Thor: Ragnarok review

Marvel’s “Thor: Ragnarok” sits neatly into the newest phase of the post-millennial cinematic superhero boom; the ironic, smart-aleck phase. After years of sincere, emotionally grounded superhero films and a couple years of gritty, nihilistic superhero films, with the focus mostly on charismatic, reluctant savior archetypes, it would appear that the genre is now in a self-reflexive, experimental mood, no-longer interested in retelling the same tired Campbellian origin stories. This is best exemplified with the success of Marvel’s quirky “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, Fox’s snarky “Deadpool” movie and Warner’s recut and confused “Suicide Squad.” We’ve seen referential superhero comedies before, like Mathew Vaughn’s “Kick-Ass” and James Gunn’s pre-Guardians indie film “Super,” but it’s that these new films are made within the established cannon of their respective cinematic universes that their tonal risks are all the more pronounced.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor returns to the magic realm of Asgard, only to discover that his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has failed to keep away his long lost sister Hela (Cate Blanchett), who was banished from the kingdom centuries ago for being a murderous war monger. Having returned stronger than ever, she pushes Thor and his trickster brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) into a junk-yard planet that is ruled by a flaky aristocrat (Jeff Goldblum) who keeps his subjugated people entertained with gladiatorial battles. Thor is eventually captured by a binge-drinking ex-Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) and forced to fight his fellow Avenger, Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). Meanwhile, Hela has reclaimed the Asgardian throne and is making her plans to invade neighboring realms.

“Thor: Ragnarok” separates itself from the previous two entrees in the franchise by embracing this new shift into broader storytelling and wilder myth-making. The movie’s aesthetic is knowingly campy and filled with flashy, colorful visuals that zip through every frame. Along with Mark Mothersbaugh’s synth-laden score, this new look and approach—very much informed by “Guardians of the Galaxy”—taps into a pinball arcade peppiness that activates every artistic choice New Zealand director Tiaka Waititi commits to. Unlike the first two Thor films, which were beholden to some earth-bound characters and natural settings to help fit the character into the norms of the conventional superhero mold, Ragnarok has untethered its earthly concerns and introduces us to a host of new space-ships, aliens, mythic monsters and ancient prophecies.

There are times when Ragnarok’s ties to the other Marvel films is cumbersome. Many plot points refers back to the other adventures by the Avengers and many of the movie’s in-jokes refer to what we have come to know about these characters over the last six years. As such, I’m not sure how well this installment stands on its own. The wild joy-ride this story takes us on is unpredictable and refreshing in its full embrace of silliness but there are also moments when the movie is throwing so much at us all at once, that things get momentarily cluttered and borderline incoherent. Waititi keeps all the moving pieces connected just enough that the narrative doesn’t split at the seams, but Blanchett’s darker Asgardian takeover plot is largely pushed away by the lighter gladiatorial stuff, with Jeff Goldblum looking like an extra from the 1980 disco cult-film “The Apple.” This isn’t a detriment to a movie that wants to be funnier and louder in its aesthetic approach, but it does leave the mechanics of the storytelling noticeably uneven.

Waititi took this material, which by 2013’s dower “Thor: The Dark World” had overstayed its welcome, and injected new life into it by strategically stepping away from superhero formulas. Everyone here is having a good time, and you should too. This is a wild, messy space-opera buffet, and as such, feel free to bring a bib and dig in. While there isn’t much here in the way nutritious substance beyond the simple joys of its creative surfaces,  but “Thor: Ragnarok” certainly lives up to its objective as being a spectacle with it's own comedic personality.

Grade: B+

Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2017

Listen to this week's episode of Jabber and the Drone to hear more conversation about "Thor: Ragnarok."

Thor: The Dark World review

              I think it’s fair to say that Marvel’s “Thor”, released in 2011, was nobody’s favorite predecessor to Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers”. This isn’t to say that nobody loved it at all. In fact, despite the overall silliness and camp that comes with rainbow roads, frost giants, and Natalie Portman playing an astrophysicist, the first “Thor” is a totally digestible, zero-calorie, superhero meal. Also, if nothing else, we got Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston out it.

                With that said, I wish I could I share the same kind of tepid enthusiasm for the recently released sequel. “Thor: The Dark World” is a decidedly slower, longer, and darker follow-up, that mistakenly shrouds the first film’s bright-eyed simplicity within a cocoon of narrative padding.

                After the cataclysmic events of “The Avengers”, Thor’s deceitful brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is captured and imprisoned back from wince he came on Asgard. While there, a fleet of dark space elves—just go with me—come to attack Odin’s throne to reclaim the power of a mystical red goo called The Ether, that has recently taken shelter in the body of Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). In order to keep the nine realms of the universe from being overtaken by darkness, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) must break his mischievous brother out of jail, and learn to trust him long enough fight together, side by side.

                Let me first say that, technically speaking, there isn’t anything ‘wrong’ with this movie. The special effects are big and expensive looking, the London location change is welcomed, the space-fantasy production design is inventive and imposing, and the action structure of the plot pays off in exactly the way it promises to from the opening prologue. My problems with this sequel lie within its vagueness, its self-seriousness, and its overall I-can’t-believe-we’re-getting-away-with-this-again safeness.

                The ruggedly handsome Hemsworth is half asleep in this reprise and even though this is supposedly his showcase, the film seems far more interested in Hiddleston’s sneering Loki character. The interplay between these two actors is occasionally engaging when the movie is remembers to be character-centric, but unfortunately the majority of the running time is devoted to red floating liquids, space battles, and overcomplicated conceits about intergalactic, warping car-keys.  There is some genuine fun to be had in the last half hour, but the cumbersome plot is so large and looming that whatever levity and charm saved the first film has now been shoved aside, in favor of the usual epic, action money-shots.

                I will commend the new screenwriters for finding a better way to integrate the human, non-super, characters (Portman, Kat Dennings, and Stellan Skarsgard) into the story, but even though they are given more to do, it doesn’t keep them from feeling any less like a mechanical writing device.

                I don’t know, this is all starting to feel like tired roadshow act on the last leg of a lengthy tour. I guess if you walk into this film wanting to like it you probably will. It’s been carefully designed to be placeholder until the Disney/Marvel factory spits out another one of these in five months.  However, when we’re living in a time with four or more superhero movies released every year, I refuse to simply excuse a film like this for being merely ‘fine’.

Grade: C-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2013