Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Thor: The Dark World  >  Reviews  >  Financial Times

Nigel Andrew’s Diminutive “Thor” Struggles to Find Coherence

In response to Nigel Andrews’s 118‑word review of Thor: The Dark World on Financial Times 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3dba8c20-4248-11e3-bb85-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Flife-arts_film-television%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2jKWLLeV6

By ,

It’s a question as old as time and one that has plagued philosophers and scientists throughout the ages; can a film be adequately reviewed in 118 words? Aristotle had his take, as did Kierkegaard, but they were both wrong.

Nigel Andrews has proven, once and for all with his “Thor: The Dark World review”, that it can not be done. Unfortunately, this won’t stop him from testing his experiment with readers over and over again (though this one is short even by Financial Times standards).

Once again, Andrews has given audiences the Cliffs Notes version of the Cliffs Notes version with his “Thor: The Dark World – review” and, once again, it’s full of non sequiturs, non starters, and just plain nonsense.  

As is his wont, Andrews jarringly jumps from idea to idea without anything resembling flow or coherence, crowbarring in jokes and descriptions with a seeming disregard for logic. This isn’t stream of consciousness, it’s stream of gibberish.

Even for its appallingly minuscule size, Andrews manages to cram some spoilers in there, giving away an ending sequence and revealing a surprise locale from the film.  

Of all the reviews, in all the outlets across the globe, why would you pick this one?   

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation