The so-called "villain" is a joke. He looks like a reject from The Muppets. For starters.

Aside from the huge disrespect it does to the original Malekith/Coffer of Ancient Winters story arc in Thor comics, this movie made many missteps.

Here are two things I hated (may add more later if my dander is re-awoken my this walk down memory's wounds)

1. Loki is supposed to be a seriously powerful sorcerer. They have him resort to an attack via dagger instead of some powerful sorcery. He is underplayed throughout the movie.

2. They make Asgard the Death Star with sci-fi turrets. In the same vein of sin they give the dark elves laser guns and spaceships. Not to mention goblins with rocket launchers. Turning the Norse mythology into just misunderstood technology is super irritating. I know that there are those that cite Kirby's renderings of Asgard as evidence of early cannon tech but I tell you that Kirby used energy staves and wands and not laser guns. He kept things in a medieval setting. I'm sure one could find one or two examples from Kirby that show a gun in a Monster's hands but those are exceptions to the overreaching rule. If Thor Dark World showed the dark elves using magic to conquer some alien spaceship, I would have been OK with that. I can't think of what would make me be OK with laser turrets on the Asgard battlements.

i think so far Thor have been Marvel's weakest outings but i like this one well enough aside from the villain.

the ending was a pretty cool Wow Me.

the first one had better comic relief.

The device of the "aether" and the darkness it would spread just felt entirely too esoteric to me as the villain's weapon.

Honestly I think the biggest problem with this movie is expectations. Sequels are about escalation, and people expected a villain on par or even beyond the villain of the first movie. If this was Thor 1 instead of Thor 2 it might have had a different reaction with audiences. I didn't mind Malekith one bit; Loki stopped being a threat and more a frienemy with Avengers 1, which came out 1 year before. So the slot was vacant....though in the minds of some moviegoers (maybe most) Loki>Malekith therefore it sucks. Which I don't think is fair, but, what can you do, majority rules.

As far as discrepancies with the comic go, I wouldn't really know. But from other people's posts it doesn't sound good.

I look at a movie more in terms of it's achievements as a film. For me that's more important. And I can't think of a single positive thing to say about Thor: The Dark World.

The first film had a few decent 'fish out of water' jokes that made it bearable. Thor 2 loses even these and descends into complete Carry On Norse-ing humour. Thor taking his top off and Academy Award winning actress Natalie Portman passing out. Over and over again.

The whole look is tacky Flash Gordonesque. It's horrible and undermines any attempt at gravitas in either film.

There's not one bit of proper action in the whole (very expensive) film. Just CGI twaddle.

The story? I can't remember and don't really care. All the dialogue and story beats were so mundane and delivered with such a panto feel that it was impossible to engage with any of it. The only reason I endured to the end was to keep up with the wider MCU story.

So it's a pitiful film either way you look at it.

Not only is it the worst MCU film but I'd also say it's one of the worst blockbusters of the last 5 years.

Thank the Gods for Taika Waititi.

I watched this last night. Was it supposed to make me laugh?

@JustinJackFlash said:

Thank the Gods for Taika Waititi.

Soon to be released "Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)".

@tmdb13060682 said:

I saw it in the theater and thought it was pretty bland, but, after rewatching it, I think it's better than the first.

Where am I wrong?

I thought this at the theater itself FWIW. This is simply a better movie than the first one.