Thor: Ragnarok (2D / second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 130 mins / Dir. Taika Waititi / Trailer
And so, I somehow find myself with surprisingly little to say about Thor: Ragnarok. Especially odd given a) how much I loved the film the first time around, and b) how long it's taken me to schedule this second-pass despite singing the praises of the film to everyone in between*1, to the point where I've missed the 3D screenings*2, so have only seen this most psychedelic of Marvel movies in two dimensions.
And this shorter-than-usual review is certainly not because I enjoyed the movie any less the second time; quite the opposite in fact. The self-defeating mechanics of the villains in Surtur and Hela made more sense when viewed from a distance, as that's basically something that's spread out over the whole screenplay but quickly explained by Thor in the middle of the final battle. It's a neat solution to Marvel's usual problem of either nerfing the bad guys and making them too easily beaten, or having them survive and making the heroes look weak. Because everybody loses here, we all win.
And speaking of losses, I also love how much has changed at the end of Ragnarok. I've mentioned on occasion that despite enjoying The Dark World very much, not a lot has developed by the time the credits roll other than Frigga sailing off the waterfall and Odin being missin-in-action. This time round, Thor's lost Mjölnir, lost his hair, lost an eye, lost his father (for real this time), lost his home and very nearly lost his people. And yet the film is so resolutely hopeful in its final moments.
Mark Mothersbaugh's score stood out a little more this time, too. I still maintain that the orchestral sections are mainly Loud Film-Type Noises™, but I'm loving the more disco-infused synth tracks which evoke the iconic Scarface soundtrack by Giorgio Moroder. Although I also still maintain that the Led Zeppelin moments are greater than either of those.
The under-writing of Hela's character is more evident on re-watching, with the Goddess of Death never really making it past the pantomime-villain marker, even though she's personally responsible for a considerable number of screen-fatalities. Also, some of Cate Blanchett's ADR-work for the character is dreadful; the sync is word-perfect, but the emotion in her 'final' voice doesn't match the face she was acting with on-set. But I got an extra chuckle from watching Matt Damon in the theatre-scene, as it occurred to me that this is the second time he's played Loki, the first being in Kevin Smith's Dogma.
But all in all this is magnificent, Marvel reaching further than before and still effortlessly securing their grasp. Ragnarok is a great end to a great year for the studio (cinematically, at least)…
All of The Marvels.
Hell, yes.
Hell, yes.
This film will be on the front-page of many CVs for some time to come.
A little bit, but not enough for you to worry about.
Another pass; still didn't hear one. Not impressed.
Level 1: As well as what could be described as an absolute shit-ton of visual and audio effects crew, this film features the guy who's the voice of Gar Saxon.
*1 Come on, I'm a busy blogger. I can't very well go swanning off to watch repeat-viewings of movies when things like A Bad Moms Christmas are awaiting the scalpel of criticism. [ BACK ]
*2 The 3D/RealD showings traditionally play for the first two weeks of a 'big' release, with that second being significantly pared down in the screen-share. But when Ragnarok opened at my local, it didn't go into 3D until its second full week. So all those of us queuing up on the first day to see the movie were all paying less to the cinema, the distributor and to Marvel as a result. I've got no great feeling on 3D either way, but I like to try and see Marvel movies in the format at least once, where it's available. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Thor: Ragnarok (2D / first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 130 mins / Dir. Taika Waititi / Trailer
“You must finish what you’ve started. […] Your ancestors called it magic and you call it science. Well, I come from a place where they’re one and the same thing…”
While nothing is ever truly certain in this world, it would be fairly safe to say that 17 movies into a series that’s less than a decade old, Marvel Studios have turned the magic into a consistent, repeatable science. Even the weakest entries are still pretty good, and the Phase Three behemoth continues its strong form with Thor: Ragnarok, the third standalone entry for the god of thunder.
It’s slightly ironic that 2013’s Thor: The Dark World initially cued up the planet-hopping ethos which James Gunn's Guardians Of The Galaxy perfected, while falling slightly short of the finishing post itself. Because Ragnarok evokes the best of Gunn's work, while owing a debt to 2016’s Doctor Strange for successfully introducing actual sorcery into a cause-and-effect universe. The Thor of the third-coming rides the wave of its siblings, all with a heavy dose of dry humour. There are spaceships, there are spells; there are battleaxes and there are guffaws at every turn.
With Taika Waititi at the helm and a screenplay from Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost (all three of whom have previously worked on Marvel properties), the film is in safe and loving hands from the outset. But that’s not to say that the characters are wrapped in narrative cotton wool. The events in Ragnarok have lasting consequences for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe...
Chris Hemsworth is well in his stride as the eponymous hero of course, as is Tom Hiddleston as his antagonistic brother Loki. Anthony Hopkins’ Odin is back with minimal scenery-chewing, while Idris Elba’s Heimdall plays a key role this time, even if he feels shortchanged in terms of screen-time. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk makes a long-overdue return, playing the role in the way he’s made it his own; furious, petulant and thoroughly endearing. The Warriors Three have a fleeting reappearance, while the post-credits scene from Doctor Strange is given some fleshing out in its own full sequence. New to the cast and thrust centre-stage is Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, a hands-on role for a great performer (even if her character setup becomes lost in the overall noise of the movie).
The most anticipated name on the roster, though, is that of Cate Blanchett as Hela, the goddess of death. An actress who rarely disappoints, she plays true to form here, but never quite manages the true malice her role requires. ‘Revenge’ is a staple motivation for comic-book villains, but it’s really the only card in Hela’s deck, and Cate can’t seem to get past the theatrical posturing of her character and down to business. While it’s certainly an improvement on Christopher Ecclestone’s Malekith from The Dark World, it seems that Marvel haven’t quite solved their villain-problem yet.
But one thing which is in plentiful supply is charismatic supporting players. At one point where Thor awakens strapped into a chair being conveyed to meet ‘The Grandmaster’, a silhouette intro-montage plays on the walls behind him. Suddenly, a lone figure strikes a pose which is held in unmistakable freeze-frame; Jeff Goldblum has entered the screenplay. Every line, every gesture, every mid-sentence pause of Goldblum’s deftly steals the scene it’s in. Luckily for the film he’s used with restraint, but The Grandmaster is an absolute joy to behold.
Coming a very close second place in the attention-grabbing stakes is the mo-cap and voice turn from the director as Korg, arguably the Drax of Ragnarok, with Waititi’s native Kiwi-twang offsetting his fearsome rock-like appearance in deadpan observational comedy.
Mark Mothersbaugh is on scoring duties, and while the soundtrack makes the right noises in the right places, it’s not as thematically strong as previous entries from the likes of Michael Giacchino or Brian Tyler. In fact, other than a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it snippet, none of Tyler’s work from The Dark World makes a return - especially odd given how much time the film spends on Asgard and in the company of characters we’ve met there before. On a first-pass, the most standout musical moments seem to be where Led Zeppelin are inserted into the mix, which is fair enough.
All in all, Thor: Ragnarok is Marvel Studios rounding off 2017 with the A-game they’ve brought throughout. Fun, exciting battles and bickering, in exotic locations and with lasting character development. Fantastic stuff.
The battle at the end of the universe took place in Screen 5 of my local cinema, and Taika Waititi finished what Kenneth Branagh started. Marvel’s marketing department call it magic and and their effects crews call it science. But from where I sat tonight? They’re one and the same thing…
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? Didn't hear one this time.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.
Well, the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, to be fair…
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
Strong previous-game all round, but it's a strong contender.
I very well might.
I didn't hear one this time, but hit me up if you did yeah?
Level 1: The voice of Savage Opress is a voice in this.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now, I love Iron Man. It's no secret, and I've never tried to make it one. It's fair to say I have a slight obsession with ol' shell-head, and not just the Robert Downey Jr incarnation. Although I have a moderate grounding in Marvel lore, I'm by no means an expert, which is what makes reading/watching the vintage and retro stories so exciting. But back to the present day and MCU iteration. Sorry to spring this on you, but take a seat. We need to talk about Tony…
Why is Iron Man in Age Of Ultron?
He really doesn't need to be there at all. Tony Stark sure, but the actual Iron Man super-ego*1 himself? Over the course of the three standalone movies (plus Avengers, which feeds his neuroses for the third film), Tony Stark is challenged physically, intellectually and psychologically, and emerges triumphant - and crucially, wiser. Backed by Brian Tyler's gorgeous score, Tony stands among the clifftop ruins of Stark Mansion and throws his now-obsolete chest-mounted arc-reactor into the Pacific ocean. Never a one for undue sentiment, he knows that this is the closing of a chapter, and even though his final words to us are "I am Iron Man", the card at the end of the credits reads 'Tony Stark will return'...
Tony Stark will return
…so why did Iron Man return? Do the focus groups at Marvel really think audiences won't bond with an Avengers movie unless it stars the character who started the ball rolling back in 2008? Don't get me wrong, it's always a pleasure to spend time in his company, but it seems Age Of Ultron has been used as a kind of buffer to get War Machine to pick up the mantle left by the departing Iron Man. This, in itself, is great as we finally get a little more diversity within the team, but also because I want to see how Stark's armour fares when it's got a different pilot inside. James Rhodes' fighting style and team ethic will (should) be noticeably different for a start. But should it really take a whole movie just to swap out the characters, given that Stark doesn't come to any earth-shattering conclusion after the battle of Sokovia? Rather than go out on a high (as he already has done), this fifth starring role seems like a muted coda for him, as he decides he needs a bit of downtime and pootles off to be with the missus, making War Machine feel even more like a reserve-choice.
There was a period in the 1970s/80s comic chronology when Stark battled with alcoholism, in a kind of socially-aware, if not socially-conscious move by Marvel. During this period, Stark went off to rehab and trusted the armour to Rhodes. In Secret Wars in particular, Rhodes wore the Iron Man armour itself (rather than the guise of War Machine), and even the other Marvel heroes/villains weren't aware at first who was behind the mask. A retooling of the booze problem has been all but nixed for the MCU, although I still think it could be handled with enough tact for a 12A audience. Importantly, this could have given the perfect opening for Tony Stark to be on the bench for the film, as Rhodey steps in to help his partner. It would also give Tony something to actually go off and work on at the end of the film, too; explaining his resulting absence from the next few movies.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like A.I.?
The other elephant in the room is Stark's apparent reason for being in the film: Ultron. I, of all people, am acutely aware of the reasons that the MCU movies don't follow the established and classic stories from the comics. Notwithstanding that writing styles and social conventions change, Marvel need to be able to produce something that's new for all fans. So while familiar names, relationships and places are used (with a plethora of easter eggs to sweep up a lot of the others), the stories are indeed a new continuity, leaving the writers free to introduce and dispatch characters as required (well…).
But I know damned well that I'm not the only one who's noticed that Tony Stark didn't create Ultron before. Ultron, the self-replicating, self-upgrading metal bastard that he is, was created by professor Hank Pym, the scientist who was also the first incarnation of Ant-Man. Now normally, a switch of this kind would hint at the sort of film-rights-issue which sees Quicksilver appear in AoU as the result of genetic experimentation, not as a mutant. If Hank Pym fell under the remit of a Marvel property currently under license to Sony or 20th Century Fox, then it would be understandable to substitute his efforts for Stark's (being that he's technologically advanced enough to pull it off). This would also give Stark his crucial reason for being in the film. So why this significant alteration to the lore? Who owns the cinematic rights to Hank Pym?
Marvel Studios do, of course. Pym is due to debut this July in Ant-Man, and will be played by none other than Michael Douglas. They've got the character, they've got the situation, they'd rather not use it thank you very much. Age Of Ultron could have been a great opportunity to introduce Pym, even if he was only assisting Stark in Ultron's creation. With a little contrition and guilt he could still have been redeemed (Stark was, apparently) in time for this Ant-Man appearance.
Again, it's not that I didn't absolutely adore Age Of Ultron, but a different movie, where Hank Pym and Tony Stark create Ultron, the failure of which sends Stark deeper into his unresolved issues whilst James Rhodes proves himself as a full-time Avenger, leaving Tony to go and battle his demons as Hank swears himself off robotics? That would have been much better for the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole than The Tony Stark Show…
…feel free to disagree, obviously.
Course it bladdy is.
For fans, it'll be a buy-er.
Some yes, some no.
It does.
Oh, I wouldn't put it like that, exactly…
Course there bladdy is.
Again? Really? You know that Mace W-… okay, Scarlett Johannson starred in 2005's The Island alongside Ewan 'Obi-Wan' McGregor.
*1 I use 'super-ego' in the psychoanalytical sense, I'm not saying that Tony Stark is like, super egotistical. Although he also is. Which is why I think I identify with him so much. We've got a lot in common, Tony and I, once you take out the looks, money, intellect and bravery. Oh, and the driving licence. I don't have one of those, either. Still a lot in common, though.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Okay, you read that spoiler-disclaimer up there, didn't you? The one which says "HUGE PLOT SPOILERS"? Yeah. Good. I'm entirely serious, don't read the rest of this review if you haven't seen the film. I'm just very aware that Age Of Ultron isn't out in the US yet*1 and yet I've seen it three times so I'm all like 'oh what, this old thing?' and some folks are like 'Hey! Don't tell us that [REDACTED] dies, you monster!'. Well don't worry, that's what this spoiler-break is for, so that any of the things I'm going to look into don't get picked up by your RSS feed or somesuch.
So while you mull it over and decide whether you want to scroll on, here's a picture of a Beagle dressed as Thor to calm your troubled mind…
Still here? Smashing, the spoilers will be here in a moment, but first here's the timeline of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies so far…
[2008] Iron Man
[2008] The Incredible Hulk
[2010] Iron Man 2
[2011] Thor
[2011] Captain America: The First Avenger
[2012] Avengers Assemble [2013] Iron Man 3
[2013] Thor: The Dark World
[2014] Captain America: The Winter Soldier
[2014] Guardians Of The Galaxy
[2015] Avengers: Age Of Ultron
[2015] Ant-Man
[2016] Captain America: Civil War
[2016] Doctor Strange
[2017] Guardians Of The Galaxy 2
[2017] Spider-Man
[2017] Thor: Ragnarok
[2018] Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 [2018] Black Panther
[2018] Captain Marvel
[2019] Avengers: Infinity War Part 2 [2019] Inhumans
Now the reason I mention this is that we're 11 films into a 22-movie series (confirmed so far), and the end of Avengers: Age Of Ultron has left me with one question...
Why won't Marvel kill off their heroes?
The final scene of AoU introduces us to the next iteration of The Avengers; Captain America and Black Widow, who we already know and love, a welcome spotlight for War Machine and The Falcon, plus Scarlet Witch and The Vision. That's quite a change of lineup when you consider no-one died to make it this way. Tony Stark decides he's going to pootle off back to Pepper for a bit, Bruce Banner has stealth-moded off the radar of an organisation which seemed to have no trouble tracking him down previously, Thor has just remembered he has some pressing admin which needs doing on Asgard, and Agent Barton's bought the farm. And not in the usual cinematic sense. No-one, in fact, buys the farm.
The Avengers who are phased out are essentially put on ice, like toys put back in the play-box because new ones have arrived on Christmas morning. In many ways (read: business) it's a responsible attitude, but one which restricts development of the timeline. It's certainly not that we don't want to see Iron Man's super-facetious version of a super-hero, and watching The Hulk single-handedly destroy an entire building then spend ten minutes looking remorseful about it hasn't lost its appeal quite yet. But this practice of restricting permanent change in the timeline starts to leave you with the feeling that very little's actually changing at all. Plenty of induction-days, not so many funerals.
In fact, the only (named) characters who actually die in this film are the ones introduced in it, too. Poor old Quicksilver does his best but is never quite as charismatic as his X-Men incarnation, and a fatal spray of anti-armour artillery from an Ultron-piloted gunship sees him stretchered off onto SHIELD's rescue heli-carrier while his sister has a bit of a meltdown (although given how many Ultron-drones were closing in on the magic-plunger at that moment, everyone would have been royally screwed if her wave of anger and grief hadn't fried every toaster in a five-block radius). That said, the script had already explained that the source of Quicksilver's power was a super-fast metabolism, and those shells look like they passed right through, to me. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if he makes a return in the future. Agent Coulson survived worse.
Then there's Ultron himself; the film's uber-baddie who seems far more flippant and sarcastic than any comic version of the character I remember, and also considerably less of a genocidal maniac (he still is one, of course, just less somehow). For two hours we're shown Ultron constantly upgrading himself and inhabiting thousands of bodies simultaneously; he disappears into the internet itself and essentially absorbs the sum of all human knowledge, a move which even The Avengers admit will make him almost impossible to destroy. Then they destroy him. Maybe in his haste to crush all of everything in the world ever, Ultron didn't leave a backup of his personality back at the workshop or… y'know, on any capable machine connected to the internet anywhere in the world? It seems unlikely to me, so while we get a fantastic final scene between Ultron and The Vision, again I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to crop up again to annoy Earth's Mightiest Heroes (his ultimate indestructibility is his calling card in every other version of the character, after all).
Then there's the reasons for the other heroes' departure. While I'm very aware that the movies can't (indeed shouldn't) be straight-up adaptations of the comic stories, Tony Stark took a break from being Iron Man in the mid 1980s to attempt to conquer his alcoholism, and James 'War Machine' Rhodes wore the armour in his stead. While it's great that Don Cheadle gets to wear his character's regular armour (hey, I loved Iron Patriot but let's dial that back a little), surely this would have been a more solid reason for Stark's (temporary?) abdication from the group? The three Iron Man films did a great job of painting a more rounded picture of Tony-Stark-The-Man than they did Iron-Man-The-Hero. Wouldn't a natural extension of this be showing that he's still battling his internal demons, rather than "well, I supposed I'd best go and spend some time with the missus - you know what they're like!"? I'm also not entirely convinced that Iron Man should have been in this movie at all, but that's a ponder for my next review. The fact remains that there are (presently) no more standalone Iron Man movies scheduled, so unless a TV show is in the works, why retire the character so noncommittally?
Then there's Bruce Banner. Not dwelling on the fact that his exit isn't a million miles away from that of the last Batman, I'll give it to Marvel that The Hulk really is a character that needs a little solitude between appearances. It's how the 2008 Edward Norton movie ended, and pretty much how every episode of the Bill Bixby-era TV series closed, too. So it's what the character's used to, if nothing else. It's also an ending which sets the character up perfectly for another spin-off adventure, but there's nothing scheduled there, yet.
Then there's Thor. He spent most of the film stewing over the hallucination given to him by Scarlet Witch and has gone off to investigate the perceived meaning. That's fair enough, as he's the only one of the group to have a working knowledge of the Infinity Stones, and he's due to appear in a standalone/sequel in 2017.
Then there's Hawkeye. Lovely, cuddly Clint's backstory has been so hastily assembled that the glue's still drying when The Quinjet touches down behind the barn. It's deserved, of course. The guy's been essentially playing second-fiddle since his cameo in the first Thor movie, and it's nice to know he's more than just a bow, an arrow and a frown. But Age Of Ultron heavy-handedly points towards the delivery of Barton's KIA Medal in just about every scene he has… then doesn't have the bottle to kill him (again, I must stress that I like this characters. I don't want them to die, as such. I just want to see some consequences). Sure, The Hawk can be wheeled out for a future appearance or cameo, but will there be an accompanying scene of him sitting glumly at home, promising not to get killed?
But it's not like it's just Age Of Ultron that's doing this. In Thor: The Dark World, the film essentially ended in the same place it started, other than the wrecking of Greenwich Observatory's new lawn and the death of Frigga, a character who was incidental at best. Sure, she's Thor's mum, but it's not like the whole Asgard dynamic was about those two squabbling. Secondary characters turn up in that film, scowl and then die (and Odin doesn't count as there's little chance he died off-screen). The Winter Soldier achieved a greater amount of scene-shifting by essentially dismantling the SHIELD organisation, but again this was done with minimum cast-casualties (first-appearances or previous background characters only). Now obviously in Age Of Ultron, the dynamic *has* changed massively, but it's still be done in a very non-permanent way. Is this an insurance policy so that if MCU Phase Three and beyond doesn't go down as well as hoped, the original Phase One lineup can be pulled back out of stasis?
So. Tell me why I'm wrong. Tell me why packing the kids off to Summer-camp is fine in this instance. Tell me why the film's final battle only apparently has one casualty (although I'm pretty sure there'd be a shitload of civilians killed or trapped in the wreckage in Sokovia, and more than a few who just fell off the edge). Tell me why Marvel can't bear to kill off any of their heroes, even the one that got kebabbed with The Loki-Pokey Stick.
Comments-box or Facebook, either will be smashing, thanks.
Hang on, do I have to answer these every time I see the film?.
Well, they're self-imposed rules, so I suppose I do.
I mean obviously, you should go and see this in the cinema, as that's where it'll look best.
That said, I wouldn't bother with the 3D unless that happens to be the screening you're saddled with.
It's not like it ruins the film, but it doesn't really make it any better.
Any what's the point of paying extra for something which is only going to make the film a bit darker and not really improve it?
This again? Okay, Chris 'Captain America' Evans lent his voice to the 2007 animated T.M.N.T. movie, which also starred James Arnold Taylor who voices Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
I can't believe you want a different one of these each time, especially since Mace Windu's in the film…
*1 I have no idea why the UK gets an early release. As I recall, we did for Guardians Of The Galaxy, too. For obvious reasons I can't really complain about it, but if I lived on the other side of the pond I'd be a bit miffed about it, frankly.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
