'Thor', the powerful Marvel 
Everything seems to be clear in the grand plan hatched by the movie company Marvel. When Ang Lee risked everything to offer a very personal vision of the Hulk-to his being one of the best superhero movies have been made-many did not know what to expect. Although the film was not a failure, the general public was not too happy with the outcome, perhaps because they had to force yourself to think, exercise despised today. From the right 'Iron Man' (id, Jon Favreau, 2008), the millionaire company decided to have absolute control over the future adpater any of its characters. Thus, with eyes on the upcoming 'The Avengers' (Joss Whedon, 2012), all previous films in this mega project are cut from the same cloth.
remake was attempted in a certain way despite Hulk-Edward Norton, a film very boring work of impersonal Louis Leterrier-pattern was repeated in the second story of Tony Stark, with results virtually identical to the first film. Now the God of Thunder has done as much of the same, even behind the camera telling someone the likes of Kenneth Branagh, Shakespeare expert and director of major projects like 'Much Ado About Nothing' ('Much Ado About Nothing ', 1993),' In the Bleak Winter "(" In the Bleak Midwinter ', 1995) or' Love's Labours Lost "(" Lover's Labour's Lost ', 2000), among other . With the box office with his back from the stunning 'Frankenstein' (Id, 1994), Branagh was undoubtedly the right director for the adaptation of Thor. The result is another product made in Marvel in which the director has had to bend to the needs of the producer, but has at times managed to retain something of what he characterized as an author.
For the plot of 'Thor' have needed no less than five screenwriters, two of them-J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich-authors of history, and three-Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne's screenplay. Too many minds and hands to something seen after falls short of expectations, resulting in the weakest of the film. Obviously, we speaking of superheroes, and Marvel seems to be very clear that their film adaptations a depth that will not mislead by staff. On the contrary, not talking about a film that treats the viewer like a fool, and that the producers have done well in electing Kenneth Branagh as director, for his on valuable behind the camera let you take the boat to fruition , one in which we should not be too demanding. We all expected more to be Branagh the director, of course, but if we consider the profitability of the product, maybe that finally achieves provide your future projects in which to present their concerns. We can only know if it will be as craftsman faithful and efficient, or as a passionate filmmaker who has proven to be.
That passion is bursty in a friendly 'Thor'. If anything is found in their first frantic twenty minutes, located in Asgard, where the feeling that we will see something great, in a sequence between Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth), one in the god of thunder tells his new friend what looks like a deadly children's tale about constellations and planetary realms with total conviction in the right moment, she falls for him, particularly in a finale that is pure Branagh , one in which it is seen that this film could have been. In this small and powerful moment, for the undersigned, one of the best finals of recent cinema, Branagh breathe free, perhaps encouraged by that feeling as typically Shakespearean, motor of all his films: love. The rest do not have the same quality as the above, and without going to extremes embarrassing, reflect to a great director who have cut the wings. Subject as digital effects never seem to absorb it all, Branagh gives us a cash Thor, entertaining, but with very little dose of excitement, something unthinkable in a director of his stature.
That we are facing the worst film of a filmmaker with very bad luck is a fact, the view is. You do not quite understand some of the decisions staging by Branagh, unless, and would love to have been, that he should make on purpose, thus demonstrating that the industry can adapt and make a perfect blockbuster to the liking of everyone. Of course this has its price, and you have to endure among other things, that Branagh twist the camera, with each two by three inclined planes of questionable taste, unworthy of a director can do real wonders with the camera. Interestingly, the action at the Earth seems to distance itself in form and substance to what is narrated in Asgard, which undoubtedly has more strength. Two distinct parts, an almost soporific, this tacky and absurd humor, the other more vibrant and interesting. They draw attention to the sets of Asgard, and especially that raucous photography Haris Zambarloukos that as Diego Salgado said in its analysis of the film, reminds suspiciously 'Flash Gordon' (id, Mike Hodges, 1980), and the second Star Wars trilogy, by bunting.
What I liked is that Branagh has been able to make an actor Chris Hemsworth, because its Thor has enough charisma and charm to not consider one of these flat characters that abound in this film. Hemsworth note about having given birth to the god of thunder-repeated role in that 'The Avengers'- and next, surprisingly dwarf performers of the caliber of Anthony Hopkins, an odd choice, it must be said, "Rene Russo" trim ", Stellan Skarsgård, somewhat dismayed," and Natalie Portman, who incredibly loaded with a character almost unnecessary , whose chemical Hemsworth is not necessary. Even Kat Dennings encouraged morbid function, and we only have cameos from Samuel L Jackson, seen after the long end credits, when 95% of viewers have left the room, and Jeremy Renner, that of early participation in the film, Whedon. An almost unrecognizable Idris Elba Clark Gregg, Colm Feore and Tom Hiddleston, in the substantial role of Loki, seem to breathe more life into their characters than the rest of his teammates with the exception of Hemsworth. Of that quartet of buddies of Thor I do not talk, because there the movie itself reaching ridiculous levels, both in the design of roles as in the performances. Luckily
a whole 'Thor' film is acceptable. We could have asked for more, much more, but we could have obtained less, far less. Everything seems like a snack, enjoyable in its proper place, before reaching the big bowl and discussed, and the expectations are very high. The error has been sent to Branagh to take on a snack that was already pre-cooked in the offices of Marvel. An author of more than deserved their mark.
always say, the relationship between cinema and video games are not as healthy or successful as those that can be extended with the comics or literature. But mostly because of the tendency, when assessing a film that has been adapted from a video game, not based on merit film - not that many have them - but in fidelity to a universe , unlike the comics, literature, and was originally set in motion. Furthermore, while the game provides a direct dialogue with the user, allowing to experience first hand, the film is a more passive language, with a ratio in the third person in which we would see the departure of another player. 
