REVIEW: THOR: THE DARK WORLD

"Iron Man 3" has left me with a bitter aftertaste since early May, so my expectations for the sequel to 2011's "Thor" were not the highest. Before the "Iron Man" threequel "Thor" had previously been my least enjoyed Marvel, and it wasn't even a bad flick. I didn't enjoy Thor's extremely cocky attitude (RDJ played it off much better in the original "Iron Man" with that smart alack snark) Natalie Portman's sidekick Darcy (played by the usually funny Kat Dennings) and a general lack of enjoyment. So I imagine this is how the meeting went at Marvel, to vamp up Thor's already improved image post-"Avengers:"

MARVEL: So none of you liked Kat Dennings' character right?

WORLD: NO.

MARVEL: She was annoying and added nearly no purpose to the film?

WORLD: YES.

MARVEL: So what you're saying is you want her back in the sequel?

WORLD: NOOO!

MARVEL: Right. Silly suggestion. You're saying you want her back in the sequel AND for us to give her a sidekick of her own?

WORLD: NOOO-

MARVEL: Well, if you all insist.

That's right. The most annoying part of the Marvel series (hold for Mickey Rourke's accent in "Iron Man 2" maybe) is back, and she has a less annoying sidekick/possible romantic involvement. That kind of thing just makes me thing Marvel and the studios really are just ignoring the fans. And it's not just Dennings, she didn't single-handedly become the Jar-Jar Binks of the "Thor" series, but that annoying, LAME humor inserted into places unneeded like in "Iron Man 3" kept popping up in "The Dark World." I'm not asking for "Dark Knight" level gravity in every scene, but find that right balance that first "Iron Man" achieved gracefully!

Aside from the usually throwaway chuckles, "The Dark World" does have two great anchors. No not Thor and Natalie Portman silly, she's too busy being the damsel in distress. No, the obvious thief of the audience's attention goes to Loki, who's even more conniving and devilish in this than "Avengers," because here, since he's locked up in an Asgardian prison, you can just see he's cooking up something for "Age of Ultron." Malekith, the chief Dark Elf that Thor faces against, explained in a mythology better unraveled by comic books probably, whose name is Malekith, is...serviceable. He doesn't have Loki's snark, Rourke's accent or even the Lizard's visual appeal as a Marvel villain. He's just...predictably evil, and creepy looking.

But Hemsworth's charm exudes more in the sequel, and his bravura showiness is replaced with Shakespearean burden featuring his ever present father, his jailed brother and his human love. (Even though Odin at the beginning says "We're not gods, Thor." HUH? I thought that was his whole thing...THAT THEY WERE ALL GODS.) But I digress. I realized maybe story, writing and exposition weren't "Thor's" strong suits. The film does have some vivid, beautiful effects and fairly gripping action sequences that improve on the original's. If its lacking any comic book roots, the violence and action do serve as a balancing beam.

Overall I still liked "The Dark World" way better than "Iron Man 3," that's a fact. And, right before the screening, "The Winter Soldier" trailer played, and I realized something fairly unique about this current superhero movie franchise: even when you have a dud, a lame villain, a useless sidekick or a complex plot, there's always another one. Always another one coming out next year and so on, where there are endless chances to be entertained, endless plots to be discussed. "The Dark Knight" took the modern superhero movie to the next level, sometimes it's OK to see one where you can just switch your brain off.

Rating: 2/4 stars