--Skurge, Thor: Ragnarok
Thor: Ragnarok is what might be made when strong acting is paired with gratuitous comedy and a tendency to trivialize not only the in-universe significance of a story's events, but also the events of what comes before and after. Set between Thor: The Dark World and Avengers: Infinity War, Thor Ragnarok does a terrible job of preserving the thematic and tonal continuity between its predecessor and the Avengers film it leads into. Almost everything except the death of Odin and a scene where Hela discusses her role in Asgard's past is used as little more than a setup for a joke. Even Ragnarok itself is reduced to throwaway humor. Moreover, the attempts at humor range from clever uses of Jeff Goldblum's personality to unnecessary and weak one-liners that belittle what were one characters with substance.
Production Values
Never has a Thor movie had colors this diverse and vibrant on such a regular basis. The trailer gave this aspect away beforehand, the visual style and tone coming far closer to those of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 than another MCU title. Unfortunately, the effects, lighting, and general aesthetic, as consistent with each other and well-executed as they might be, are just the stage for a story with very lackluster and even incoherent characterization. It is not that Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, Tom Hiddleston, Jeff Goldblum, Cate Blanchett, and Karl Urban are bad at delivering their lines and showing the physicality of their performances, but that almost all of them are given lines that do not fit at all with the gravity of the prior Thor movie and completely deviate from the desperation and somber nature of the opening scene of Infinity War--which literally starts where a Thor: Ragnarok credits scene stops. Loki, who once invaded Earth intending to kill or enslave humanity out of sheer arrogance, and Thor, who once solemnly said he would rather be a good man than a great king, are especially reduced to characters with personalities almost interchangeable with that of Tony Stark.
Cate Blanchett's villain Hela is unsurprisingly wasted in a small number of scenes that do almost nothing but briefly describe her past and emphasize her blind love of conquest. This disregard of villains has, after all, been one of the MCU's most glaring flaws that could so easily be fixed if the directors and writers would stop thinking about the increasingly unneeded style of comedy and fairly formulaic characterization the MCU has become known for. Not every villain needs to be as philosophically inclined as Thanos or Killmonger, but to make so many of them this shallow is outright idiocy at this point that reflects on the ideological and storytelling depth of the MCU's guiding hands for the past few years (no, not everyone involved is shallow because there have been great aspects to most of the recent films as well). Anthony Hopkins, Sam Neil, Matt Damon, and others have very minor roles that they handle with excellence, but a handful of great performances from well-known actors do not atone for the missteps Thor: Ragnarok takes with its almost relentless focus on comedy at the expense of general depth and character moments.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
Thor, in an effort to stop the prophesied end of Asgard via an apocalyptic event called Ragnarok, visits a being called Surtur. The remnants of Surtur's body are taken to Asgard for safekeeping after his defeat, but Thor finds that Loki has secretly taken over the realm. Odin is reached just moments before he tells Thor and his brother Loki that they have a sister named Hela--and that she is coming to Asgard as a warrior bent on taking the throne. Thor and Loki both are cast aside by Hela on a planet called Sakaar where they have to deal with a figure called the Grandmaster as they try to return to Asgard before Ragnarok.
Intellectual Content
A few very scattered references to Odin's past and the people of Asgard supposedly being Asgard itself instead of people who live or once lived in Asgard are introduced more for the mere sake of moving from one plot point to the next than actually exploring anything sincerely or at least somewhat deeply. Out of all of the Thor films, Ragnarok is by far the shallowest and most intellectually pathetic. At least the prior two addressed the relationship between Thor and Loki with gravity and sincerity. Here, other than in a very small number of scenes, even their troubled, complicated relationship is more about trying to make audiences laugh than it is about thoughtful depictions of familial strife. Ragnarok could have at least kept this much intact on a more consistent basis. Beyond this, there is nothing but almost a total lack of effort in developing any sort of clear or important themes about concepts or truth, unlike what can be found in the best MCU movies.
Conclusion
People who like comedies that are quite literally aimed at superficiality over almost any sort of substance might mistake Thor: Ragnarok for an excellent entry, but it is at best a mediocre mixture of undeveloped characters and inconsistent tones. Liking or enjoying it and thinking it is a great movie in the context of what it builds off of and leads to are very different things; I am not saying that anyone who subjectively liked it is stupid, only that this appreciation does not reflect the storytelling quality on display! For an example of how low the movie takes its established characters, take Bruce Banner and the Hulk. In The Incredible Hulk, Bruce Banner was acted with sensitivity of facial expressions, introspective depth, and a genuine struggle at the forefront. In Thor: Ragnarok, he almost exclusively says things to elicit laughter, even in his Hulk form. The subtlety and strength of the original personality are completely gone, just like the depth of Thor and Loki in their previous films.
Content:
1. Violence: Although confined by the PG-13 rating, decapitations, the removal of limbs, and the destruction of one of Thor's eyes are shown onscreen.
2. Profanity: "Bitch," "damn," and "shit" get used.
3. Nudity: One scene briefly shows Hulk naked from behind.
On one hand, I understand your frustration with gratuitous humor in a lot of the Marvel movies. It often kills the gravity of the situations and may even take you out of the movie a bit. For me, one example that comes to mind was in Ant-Man when Pym is revealing to Hope the truth of what happened to her mother and it's an emotional, vulnerable moment. Right up until Scott butts in. Sure, maybe it was an attempt at levity, but I think it could've been much more effective if they didn't add in that cheap joke where he awkwardly ruins the moment.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand though, I have to admit that there a bunch of jokes that are pretty funny (in Ragnorok when Loki says about Thor "I've never met this man in my life") and I can kinda see some value in *some* of the humor in the movies. Since I mentioned it above, it can be good to have a little levity or comic relief to ease the tension, it just needs to be utilized correctly or used more sparingly.
Even though it's not technically MCU, Into the Spiderverse I think did this masterfully. It was full to the brim with humor but it was natural and knew the right times to let the story be impactful. Even when there were moments of levity, it never took me out of how high the stakes were for the characters!
That example from Ant-Man (I haven't rewatched it in a while, so I unfortunately don't remember the exact moment) would definitely be the kind of humor that is just there for cheap reasons, not because the plot or characterization needed it or because it really enhances the scene. That's ironic since Ant-Man is one of the series in the MCU more explicitly oriented towards comedy from the beginning!
DeleteAnd yes, even some of the jokes in Ragnarok were actually very good on their own. The example you have of the "I've never met this man in my life" part would be one of them, and the way that Tom Hiddleston so calmly says "I'm asking for safe passage through the anus" was handled very well too! Even in the most gratuitous or forced jokes of Ragnarok, the cast is great the whole time. Besides wasting what could have been another more cosmic villain, the bad parts of Ragnarok reduce down to how the comedy was never what characterized the Thor movies up until then or Infinity War right after, or just how almost every more personal, dramatic moment was milked for unecessary jokes.
Still, Into The Spider-Verse did a phenomenal job balancing all of the humor, characterization, and stakes, and that is in part why it's one of the best superhero movies thus far and one of the best movies of the last few years before the pandemic. Even Logan, Zach Snyder's Justice League, and Wonder Woman had some clever humor despite being much more serious movies overall. Humor isn't really the issue in itself, but when used the way it is in Let There Be Carnage, Ragnarok, and some of the other MCU films of the past few years, it's just being used as a crutch to keep people engaged even if the story, themes, and characters are lacking.