The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets. In the arena of movies about comic book superheroes, it is a desolate vastation.
So...the people from Ebert Presents gave it two thumbs up...but you hate it? Roeper loved it too. Roger, you don't have to be so grumpy.
May 12 - 02:15 PM
May 19 - 02:51 PM
I think RT jumped the gun on their critical consensus, this movie is now getting a 78% with only an average rating of only 6.7. The consensus should be changed to " Entertaining actioner doesn't take enough chances to be great thus leaving a generic and under-whelming product that is immediately forgettable once out the theater door."
May 25 - 11:12 PM
RT didn't jump any kind of gun. Good Lord, the Ebert enablers really need a knee pad change at this point.
May 26 - 06:04 PM
Most idiotic Ebert follower on RT.
Jul 11 - 10:04 AM
My bad, I'm not talking to you.
Jul 11 - 05:28 PM
Biggest idiotic Ebert follower on RT.
I've been reading his reviews every thursday for years and this just seems off. He said a lot of incorrect facts about the film and I question his attention during the film. He talks about how they speak "out of character," he is referring to two different characters. I could probably compose a rant equal in length to his review but I'm not going to. (I'm not a fan boy by any means, I find most of his reviews to be extremely accurate. This just seems off.)
May 12 - 02:40 PM
I found a lot of his more recent reviews have been off. They're more cold and mean-spirited, leaving little room for the value of good, stupid fun. Maybe he's just becoming a bitter old man lol.
Sep 10 - 03:10 AM
If you guys hadn't noticed yet,recently he constantly gets characters names wrong, forgets the way dialogue actually transpired, and just seems bitter. How can you count on someone's review who can't remember character's names correctly or their dialogue. And to tell the truth it's not just him. Plenty of critics are guilty of it. I find critics to be even more biased than usual because of all the reboots and sequels that are being released. Stop giving horrible documentaries and shitty art house films 100%. I don't need a film just about people's daily lives, with long shots of them walking, and then even longer shots of the sky...oooooooooo. I can live these things myself. Give me fantasy any day over "Gerry" by gus van sant. Elephant was good though. And how " A Dog Day Afternoon" scored higher than "The Godfather" is anybodies guess.
May 6 - 08:28 PM
I'm not a big fan of Mr. Ebert's review this time. Usually his opinion is fairly balanced. This time, he just sounded pissed off. I think he just saw this okay movie when he was in a bad mood about something. It really doesn't deserve a lot of praise, but it doesn't deserve his trashing of its value, either.
May 12 - 03:52 PM
May 15 - 02:11 PM
You know I have to say, I didn't like this movie all too much. This one was cool with special effects and back story, I just didn't believe in it like I did with Iron Man or Spider Man
May 17 - 12:53 PM
he could be upset about the fact he has half a face and has to drink steak through a straw
Jun 6 - 10:16 PM
That's kind of a cheap shot Paul G. If you're going to be upset about the fact that he disagrees with you then say that
Jul 24 - 11:57 AM
Sep 22 - 07:14 PM
Nov 5 - 11:02 AM
Since Mr. Ebert has already implicitly admitted the failure of this review to meet his own standard, and his own fans and followers have sufficiently excoriated him in responding to it on his website, we should perhaps just say that any critic can have an off day. Since we RT users are, nevertheless, unlikely to see a retraction or an explicit correction from him any tiem soon, and will have to contend with the original rather thoughtless review here on the RT website, I will summarize some of the more telling criticisms made of this perhaps aberrational example of his work.Essentially, many,many of his readers take him to task for getting his facts wrong and not appplying the level of analysis they expect of him, some even going so far as to accuse him of not really watching the movie both because of the shear volume of his errrors (not repeated here but it is a long list) and also because they were errors on points clearly stated and emphasized by the film which even casual (not Thor fandom)watchers easily understood. Not surpisingly, his following seems to expect Mr. Ebert to:1) pay attention during the movie if he is going to undertake a review, whatever his feelings about the movie or the genre,2)get his facts right, at least to the extent of those facts he is going to base his analysis on, and3) to apply reason and analysis to reach conclusions rather than to string adjectives and sling insults like a less professional writer.If Mr. Ebert's own standard for his work is to anticipate the audience by telling them what they will like or hate, then obviously he has gotten it badly wrong in this case since even general audiences and most of the critics listed here at RT, not necesarily the target demographic, liked this film while his review, he acknowledges, went ery much the other way.It looks like Mr. Ebert's review is getting the kind of panning that he gave the movie, except that the critiques of his review seem to be accurate and based in fact. For example, having seen the movie, I can say that the lists of his factual errors in the review are for the most part accurate, as most people who have seen the the movie will know instantly. Next time, Mr. Ebert, a little more attention to your craft as a professional critic, please.
May 12 - 04:27 PM
Why can't somebody not like a film? Like someone else said, its not like he's being bribed to like it or dislike it. Just b/c he disagrees with you doesn't mean he wasn't paying attention or anything. jeez.
May 14 - 08:47 PM
In Your Dreams
That people are apparently "posting lists of the errors he made in his review" is condemnation of his fans, not Ebert. Get a life.
May 14 - 10:49 PM
He has every reason to not like the film, but ranking on the tomatometer, essentially saying "everyone who likes this is an idiot but I'm so smart" seems like such an Armond White thing.
May 15 - 12:07 PM
Like it or not, accurately stating the facts and plot of a movie are part of his job as a critic.When he fails on both or either, it's an indictment of him as a critic, not the movie fans who bring those errors to light.
May 20 - 09:26 AM
Agreed. I am a huge Ebert fan but this review is a pretty big gaffe. Nothing that will change my opinion of him after I have already read like 10,000 of his reviews though. He brings the goods on a regular basis.
May 22 - 06:08 AM
Are you one of those who writes something and then goes back through it replacing words with their multiple syllable synonyms from a thesaurus?It's a fluffy movie, man, and I can smell your desperation from here. Get out of your own ass for a bit and never let the syntax become more important than the language.
May 25 - 02:45 AM
Hey, get a clue, Jay. Movies are business investments of millions of dollars and provide 10s of 1000s of jobs. It's a critic's responsibility to report what is factually IN the movie while rendering his opinion, whether that opinion is favorable or not. If it was Roger Jones, rather than Roger Ebert, who wrote this fact-free screed as a first review for a major publication like the Chicago Sun-Times, he would probably be out pounding the pavement looking for a job and the review would have been retracted after a few angry calls from the head of the studio, not to mention the intense flaming it has received all over the net for Ebert's gross incompetence. But, because it's a deified figure like Ebert, it gets a pass. Try having some perspective before you post nonsense, Jay. Or just, revel in your role as a troll. Whatever floats your boat, bub.
May 26 - 04:26 PM
Critics aren't journalists, they don't have a "responsibility" to report anything as objectively true. This isn't to defend Ebert's review (I haven't read it/don't really care about Ebert) or to actively encourage misrepresenting a film, it's just to comment on how silly that notion is.Film criticism is as much reflexive impression as it is anything else. Listing the details of the plot need not apply.
May 27 - 09:43 PM
I'm half in agreement with you. If a critic just simply wants to say that a movie is terrible and didn't reach him/her, great. I have no problem with that. However, when a critic takes it upon him/herself to discuss plot and character in a review, as is the case here with Ebert's review of "Thor", then they have an obligation to be accurate in describing that plot and character. Or else reap the blowback they will get in response. That's never been more true than in The Internet Age where instant response is the norm now. Maybe a critic could have gotten away with that kind of unprofessional behavior 20 years ago. But, it's a whole new ballgame now.
May 28 - 02:21 PM
To correct myself--Maybe an ESTABLISHED critic could have gotten away with that kind of unprofessional behavior 20 years ago. But, it's a whole new ballgame now.As I mentioned in my previous post, a new critic would have gotten flamed, if only by the studio alone, to the point of getting canned for incompetence. And that would be the case in EITHER era.
May 28 - 02:27 PM
The Artist Formerly Known as Tutweiller
It's a fine review. Thor sucked. I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Feb 24 - 11:51 AM
Because he made mistakes about the movie. If all you have to do is watch movies for a living than you should at least pay attention. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for some people. It's his job to get the facts right if he is going to discuss certain parts of the movie. Whether you like Thor or not that is no excuse to barely pay attention to the film and then try to criticize it. Why is he being given the golden pass? Other critics would be fired or at least threatened to be fired.
May 6 - 08:38 PM
What's with the theses-like reply? Plain English please Shakespeare!
Oct 16 - 07:37 PM
Why is it that people think Ebert is off his game or being unfair just because he didn't like the movie? I fully agree with his review. Marvel seems to be churning out these movies like products on an assembly line. There is nothing to me that stood out about Thor. Bland characters, cheesy dialogue, overuse of CGI and even more overuse of dutch angles (is tilting the camera supposed to make the shot more interesting?). Sorry but I was bored out of my mind, just not caring about any of it. It had its moments of humor, but even the fish out of water stuff is recycled. I'd like to see Marvel take some chances, instead of just relying on the fact that most fans want to see all the movies leading up to the Avengers, so lets just play it safe and make it not horrible. It isn't horrible, it's just average. But since when does average deserve unanimous praise?
May 12 - 07:09 PM
we think he's off his game because of the many errors in his review.
May 21 - 08:37 PM
Oh no, ERRORS! Maybe he just didn't like the film on an aesthetic level, morons.
May 22 - 07:31 PM
lol i love how after even after 3 years i've been visiting this site, you're still trolling and acting like a general douche bag. stay classy, cuz it beats having better things to do, amirite?
May 22 - 07:58 PM
I very much agree with this, in regards to Thor and all of the Marvel films, including The Avengers. I see no fault in Ebert for trashing the movie. It deserved it.
May 11 - 10:35 AM
Tony's film reviews
A corny film, reviewed by a Good critic. Thats all there is to it.
May 12 - 08:05 PM
No, a great film badly reviewed by a normally great reviewer who's in this case heavily biased. THAT's all there is to it.
May 13 - 06:25 AM
How can he be biased towards a movie, its not like he was bribed or something?
May 14 - 07:50 PM
A great film? Really?
May 26 - 08:13 PM
Grant, never has anyone used so few words and said it so well. I agree, "Great Film?" I couldn't wait for the ending and I was so fired up for this flick. To me, bringing Thor to modern day in the film is the classic 'Fish out of Water' set up, yet he seems to have to accept the modern day surroundings with no surprise. I am still a bit bedazzled by GPS. Oh well.
May 28 - 08:45 AM
I loved this movie,but he did prove something alot of things i didn't realise were flawed about the film. I still love it , as I am sure the avengers will change that up for us :)
May 12 - 08:27 PM
The problem with this review is how its DNA is stuffed with double standards. Just about every piece of criticism he leveled toward this film was a chorus of praise for Avatar a year-and-a-half ago. Stock characters played by uncharismatic actors. A storyline built around special effects. Characters only doing what the director dictates they do, moving and acting just to progress from one plot point to the next.
May 12 - 11:31 PM
I agree with you. I would understand if Ebert always hated movies like this, but the fact that he raved and raved about Avatar makes it seem hypocritical. If this were called "James Cameron's Thor" I think we'd be seeing another four-star review.Just saying.
May 13 - 09:53 PM
Except that Avatar is Avatar and Thor is Thor. Sorry, but the film just wasn't that impressive. Therefore, Ebert is not obligated to give it a particularly impressive review. Deal with it.
May 14 - 10:52 PM
He is entitled to not like the movie. But basically ranking on the tomatometer for disagreeing with him seems a bit unprofessional.
May 15 - 01:13 AM
I found it a lot more impressive than Dance with ...I mean avatar....
May 15 - 10:38 AM
"He is entitled to not like the movie. But basically ranking on the tomatometer for disagreeing with him seems a bit unprofessional."Says the guy who outed me in another thread for citing the Tomatometer as my basis for skipping a film. Go home, hypocrite.
May 22 - 07:32 PM
Haha! This guy is a riot!In the other thread, I said I thought it seemed wrong to let the Tomatometer decide all the movies you see, even if your friends wanted to see something the Tomatometer wouldn't dictate you to do. Even if you end up hating a film, I think seeing something with your friends makes more sense than letting Ebert decide for you (for the most part anyway).My quip at Ebert had to do with him basically saying every critic on RT who liked Thor is an idiot for having liked it (though in not so many words).Stop trolling you silly little boy.
May 24 - 08:17 PM
May 13 - 12:06 AM
wow, did you get up from the wrong side of the bed?? from the hate of your review, there's not one word of good criticism. you make thor sound like it was produced by some cheesy italian film company that makes those dubbed-hercules movie. but like i always say, each person has their likes and loves. the majority of your colleague likes it, but you didn't. it's ok, there's movies that a lot of my friends like and i don't. each their own. i just happen to think this movie is good, not great, but still good enough to give a thumbs up. take care roger. i hope you're doing well!
May 13 - 07:22 AM
aleluia. ebert got it big time now. ive seen da movie 2, i cant understand why so many histeria over this, especially in america. the efects are so so, but the script is awful, leading to a poor and messy caracter development.this movie is not as good as everybody says its, and roeper doesnt know how to review movies.
May 13 - 07:52 AM
Believe me, from my experience, this isn't the sort of movie you'd want to take your female parent to.
May 13 - 08:28 AM
@Max the Movie Kid: "female parent"? do you mean "mom"? what does that even mean?? when i saw the film, the theater was packed and this was a 9:00 pm showing on a Thursday night. There were couples, groups of guys, groups of girls, individual guys, individual girls, little kids, older folk... and everyone was having a great time... even cheered and applauded!
May 13 - 03:59 PM
"even cheered and applauded"love it when that happens. good entertainment.
May 14 - 10:43 AM
yeah, that's usually when i realize i could never be friends with anybody in the theater
May 14 - 10:53 PM
w@ve, you couldn't be friends with anyone outside the theater either.Deal with it.
May 15 - 02:07 PM
LOL at Wavelength. I agree! Applauding for a live performance, yes. Applauding for a movie, no. Just like those idiots that applaud when the plane lands. Unless we just recovered from a possible crash, no applause for doing your job.
May 17 - 07:07 AM
So now people who applaud in movies are idiots?Careful people, you should refrain from doing anything that expresses entertainment, happiness and/or satisfaction, because those are the markings of an "idiot."It's a pretentious time, Charlie Brown.
May 21 - 08:44 PM
It's called having standards.
May 22 - 07:33 PM
I agree with pretty much everyone here...I don't think Roger actually watched the movie at all! Most of the stuff he says is incorrect and the things he got right were in the trailers.
May 13 - 03:55 PM
Squeal like a pig boy!
May 13 - 05:05 PM
Whoever has the nerve to defend this retard should shut the hell up. I can't believe anybody actually listens to this idiot. I've been following his reviews since the seventies, and he basically whines like a baby to movies he hates, and gives no good reason why they're bad. This review is an example, he seemed to be off.
May 13 - 05:22 PM
Great review, Roger. You summed up my reaction to this movie with your line, He might as well be wearing a name tag: "Hi! I can't be trusted!" (The Brother Loki)
May 13 - 05:34 PM
OK.You don't like the movie.We get that.But...Griping about The Rotten Tomatoes rating?Really?That's the equivalent of "Old man yells at cloud".
May 13 - 09:46 PM
May 13 - 09:55 PM
Seriously.It's like "Hey, you kids! Get off of my lawn!" has been replaced by "Hey, you kids! Get out of that theater! Didn't you read my review?"I lost a lot of respect for Ebert with the silly tone of that review.He won't be winning any Webby Awards for that one.
May 14 - 03:54 PM
I think this sums up Ebert's review.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_NhnXMCKw
May 14 - 04:27 PM
He mentions it once in that fairly long review that makes good points, I don't even like Ebert that much and I understand he's allowed any opinion whether drastic or not..
May 23 - 09:16 AM
Ebert can have any opinion he wants. However, if he wants that opinion respected, it should be based on valid reasoning using facts from the movie about plot, scenes, performances etc. Since Ebert got so many basic facts about this movie blatantly wrong, his review has become an internet laughing stock. And my initial post about his gripe about the Tomatometer was spot on: It was nothing more than a cheap shot at people who disagreed with his reaction to the movie. It was beneath him to write that. And he deserved the blowback from it.
May 24 - 10:56 PM
No, I liked the movie, but not a lot. Many of the things Ebert says are actually very true, and no, using the tomatoemeter was just a way of him saying the film is not anywhere near as good as some of the critics seem to say it is. The review was long and detailed, and he in fact made some very good points. Besides, there are not hardly any things you can just flat out call "fact" most is opinion. He could even argue that he did not like the vsuals.
May 26 - 09:18 AM
You stated, "Besides, there are not hardly any things you can just flat out call "fact" most is opinion." That's just flat out wrong.Ebert got his facts wrong about basic elements of the plot and the characters, such as why no one could lift the hammer, the location of Asgard, or why and how an astrophysicist discovered the area in the desert that was a wormhole to Asgard.And many other FACTUAL aspects of plot and character in the movie. There are many audience members who had NO exposure to the character prior to the movie who corrected him on them. Their corrections of his ridiculous and incompetent errors are all over his website on two different blogs and led many of them to, understandably, accuse him of not having seen the movie.It is disingenuous, if not a flat-out lie, for you to suggest that the aspects of the movie that people disagreed with him on were all simply a matter of opinion.
May 26 - 04:01 PM
I said most, not all. Read the comment properly next time ;D
Jul 28 - 12:33 PM
He just acknowledged that other critics liked the film, without commenting on it. How is that griping?
May 2 - 06:05 PM
YOU ARE AN OLD MAN AND A FOOL!
May 13 - 11:39 PM
Wow, so quick to judge. Guess it would take a royal bashing of your precious coloring book movie to bring out the CAPSLOCK.
May 14 - 10:57 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble captain pretentious, but I purposefully used all caps. I was simply using a quote from the movie (in which the character shouts)that I thought fit humorously into this thread. Get a sense of humor and learn to take these things less seriously.
May 15 - 01:15 AM
Don't you think that making fun of Ebert's age just because you disagree with him is immature?
May 16 - 11:59 AM
I'm not really making fun of his age. I said I was merely quoting a scene in the movie. The line fit humorously with all the fan responses. The end.
May 17 - 12:29 PM
Ebert's age, as well as his mental faculties and his honesty, get called into question when he misstates some extremely obvious facts from the movie and when he rails about issues, such as the RT rating, which have absolutely nothing to do with his review.Just check out his website.In both the responses to his original review and his shameless rejoinder about getting hammered on his Thor review, which he uses as just another gratuitous chance to punch at the fan base, the response board is littered with commentary showing that Ebert blew it on accurately reporting some basic facts of the movie.It's not just simply his opinion and his attitude that are called into question by his response to this movie.It's his competence and honesty.That's two areas of trust that a critic has with his audience that he should be very fearful of losing.As for the "age jokes", Ebert has no one to blame but himself for them. His joke of a review left him seriously exposed to them.
May 20 - 09:00 AM
No, they get called into question when he has the nerve to give the latest fanboy bathtub masturbation fantasy a negative review. Oh no, the nerds are mad at me! What ever will I do?! You could care less about whether or not he got some arbitrary details correct; it's all about the rating. If he had done the same thing for any other movie, or simply given it a thumbs up, this thread would be empty, errors or not. So props to Ebert for making fun of his obsessive fanbase of frothing retards. Frankly he's earned the right, and the sooner he alienates you idiots into boycotting him out of frustration, the sooner he can get back to having real conversations with real people who don't get upset over movies about a guy who wears a cape and throws a hammer.
May 22 - 07:41 PM
Even if your screed, disguised as a reply to me, about the audience for this movie was accurate, which it most definitely is NOT, it fails to account for the majority of major critics who gave the film a positive review as well as the many respondents to Ebert's ridiculous diatribes about "Thor" who point out that they are NOT fans of the character in ANY other form and the movie was their first exposure to "Thor" in any medium.These respondents then go on to point out, in quite factual detail, how the errors Ebert made in his review could easily be remedied if he had simply done his job and paid attention to what was on the screen in front of him.But, I can see by your "fan club" on the board here at RT that you're just a contrary misanthrope who has a rep of posting to stir up trouble. In short, you're a troll.Which is why nothing in your reply to me is either substantive or surprising. Just a mindless rant. Which makes you a perfect example of the very kind of "fandom" you are criticizing. Ironic, isn't it?Not to mention hilarious.
May 22 - 10:54 PM
Ebert, it's clear you didn't watch the film, or rather, if you did attend a showing, you were listening to an iPod with some very dark sunglasses on, simultaneously looking down at a phone every 5 seconds, presumably to keep up your standard of about 500 tweets on Twitter per day.
May 14 - 02:30 PM
this is very true
May 14 - 02:38 PM