Thor: The Dark World
Action, Adventure, Fantasy
IMDB rating:
James Gunn, Alan Taylor
Zachary Levi as Fandral
Rene Russo as Frigga
Stan Lee as Bus Driver
Ray Stevenson as Volstagg
Natalie Portman as Jane Foster
Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Algrim / Kurse
Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis
Idris Elba as Heimdall
Storyline: Thousands of years ago, a race of beings known as Dark Elves tried to send the universe into darkness by using a weapon known as the Aether. Warriors from Asgard stop them but their leader Malekith escapes to wait for another opportunity. The warriors find the Aether and since it cannot be destroyed, they try to hide it. In the present day, Jane Foster awaits the return of Thor although it has been two years since they last saw once another. In the meantime, Thor has been trying to bring peace to the nine realms. Jane discovers an anomaly similar to the one that brought Thor to Earth. She goes to investigate, finds a wormhole, and is sucked into it. Back on Asgard, Thor wishes to return to Earth but his father, Odin refuses to let him. Thor learns from Heimdall, who can see into all of the realms, that Jane disappeared. Thor then returns to Earth just as Jane reappears. However, when some policemen try to arrest her, an unknown energy repulses them. Thor then brings Jane to Asgard to ...
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 7833 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1777 Mb mpeg4 2214 Kbps avi Download
DVD-rip 640x272 px 699 Mb mpeg4 871 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x320 px 907 Mb mpeg4 1130 Kbps mp4 Download

Don't watch 3D Version
First part was much better than this one. Title in review has quite weak plot and above all it lacks emotional intensity and thrill which first part had. Because of shallow plot, this movie will fail to take you along. In these kind of movies Villains are very powerful and invincible. But heroes look for out of the box solutions to get them down but in this movie Villain character is very weak and is without any convention. Villain doesn't look intelligent and dangerous to me. He was just a villain to fill space. Good news is there are 2-3 laughs as well though I didn't laugh as I found them not very laughable.

Direction was OK. Acting was good as normally is in these kind of Films. Portman was bit better. This movie has high production value. Lot of effort and money used in creating stunning visual effects.

So my suggestion to readers is that "Don't watch it in 3D" specially if you have watched Gravity in 3D recently. You will feel very bad like me. And will curse 3D technology which I think is mind blowing if used properly.

Its OK for one time watch but nothing memorable.
Style Over Substance: The Movie
Oh was that not the name of the movie? Could have fooled me that's for sure.

When people talk about this movie they often talk about how great it looks, well the budget is 170 000 000 dollars so OF COURSE it looks good.

It would take the biggest idiot on earth not to be able to make it look good with that big of a budget, just hire a great director of photography, set director and CGI artists and everything will fall into place... Visually.

To get it right story-wise and acting-wise of course requires a little more finesse which in reality is not the movies strong parts if we're being realistic here.

The plot is messy and throw random sci fi logic (with very little actual logic) and events around like they are sprinkling an ice cream and not really seeing the full picture of what story they are trying to convey, random transportation ports and monsters for instance is very convenient to say the least.

And the acting, oh no, Nathalie Portman who I usually like a lot does the definition of a phoned in performance clearly just doing the movie for the money and the rest of the cast is not that much better.

But who cares about plot and acting in a Marvel movie right? Clearly not that many considering the high rating (of currently 7.1).

If people asked for more than just a stylish movie and didn't sucker in just because a movie looks good and has cool action scenes then perhaps we would have gotten a little more substance to it, but clearly that is not a lot of people's priorities which is unfortunate.
It's time that comic book fans started to demand more from these films before the entire genre evaporates into a disposable, commercialised heap like it does here
Thor: The Dark World left me wondering why for all its popularity and box office hype the superhero genre so regularly fails to ignite the faintest trace of excitement and imagination in its narrative and storytelling. This sequel, following Kenneth Branagh's reasonably funny 2011 film, was written by no less than five writers, who between them have only mustered another dull, achingly generic story about saving the world. Aside from less than a handful of funny self-referencing points, this is a hugely disappointing by the numbers blockbuster that under services its embarrassingly rich cast and offers its enormous fanbase too little that is challenging, inspired or even surprising.

What's confusing about the deliberate complacency in the script is that it's entirely unnecessary. There is no financial risk to comic book adaptations anymore to justify this kind of dumbing down. Earlier this year, Iron Man 3 became one of the top five highest grossing films of all time. While Christopher Nolan's Batman films have achieved financial success without succumbing to simplified narrative lines. Some even complained The Dark Knight Rises had too many story threads. How many filmmakers today would crawl over broken glass for a cast featuring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Tom Hiddleston, Chris O'Dowd and Stellan Skarsgard? With such talent it's not unreasonable then to ask for more than obligatory special effects and indistinguishable villains, who are included only to prop up pseudo- scientific plot points.

Little effort has been exhausted into humanising these characters. Thor (Hemsworth) is a blank slate who swings his hammer and growls at people. It makes Chris Hemsworth look like a boring actor when we've seen how charismatic he can be, like he was in Rush, with the right material and director. There are fewer fish out of water jokes that I enjoyed in the first film. Natalie Portman, normally a delightful, charming actress, is embarrassed here as Thor's girlfriend, playing a character devoid of plausible emotional responses and desires. Her first reaction after being warped from London to Asgard is to say "Hi!" and "Let's do that again!" Never mind that her skin is now infected with the Aether, a weapon of mass destruction from an ancient group called the Dark Elves (who speak perfect English no less). She's more impressed that Thor told his dad about her! The Dark Elves are led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), who wants to use the Aether to destroy the world.

Comic book films rise and fall on the quality of their villains. The Dark World has two, both of whom are substandard. The Dark Elves, branding swords and laser weapons, aren't very interesting. Though Thor's brother Loki (Hiddleston) sometimes brings comic relief to the film's dry, seriousness (I did enjoy one clever shape shifting moment) he still doesn't possess the physicality of Tom Hardy's Bane to be a truly menacing physical threat. Locked up in a cell for nearly half the film, there's not a lot for Loki to do. What should also be a haunting surprise at the end of the film is badly telegraphed. When Thor and Loki inevitably team up, the brothers take a few more punches than you might expect, but still recover very quickly, even after a severed hand. Marvel is a subsidiary company belonging to Disney so this is largely bloodless action.

This is the first comic book feature film by Alan Taylor, who replaced Patty Jenkins under controversial circumstances. Taylor has worked on television shows like Game of Thrones, and he brings little distinction to the action and the way the story is told. The camera isn't particularly mobile and significant plot lines like the Aether are lazily signposted through the film's prologue. He opts to intercut Thor's main story with a subplot involving Jane's scientist friends back on Earth, including an overly excitable Kat Dennings, who are discovering the alignments of Asgard's nine realms, if that matters. Sometimes they lighten the mood but they're still cornball stereotypes (the wacky sidekick, the crazy scientist and the dorky intern) that don't instill any visible subtext to the plot. The two narrative threads collide with Taylor's most elaborate set piece, as Thor fights simultaneously between universes, a battle that is undone by Thor's own indestructibility. Over the closing credits are shots of the film's concept art, which could be totally interchangeable with most of the plotting. It's time that comic book fans started to demand more from these films before the entire genre evaporates into a disposable, commercialised heap like it does here.
Well, that was a surprise
Just got back from seeing this and thought I'd put in my thoughts.

This is by far the most intricate and thoughtful of the Marvel films to date, with a great story and some superb performances, particularly Hiddleston's as Loki. The characters from previous Asgard related outings are there, but thanks to some good writing, are more 3 dimensional and therefore, interesting. This is one of the few films that would have benefited from an extra 15 minutes or so to explore further the motivations of the key protagonists.

There is plenty of large scale action, as well as some laugh out loud humorous moments that help to keep this kicking along.

I am both surprised and delighted that this is not only the best superhero movie to date, (even eclipsing Spider-Man 2), but currently the best movie I've seen this year.

Don't miss this!
Lower expectation with MARVEL's Fame
I vote 1/10.Because it's awful to compare other MARVEL movies:

Hulk is good ;

Iron Man 1/2/3 are great;

Captain America 1/2 and Avengers are awesome;

Thor 1/2 are BAD at Logic unreasonable (FOR ADULT).

IF this movie is for 0-12 kids,and not MARVEL presents. I will not say anything ,and won't recommend any friends to see it. In my impression,MARVEL is a VERY GOOD Movie Maker and always surprised me. But THIS,There are very serious logical problems to Make you feel vulgar.

There are tons of good movie on IMDb top list. IF you think this is MARVEL presents. Watch this just waste your time and money. I am very doubt it how to get 8.0+ point on IMDb.
Bad Plot
Im still trying to find out which movie did everyone see. Acting is well done, directing any everything is pretty good... the plot, oh the plot !!

1.- Predictable. 2.- Villains that nobody cares about. 3.- Love and kisses in the middle of catastrophes. 4.- you will forget everything about this movie in less than 2 hours. 5.- Overrated

This is why movies are crap, cause they only want to see a character (loki) in action instead of getting a good story.

I don't know why the writers think if they put some science to movies its going to be a good movie.

Is not as good as they say, not as bad as you think. Watch it? yes, just wait till its free on TV. Meanwhile go and watch something else.
We walked out
We very seldom walk out of a movie, but to us our time is worth more than the cost of any movies. This move was bland one dimensional, and with no character that you could care for. The girl that was suppose to be Portmans assistance was utterly pointless and annoying. To top this there was an assistant to her, this man was even dumber than her. I think it has become an sport to make male characters with no spine and brain in Hollywood movies, it makes the feminist happy. Back to the movie, 30 minutes through we were literally falling sleep, so looked at each other and just left. There is no plot that can have anything remotely to do with any possible laws of physics, anything goes. No characters to relate to, and special effects well, there are explosions that is all. Don't waste your time.
Incredibly generic apart from an inspired final act
'Thor: The Dark World' basically plays out exactly as one would expect from a Marvel Universe movie. There are many wisecracks, fights, explosions and post credit scenes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that a good 75 – 80% of the film gives off an aura of 'been there, done that'. Of all the Marvel Universe films that have been released thus far, beginning with the fantastic 'Ironman' in 2008 and most recently at the time of writing with the average 'Guardians of the Galaxy' in 2014, this second film starring the God of Thunder would rank close to the bottom, but although since all but one Marvel Universe film is 'OK' at the least, that's still saying that even the lesser films of this saga are only just entertaining and nothing more.

Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston give the only performances of note as the two main characters, with Hemsworth again owning the role and Hiddleston showing Loki's sneaky and cunning side with amusing results (A scene where Loki transforms into different characters, including a certain Captain, is one of the few genuinely imaginative and entertaining parts of the film.) The only problem I have with Loki is that, during the first half especially, he just isn't in the movie enough. For roughly half the running time, Loki is reduced to sitting in a prison cell by himself, which isn't high on the list of the many things I want to watch Loki do. Apart from these two, none of the other actors are particularly memorable, which is a shame since there are great actors like Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins in the film as well. No one in the film gives a bad performance, it's just that the performances are only serviceable and nothing more. For example, take the villain, Malekith played by Christopher Eccleston. Malekith growls and snarls in both English and Dark Elfish in a deep menacing voice, complete with threatening villain features and a plan to destroy the universe (I wonder though, what a boring life that must be if your plan to destroy the universe actually succeeds). Malekith is the definition of a bland, stereotypical villain in an Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi film. He does nothing interesting, his plans are conventional, he possesses no individual or memorable characteristics, his lines are never witty and even his physical appearance is bland and generic. This is a shame since he is played by Christopher Eccleston, an actor I like very much and whom I know can pull off memorable villains. This then begs the question, why hire a good actor like Eccleston only to alter his voice, have him speak gibberish and obscure him in makeup so that he is close to unrecognizable? You might as well hire some random guy off the street of roughly the same height/build to play the character if there's that much makeup and alterations rather than hire a professional. Lots of money could be saved and hardly anyone would notice.

The whole film, except for the inspired finale, has a run-of-the-mill feel to it. Other aspects, such as the direction, cinematography, production design and score feel bland and workmanlike. The composer of the film is Brian Tyler, whose work I usually enjoy very much, but he phones it in here, offering standard order action movie music. Usually I find Tyler's work has a distinct personal stamp to it, with him being especially good at subtly emotional cues in the midst of action movies (For example, his work on 'Eagle Eye', 'Battle: Los Angeles' and even 'Thor: The Dark World's cousin, 'Ironman 3') but none of that was evident here. Alan Taylor directs most of the film with no personal style or flair (Much unlike Kenneth Branagh from the first 'Thor' film) until the truly inspired and entertaining finale which is a nice break from watching cities getting obliterated by otherworldly beings in action films nowadays. I won't spoil but I will say that this is where the film truly becomes entertaining and I only wish that the preceding 80 minutes or so had been as fun and creative as the final act. Let's just hope that director Alan Taylor's next film, 'Terminator: Genisys', is more in the vein of the final 20 minutes of 'Thor: The Dark World' and not the other 80 minutes of boring, generic action and exposition.

Finally, one problem I have with not just this film, but the entire Marvel Universe, is that in each new standalone adventure, the stakes are always low, which doesn't exactly make for edge-of-your-seat viewing. Because whatever happens to Thor, Ironman, Captain America or anybody major, you know they'll survive because A: The film will extensively tease what's to come, B: The next film will most likely already be in production, C: Even if a character does die then they usually find a way to revive and D: Marvel has already planned out their films until at least the end of the decade. Combine the knowledge of all these factors while watching a Marvel film such as this one and the result is incredibly uninvolving. There may be lots of action, but it is rarely exciting, since you know that these characters will defeat the enemy and be all ready for the next adventure. In the end, 'Thor: The Dark World' feels less like a movie and more like a product, only here as filler to advertise and build up to what's to come, while unfortunately forgetting to create a unique identity or personality all its own.
Winter release action film leaves me feeling cold and dead inside.
My 'Summary' may be a bit of an exaggeration, but thinking back at parts of the film makes me feel like this could have been so much more.

Firstly I'd like to say that I enjoyed most of the film. The Dark Elves looked quality with their Armour and masks etc. Thor was good. Loki was better. Special effects were great. Fighting and action scenes were a good example of how to show action without the use of shaky cam, which is far too common in "family Friendly" action films these days.

The main issue I had with the film was the humour. It was way out of balance. In particular, Dennings' character. I didn't care about her. In the first film they had a great balance with the seriousness, action and humour. Dennings was in the background and said the odd dopey thing, but in this film they really shoved her silliness down your throat and ramped up the jokes which ruined the balance of the film. She had way too much air time for a character irrelevant to the story.

Hiddleston Was great as always.

Rene Russo looked like a bad-ass with her blade.

Anthony Hopkins was....Anthony Hopkins

Thor's friends weren't in it enough.

Thor has some issues for wanting to be with Portman over Jaimie Alexander. Mad man.
Thor: The Lackluster World
** out of ****

While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.

I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?

Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.

The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.

I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.

Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.

While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).
Download Thor: The Dark World movie (James Gunn, Alan Taylor) -, the lowest price, high speed.Thor: The Dark World full movie online.Thor: The Dark World HD movie are available too (720p and 1080p). Thor: The Dark World Action, Adventure, Fantasy . Thor: The Dark World movie download, Thor: The Dark World movie hd download, Thor: The Dark World full movie download, Thor: The Dark World movie download 2013, watch online Thor: The Dark World movie, Thor: The Dark World movie download, Thor: The Dark World movie DIVX download, Thor: The Dark World movie download hd, Thor: The Dark World 2013 hollywood movie download, download Thor: The Dark World full movie