The Road to the Avengers: Thor (2011)

I figure that after two nights of one mythological strong-man, it was time for another.
I noticed something this time through the movie that I missed the first time, probably because I was bedazzled by all  the pretty things, but in the opening when Odin is relating the war a thousand years ago with the Frost Giants, at the end when Odin has claimed victory over the Frost Giant king, someone who is dressed in the same armor Loki wears picks up the glowy crystal power source to take back for safe keeping to Asgard, but then we cut to a later point where Odin is relating the same story to a young Thor and a young Loki. Is this a snafu or was the kind of armor just really popular among the forces of Asgard? In the battle scenes, you don't see anyone else dressed in it, implying it is a particular individual...who is not Loki. Do I even need to mention that there is also a very strong guy wielding a hammer against the Frost Giants? Okay, so the Loki armor is the armor he wore int eh comic book, not the stuff he wears in the movie, and the strong guy with the hammer has a winged helmet like the comic book. I guess I kind of answered my own question here - that it's rather an homage to the comic than a snafu.
But then, who knows, right? I mean we see Odin put his rune on Mholner right after he exiles Thor, but then we see the older scientist flipping through a book of Norse mythology and there is a picture of Mjolnir with the symbol on it. Maybe Odin was just activating what was already there?
Just like iwth the Hulk, I was never that big of a fan of the Thor comic though I really like the look of the Asgardians and read it from time to time. I think as an adult, it might appeal to me more, assuming that it is written for an adult of course. Also like with the Hulk it is not surprising that I like the movie better than the comic book. But, surprisingly I actually like this movie. Sure, it's got Natalie Portman and I'll watch anything she does and at least like her role in it, Black Swan withstanding as I didn't like any part of that movie. Anthony Hopkins is great as Odin, all beardy and buff. And Chris Hensworth is good as Thor. I can't imagine anyone pulling it off better, because it's not his acting that is chesy, it's the character.
I think a lot of people dismiss this movie as the one Avengers prequel you can skip. I even understand their reasons, on an intellectual level, but the fanboy in me thinks this is cool and the most like the comic book of any of the Marvel movies. Well, there is that Dr. Strange movie that is right on, but it's animated so not really in the same league. Thos is the most accurate portrayal of the comic book it is based on of any of the Marvel live-action movies. You have to accept a little cheesiness and let go of the mythological Thor.
A funny thing happened while watching the credits of Thor. I couldn't remember what the little scene was after they rolled. I thought on it as they rolled and realized that I don't think I had made it that far the first time. Which is kind of unlike me, so I let the credits roll and lo and behold, there is the little scene with the Doctor and Nick Fury looking at the cube, but of course the Doctor can see Loki who is telling him what to say. I knew the Doctor was in the Avengers, and Loki and the cube of course, but had missed this link in the chain. I also realized that it makes more sense for Thor to be viewed after Captain America, a that is the movie in which we first see the cube.

Thor on IMDb

Your Highness (2011)

I am sure that the title of this film is intended to be a blatant double entendre on the fact that the main characters are princes and that a lot of pot is smoked by the characters. But I think really it's a quality control comment aimed at the audience, as in, "How much will enjoy this movie? That depends on your highness." As I stopped measuring my life in those terms years ago, I struggled through the first bit of this film as I ate my dinner, only continuing because it's harder to type this while eating than watch a bad movie while eating. But then two things happened (no double entendre intended - if you've seen the film you'll know what I mean), first I noticed that despite the juvenile and simple attempts at humor and a story, that the special effects, costumes and scenery were actually top notch and I think it is either the herald of a new age of special F/X wizardry where even sucky films can have great SF/X, or someone was actually willing to put a lot of money into this thing, perhaps because they were high. The second, and more important reason is Natalie Portman. Let's see, she's kicking ass and taking names while wearing tight outfits and revealing just a touch of skin...this is why I played Dungeons and Dragons for all those years - for this moment. That it happened in a crappy film is immaterial.
Okay, what didn't suck about this movie? Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, Charles Dance, Justin Theroux and sometimes James Franco, the SF/X, the scenery, the costuming.
What did suck in this movie? Danny McBride (or maybe he's just such a brilliant actor that I hate the character so much I don't even realize he's nothing like that), dick jokes, sodomy jokes, rape jokes and making light of child molestation on several occasions. Now, it should be said that I'm not the biggest fan of blue humor, but I still get it - this stuff was not funny, not even American Pie funny and that's about as base as you can get.
This movie was obviously designed to be a kind or "raunchy" comedy, but they took the genre serious enough to not go the spoof route. The jokes made about fantasy settings, this is a completely separate and more subtle business than the junior high humor that fills the dialog, are usually visual in this film and a nod to old school role playing games. But, really I was only able to get far enough to make that kind of analysis because of Ms. Portman.

Your Highness on IMDB