From what I've read so far it sounds like not much is gained seeing this on the big screen. I think there were so many spoilers we knew were coming in the Spiderman movie that I was like... yeah I'll go see that one so I don't get spoiled, and can then immerse myself in the dialog while with this one it seems as though it's enjoyable, but not appointment worthy. I hate that the MCU uses spoilers as a way to drive demand to see in the theatre but it seems to be the model. Which is why also Dr. Strange 2 will probably do better in the theatre than Thor 4 although Thor 4 is probably going to be better. I personally thought that Dr. Strange 2 was not that great, but there were a ton of spoiler level cameos. Since Thor 4's premise is pretty straight forward it'll probably have alot of people say meh... I'll just see it when it comes on D+.
"It's overall fun, if you are drunk". "Made Thor act like a dumbass" Seems like they tried too hard for teh laughs, which was my complaint of Guardians 2.
It was fun. Has a retro 80s movie charm that doesn't take itself seriously and is often times campy like a 90s movie. Ragnarok is better story wise and aesthetic and music is better yet theres nothing really to dislike about L&T which makes confused why I didn't love it like I love Ragnarok and Guardians. Sure they could have dialed back some of the jokes but idk if that makes a difference. Maybe this is one of those movies I end up loving on 2nd viewing at home where im not distracted by the mouth breather next to me and the know it all comic book guy who is pointing everything out and commenting out loud so everyone can know he's the real expert here(a dude next to me was doing this same thing during The Batman too except he was also the mouth breather and ate 2 popcorn bags, a dog and crinkled his wrapper the entire movie). Maybe im just grumpy and not a fan of hoomans anymore.
Saw it last night. I still like the Marvel movies, I am always entertained. There is always something going on in Love and Thunder, no dull moments. I still feel like they are setting up an eventual Young Avengers movie/show. My family and I really like going to the theater. I am glad the one nearest to us in Rosenberg is a decent theater and not super expensive.
Saw it last night, enjoyable but not nearly as consistent as Ragnarok. Humor was solid but it felt a bit more forced this time around, it didn't help that the tone shifted from serious to wacky from scene to scene. Natalie Portman looks good in the Thor get up but she's really stiff, like Star Wars prequel level. There's a lot thrown at the wall idea wise but not all them hit, more dead spots than the last film. B-
It's really not that different from Ragnarok tone the more i think of it. Ragnarok is pretty cheesy too. Everyone but Odin, Strange and Hiemdall is over the top cheesy. Spoiler Similar beats-Dr.Strange=Guardians cameo, Valyrie = parts each movie, Gorr more serious than Hela but less screen time(cut 30 min of him), Korg still the funny sidekick, Zues=Grand Master, Shadow Monsters weak but so was Helas zombie army. No brother and no serious father moment for tone, but what this movie really lacks is Hulk as a heavy hitting 2nd lead and they tried to make it up with Mighty Thor as the 2nd lead. I liked her, but Hulk/Banner is infinitely better and more interesting. She should have been Loki's Ragnarok equivalent and they should have had a bigger character be the 2nd lead ie Rocket and Groot stay back with Thor for this adventure like they did in End Game/Infinity War. That's the missing key imo. Hell, even Bautista as Drax hasn't had his fair shake and would have been cool. "I'm staying with the muscle man" or something. I would like him to get a chance to get fleshed out as a character that he never gets in a Guardians movie. No disrespect to Nat and her Thor, but it wasn't enough to make up for the hole left by Hulk.
Gorr was a great villain. I think a different actor may have gotten more out of it but he’s top tier so no real complaints.
