Thor Ragnarok - Review Thread

So taht means there's gonna be a crappy Iron Man 4 and a crappier Iron Man 5?

No. It’s Lethal Weapon. We’re just waiting for the Iron Man 4 where Robert Downey and Don Cheadle get their wives pregnant at the same time and Chris Rock joins the cast.

Justin Long will play Tony’s long lost son.

To simplify things, lets say there are 6 models of trilogies based on how they're ranked among each other. Otherwise, yeah, Iron Man isn't as good as Die Hard (what is?), and Die Hard 2 and 3 are better than their counterparts, as well.

Yeah, but I would argue that if you aren't taking influence and originality into account I would probably say Iron Man 3 is better than Iron Man 1.

I think we can all agree that Evil Dead ascends greatness into "meaning of life" territory. Judging any Evil Dead film as above each other is blasphemy.

Marvel Studios and Disney have seen an immense amount of success since forming this partnership about ten years ago. Since then every film that they've released has debuted #1 at the box office, been met with general critical and audience acclaim, and have surprisingly seemed to have gained momentum as opposed to slowing down. And yet if there's one Marvel franchise everyone is generally ho-hum about, it's Thor. In a way, the Thor series should be the most awe-inspiring, fantastical one of them all. Its protagonist is literally a god, his foes are equally as formidable as him, and there is endless amounts of lore steeped in a blend of Norse mythology and comic books to delve into. But the first Thor film didn't provide the epic scale it should have and mostly resorted Thor to being a generic fish out of water story with some forgettable action thrown in. It was a lot of silly meandering on Earth that just felt far too routine, but also wasn't a film that was poor in any way either. It just felt like a film that despite its potential never grasps it, and in the end we got an okay movie but nothing more. Thor: The Dark World delivered on expanding Thor's mythical world, but felt about as assembly line directed as a Marvel film could be. I watched it somewhat recently, but I couldn't tell you anything memorable that actually occurs in it. Both Thor films suffered from taking themselves too seriously while not delivering on the scope that the character promises to bring. So while it may have seemed an odd choice to some to bring in comedic indie director Taika Waititi, I found the move to be the exact remedy this franchise needed. I've enjoyed all of Waititi's films, but last year's gem The Hunt for the Wilderpeople ended up being one of my favorite of 2016 for its sharp script and Waititi's flair behind the camera rarely seen in comedy films. As a result, Thor: Ragnarok becomes the first time that a Thor film actually embodied what it should: a lot of fun and bold in scale.

The film picks up following the events of The Avengers: Age of Ultron and begins with a fun cold opening of Thor (Chris Hemsworth) following the visions from that movie and ending the threat of Ragnarok. He then returns to Asgard to find that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been impersonating Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Thor and Loki go and see Odin, who dies or goes away or something, it's admittedly not one of the strong points of the film. Anyways, just as Odin departs, his daughter and Thor and Loki's sister Hela (Cate Blanchett) arrives. During the battle Thor and Loki are overmatched, and Thor goes careening out onto a distant planet. Meanwhile, Hela assumes control over Asgard and mostly just waits around until Thor can return in the third act to fight her. Again, not the film's strongest plot point. Thor is captured on this planet and finds he is held prisoner and will be forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena by the Grandmaster, played by Jeff Goldblum who ostensibly plays the Grandmaster but really is doing hilarious variations of himself. There, Thor realizes his opponent is Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), which kickstarts one of the film's strongest elements as well as the majority of its laughs. The rest of the film culminates in Thor and Hulk, with the assistance of Loki and newcomer Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), attempting to escape the planet and return to Asgard to overthrow Hela and prevent Ragnarok.

Thor: Ragnarok certainly has multiple elements positively going for it. The visuals are highly impressive despite the quality of the CGI dipping in places, the film feels large and we finally get a sense of how vast the worlds are surrounding Thor's, and the action has terrific energy and also offers up some new tricks for Thor and Co. to exhibit. But in the end what the film relies on heavily and successfully thanks to Waititi's direction is its humor. Marvel realized after two mediocre attempts that the franchise needed to go in a different route, and that route was to stop taking Thor so seriously and play him as a lovable narcissist and a constant butt of jokes. This isn't to mean that the filmmakers are belittling Thor or reducing him to satire, but rather are taking the dullest Avenger (well except for Hawkeye and Black Widow, but do they really count?) and giving him some actual character. Hemsworth does a great job embracing this character change as he attempts to sort through his problems with his breezy charm and harmless naivety only to see it blow up in his face over and over again. The film is littered with one-liners and oddball characters that bring to mind the charisma of the first Guardians of the Galaxy, and Waititi brings his offbeat comedic style to Thor: Ragnarok with a surprisingly high amount of jokes that land. But Waititi's contributions are not solely in delivering the laughs. He has shown in his past work that he has a great visual eye and natural instinct for how his scenes will edit together, and Thor: Ragnarok boasts some very well choreographed and lensed action sequences that demand to be viewed on the big screen. He's the rare comedy director that can keep the laughs coming but also can dazzle with action, as shown in the handling of the chase and car sequences in Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and it's a style that fits the Marvel films perfectly.

While Thor: Ragnarok is a lot of fun escapism and has a lot to admire, it's certainly not without its issues. Cate Blanchett is wonderful as Hela and certainly doesn't appear to be coasting through the role, but she really doesn't get a whole lot to do. In fact all of the events on Asgard are easily the weakest element of the film. I never felt like the people of Asgard, despite all of the efforts at sheltering them and fleeing Hela, were in real peril. None of the scenes of Heimdall (Idris Elba) leading them to safety ever felt compelling, and each time they cut to Asgard I was eagerly awaiting them to get out of there and back to Thor. It's a shame because Hela seems like a very worthy adversary to Thor, and the brother-sister dynamic a unique opportunity to pit them up against one another. The problem is that Hela is only sparingly in the film, and her screen time with Thor even less so. So much of the film takes place on the Grandwizard's planet, and are far more interesting, that the events on Asgard just don't carry the emotional weight that it should. It almost feels that they were having so much fun with Thor and Hulk in captivity and then realized they need to eventually wrap it up and get them back to Asgard for the climactic showdown with Hela. It's a film that whizzes by during its two hour plus running time, but there does feel like there are some missed opportunities at deepening the drama along the way. The film is essentially a lot of hilarious jokes and big action pieces, which is fine, but what the film is lacking in is drama; good drama at least. The film does have a pretty bold, for Marvel standards, ending though that I didn't expect, and it works even better since Waititi and company have expanded Thor's universe in ways the previous films didn't.

Thor: Ragnarok is the beneficiary of a much needed directorial change in tone and style thanks to Taika Waititi, and his knack for comedic delivery and superb handling of the film's action results in an impressive leap from the indie comedy world to the biggest blockbusters being made in Hollywood right now. The character of Thor through four films was mostly dull and lacked the charisma of the other superheroes, and the plots hardly scratched the surface of the potential his character's universe contains. While Thor: Ragnarok suffers from not utilizing its villain to her potential and eschewing drama for pure thrills, the film is exactly the type of big budget fun that we've come to expect from Marvel and stands as one of its most impressive entries. Here's to more Thor from Taika Waititi and here's to more world building in order to take this character to the storytelling depths that its capable of exploring.

8/10

That's true, the film does mostly resort him to being this person bumbling around with Earth eccentricities.  Which was very lame.

Thor: Ragnarok reportedly cost $180 million, which seems a bit low, but it's possible that they needed to pay the actors more for the earlier movies and the effects process has probably been streamlined over the years.  The only ones that really get up into the $250 million range (reportedly) are the Avengers movies and Civil War.

What planet Hulk looked expensive as hell?

Nice breakdown.

Though most people would put Capt America 2 as the best, so that doesnt really work.

IanTheCool, the power change is

. It's the point of those later visions he has.