The movie lives up to the trailers, and Loki, thank Odin, is better than ever.

The Dark World solves many of the problems I had with the first movie in the Thor series, which was a thurrough "meh." It also avoids many of the problems in Iron Man 3, in which Tony Stark didn't spend much time as his alter ego and the villain was a disappointment. So what did it get right? The Dark World takes place on an epic scope, spanning many battle locations and featuring a lot of destruction. There was a battle on Asgard, which is what I wanted to see in the first movie. The hero finds himself genuinely distressed and pushed against threats that could easily be his undoing. Problems take time, sweat, and heroism to solve. Thor's character is more likable. Jane Foster becomes worth Natalie Portman's time. Prominent characters die. More time is spent in his gigantic fantasy world. And Loki is twice as devious as he was before.

There are of course flaws. Malekith is a Dark Elf who's pretty much exactly that. I can't think of any other ways of describing him. His character doesn't have a ton of depth, and it's not as if he has the gravitas of twenty Oscar winners. However, I think most people would prefer a villain like this to the underwhelming Mandarin in Iron Man 3. As far as I can tell, he doesn't trample upon any sacred ground and he has some cool presence, enough to justify the spike he gives to the threat level barometers. His legendary background is enough for me, and what matters is that he destroys buildings in Asgard. He's not as good as Loki was in the first film, but that's okay. Loki's still in this film, predictably playing the unpredictable trickster who's helpful enough to the hero to help himself.

Even before the action begins, the film is stunning. I'm a sucker for sets, and The Dark World has plenty of them. I'm willing to forgive the backdrops that could only be accomplished through CGI; the amazing sets and costumes for Asgard make it all worth it. The first act of the film is spectacular and pleasing to look at for how atmospheric it is. I especially fell in love with the brief scenes in which it was snowing in Asgard. It made me immediately wish I had seen it in 3D, because there was a lot of depth to the world, literally. The director made sure to capture as much of the realm as possible, so it was an excuse to slow down the camera work. It's fun to watch the characters, but the characters wouldn't be near as much fun if it wasn't for the fantasy-adventure environment they were in.

Considering that the last superhero film I watched was Man of Steel, it's pretty fair to say that The Dark World provided a much better example of cinematography that allows you to actually see what you're looking at. That's really useful when the action can often times be difficult to follow. By no means is this cinematographic genius, but I'm glad that the director knew what he was doing and it's far closer to what I was hoping from a Thor movie.

Again, I must emphasize how much I love that much of this took place in realms other than Earth. It's far more befitting for a character such as Thor, and it also does a good job of expanding the Marvel universe than any of the other Superhero movies do. It seems that the Thor universe is the one that keeps the others going, even though people often like to call The Avengers by the nickname Iron Man 2.5. Tony Stark is a better entertainer and showman, but Thor's the one who actually puts everything in locomotion. To further evidence that claim, is appears that by the time the after-credits scene rolls around, it's already setting up the conflict for the next movie. It appears that once again an Avengers movie will revolve around a relic from the Thor universe. Which is perfectly fine for me, since a superhero universe needs its mythology to pull from and Thor has plenty of it.

Speaking of an end credit scene, stay until the very end, because there are two of them.

The Dark World did lack somewhat in terms of battles, which could have been more epicly shot, but I realize that this isn't a war movie, but a hero movie. The story revolves around a central character, not an ensemble cast. So I missed out on the opportunity to see an Avengers-style fight during Asgard's invasion. I didn't see quite as much destruction as I wanted, but it was enough to fill in the void left at the end of Thor. I got to see more of Thor's supporting characters and their relevance in his world, and I got to see them contribute more to the conflict. Making up for the lack of any Lord of the Rings style battles was the portals in this movie, which were used as I have always wanted portals to be used. That is to say, creatively and unpredictably. I always loved the use of interdimensional portals in science fiction. In fact, I think they were one of my very first notions of science fantasy, and they feature prominently in my own science fantasy epic.. Now that I think about it, my very first notion of portals being so awesome came from a Thor comic back in the October of 1993! How fitting that I finally get to see them properly used in a battle in this movie.

The science-fiction-ness of the portals made the final battle somewhat worth the fact that it took place on Earth. I mean, I still think that it should have taken place somewhere else, for the sake of the scale of it all. A battle on the lava planet seen through one of the portals would have been more interesting, or on some other planet's capital city. Instead, it takes place in England, and there aren't even that many skyscrapers. I would have prefered portals and a fantastic other world, but I suppose I could live with just portals. Besides, they still allowed the characters to essentially teleport unexpectedly from one realm to the next in what I can only call a four-dimensional battle.

As usual, when Christopher Eccleston visits London, science fiction mayhem ensues. Chris and Christ battle together, and the portal element makes for perhaps the best part, though I will agree with the one Christ when he says that he expected that a villain with such a powerful MacGuffin would hit harder. It actually goes both ways, since Chris's hammer's worth has devalued since the last film. Apparently the most powerful weapon ever created it is not, and important bad guys seem to be able to take quite a few hits from it, and Thor manages to lose his hold of it numerous times as it flies around without an owner. He seems to get hurt easily enough, and the cuts on his face don't heal immediately. The villain also seems to be able to survive Thor's hammer but can also get pierces by a spike of ordinary metal at the end. Granted, it didn't kill him or anything, but considering that for plot convenience it could at least stick to him. There were other places where something seemed off about the physics of the film, or at least the consistency of how things worked, but upon this first examination it's still far better than most other Superhero films released lately. At least it all works in part due to the timey-whimey wibbly-wobbly stuff at the climax.

That being said, this version of Thor would definitely lose in a fight against any version of Superman. Even Season One of Smallville's Clark Kent could beat him in a superhero boxing match. Thor would never lie his hammer on the red-blue blur. And the recent Man of Steel version who never used superspeed? Even before he could fly, his natural movement showed that he was far more powerful than Thor, and he also developed laser vision pretty early on. Batman, however, Thor could take on.

In the end, I would say that this does a far better job as an origin story than the first film. Then again, does Thor really need an origin? He's a god, and that's really all there is to say on the matter. Thor was an almost unnecessary film save for its function as a means of setting up for The Avengers. The Dark World functions really well on its own and can be seen without having watched Thor. The character himself is more natural, down to his appearance, in which his hair looks real and the actor, Chris Hemsworth, didn't die his beard a fake-looking yellow. He also isn't forced to undergo character development in a day and a half.

If anything, the first movie was an origin story for Loki. The Avengers was just a transition film for him, in which he showed up, executed what Tony Stark called a "bad plan", and went out lacking much of the charm that was necessary for the precise role in the story given to him. He returned with a blaze of glory in The Dark World as a secondary villain, or anti-hero, or whatever he was. And he shined, baby, shined! Just as charismatic as the first time, just as well-developed, and just as internally conflicted. One thing is a little different, however. Asides from being a backstabbing sidekick for Thor and a character who demands constant attention and guesswork because of his tricky nature, his unpredictability has become slightly more predictable than before now that it has been exposed for what it really is. Whenever anything happens with Loki onscreen, I'm very alert and contemplating the various ways in which he might pull off a deception. This time, I managed to call a lot of his tricks beforehand. The only time I was surprised was when Thor made for a slight of hand. His antiques are nevertheless very clever and well-executed and helped drive the story forward, and just because I could see them coming doesn't mean that I still couldn't enjoy some of the mysteries he presented me with. For example, he would off and on impersonate other characters, very convincingly, and I can't help but wonder what those characters would have actually said and done, and if they would have been any different at all in reality, even slightly. He leaves me with some open ends, and I'd love to keep on guessing.

Sadly, Tom Hiddleton says that he will not return as Loki for The Avengers 2. Given the events of The Dark World, I think it's safe to say that even if he did it would be very contrived. I will miss his character, but it was very good while it lasted.