Thor Ragnarok - Review Thread

Im confused.

I thought you were saying most people would have something different from what I had.

That's kinda my point.  The powers should be defined within the movie, we shouldn't HAVE to google them/

I've typically enjoyed the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but most years I've found my praise to be faint. Marvel films rarely rise above just being fun and often their films are closer to mediocre. This year however I find myself being generally pleased with Marvel's output. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 didn't do much to reinvent the formula, but I do think it improved on the original thanks to an improved soundtrack and a wildly superior villain. Spider-Man: Homecoming also proved a success which did a great job balancing a character driven story with the greater weight of the MCU while still functioning really well as a fully formed superhero movie. Neither of these films quite transcend to greatness territory (though admittedly Spider-Man does come pretty close), but they executed on the Marvel template well while providing the blockbuster escapism fans look for. In the wake of these successes, the MCU also dropped an amazing trailer for Thor: Ragnarok. Making something as seemingly disposable as a third Thor movie look like an event is pretty damn impressive and the presence exciting young filmmaker Taika Waititi behind the helm only added to the anticipation.

While all the Thor films have been broadly comedic, this is the first one to actually be directed by a comedy filmmaker and that difference shows. First and foremost, while the previous Thor movies had a lot of comic relief, Ragnarok is the first of the three to function almost entirely as a comedy. The script is generally pretty witty, the performances are more loose and fun than the self-seriousness seen in something like Thor: The Dark World, and many scenes are clearly going for laughs above anything else. This can be a little problematic at times as the film doesn't seem willing to commit to any dramatic beats, but all the same the film is consistently funny so I can't really complain too much.

Much of the reason why Ragnarok's trailer was so exciting was because it looked so different than the previous Thor films. As it turns out, this is only half true. While much of the content on the gladiatorial planet of Sakaar is colourful, weird, and fun, the other half of the movie is set on Asgard and very much returns to the family drama between Thor, Loki, Odin, and new character Hela (Cate Blanchett). This material isn't bad exactly, and Blanchett makes the most of a pretty basic role, but all the same it feels like old hat and whenever the focus shifted to Asgard I just wanted to go make to the weirder, wackier stuff with Thor and The Hulk. Still, I do want to emphasize that the material on Sakaar is a lot of fun. This is where the film employs it's most colourful visuals and it's also where we get a lot of the film's best comedy. Jeff Goldblum is a lot of fun as the ruler of the planet, playing the part less like a tyrant, but more as an aloof eccentric just having fun. Tessa Thompson also makes a strong impression as a mercenary sort who will look to be playing a bigger role in the series moving forward.

Taken as a whole, it is a bit disappointing that Thor: Ragnarok ended up being an above average Marvel film rather than a Taika Waititi film, but I don't want to undersell the film too much. The fact is Thor: Ragnarok does work very well as a piece of entertainment, especially since while the action scenes have the required amount of spectacle, it's really the character interactions and sense of humour that carry the movie through. It's weird, the film seems to check off all of the MCU complaints I usually have. Too many characters, one-dimensional villain with a dull scheme, pointless cameos, and an action heavy climax which loses sight of the smaller details that work so well. And yet, the execution is on the whole is so strong and the film so entertaining that I don't actually care as much as usual. Maybe that speaks to a dropping of standards on my part, but more than anything I think it reflects the quality work done by the filmmakers who elevated Thor: Ragnarok above what it well could have been.

B

That's a very confusing way to write that.

So you liked the third MIB better than the first? That's interesting.

For a good long while after I read that I was afraid you were saying Men in Black II was the best, Jibbs. I said to myself "It's like I don't know him at all anymore."

Ahh, gotcha.

Wolverine is better than The Wolverine.

Checkmate

If by "Wolverine" you mean X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the movie where Will.I.Am has a prominent role, you need to get a grip.

History will prove me right.

You’re under the impression I *like* Origins. I merely think it’s better than The Wolverine, a snoozefest of a movie that was made irrelevant in less than a year.

At least the best part of Origins is still canon: