Thor Ragnarok
Taika Waititi
Writers:
Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost, based off the Marvel comics (Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby).
Cast:
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner, Hulk), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), and Zachary Levi as Fandral.
Opening Credits:
Let me begin by saying I truly love comic-based films. Good or bad I watched read them as a kid. With that being said understand that I'm a fan, not just a critic. My reviews on the subject matter might be with a lot of passion. I personally love these characters, and not because it's part of being a critic, it's a part of my childhood.
Growing up I collected comics. I often daydreamed of these iconic characters on film. So when you hear that a Marvel-based film is coming soon, it was the best thing. Everyone talked about it;
The hero on screen was a big deal back in the day. I mean yes, it was cheesy, but who really cares, because the point was clear. The hero became something real. When I was growing up it was the reruns of the Spiderman TV movie. Back in 1975, it was extremely cheesy but at least you got to see a hero on film. The Bill Bixby Hulk movie in 1988 was good, I even remember the old movie where Thor and the Hulk fought, granted it was low budget but it was cool. Thor was played by the dad from the Disney show, "Good Luck Charlie."
So yes to me these superhero films matter. Not because of the special effects or anything like that. The character development and story is what truly matters in a hero film. Why are you going to introduce a character in a trilogy, and when the third film comes rolling along, it's completely different. The way the character reacts to situations at hand changed. That to me is a huge let down; Now the film just becomes a money grabber. The studio no longer cares about what they put out, as long as it can make some money, Disney or not.
Review:
Characters:
Thor Ragnarok has characters we all know and love, but as a whole, the writers went down a very different path. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) for example is iconic, his very being isn't a stand-up comedy but someone who is the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins). The hero with that title should be taken seriously. Is he Spider-Man? Thor fights and talks like Spidey, or does he focus on the dangers at hand? No, i really believe and know that Thor isn't like that. In the very first scene with Surtur (Clancy Brown) the very large demon that wants to destroy Asgard, his plans are revealed to Thor, after all, he's the prisoner. You have a Demon and Thor, instead of making that opening scene comedic; Why not just be subtle about the comedy, and continue to have Thor be who he is. A powerful hero. Let the adventure absorb the scene. Instead, the film went with music playing in the background, and it wasn't fantasy at all, nor was it Sci-Fi, because it was Led Zeppelin. As he fought the horde, using his iconic hammer. I thought for a minute I was watching Guardians of the Galaxy. The moment could've been used to establish danger, instead, it was the comedy and generic scenes.
Imagine watching Lord of The Rings when an emotional scene comes up, the main character just laughed, cracked a bad joke, and moved on to the next scene. That was supposed to be funny but really wasn't. My point is that filmmakers don't go subtle, instead they blow everything out of proportion. A fight scene is a fight scene. A time to talk, find out about the mission or the dilemma at hand. The characters should always grow, but in small portions that make sense. Thor when introduced in his films, and the Avengers had a sense of humor but it wasn't none stop, or at every scene. there was emotion, the scene always captivated the audience.
Here is an example: In Avengers Thor and Ironman were fighting. Captain America put on his parachute before he jumped out of the plane. "I'd sit this one out, Cap." - Natasha Romanoff- "I don't see how I can." -Steve Rogers- "These guys come from legend. They're basically gods." -Natasha Romanoff- "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that." -Steve Rogers-
The point here was established, comedy up on the plane while the two other heroes fight below, a dangerous situation. The comedy didn't saturate the events at hand, it only made you laugh for the relief of the events, which made the scene better.
Hulk / Banner:
After the Age of Ultron, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) went through a portal in the quinjet and afterward became the champion of the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). He has been in Sakaar for 2 years in Hulk form. He even has childlike speech. No explanation on how it happened, just it happened. I love the Hulk and is very well versed in the character. When you go through that dramatic change it calls out for a subplot. The film had many chances to control the backward momentum, but it didn't. Instead, we got a wannabe hero film that could've been something special. So how long did it take him to get in the portal? Was it instant, because in that time frame the good old angry Hulk would've been sleeping? My point here is that a portal thing is a cool idea but it's a lame way to bring in another character, especially one so complicated as the Hulk.
Here is another one. How is it that the Grandmaster controlling the Hulk, and keeping him at bay. From my understanding, the Hulk gets stronger as he gets angrier. He would've rampaged and killed everyone on sight, and yet somehow the Roman Emperor found a way to keep him at bay. That gizmo on the neck, I guess technology can surpass a creature like the Hulk, His strength means nothing that technology would surpass even the Hulk. I guess the Grandmaster had English holographic visuals for good old Hulk, because somehow he picked up language. The green Hulk is the strong, and his strength increase as his anger. The grey Hulk is smart, but a decrease of strength, and in the comic in some cases he returned to Banner in the day, per Peter David the Marvel comic Hulk writer. Another character headed in one thousand directions because his only playing card was the fight with Thor in the first half of the film.
Loki / Odin / Dr. Strange:
Let's take a look at Loki (Tom Hiddleston) the brother of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins). He was a traitor to his own family and he posed as Odin, using magic. In the movie, Thor somehow found out that Loki was under disguise, magically. Instead of leading up to that point, he just happened to discover the scam. Loki is very powerful, he proved it in the Avengers film. The brother of Thor could be a really bad villain. The film's lack of a continuous timeline, things just did happen, without explanation or a hint. The character even popped up out of convenience. Lazy writing to me. The Grandmaster and Loki are best friends, wish they had more scenes with the master, it would have made a better connection. Then towards the end of the film, both Loki and Thor are playing Call of Duty with the heavy blaster rifle. It looked cool, but out of place. Thor doesn't really need the rifle, and especially Loki. The filmmakers did it for a cool factor, which made that scene ridiculous. If they would've done it right the characters alone would've made the film epic, and the adventure of what would've been Ragnarok would've played out like a Lord of the Rings film.
Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) his role in the movie was to inform the good guys, Loki and Thor that their father is alive, and in hiding. I guess the writers forgot that Loki was a danger to the human race. I at least applaud their attempt to bring him in. Loki was captured for a short time by Strange. But letting him go so both of them could have time with Odin is beyond me. A bad guy who once destroyed the world, or came close to it, wants to play a good guy. Strange and Thor are like best buds, and lets Loki go. Does that make any sense to you? Nope. Again they just brought him in for nothing, because that scene was a waste of time. Instead of using Strange in the battle to help. He was just a doormat to them. Another time suck with a wonderful actor in a poor screenplay.
Odin (Anthony Hopkins) was the only scene that was worth watching in this poorly written film. When Thor and Loki walked through the portal with the help of Dr. Strange, they finally confronted Odin. The scene was great because it wasn't funny. The seriousness of the scene was at the forefront. There are a time and a place for comedy, and this scene wasn't the time. I just wish the film guys would've continued the tone throughout the film. Magic, mysterious events hold films; Odin is powerful, but knowing his death would bring his daughter Hela (Cate Blanchett) out of captivity. Death and pain would come next.
Even the Odin storyline was omitted, they would rather have the iconic character die. His death would've meant something if the writers got it right, but again they just had to screw up the story and invent a poorly written movie that had more action than story.
Asgardians live for 5000 years as per The Dark World, later we learn that this is true by the uniformity, or convergence of all 9 realms. I gather in the Dark World, Bor (Odin's father and King of Asgard) he alone had dealt with Malakith long ago. So with that being said, was Odin born, or was Odin a child? These questions are not just mere questions because it meant something in the previous film. But here nothing really happens.
Hela / Story / Valkyrie:
In the film, Hela (Cate Blanchett) was in captivity, and if Odin dies she is released, and all of the 9 realms will be in havoc. Cate Blanchett who played the iconic Galadriel in Lord of the Rings. She also accepted the part to please her kids. They're huge MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) fans and with that being said having her in a film is a big deal. Her character looked and acted the part. But the humor was so pathetic and stupid that it ruined any chances of it being epic. Her character was strong but as far as the substance it fell short. Her character told the story of the battle of the 9 realms when Odin her father went on conquering. Probably, in essence, the only part in her story with some substance. She had a past, interacted with Skurge (Karl Urban) her new enforcer. And even visited the secret location with all the Asgardian artifacts and more. The Thanos Gauntlet, an infinity stone was just passed by with horrible child like humor. If you're going to connect the upcoming Infinity War film then do it. Another valuable moment wasted on a speech that could've meant something.
Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) the warrior of Asgard who had a past, which was in the film briefly but even that didn't matter it just was overlooked. She is a really cool character, my favorite part is the scene when she captured Thor. The ship sequence was great, just wish the film would've been toned down comedy-wise, and connect the last film, and the upcoming Infinity War film which is just around the corner. Valkyrie was a wonderful asset to the story, but what story. I'll get to that in a bit. So she works for the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), or at least with him as a hired gunman, gladiator, talent lookout, whatever. Either way, her character fit in but the writer's connection fell apart.
Thor Ragnarok fell short in so many ways I could go on with the problems, but with that being said the story did have wonderful actors, and I give them all a big kudos. The acting was at least good. The actors looked like they had fun, which I guess it's cool but as far as story, connection, it fails to do what previous Marvel films had done so well. Captain America: the Civil war had the connection, all the characters had their moments but weren't wasted. Every scene was an epic scene. The Spider-Man moments were great. The funny moments all played out well, the writers didn't saturate the story with constant humor.
Look at the Ironman and Captain America battle. They both had moments were humor was established, but it wasn't in the battle. The seriousness of the film made it watchable. Both battled to the end, or at least till they both were exhausted enough to stop. The main bad guy was a man bent on revenge because of what happened in his past. The heroes had done a job but with casualties. A mere man, no bad guy villain just a man. Great story, it had emotion which Thor Ragnarok lacked, despite the Odin scene which was great but not enough to save the movie.
The film will do well because of fanboys or have-nots, it will make it's money and more. Unfortunately, the lack of substance will the film in the next set of weeks. It will have to set into the public. Remember Star Wars: Phantom Menace? It was good at first but after awhile the movie was a waste of time. All in all yes the movie had humor, fun, but if you truly want a Thor movie then tone down the humor bring in the fantasy and cut out the classic rock tone as background music, because it was good for a trailer, but not the actual sequence in the story. Ragnarok was supposed to be about death, destruction to Asgard, and to get there the audience got a scrambled film.
Comments