I fear I’m at risk of losing my hipster cred. Thor is a recent “mainstream” film I actually enjoyed, and following so soon after the fun Fast Five, I’m getting slightly worried.  Where’s the irony, where’s the iconoclasm?  Not that either movie changed my life, and neither movie stands a chance of being shown in one of my classes in the near future, but if the filmmakers set out to make a pleasing commercial product, they succeeded in both instances.

            Not to say Thor is perfect.  I automatically rebel against films which are more CGI than live-action, though perhaps a fantasy, comic-book-based picture such as Thor might warrant a partial waiver of the rule.  The same thing goes for 3-D, which is a liability to be overcome rather than a selling point, at least in my book.  One cannot say Thor is especially profound or moving as a drama, or even an adrenaline-inducing thrill ride like Fast Five, despite the plethora of battle-spectacle.

            Furthermore, though as a lad I was a huge comic book fan, and “The Avengers” was one of my favourite comics, it’s a tad annoying to get the feeling half the comic book films being made today are simply teasers setting us up for the future movie version of The Avengers.  Thor features a cameo by archer Hawkeye, an overt reference to Tony (Iron Man) Stark, a possible allusion to the Hulk, and an appearance by Nick Fury; a more generous assessment would be that these are clever in-jokes rather than almost subliminal plugs for the forthcoming The Avengers. 

            Full disclosure, the comic book version of “Thor” (and I’m talking ’60s and early ’70s here, folks) was not on my “must-buy” list.  I vaguely recall he had a secret identity as limping doctor Donald Blake (who changed into Thor by striking his walking-stick on the sidewalk) and Jane Foster was his nurse.  And of course I can still sing the “The Mighty Thor” theme song from the animated series:  ‘Cross the Rainbow Bridge of Asgard, Where the booming heavens roar, You’ll behold in breathless wonder, The God of Thunder, Mighty Thor!”  Or was it “blooming heavens”?  Never mind, I was a Captain America-Avengers guy, mostly. 

            The plot of Thor is rather slight and certainly open-ended.  I was wondering how the screenwriters would handle the concept of Norse “gods,” given today’s politically-correct climate, and I have to say they do it rather cleverly.  Thor, Odin, Loki, et al., are apparently more-or-less mortal inhabitants of the (parallel?) universe of “Asgard,” who “might seem like gods” to the less-advanced residents of Earth, to whom they appeared in ancient times, saving the planet from King Laufey and his Frost Giants (from yet another parallel universe).  Once again, Arthur C. Clarke’s aphorism that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is trotted out.  So Thor isn’t a god (although the posters still refer to him as “The God of Thunder”) as in “worship me, mortals,” and he doesn’t use magic, he’s just some handsome dude from another planet with super-powers and a big hammer (that resembles a toaster on a stick). 

            Thor’s intemperate reaction to a Frost Giant raid on Asgard gets him banished to Earth as a mortal, to the delight of his foster brother Loki.  When Odin falls into a deep trance from all the tsouris, Loki takes over as king.  Meanwhile, Thor is discovered in the desert by scientists Jane Foster and Dr. Selvig, while agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. find his wayward hammer (which, shades of Excalibur, no one can lift).  Thor’s four buddies—in one of the film’s best lines, they’re identified by an observer as “Xena, Jackie Chan, and Robin Hood” (overlooking the Falstaffian Volstagg)—join him on Earth, and Loki sends the robotic Destroyer to eliminate his competition for the throne of Asgard.  Thor’s willingness to sacrifice himself restores his super-powers (and his hammer), and he dashes back home to fight the usurper.

            Ironically, the Earth scenes in which Thor is just a muscular guy suffering from culture shock are the most entertaining in the film.  In one scene, he enters a pet shop and demands a horse.  “We only sell cats and dogs,” the clerk informs him.  “Then sell me one large enough to ride,” Thor replies.  As the hunky hero, Chris Hemsworth is almost Errol Flynn-esque at times, swaggering and yet self-mocking.  His interactions with Jane, her ditsy assistant Darcy, and conveniently-Nordic Selvig are generally amusing, if relatively superficial (though, frankly, his “romance” with Jane seems forced). 

        In contrast, the Asgard and Jotunheim (where the Frost Giants live) scenes are stiff and bombastic, with lots of people shouting and posturing (and all of this footage is heavily CGI-ed, making it feel even more artificial—not necessarily bad, but more clearly fantasy).  So we’ve got two films in one: a dark “castle intrigue” picture full of robes, swords, and British accents, and a contemporary “action” movie set in a New Mexico desert town.  The dichotomy between these is nicely balanced, and I don’t know if I’d have enjoyed Thor as much if it was all one style or the other.

            The performances are generally strong.  Hemsworth does a good job as his character evolves from the brash, entitled, proud, “I’m the baddest guy in Asgard and plus, I’ll soon be king!” prince of Asgard to someone who realises other people count as well (and not just his drinking-brawling buddies either).  Natalie Portman is cute but completely unbelievable as a scientist (didn’t buy it for a single second, nope); Anthony Hopkins is solid as Odin (not a surprise at all).  Sinister, devious Loki is effectively impersonated by Tom Hiddleston, who at times eerily resembles Roddy McDowall.

            My ambivalence about CGI was mentioned earlier: the Asgard/Jotunheim sequences really couldn’t have been done effectively without heavy CGI.  The design (although dark and forbidding, who’d want to live there?) and execution are generally quite good, and since this is a comic book adaptation set at least partly in a fantasy world, I’ll grudgingly admit I bought into the vision.  The Earth scenes (set in New Mexico) unfortunately also rely on CGI for the action set-pieces (primarily, Destroyer’s rampage): I understand the need for this and it’s not badly done, but there just something about CGI in an ostensibly realistic setting…argh.

            In sum, Thor makes 114 minutes pass quickly, is reasonably nice to look at, features some competent performers, has a handful of clever lines of dialogue, and (surprisingly) contains little to irritate me.  114 minutes of mildly pleasurable entertainment?  So sue me, I’ll take it!  Does that make me…mainstream?  Mawww….