Friday, May 6, 2011

The Mighty Thor

If you keep track of the movies via such sites as,, and, you probably have heard that roaring thunder just over the horizon for some time now: Thor is going to be great. In fact, it's probably going to be the biggest single blockbuster of 2011.

RottenTomatoes weighed in earlier in the week with a massive 83% T-Meter, and an audience profile indicating that 92% of all Rottentomatoes readers wanted to see this movie. The score has fallen a bit, but this is still the highest-rated large-scale release on the board. By a vote of 148-37, the critics are saying this move is pretty fresh. 83% of audience members liked the movie.

I just got back from seeing Thor just a few moments ago. I loved it. There is a whole lot of entertainment and fun in this movie. This is good stuff, Maynard. This is probably my favorite movie of the year, with all due respect to The Adjustment Bureau. {Incidentally, Matt Damon was terrific in that flick. Obama was just trying to bust his balls.}

Yes, there are a few little quibbles here and there with this implementation of Thor. Thor was betrothed to the lady Sif, there was no Jane Foster hanging around. To be honest, they are running with a reboot origin that doesn't match the original comic book. Also, Loki was never a Frost Giant; neither in Norse Mythology nor the comic book

Frankly, none of this matters. Everything works well in the movie. Kenneth Branagh is to be congratulated for a stellar job directing. I can't believe this Shakespearian actor would ever have had an interest in directing a Marvel Comic book adaptation. (!!!) He must have been attracted the royal intrigue and grandeur of it all. Certainly, these themes are more than evident his past work like Henry V and Hamlet.

During the course of the movie, I wondered why it was all working so well. Largely, it was a bunch of well-cast actors making a good script shine. The effects and the 3d stuff are there in abundance, and give the movie a ton of visual appeal, but you like this story and these characters in the story. This is the thing that stayed with me.

Of course, you know I had to have a look at the cast list and their birthdays. I can tell you the Casting Directors made some very interesting choices Astrologically speaking. Oh yeah? Like what?

How about casting Anthony Hopkins (Capricorn) as Odin, the king of the universe? Capricorn is frequently called the greatest of the cardinal leadership signs. Consult Chuck Noll and Don Shula about that. We have no doubt that Anthony Hopkins is the king of the universe either. You're quite convinced that he's a great one, also. You know the archetype of Capricorn is "Father", right? This one is playing the "All-father".

The problem is that this king has a pair sons astrologically incompatible with himself. They are Chris Hemsworth (a Leo), and Tom Hiddleston (an Aquarius), and neither is a cardinal. Who shall he give the throne of the universe too when neither is the ideal type? One of these two will have to succeed him. It is interesting that the casting director chose to make a Thor a Leo, and his brother/enemy Loki an Aquarius.

Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Leo is the Hero/King? Did you happen to know that the Archetype of Aquarius is the Anti-Hero/Revolutionary rebel? Yep, check it out. Yet these are 180 degree opposites who have a strong complementarity, along with tremendous differences.

Reference Tom Brady and Randy Moss for an example of these differences and complementarity. For some, Brady would make a pretty good hero/king, and Moss would make a pretty good anti-hero/rebel. Yet the two of them came together for a time and had great dynamism.

Hemsworth is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be a Leo. He's a noble warrior, and seems like royalty. He even looks like a fucking lion. His leadership charisma is great, but his decision making is questionable. He is a hot head, and he wants battle and glory. He loves the spot light and loves to be the center of attention. He's loves it as all of Asgard shows up to cheer his proclamation as heir to the throne.

Hiddleston is a pretty damn good example of what it is to be an Aquarius. He's brainy. He's unconventional. He's more than a little bit bent. He's pretty otherworldly. He's not a particularly good looking leader from the Charisma standpoint, but you believe he has the brains for the job.

I don't know what you thought, but I thought these two guys had great acting chemistry together.

Naturally, you can understand why a Capricorn leader like Hopkins would have doubts about both of these boys. You can also understand why he had to chose the Leo son. Nevertheless, they have their conflicts. Firey Leo-Thor is a hot head. He wants to break out the chariots of victory and go to war. A stable, solid, realistic, feet-on-the-ground, down-to-earth, pragmatic, utilitarian, honest Capricorn King knows why that isn't a good idea. They have a pretty big wing-ding over it too.

It's all totally believable. Given the people you are looking at on screen, you just naturally believe this is what would happen.

This isn't the only bit of interesting astrological architecture going on in the flick. It's interesting that they give Thor two Sagittarius buddies, and Gemini for the Warrior-3. So you have two fire budies and an air sign for Leo-Thor's side-kicks. Perfect.

Sif is the non-conforming piece of data. She is a Pisces; incompatible with everybody. She must have been somebody's girlfriend.

Then we have the scientific trio of Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings. Guess what? All three scientists are Geminis. Gemini is a mental and mercurial sign, just fine for science. They are also nicely aspected towards a Leo like Hemsworth.

Incidentally, Portman and Hemsworth sure seem to have some sensational chemistry together. This would be typical. Gemini chicks frequently go after Leo boys. Interestingly enough, when you look at their numbers (using Sirus 1.1) they have some fantastic scores... in everything but romantic and sexual attraction. They aught to be in business together, and given this movie, I guess they are.

Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth
Data for Natalie Portman: Data for Chris Hemsworth:
June 9, 1981 August 11, 1983
12:00 PM 12:00 PM
Standard time observed Standard time observed
Jerusalem, Israel Melbourne, Australia
31 N 46 35 E 14 37 S 49 144 E 58
Time Zone: 2 hours East Time Zone: 10 hours East

Sun 18 deg 28 min Gemini Sun 17 deg 51 min Leo
Moon 17 deg 44 min Virgo Moon 20 deg 14 min Virgo
Mercury 5 deg 13 min Cancer Mercury 13 deg 48 min Virgo
Venus 5 deg 04 min Cancer Venus 8 deg 28 min Virgo
Mars 2 deg 59 min Gemini Mars 28 deg 18 min Cancer
Jupiter 0 deg 41 min Libra Jupiter 1 deg 19 min Sagittarius
Saturn 3 deg 01 min Libra Saturn 29 deg 02 min Libra
Uranus 27 deg 15 min Scorpio Uranus 5 deg 04 min Sagittarius
Neptune 23 deg 37 min Sagittarius Neptune 26 deg 40 min Sagittarius
Pluto 21 deg 40 min Libra Pluto 27 deg 03 min Libra
Asc. 23 deg 55 min Virgo Asc. 3 deg 07 min Sagittarius
MC 23 deg 30 min Gemini MC 11 deg 29 min Leo

Category Totals

1. Romantic and Sexual Attraction: 32
2. Similarity of Interests and Temperament: 257
3. Mutual Success and High Achievement: 223
4. Problem Solving, Communication, and Mutual Understanding: 75
5. Mutual Kindness, Friendliness, Pleasantness, and Peace: 184
6. Aggressiveness, Competition, Power, Success, or Violence: 143
7. Adventurousness, Surprises, Disturbances: 131
8. Shared Creativity, Imagination, and Inspiration: 34

Given above are your compatibility scores in 8 different categories. A score of 100 is average. A score above 100 indicates that the trait is strong, and a score below 100 indicates that the trait is weak. More specifically, you can interpret the scores as follows:

Above 150 is very high. This trait is VERY strong!
125 to 150 is above average. The trait is strong.
115 to 125 is slightly above average. The trait is slightly strong.
85 to 115 is average.
75 to 85 is slightly below average. The trait is slightly weak.
50 to 75 is weak.
50 or lower is VERY weak!