"no reason"?
as in the first there was plenty of reason ....she created great comedic relief
I loves me my drama and hate slapstick comedy but I don't mind a little levity to lighten up the tone and I thought her character was great at that in both movies

comic books are rarely without these character moments as well

I have never watched her hit tv show and have no desire to, her appearance doesn't move me to see these movies but these movies are better for her being in them

The action was waaaay better here, I just felt (Storywise) the 1st movie was better controlled. As Dr. DVD said, the back & forth nature with the dramatic moments & the humourous moments came off awkward.

Liked:

-New Marvel opening logo (Also liked how much of the ending credits are in 2 columns now. Speeding up the wait for the inevitable post-credits scene)
-I'm really enjoying Hemsworth as Thor more & more with each movie
-Attack on Asgard. Already ranks high up there in Marvel's greatest action sequences. 3-D looked badass too, I must say.
-Loki in non-stop Trickster form
-Heimdall given more to do
-The twist involving a certain "Hand-injury". This was one of the biggest "Secrets" uncovered at Comic-Con and I was glad I avoided further spoilers to see how this scene eventually played out.

Disliked:

-Darcy & Company. I actually lol'd at a number of lines Darcy had in the first movie, but here it felt like she was doing a Jar Jar imitation. Didn't need to see a replay of Eric's nude protest either.
-Lack of Sif. She actually has more screentime in the 1st movie.
-All that flat humor going on in the final battle.
-Final credits scene. I was expecting another lead-in to GOTG, but you're just better off heading towards the exit after the first post-credits sequence.

Okay, so sure, it's far funnier than the first Thor film, less melodrama of family angst in Asgard, but the earth stuff just seems to flippantly cheeky, I felt like they mashed the tone of the Asgard side with Richard Donner's Superman, and the earth side with Richard Lester's Superman II, and then sprinkled in some Star Wars dust for the antagonist side (the elves). So, I just found some of the plot advancements jarring as it went from somber to hijinks funny in a the blink of an eye. The Warriors 3 and Sif are underused, and the Scooby gang (Jane and her crew) just pull stuff out of their butts to advance the plot to get from one set piece to another. But it's enjoyable if you just sit back and turn off your brain.

Plus, I don't really like the onscreen chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, nothing feels real about their character's attraction to one another.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

so how did Loki

my guess was that

What a mediocre movie this was. it reminded me of f the Star Wars prequels, where normally good actors deliver incredibly wooden performances. The only two good actors in it are Tom Hiddleston and Idris Elba, and even they are shortchanged by incredibly little screen time. Stellan Skarsgård was totally wasted in a horribly written role and (despite how much I adore her) Kat Dennings should have been cut out completely. Even Anthony Hopkins came out looking bad in what appeared like a paycheck performance from him. Although, given how sloppy the writing for Odin was, you can hardly blame him.

Out of five, I'd give it two stars and only because of Hiddleston and Elba respectively.

Was there another sequence after all the credits? If so, can you spoiler tag them...

Nothing to see there.

There was one scene I thought Thor was going to start complaining about sand.

Oh I'm certain that's the case.

Basically this.

I figured there was something after the mid-credits scene but the movie left such a foul taste in my mouth that I couldn't stomach any more and I left. From your spoiler, I'm glad I left.

Ugh. Glad I didn't stick around.

I might see this tomorrow or Monday.

Again for those who don't frequent TV Talk or read about TV news, the storyline from this movie will continue on Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D in an episode later this month (November 19th). But no actors from Thor will appear in the episode. Just storyline elements are continuing.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/11/01/ag...r-2-crossover/

The episode is directed by Jonathan Frakes.

This may pose a problem for those who watch the show and haven't seen Thor yet.

that and the "she's on a hit TV show, we need her to make an appearance no matter how irrelevant" doesn't make much sense since her TV series premiered 4 months after Thor came out. So they're still a team working together and it would have been a little odd to have Jane/Selvig appear but no Darcy

The only glaring plot point that irked me after the fact was Thor having to get on the subway to get to Greenwich Village when he could have just flown there. Yes, the blonde British gal that intentionally "bumps" into him was pretty funny. His flying ability was less consistent than the first film when he would fucking punch holes through big freakin' monsters.

Other than that, I still liked it a lot.

So much better than Iron Man 3.









Saw it in 3D, didn't get the 5-minute Captain America preview that was supposedly attached to it. Didn't even get the normal trailer.

I really enjoyed this one a lot but I was expecting to as I mentioned earlier in the thread I really enjoyed Thor. I thought the movie was well balanced with it's action/dramatic scenes and some decent comedic moments. Hiddleston definitely is great as Loki and stole the scenes he was in. I like Hemsworth as Thor too though. The quick was great. I also thought the attack on Asgard as well as seeing more of Asgard was cool.

He lost his hammer at that point. That's why he didn't fly. Doesn't stop the gag from being stupid but there was a logical setup for it.

Okay, so he can't fly without the hammer. I never noticed that bit. Duh, no wonder he winds it up before he flies. My fault.

As far as trailers go we only got Delivery Man, 47 Ronin, and The Hobbit. No Captain America. I saw it in 2-D, too.

My gut instinct is that the continuing storyline will be related to the after credit sequences.

fitprod

That the SHIELD agents have to kill that cute monster chasing the birds?

We walked in the theater during 47 Ronin. Then got Hobbit, Winter Soldier and X-Men. The X-trailer definetly seemed to leave a stronger impression on me via the big screen this time!

I go to the ArcLight Theatres and we get 3 trailers and that's it. The only time we ever got more than 3 trailers was during Man of Steel when they threw in the 300 sequel.

I wish Regal limited the number of trailers. It seems the bigger the movie, the more previews you will get. I am dreading how many different ones will be in front of Catching Fire. Then again, I'm seeing that one in IMAX, so it might be a limited number.

In terms of Darcy and Eric Selvig being explained as part of the team, that's not a very valid reason for their presence IMO. Selvig spent a significant amount of time working for SHIELD, as was evident in Avengers. He could have simply continued working for them afterward, which it appeared was going to be the case at the end of that movie. Furthermore, and this is where my problem lies, they did little to nothing with his character other than have him act like a Bozo. It reminded me a lot of John Hurt's character in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Darcy could have been done with a cameo. It's very common in the real world for people to switch working teams over a two year time span. Saying she was "part of the team" made no sense given that it seemed like they were disbanded in the first movie. Someone like her would be in place doing something like Skye in Agents of Shield. She also served no purpose than to act as an understanding friend to the antics of Selvig. You also cannot tell me that her having a hit TV show did not play a part in the decision to bring back her character.