Tom Hiddleston has become low-key the best actor in the MCU
With the benefit of time and character development, the Loki star emerges as the winner of Marvel's acting wars
TV Features Tom Hiddleston
Part of the legacy of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, aside from helping coin the phrase “superhero fatigue,” is its murderers’ row of actors. Say what you will about the MCU, but it has assembled an incredible range of talent since its inception. (That’s the power of IP money and Kevin Feige, huh?). With each project, starting with the Robert Downey Jr.-led Iron Man in 2008, Disney has collected global stars like Thanos amassing his precious Infinity Stones. Marvel has nabbed established names (Samuel L. Jackson, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek), then-rising stars (Florence Pugh, Zendaya, Michael B. Jordan), rookie MVPs (Tom Holland, Iman Vellani), and returned beloved faces to the mix (Andrew Garfield, Tobey Maguire). But when it comes to a truly memorable performance over all this time in the MCU, Tom Hiddleston has everyone beat.
Hiddleston scored big with his role as Loki in 2011’s Thor. Since then he’s appeared in six additional films, two animated shorts, and two Disney+ shows, including, of course, Loki, which is in the midst of its second season. Loki the character is alive and well, even if the show’s latest episodes are convoluted. It’s getting increasingly difficult to keep up with Loki’s time travel, timelines, variants, and other complications. In a way, that issue is emblematic of the MCU’s current state. Now in its 15th year, it’s struggling to retain the same level of enthusiasm in a post-Avengers: Endgame world. Loki was a potential bright spot after an engaging, fresh first season in 2021. But now it’s in something of a sophomore slump. Thankfully, the series has two saving graces: stunning visuals and outstanding performances, none of which are more impressive than its lead’s.
Compared to other notable MCU actors, including commendable villainous turns from the likes of Jordan and Michael Keaton, Hiddleston obviously has the advantage of time. Across three Thor and three Avengers movies over 12 years, Loki Laufeyson isn’t the same God of Mischief we were introduced to way back when. Still, Hiddleston ensures, either with a deranged smirk or sly dialogue delivery, that remnants of the original character are still in there. But now, Loki is open to the possibility of redemption because he’s fighting to save the world, not to eliminate it entirely, as was his mission in The Avengers.
Loki has received the kind of nuanced and believable character development that’s rarely seen in the MCU (or any major superhero franchise, for that matter). Hiddleston deploys an impressive physical and emotional range, evolving Loki from a maniacal killer in The Avengers to an anti-hero in Thor: Ragnarok (where he’s aided by a comical partnership with co-star Chris Hemsworth) to a full-fledged sentimental hero in the new episodes of Loki. (Thankfully, his spiky hair and costumes have also made headway, although we do miss the Asgardian horned mask.)
Loki isn’t alone in his evolution from antagonist to protagonist on the small screen portion of the MCU. Bucky Barnes, a.k.a. The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan), and Wanda Maximoff, a.k.a. The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), have been on similar paths. They each got to unpack their traumas and flesh out their human side over a span of multiple episodes (in The Falcon And The Winter Soldier and WandaVision, respectively) instead of a mere two-hour film. In fact, WandaVision is arguably the best Disney+ Marvel series to date, elevated further by Olsen’s tremendous performance.
Similarly, Hiddleston capitalizes on the space he’s given over two seasons to transform Loki in a way the movies simply don’t allow. In every Thor film, he’s the supporting character. But in the show, Loki’s imprisonment at the Time Variance Authority and his partnership with Mobius (Owen Wilson) accomplish what even Loki’s own brother couldn’t: Revealing that the character does, in fact, have a heart. This becomes more pronounced when Loki falls for another Loki, played by Sophia DiMartino. At least we know narcissism—in some form or another—is imbued in all Loki variants.
The show’s gloss has faded in its second season because, ultimately, Marvel is going to Marvel. Loki has become less of a TV show in and of itself and more of a springboard for the MCU’s next big phase. That’s evident by episode three’s focus on Jonathan Majors’ Victor Timely, who will go on to become Kang the Conqueror, touted as the Big Bad of MCU Phases 5 and 6. But, despite the choppy storytelling, Loki is thriving in its own messy way on Hiddleston’s talented shoulders. And perhaps we should just take that win from the MCU.
73 Comments
Low-Key was a joke right?
Low-Key Lyesmith approves.
Seconded by Luke Pinkerton.
It seems kind of odd to specifically fault the second season for focusing too much on Kang and “the MCU’s next big phase,” given how the first season ended. Like, I get that all media decided to totally shift its view of Marvel a couple of years back, but there’s a way to do that and still make sense.
Ok but have you considered that whatever kind of shows/movies Marvel makes are always going to be wrong and bad? Like, you know how the second season of Loki has been highly enjoyable so far? Well, that’s wrong, it’s in a sophomore slump because superhero fatigue, dummy!
That was a confusing comment.
I think I located the problem. Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Have you tried unplugging it and plugging back in?
Sarcasm works better when it’s consistent. That shit went in and out such that it lost any meaning.I get that dude was employing some cliched internet snark. Beyond that, I don’t know what his take is.I don’t know why people think “sarcasm” is a blanket that deflects all criticism.
Sorry about that, I’ll try to be less ambiguous for you next time!
Oh, a sarcasm detector. That’s a really useful invention.
I feel like the MCU is kind of in a no win situation in terms of story arcing at this point.If everything connects and you have to consume a ton of media, some people are angry. If nothing connects then it’s aimless and some people aren’t happy.If it’s a mix of both then there’s too many characters and some of them don’t appeal to everyone so some people aren’t happy.And also frankly, nothing is a flop. Loki is doing the same crazy streaming numbers of other shows. Ant Man 3 is still in the top 10 domestic box office. Guardians is in the Top 5. So much of the flopping is related to perception and a box office that has in no way returned from Covid.
I agree. While there have been a few misses lately, there was always the occasional miss. And yeah, some of the main criticisms are absolutely opposite: largely what you said about it being too connected or insufficiently connected. These are both silly, given that no one objected to the minimal connections in Phase 1 or the connectedness of Phase 2. It seems more like the moment has passed, and people are viewing things through different lenses. But yeah, how long can any one thing dominate the box office and the cultural conversation? Also, I think these things land very differently among people who were into Marvel long before the films versus those who became huge fans but only of the films. Comic books have had their peaks and troughs and kept plugging along, with the best work usually created when people weren’t paying attention. It might not be the worst thing ever for Marvel to lose a little of the box office draw, put together some more medium-budget, character-focused projects, and eventually capture the zeitgeist again.
In the meantime, it’s kind of funny watching the same critics come after Marvel for things they thought were awesome until after Endgame.
Yeah, I’m not going to get into box office numbers because … I don’t care, but creatively, Marvel had a miss right out of the gate with ‘The Incredible Hulk’, which almost everyone hates. In my opinion (though I know some disagree) they did it again with ‘Iron Man 3′, which is dreck. But they’ve made great films again since both of those, and there’s nothing to say they can’t still do it in the future.
Or Age of Ultron or Thor: The Dark World…I think there are definitely rose colored glasses for pre-Endgame now that didn’t exist as it was happening. And that may happen again – Once you get to Kang Dynasty, you might end up going “oh wow, the journey was so worth it.”
I know Iron Man 3 didn’t please everyone (I dug it), but it seems odd to single that one out, when the actually godawful Iron Man 2 is just sitting there. But everyone needs an overall narrative and trends to discuss rather than evaluating each release individually, and film critics have been absolutely dying to make “superhero fatigue” a thing since about 2004, so there’s no turning this ship around.
Yeah, that criticism does seem weird… they opened up the world to infinite Kangs and multiverses… were they just going to play Mancala while the world burns?
“Loki has become less of a TV show in and of itself and more of a springboard for the MCU’s next big phase.”Tell me you didn’t watch the first season without telling me you didn’t watch the first season.
There’s also not really any strong connection between the events of either Loki season and what has happened with the movie multiverses.
The wife and I have been catching up on the last few seasons of Agents of SHIELD and for those who skipped them, it really delved into the Star Trek of having a group of quasi-federal agents/robot shipmates/spies/superheroes on a spaceship of it all. And after a massive time jump they’ve been slowly making their way back to their current time but fully aware they’re in a different timeline. At more than one point they’ll talk about how much the ‘OG Timeline’ is really worth going back to (or not) and we’re digging the handwaving it’s doing in regards to MCU continuity. Like, they’re all aware that some characters would just fade out, Marty McFly-style, if they did and it acknowledges the MCU while no longer being in it.
I’ve been rewatching Agents of SHIELD for the first time since it originally aired and man it’s even better than I remember it being.I think the timeline diverges around the time that Talbot becomes Graviton? It definitely happens before the time travel shenanigans because nobody on AoS gets dusted.
Yup, once the mantle of Destroyer of Worlds is passed to him and he gets nuked, everything that happens is a new timeline and the show goes off on its own tangent.
That’s what I thought I remembered.
Yep. It’s a great character story for Loki but with how the two seasons played out it effectively leaves the idea of a multi-verse intact. And because the TVA exists outside time it can take place at any point in the MCU thus you really don’t need to know it exists in the event it ever factors in.The only MCU takeaway you need is that He Who Remains/Kang is out there, but that was also established in Quantumania.
I’ll never forget an AV Club article a few weeks ago that basically argued that the problem with the MCU was that you shouldn’t have to watch Loki season one to understand loki season two. It’s just like, yinz are all jokers at this point
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE SHOW WITH ONLY THE KNOWLEDGE OF A NEW BORN BABY ARRGGG SUPERHERO FATIGUE!!
Insider tip: Hiddleston has always been the best actor in the MCU.
Correction: Tom Hiddleston has always been the low-key best actor in the MCU.
Also, we see what you did there. 😛
The best actor whose character is still around or actor is not canceled.
Yup. Because if you take out the real world, Jonathan Majors is really effing good. It’s really difficult to mentally side-step his personal life, but he really nails that role and he’s so much more menacing than Thanos ever was.
Well, if we’re not including any of the side character actors like Anthony Hopkins or Cate Blanchett. And if Bradley Cooper doesn’t count given it’s purely a voice acting gig. Among the rest of the MAIN cast, then I think absolutely.
Blanchett and Hopkins are excellent actors, but neither of them needed their A-game to play, respectively, “evil Galadriel” and “Van Helsing as a Norse god.”
Hopkins has even admitted to not remembering his time as Odin at all lol.
Blanchett and Hopkins are excellent actors, but neither of them needed their A-game to play, respectively, “evil Galadriel” and “Van Helsing as a Norse god.”And yet Hela exists, which is why we’re having this conversation.
i think robert downey jr or mark ruffalo or scarlett johansson or don cheadle are better at acting than hiddleston overall, but i don’t think any of their performances within the mcu have been better than what tommy boy’s delivered.
I really like Downey, but these days he seems to just be playing himself, and rarely stretches. I know he’s capable of it, obviously. But I don’t think he’s really challenged himself much since Zodiac (please note, I have not yet seen Oppenheimer so I’m sure that’s not a typical RDJ being snarky role).
once you see oppenheimer you will see he still has The Juice.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I mean he was great, but it still felt like he was channeling Tony Stark
I like RD Jr a lot, but he doesn’t remotely have the range of Hiddleston, who is a multiple award winning actor on screen and stage, including several for his work in Shakespearean plays.
Bradley Cooper is not 1/10th the actor Hiddleston is. Never has been, never will be.
I still think Anthony Hopkins playing Tom Huddleston playing Loki playing Odin ( while watching Sam Neill play Sam Neill playing Odin no less !) is still the best performance in a Marvel movie .( especially the “oh shit!”when he sees Thor striding through the crowd to get to him ). But overall , yeah Hiddlestons Loki is the best.
I remember reading American Gods as a teenager and for some reason being amazed when Low-Key Lye-Smith was revealed to be Loki Lie-Smith.
Yeah, I felt really dumb for having missed that one.
Do you think Tom Hiddleston has the most total screen time in all the MCU now?
Nah. That’s still gotta be Robert Downey Jr.
RDJ has been one of my favorite actors since the 80’s (and I specifically wanted him to play Iron Man after Heart and Soul when everyone else was cheering for Tom Cruise for some reason).But other than Civil War, I’d put Hiddleston over him any day of the week in the MCU (but just the MCU).
Interestingly found this chart made in March 2022. Loki is at 209 minutes and Tony is at 358 minutes. Tony of course hasn’t made any appearances on screen since last year, but Loki has season 2 you could add. It won’t make him match to 358 minutes, but will be a lot closer after S2 is finished.
This chart is fascinating for a couple of reasons: 1) how much Iron Man they pumped out very quickly after the first took off. Tony’s an important character in all the later stuff, sure, but what’s really pumping up these numbers must by Iron Men 2 and 3, which I barely remember. 2) How quickly it’s going to change with their strategy shifting to encompass more and more episodic entertainment. Kate Bishop is all but tied with Ant-Man, a character who had two dedicated movies at the time, despite not appearing in a feature film—that’s wild. What’s wilder is how far she’s going to shoot up this chart if there’s ever a Season two of Hawkeye….
Yes it jumped out to me too that Kate Beeshup makes the top 15 characters with one single TV show and no other appearances. I don’t think another series with her is even something in the plan, but if she doubled, she would go ahead of everyone except the original Avengers
Careful, you keep going around pronouncing it “Kate Beeshup” like Yelena Belova, and a lot of men are going to fall in love with you.
Also, does that mean Kamala Khan will probably be top ten once Marvels comes out?
if we’re talking about performances within the MCU, sure. i remember coming out of thor 2 genuinely blown away by his performance.
One is always half cheered and half embarrassed on their behalf seeing an actor just absolutely knock their role out of the park in something mediocre or terrible.
also after high rise there was like a 5+ year period where i wanted him to be a swinging 60s bond. guy looked so cool in flared pants.
I know everyone hates Thor 2 but I agree that it was absolutely the point where I properly noticed Tom Hiddleston. I’ve seen him on stage several times since and always been impressed so thanks, The Dark World!
He’s the part of Thor 2 that makes it worth watching.
The scene where Loki and Thor are sneaking out of the palace and he changes into Steve Rodgers might be the only funny scene in that entire film.
“Has become”?!I remember after Thor came out saying how he was the highlight and he killed it in Avengers. I don’t think he slowly became anything, he has always been top of the list
Legit question: Was this written by chatGPT?
For my money, Loki is the best of the Disney+ MCU series.
Wandavision and Loki are a tight one and two. There’s a reason the D+ content had so much promise up front and it was those two.Since then it’s been hit or miss, but it’s all blurred together after Loki S1.
Jonathan Majors has, BY FAR, given the best performance of the MCU. I’m not bringing the personal bit into my evaluation. I’m only evaluating based on character(s) depth and performance
Honestly, I don’t necessarily disagree with your perception of his performance. A lot of criticism of him as He Who Remains and Timely seems to stem from his personal legal shit (which is maybe fair, but I don’t get into that here).But, in my opinion, the best performance of all the MCU is Bradley Cooper as Rocket. Even as a cgi racoon, I felt emotions beyond any other character in the marvel universe.
Sure, if you like the Sean Penn dramatic style: LOOK AT ME I’M ACTING; LOOK AT ALL MY OBNOXIOUS TICS; SEE, NOT STRANGLING ANYONE OVER HERE!
He Who Remains doing an impersonation of Victor Timely in the finale was great.
For all that ‘Loki’ the show has give Hiddleston a chance to delve into the character and build in some nuance, for my money his best work in the role is at the start of ‘Avengers’ when he comes through the gateway and he just looks completely insane. He’s all twitchy and hyper, and he gives the impression he has actually just been somewhere really rough.
*Elizabeth Olsen enters the chat.*
Congratulations? Hey Saloni, do you know what acting is? Surely you mean favourite character or most reliable actor, but what state above beyond the context of the MCU are we comparing these acting abilities on? I hate reductive statements like this. It’s like when token directors are hired and the production pretends that directors do more than block actors in place. STOP BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN ACTORS AND WHAT THEY DO PLEASE. Thanks… its just reductive.
Hiddlestone is amazing, I wish he had been given this kind of material in the movies.I’ve always said what made the early MCU wasn’t Robert Downey Jr, who we all knew was a great actor, it was Chris Evans, who completely held his own against him.I know some people haven’t cared for it, but Loki was been by far my favorite thing to come out of the MCU since Endgame. The story, acting, pacing and especially the art direction (my god, the art direction!) is exactly my jam. I absolutely love it.
It’s because Hiddelston had a natural charisma that worked great with Loki, and then because of that audiences wanted to see his redemption story.Which is why the show has been so well received. Especially with how few redemption stories we have in the MCU compared to stuff like Walking Dead where that’s EVERYONE’S character arc.