[Rob Babcock]

Skaarsgard was superb, as always, although he was also under-utilized.  So many fine actors in what amounts to bit parts.  Hell, even Portman lacked screen time.

I'm looking forward to the Avengers!

[mclsound]

No more 3D for me as it loses the movies intention as being real....and make it to fake.
I seen thor in both versions and then Captain A in 3D(good movie) and 3D ruins it.

[BobRex]

  Although Hawkeye is one of the lamer characters in the Marvel Universe, the fact that he'll be played by Jeremy Renner gives me reason to hope the Avengers will be good.

Oh, I dunno about that.  Hawkeye has been a major fan favorite for many,many years.  There was quite a stink when Roy Thomas tried to revamp/replace the character by creating Goliath II (way back in Avengers 63 or so, memory's kinda rusty), and there was a fairly large groundswell of support when he was brought back.  Also, he was a major character in the Thunderbolts.  I find him a much better (more fully resolved) character than, say, Oliver Queen.

[wushuliu]

Skaarsgard was superb, as always, although he was also under-utilized.  So many fine actors in what amounts to bit parts.  Hell, even Portman lacked screen time.

I'm looking forward to the Avengers!

I don't care so much for the pseudo-historical 'King Arthur' movie from a few years ago, but Skaarsgard out-brando'd Brando as the mumbling bad@ss leader of the Picts(?). Pure love for the man.

[Rclark]

After seeing all the negative press about this one I had very low expectations, but I really loved it!  I thought the casting was very good.  Chris Hemsworth is about as close as a real human is gonna get at living up to the look of the comic book character.  Portman isn't given a lot to work with but she's easy on the eyes and is always good.  Although Hawkeye is one of the lamer characters in the Marvel Universe, the fact that he'll be played by Jeremy Renner gives me reason to hope the Avengers will be good.

The story was actually pretty good IMOHO.  I'm not sure where all the negative press came from.  The effects were good and rarely overwhelmed the story.  Sure it's bombastic and over the top, but it has to be- they're gods after all!  Like most of the fanboys I would have done a few things differently.  The Destroyer was a wimp compared to the "real" one!   And it's pretty comical to throw in some black Norse gods just to be 21st century "PC."  Still, I'd have to give it a 3 out of 4.  Not as good as Iron Man 1 or 2, or the last two Dark Knight films, but a cut above the average super hero flick.  Certainly better than either Hulk movies, Daredevil, Punisher, Superman, etc.

 I take issue with you here, the first Hulk movie was magnificent, far, far, far, far, far better than that actor vehicle that was the "reboot".

 The first hulk movie NAILED it. The people that liked the new version better, don't know what the F they're talking about.

 IMO 

[Rob Babcock]

I didn't hate the Ang Lee Hulk film.  Mostly I found the effects laughable.  Bana & Connelly were both very good, and you can't beat Sam Elliot.  The second movie had somewhat better effects but a worse story/script.  I was occasionally put off by Ang's use of goofy wipes and effects, though.

As for Hawkeye I realize the character has many fans, just doesn't "do it" for me.  Again, Renner will undoubtedly make him compelling.  But shooting stuff with a bow and arrow strikes me as pretty lame compared to the powers of Iron Man or Thor.  Some of the best characters have "weak" powers or no powers at all (eg Batman, Daredevil, Captain America) but they have to have some "hook" to make them interesting.  JMOHO.

[Rclark]

 You thought the effects were laughable? I thought it was a much more convincing hulk. The action scenes were much much better. And the attention to detail, the cutaways, and the way they incorporated a certain "look" from the 70's tv show...

 I loved it, it's honestly probably my favorite of all the superhero movies so far. Although Thor, and of course, both Iron Man 1 and 2 are way up there.

[Rob Babcock]

You thought the effects were laughable? I thought it was a much more convincing hulk. The action scenes were much much better. And the attention to detail, the cutaways, and the way they incorporated a certain "look" from the 70's tv show...

 I loved it, it's honestly probably my favorite of all the superhero movies so far. Although Thor, and of course, both Iron Man 1 and 2 are way up there.

As a long time comic collector the 70's "hulk" tv show is an abomination.  Yeah, I got a soft spot for nostalgia but the show was horrible.  And again, as a comic geek, I have the same reservations about the "Hulk" as I do about "Superman."  They're both Monty Haul/wish fulfillment characters that were created to "one-up" their commercial rivals.  As a serious comic book fan both embarrass me greatly.

The material deserves respect as serious art.  But at most we can expect great trash. 

Sad.

[wushuliu]

I am a fan of the Ang Hulk as well but it has to be a cringe-worthy watch for comic book fans; leave it to Ang Lee to turn a beloved superhero into an oedipal psychodrama  .

I don't even remember what the reboot was about aside from Tim Roth sleepwalking towards a huge paycheck.

[Noseyears]

After this, we will need to wait until 2013 for the sequel. Lets hope is more intense, with more action scenes.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/06/30/thor-sequel-2013-branagh/

[acninja]

this is one of those visually stunning movies that i would actually recommend seeing in 3d.

it was also a decent movie in its own right.  definitely a must see if you are in to the whole avengers theme