Critics are almost equally divided on Thor, the latest Marvel superhero Factory Entertainment. Review Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal is typical of those who despise him. “Like the hammer of Thor,” he writes, “this epic substitute batons victims in the presentation. Moreover, they are forced to look into the source of their punishment through 3D glasses.” Another criticism that victims felt the New York Times’ s AO Scott, who writes the output of the film first thought of seeking refuge in a nearby bar or some of these places.
He acknowledges that Thor has its merits (Natalie Portman plays an astrophysicist and says “as far as I could see, not all astrophysics own without the help of a double.”) Director Kenneth Branagh says, “has failed to make a interesting animated superhero film emotionally satisfying, because there is no evidence that he … never intended to do so. By contrast, the absolute and continuous mediocrity Thor is proof of its success. This film is not clearly wrong, it is axiomatically bad. The Los Angeles Times Kenneth Turan s had a similar reaction “What we have here,” he writes, “is a clash between the aesthetic elements predictable and unexpected. Thor has strengths, but ultimately it is a kind of mix designs to be more interesting than it manages to be. “On the other hand, Peter Howell in the Toronto Star is quite satisfied with the outcome.” Thor is strong enough to meet the hormonal and kissy face enough dates to keep happy. What more could you ask for summer movie fare? “He says. Michael O’Sullivan in the Washington Post suggests that those going to the cinema with expectations of a few will be going to enjoy it more. (Thor was never one of the most successful characters of Marvel. ) “If you have a fondness for strong, silly movies, action adventure amazing superhero based on beloved characters – or even superhero characters that are seen as cold, clinical, a student of pop culture – then Thor delivery , “he says.