Add a Review

  • They paid someone to make this movie? That is outrageous. There is nothing worth watching in this movie. The acting is horrible, the script is juvenile, the direction is spotty and the werewolves look like extras wearing big plastic masks. This is advertised as a Thor movie, but nothing in it even refers to the Thor of mythology or the Thor of comic book fame. It has all the elements of a POOR TV movie: a female lead who is not needed and just yells out the heroes name over and over, a fellow warrior who gets irate at the hero and turns to the bad side, dialog that is delivered like it was written for a daytime soap opera, costumes that look like they were stolen from an ancient opera and special effects that are gaudy. This movie is awful.
  • For whatever reason, I have not given up on the SciFi channel yet but this film comes close to doing it for me. I advise people NOT to waste their time on this. Not only was Zach from Home Improvement hopelessly miscast as a Viking hero but his acting is no better than when he was on the series. There were some moments--unfortunately the moments were badly acted, ripped off from other shows and not very interesting. This was almost an embarrassment to watch. I felt bad for the actors because they didn't have a chance with that badly written script. Fans of SciFi/action will be angered by some of the blatant lines stolen from other shows like Highlander. I thought about skipping this because it looked like it would be bad. I should have trusted my judgement.
  • I didn't have very high expectations for this movie. I was expecting something low budget but watchable, around the standard of 'King Arthur', 'The Last Legion', 'Reign of Fire' or a Uwe boll movie (if you have seen any of those?) or a feature length episode of Xena Warrior Princess... But even with such low expectations I was surprised by how bad this film is. It's much worse than any of the above.

    If you have ever seen a movie made by high school students. Which stars themselves and their friends running about in the woods and play fighting... Then you will have some idea of what to expect here. This is not just a cruel exaggeration it really is that bad. In fairness you might wonder where they got the money for a boat and a snow machine, but otherwise 'school media project' is about the standard we are talking here.

    This movie is basically about a bunch of Vikings who sail to a distant land, which turns out to be inhabited by low budget werewolves. Don't be fooled into thinking that the movie has any relevance to the Viking god Thor or actual mythology... It doesn't. They just reused the name (presumably to add inaccuracy to the long list of flaws in this film).

    The film has a distinctly amateur feel even by TV movie standards. At no point did I ever believe I was watching real Vikings. I'm not even sure if I was watching real actors since most of the lines are simply read aloud rather than acted. And half-heartedly forcing out a 'ye' or a 'thou' in a modern Liverpool accent didn't add anything to believability.

    The set is quite literally 'the woods at the bottom of someone's garden' and most of the film takes place within 50 feet of an old shed, which we are supposed to believe is a village.

    It's difficult to find anything good to say about this movie. Some of the girls are nice looking I guess... that's about it *shrug* You might want to watch this just to see how bad it really is, but most of it is boring and painful rather than amusing.

    I normally reserve ratings of 1 and 2 for films where the sound and picture quality is so bad that the film is virtually unwatchable. This film doesn't have those problems but I just can't bring myself to give it a 3. Unless you are Todor Chapkanov's parents, you aren't going to be impressed by this.
  • hornet-1912 September 2009
    This movie is simply awful. Wooden "acting?" lame action scenes, cheap plastic Armor and weapons. What makes it even worse by comparison is "The 13th Warrior" is running at the same time on another channel. The Vampire angle just does not work, at least, in this Viking movie. Indeed the characters themselves as acted do not come across as credible Norsemen. The sword fights look like they where choreographed by a person who learned sword fighting by watching He-Man Master of the Universe cartoons. Zachery Ty Bryan who was to be Thor always looked like a deer staring into a set of headlights at night. Zac' I would suggest better acting classes. Indeed it would be a total waste of hard drive space if you illegally down loaded it off the internet for free. It is not as bad as "Plan 9 From Outer Space", or "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" but not by much. This would be a good movie to show in order to get rid of unwanted company.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie blows. Hard. And that's unfortunate. I'm a big fan of the sword/sandal/sorcery genre, and vikings have a particular place in my heart. Sadly, this movie sodomizes and decapitates the redeeming qualities other fantasy action movies have.

    First, the casting. Zachery Ty Bryan of Home Improvement fame just looks and sounds like a man-child, and Daz Crawford is really too swarthy to play a fair-skinned Northman, looking more Egyptian or Moorish. Squinty-eyed motherf*cker Mac Brandt was, to me, the most believable as Baldur, and the only character whose flowery way of speaking matched his thoughtful nature. That brings me to the second big F-up, the dialogue.

    Every viking speaks like a retarded Shakespeare tried to make them sound dramatic. They over-explain everything that they do and that happens to them, using either Tarzan like speech or bad metaphor to make them sound historical. And even though they all keep swearing oaths about killing enemies or risking their lives, most the time they just stand around, or worse, run away. Which reminds me of the third F-up.

    I admit, I'm only 1/5 or 1/4 of the way through the movie, but I have yet to seen any actual swordplay. Yes, a severed head did get thrown at a remaining sentry, and in another scene several men stand within a foot of some were-creatures, but all you see them do is shout, which they do as if they want to convey the idea of action without actually moving. Not showing the first confrontation that occurs can build suspense, but after a while you need to have some combat.

    The movie is not without some good points. "Vikings" is basically point #1. All the characters are named after Viking gods, and seemed to follow the basic personality corresponding to mythology, without being a literal allegory. Point #2: The weapons and armor are some of the most realistic I've seen in a viking flick, but as I mentioned above it seems they rarely get used. It's too bad the accurate weapons and gritty scenery are mixed with some terrible CGI. "Dream" sequences courtesy of ZTB's Thor are horribly done, even with their so-dark-you-can-barely-see-it tint, everything in the sequence seems fake and cartoony. Luckily, from what I can tell the monsters are guys in suits rather than bad animations, but the camera shows them for fractions of seconds before blurrily panning away.

    All in all, this is a movie that I really want to be decent, but which has failed to be anything more than terrible. Although unburdened by the cheese of such Hollyword fare as Pathfinder, which had higher production values but little substance, it lacks any of it's own integrity. I thoroughly enjoyed the 13th Warrior, but Hammer of the Gods cannot be compared in any way. While Keith Urban and Antonio Banderas are not the best actors, they played much better main characters than any in this movie. And none of the actors in HotG could compare to Vladimir Kulich as Buliwyf from the 13th in looks, voice, or presence.
  • gingergargoyle30 June 2009
    Okay just a few quirks for myself here - if you are making a story of the Norse gods don't you think that at least one of the actors would have had a Nordic accent?? And the acting ... well it was good for the dialog, I suppose it could have been worse although I don't know how. I have to wonder if at any time during the production why no one went to the writers and demanded a rewrite. Now if you are going to make a story about a rich mythology, I would hope that someone at sometime would have done at least a little research about it ... I wouldn't be as upset except they made a point of using the name of every god or goddess they could muster - if it were a random bunch of Nordic names it would be one thing, but it was fairly obvious that these characters were meant to BE the Norse gods-- c'mon, get the attributes correct! Its like someone was playing Quake and wrote down all that happened and made it into a script. This is a movie that every Heathen will regret. Pass it by.
  • It's easy to see how an idea like this gets commissioned . Someone contacts a producer with a pitch of " It's all about vikings fighting werewolves " or in other words DOG SOLDIERS with swords . So we all agree that there's a good premise ? Good . So why does everyone hate it ?

    Easy to explain - the budget for one thing , well maybe the everything is summed up by the budget which means no decent director can hire worthwhile actors , make up crew etc . , or more realistically the producer couldn't hire a decent director in the first place . Not to be too cruel though and that is the director tries to disguise his small budget by shooting action scenes in the dark or holding on an extreme close up of a viking as he fights off an unseen pack of werewolves . Good try Mr Director but it's painfully obvious there's only enough money for two werewolf costumes

    The other major irritant is that the cast are to be blunt extremely amateurish . All of them seem to come from another country with differing accents . We even have a multi-ethnic company of vikings with a contrived and needless explanation for it . Looking on the bright side Paterson Joseph doesn't appear and the actor in question Daz Crawford looks like he's playing an anorexic Mike Tyson with a Lancashire accent

    I will be charitable and say the cast are not helped one bit by the dialogue . It really is heavy handed , stilted and bombastic . There's no camp value involved and you get the feeling it was written for the Royal Shakespeare Company . Unfortunately Will Shakespeare hadn't thought of adding monsters to any of his more turgid dramas and watching this film you may understand why
  • Oh… don't you just hate it when the concept reads refreshingly fun (Vikings battling werewolves) but the final product leaves a lot to be desired. Sadly this straight to TV sci-fi original production doesn't complements its idea, instead we get a very low-rent, quite bland and terribly daft (but not in cheesy way) production that simply feels like its going through the motions with little in the way of excitement and conviction. To cement it just listen to the vapidly clunky script and stilted performances (with Zachery Ty Bryan best known for the TV series "Home Improvement" heading the cast)… although the acting to a certain degree can only be as good as the material allows them to be. Instead I rather just watch 1999 Viking actioner "The 13th Warrior" again… at least that entry wasn't gutless.

    It does take a while to get going with squabbling dramas and well-worn clichés hitting the fold, as they do go on and on talking / arguing in many meandering passages, before finally breaking out an injection of blood splattering, if clumsily forced combat. Quite little and without the bite though. The CGI is poorly conceived in that unconvincing video game imagery and the make-up effects (or better put masks) fair no better, but definitely more preferable. The way the camera shoots the werewolves is that there are never any clear shots, especially during the choppy action and the one and only transformation scene is lazily done. The hazy locations are well pitched, however they're clearly set-designs during the night sequences and the atmosphere is virtually non-existent.

    I found "Hammer of the Gods" to be a drearily forgettable action fare.
  • I have to confess that Norse mythology is not my field of expertise, but this story is supposed to be how Thor attained Deity status by using his hammer to slay one nasty wolf. The hero of the Hammer Of The Gods is played by Tim Allen's oldest son from Home Improvement, Zachery Ty Bryan who has filled out rather nicely and looks every inch the part of a Norse hero.

    Bryan has sailed with his two brothers, several other Vikings even some of their women way up north where the gods live. They do find some very powerful creatures there, Norse werewolf types who walk on their hind legs and have a wolf god whom they serve. The Vikings have a lot of rivalries between themselves and it doesn't make for good unity at a time of danger.

    Even the three brothers fall out. Baldur (Mac Brandt) is killed early on and the youngest Bryan has to face the older one Daz Crawford who's gone over to the enemy. Crawford might be the oldest, but he's illegitimate and out of succession. That would give me a bad attitude I can tell you.

    Watching the Vikings behave with their talk of glory, dying and Valhalla it was like watching Star Trek The Next Generation or Deep Space Nine in an episode with Worf talking about glory and honor. The Klingons were certainly based on the Vikings and this film could have been an extended episode of one of the Roddenberry series.

    Hammer Of The Gods is all right, I'll leave it to those who know Norse culture to comment on the veracity and integrity of the story.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My wife, two daughters (29 and 31) and a friend sat down with me to see the Sci-fi Channel original "Thor: Hammer of the Gods" last night. It might be the best unintentionally funny movie of all times.

    The acting was atrocious, at best. The dialog was stilted, with pauses between clauses you could drive a long-ship through, the fighting was mechanical, the editing was jerkily effective (in order to cover up lack of effects and expertise and the costumes were just a hoot, with machine stitching, jean material and sateen borders on "capes". Gold fillings being evident, I was a bit surprised there were no watches in evidence.

    The part that WAS a surprise was the evident attention to over all production values. Lighting was really good, quality of picture was right up there with any I have seen lately.

    All in all, a good time was had by all. I might even watch it again, soon!
  • as101815 June 2010
    I was misled by a couple of reviews... There are good movies that come out on small budget.. But this one is a real pain.. I am halfway and have stopped viewing.. Nothing's good.. Acting: 0/10. Direction: 0/10. Special Effects: 0/10.. The storyline in this movie is OK.. it could have been a mix of horror-fantasy.. but its all spoiled by the bunch of amateurs (I could not find any definition for 'less than' amateur) . The end result is a movie that does not convey any feeling other than frustration of how you ended up watching it. If you have nothing else to bite.. then go have a walk, don't waste your time on this movie.. I am sure u will be better off..
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If there's one thing we've gleaned from watching The Sci-Fi Channel over the years, it's the fact that "a Sci-Fi Channel original" doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with anything in any way "original" (let alone "sci-fi"). THOR: HAMMER OF THE GODS looked promising enough (though Common Sense told us it wasn't going to be anywhere near as good as the previews made it look)- and it actually came pretty close, the truth be told. While it plays out not unlike THE 13TH WARRIOR (which I've always thought was an excellent action adventure, one that kept moving and never flagged and- most importantly- delivered on an emotional level), it's ostensibly about one man's quest for the Holy Grail (in this case, the Hammer of Thor)- with a pack of werewolves thrown in for good measure. For a 21st Century telemovie, THOR isn't bad. The performances are good, the story unfolds in a more or less logical fashion, and the locations are beautiful. Nor is the direction bad. There are quibbles, of course: at one point, Thor (a Northman, not the God) goes airborne to retreive a sword from a tree in a bit of wirework straight out of a martial arts movie and, in one melee (done in a wide shot), we see the warriors "battling" cgi werewolves that aren't even there... but, apart from gaffs like these, it's not bad. For "a Sci-Fi Channel original."
  • Heck, I enjoyed this. I thought it was very well written. I appreciated the fact that there wasn't a lot of that terrible video game style graphic effects which are nothing but eye candy and waste screen time. My only real complaints were the two leads, the guys playing Baldur and Thor. Neither could act a lick and Thor had a horrible haircut to boot. Surely they could have found somebody slightly heroic looking for the lead for crying out loud.

    I loved the misty, wintery setting. That really worked great for me, very atmospheric. There is something about mucking about in the cold and snow that is very appealing and visually striking. All three of the female leads were very sexy ladies. The bad girl had the greatest accent and man was she smoking hot! Having a black viking was a bit of a stretch but he was the best actor there by and large so it worked out OK. Shaving his head was smart too.

    This was old fashioned sword and sorcery and I enjoyed it. If the two leads had had a little on screen charisma and acting talent this would have really been something in my opinion. It held my interest all the way, for low budget...I felt very entertained. Go in with an open mind and you might also enjoy yourself!
  • havp226 December 2010
    If you're the typical movie watcher i.e. you demand to be spoon fed what would widely be considered quality entertainment, then you may not have what it takes to fully (or even partially) appreciate a movie like this. In the bell curve of movie quality, you have the wide mediocre middle bracketed by the thin extremes; "Thor: The Hammer of the Gods" earns its way into one of those thin ends! The plot, the acting, the actors, the action, the special effects, the directing--each is part of what makes up the sublime experience of, well, experiencing this desperate attempt by all involved in its production to create something good...and ultimately, inadvertently, creating something much, much better! If you're the atypical movie watcher, prepare the popcorn, get comfortable, and get ready to be entertained!!!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Awful! I was mislead by the title of this movie. They use the name of Thor to sell it and it just doesn't match up to the expectations of a Norse war God. Doesn't qualify as an adventure movie, nor as a horror movie. More like low-budget fantasy. The acting is poor. The actor who plays Thor is not convincing at all.

    The warrior costumes look like the ones you can buy for Halloween. The film starts out of nowhere and the plot line is weak, oh how weak. The fighting scenes are dull, the werewolves look like rabid dogs wearing trousers. Special effects are as good as in the 80's

    ++++++++++++++ Spoilers ++++++++++++++++++++ Well if you really care to watch this, these are spoilers below.

    The scene where Baldur cuts off the rope bridge is just lame. When Thor throws two spears at the two werewolves, the second spear slows down in the air before hitting the wolf. Very bad editing. The special 'defect' of the wolf-woman shape-shifting back into woman is ridiculous! And the end is so predictable.

    In a nutshell, don't waste your time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Wow. In addition to being horrible for all of the reasons already listed, the plot was completely stolen from Dog Soldiers.

    The British soldiers are swapped for Vikings with the names, and vaguely, the personality traits of Norse gods, and a few villagers as the zoologist/farmhouse family. As far as I can tell, there is no similar plot in Norse Mythology. I could see the twist coming from a mile away. It totally ruined the reveal for me.

    A pale rip-off of the best werewolf movie ever made, with an Eaters Of The Dead/13th Warrior setting, and a title stolen from Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song." Sad.
  • jabrbi27 January 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    OK, it's bad. It's just not THAT bad.

    Here's the check list:

    1) Wooden acting? (Tick)

    2) Terrible dialogue? (Tick)

    3) Weird accents? (Tick)

    4) Awful CGI? (Tick)

    5) Naff monsters? (Tick)

    6) Bewildering decisions/actions? (Tick)

    7) Non-sensical plot? (Tick)

    8) Primitive special effects? (Tick)

    Not a lot going for it really, and yet. The acting, whilst poor is a whole lot better than many low budget films I've seen recently. The dialogue is certainly strained, but it does help to create a certain mood. The hero, Thor, whilst looking a bit round in the face, and lacking any signs of intelligence, is certainly stupidly brave, which is exactly how I imagine the dim-witted Norse god to be.

    Overall, it's an entertaining enough romp that doesn't require much brain power to enjoy and it does make some sense by the end.

    The god Thor died whilst battling Jormungand, leaving Mjolnir, his mystical hammer, behind on Earth. Thor is then reborn as a human and, together with his two brothers, sets off to seek new lands to conquer and claim as his own. They arrive on an island, only to find that others have reached the island before them. There then ensues a battle with werewolves on the island for possession of Mjolnir - Thor has returned to the site of his death. It's not stated, but the implication is that if Thor can be reunited with Mjolnir then he will regain his godhood.

    Given that as the setup, the film does make a sort of sense, and it's a mythical tale that involves a lot of familial revenge, and honour, and dying for a cause, so it's just like most of the films made in the last 100 years. With a decent script and actors able to act and a bigger budget so that more than 4 acres of woods can be used to represent the island, then there'd be a damn good blockbuster waiting to resurrect the myth and magic genre that has lacked a decent representative since the 1960's.

    As it is, the film fails on almost every count, but I'd happily watch it on a wet Sunday in January with a cup of warm cocoa.
  • All things considered, it was a good movie for a SciFi production. As usual, the acting wasn't stellar, but better than some I've seen. And they spared us too many well-intentioned but poorly-executed CGI effects. Although, they could have gone for something more than over-sized wolf's heads with no body hair. It took me a little while during the movie, along with simultaneous googling, Wikipedia'ing, and IMDb'ing, to understand that this was not the telling of the original story, but its retelling. The recycling of some of the names was clever. But now I am wondering about what would happen next in this new storyline. Maybe we'll find out some day.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw this without any real expectations and totally on a lark but I liked it! Yes, some parts of the movie were really bad or slow and the big bad guy was really really badly done BUT I think that all gave this movie a very campy character to it. It reminded me of third season Doctor Who's where everything is fake and bad but yet the whole is really enjoyable.

    ** Spoilers ** I thought that this movie gave you a real feel for how Norsemen might have talked and felt about things. Not in a truly documentary way but far more realistically than in most movies. I think people don't register how different believes could create dialog like that. If a good death is the ultimate prize then they would say things like 'too bad you didn't die in that great battle'!

    I especially liked the fact that the women were not at all helpless. Any women taken on a ship to an unknown destination would have to be some tough stuff. Speaking of women - I really really liked the evil villainess wolf. I thought she did the part very well and sort of saved the film. Can anyone tell me who that actress is? She does not show in the cast list here and I could not find it online.

    It would actually be nice to see a sequel to this but I don't see where there are enough characters left for that. Besides, people don't appear to be open-minded enough to give it a chance. Oh well, color it one of my guilty pleasures!
  • I admit I wasn't expecting much considering SyFy's usual standard, but not in a couple of months have I seen a movie of theirs this bad. For instance it looks cheap, with costumes more reminiscent of fancy dress and settings that suffer from a lack of authenticity. The camera work and editing all feels very slipshod, the lack of quality in the effects suggest that those involved were more concerned about quantity instead of the other way around and the swordplay is clumsy and almost cartoon-ish. The script is cheesy with none of the lines of dialogue ringing true, the direction is sluggish and never feels sure about what it wants and the story is unexciting and predictable. The acting is terrible with the lead especially uncharismatic, but they are not helped by the underdeveloped walking clichés that are the characters. All in all, I have seen a lot of bad SyFy movies, but Hammer of the Gods is down there as one of the worst. 0/10 Bethany Cox
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was a lot better than I could have expected. The story is an interesting spin-off of the original story of Thor. While some of the lesser characters where terrible actors, the majority of the cast had a great performance. The dialog was clever and original and each character had his/her own unique qualities. The music had a good affect on the atmosphere of the scenes and really paid off in the end. The scene where Baldur dies was portrayed quite nicely and had a tint of sorrow to go with it, which is a good thing. The effects were pretty good for the most part especially with Ulfrich's great vertical-slice death scene. Overall the movie is a good fantasy film with cool aspects for an enjoyable experience.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all, to those who are saying this is untrue to Norse mythology... Thor fought the world serpent AT RAGNAROK, and all the gods died... Even Fenriz, etc... SO, my understanding is that this movie is based on events that happened AFTER the great "Norse Armageddon..." The creators of this movie obviously had this in mind, when the character playing Thor had flashes of his battle with the world serpent... I thought some of the period costumes looked a little off, especially the helmets (and no, Vikings DID NOT have horns on them!) and the dialog could have used some work. I DID appreciate the "warrior's humor," however, and there was quite a bit of that. Reincarnation of the gods into mortals is obviously what the filmmakers were going for, otherwise how would it have been possible for Baldur to die on a bridge (not a rainbow bridge, Viking joke there) and Tyr to be slain. Reincarnated as mortals gives this story more credibility. That being said, the great Fenriz (did you know Fenriz is one of the founding members of Norwegian black metal band Darkthrone? Side note.) looked quite cheesy; the werewolf characters were a bit more believable than the main villain. As I said, the storyline is believable according to Nordic legend, IF you take into consideration (and it's easy to see from watching the film) that the filmmakers obviously thought the gods were reincarnated into mortals. However, this does NOT explain how Odin still sits in the great hall at Valhalla, as Odin was slain as well in the last great battle (by Fenrir, no less; this is the proper Nordic name for Fenriz the wolf). Not a terrible movie by any means, but once again, it's a movie not a history lesson...
  • Just for clarification on profession ability alone I give this a "0" rating. Oh my God who in the h*** wrote this tripe (yes I know ... look it up .... smartasses). An incredible and absolute poor decision on any of these actors who accepted a part in the making of this film ... you the actors should have chosen a different career path unless you are truly desperate. Zachary was an impeccable actor on Home improvement but this was a poor career choice on his part. His ability to convey a convincing Thor much less the director and the writers. Somebody was desperate. This film never should have been made. I finally found the courage to watch it (pure curiosity) and just couldn't because it was so stupid beyond belief. Now I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of Criticism myself from those who read this but seriously you need to watch this and then you'll understand. And anybody who grew up reading any of the comic books for Marvel regarding the Thor character would share the same skepticism. I've seen my fair share of b-movies but this one is not even worth a "z" to the 25th power. I don't know what the h*** you would call it but there are some parts that some actors should turn down and this was one that Zachary should have turned down . Zachary you're a way better Actor than this and it is my strong recommendation that you not list this as one of your accomplishments in your Career.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Yes there is no big battle of a big giant Thor, he keeps seeing in his dreams. But my brother 34 didnt really like it, but i saw it for what it was. What others mostly don't see. Zachery Ty Bryan, a great actor, who barely gets movie time, as other IMO actors that have NO talent and horrible personality. Like James i call him from King of Queens,terrible actor , Mel Gibson only one i can stand him is Mad Max, Nicholas Gayge i mean Cage. Tom Cruise terrible. IMO But here is a guy that his face and skill us underrated, i loved this movie dispite the hate, usually i like some movies most give terrible reviews. I see some differently not a picky guy, but if their bad, their bad.

    But as start there is some cool vikings. Thor, (Bryan) sees visions of a buge man with a Hammer Of the Gods, his brother Baldur or so spelled he is awesome he reminds me of someone from Lord of Rings or the Hobbitt. Hes a cool leader and cool personality. They fight half human/ half wolf some are cool showing of the werewolves and some is still better than alot i seen. But either way they battle and it so so tricks you of the people in a shed that acts like they never did anything but eat bugs etc. But the truth is they are werewolves too and the woman in it is really bad. The mid age brother itake it dies killing some of the wolves., from a bridge.

    Thor fights his older brother a couple times and the wolves again are decently cool, its not boring to me it has fighting wolves one wolfman, devours a guys arm being loyal to Thor from giving any infro the other kidnap viking blabs and his devoured.

    Many hate this movie, but i see a cooler version of any other i saw especially the latest of the thors their .. well boring to me. This had action fighting cool vikings and were wolfs of a sort through part man, looked good the newest was very boring to me. Just Thor getting kicked out, goes to earth, tries to hit on a woman keeps thinking hes beyond powerful kinda of a jerk, to be honest, sneaks around a miltary base, tries to grab the hammer cant. Then feds are after him .. *Yawns* This had wolves them trying to fight them battle them (BRYAN!!!!!!!!!) of course. Just really hated for no real reason. I Love it and thats my story, and i am sticking to it....
  • WeAreLive23 October 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie isn't bad or worse then everyone says it is.

    I recorded this movie to watch my swimming lesson and I have to admit the reason why I put it on record was that I thought this movie was something with Thor 2011 and Thor Dark Worlds but I guess I was wrong.

    Even though this was never the case I still think the movie has good acting and special effects.
An error has occured. Please try again.