NYT doesn't like 'Thor,' but I'll see it anyway.

The New York Times' review of Thor is so vicious it borders on genius.

Check out these passages:

"Mr. Branagh has not failed to make an interesting, lively, emotionally satisfying superhero movie, because there is no evidence that he (or the gaggle of credited screenwriters, or Paramount, the sponsoring studio) ever intended to make any such thing."

"If you can’t remember what you saw, then there’s no harm in seeing it again. There is no reason to go to this movie, which might be another way of saying there’s no reason not to. Something like that seems to be the logic behind 'Thor,' and as a business plan it’s probably foolproof."

I get the sense this reviewer, A.O. Scott, tends not to like movies like this one, and that a film based on a comic books is rather beneath him. He says in his rebuke of Thor that those who liked Iron Man, for example, thought it was better than it actually was.

I say: Bruh, get over yourself. It's a move based on a comic book! You don't go to see Thor to learn greater truths about the human condition. You watch it to see shit blow up.