Re: Thor

Talk about damning w/ faint praise.  If I were the movie Thor I'd have 
preferred the first review.

Mike F.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:26 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Thor

On Thu, 12 May 2011, Paul Christian Glenn wrote:
> Wow. That seems uncharacteristically harsh for him.

He agrees with you!

-

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/my_mighty_hammering_over_thor.html

If I had my piece on "Thor" to write over again, I think it would be more
bemused and whimsical. My tone was off. I brought too much anger to a
trivial entertainment. When I described it as "a desolate vastation," I
went perhaps one hyperbole too far.

I try to use a generic approach in my reviews. I approach a movie with
some idea of their intention and the expectation of their target audience.
I compared "Thor" to other movies based on comic book heroes, and found it
lacking. But it doesn't really intend to be good in the sense that "The
Dark Knight" or "Spider-Man II" are good. It's pitched at the level of a
children's movie, although the expensive scope of the production tends to
conceal that. . . .

[ snip snippity snip ]

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot