now be shades of grey. This would be more effective and clear to the audience. When Thor learns his lesson he returns to Asgard and there Ragnarok, the famous battle of Norse Myth, would be waged. In this film Loki’s plan seems nonsensical because when the plan is thwarted by Thor all roads are blocked to the other realms however  in Norse myth there are only two realms: earth and Asgard. What about the other seven realms. When you watch the climax for yourself you will grasp what I am saying about the realms. The element of astrophysics is also woefully developed and it is best explained by saying that Jane witnesses patterns of stars that do not belong to this universe (realm). It would have been a clever device to actually see her use her telescope rather than relying on bursts of energy through the clouds to the earth to prove her point. Odin also does not appear very wise when he tells Loki the nature of his origin. It would have been smarter had the screenwriters acknowledged from the outset that Loki is different from the rest rather than throw everything on him at once. What did Odin really think was going to happen should the day come where a truce with the giants was to come about? Did he think Loki would really lap up all he had heard  from the floor? He would have made that truce long before and heralded to the world the nature of Loki. This is a poor example of screen writing.

Conclusion

All in All Thor relies on its superficial special effects, action and moments of humour to make it credible as good entertainment. The story is passed over (no pun intended) so that there will be some redemption of Box Office receipts.  The final climactic 15 minutes are very convoluted and so the tension one would expect at that moment is not there simply because no care was taken in making the story more thorough or the motives for such a plan more interesting. It would also have been helpful if more elements of actual Norse myth were melded with the fables of Marvel comics to make the character of Thor seem more credible and not simply as another marvel poster image. As a fan of Norse Mythology I was disappointed with the slap dash approach of the screen writers and I am recommending this film because of the possible alternatives that were presented to me while watching it. When a casual viewer feels that he or she could have written a better movie, you are either doing something right or something bad.