REVIEW: Thor Ragnarok

It feels like, consistently, out of all of Marvel's characters, Thor and Hulk always get the short end of the stick. Not only are they arguably the two Avengers that are hardest to take seriously, their considerable power levels lead to them either mysteriously disappearing or getting conveniently dispatched during most group action sequences (because let's face it, it's a lot easier to make compelling action setpieces when hordes of CGI henchmen are going up against squishy humans with fancy toys rather than two invulnerable flying bricks). It's really a shame, because these two have such amazing potential that has never really been realized in the span of the MCU; The Incredible Hulk (back when Bruce Banner looked mysteriously like Edward Norton) is fun but standard, and the previous two Thor films are easily the most forgettable entries into Marvel's cinematic universe. It seemed like a stroke of genius taking the two most under-appreciated (not to mention, under-utilized) Avengers and putting them in the same film, especially since their buddies/rivals dynamic has been a highlight of previous team-ups. While Thor Ragnarok is by no means a game-changer, it was definitely a lot of lovingly-crafted fun.

The plot takes place two years after the events of Age of Ultron, highlighting exactly what Thor and Hulk were busy doing while that whole Civil War mess was going down. After unsuccessfully attempting to track down the Infinity Gems and running afoul of the Norse demon known as Surtur (voiced by the one and only owner of the Krusty Krab, Clancy Brown), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds himself at long last returning to his home of Asgard. As we saw at the end of Thor: The Dark World, Loki (Tom Hiddelston) has taken advantage of his brother's long absence, disguising himself as their father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and seizing control of the throne. This leads to a chain of events that results in the return of Hela (Cate Blanchette), Odin's firstborn daughter and goddess of death. After failing to stop their vengeful sister from returning to Asgard, Thor and Loki find themselves flung into the far reaches of space, landing on the gladiatorial planet known as Sakaar (run by the flamboyant Grandmaster, played by the immortal Jeff Goldblum). Once there, who should they run into but the everlovin' Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), who's spent the last two years on Sakaar as the Grandmaster's champion. With Hela seizing control of Asgard, it's up to the mighty Thor to assemble what allies he can, escape Sakaar, return home, and prevent the coming of Rangarok; the end of all things.

While I very much appreciate Marvel beginning to step out of their comfort zone when it comes to the premise of these films (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ended with the team fighting a living planet, after all), it still feels as though they're too timid to fully commit to something totally wild and original. Even with its bombastic sense of humor and planet-hopping storyline, Thor Ragnarok is still, at its core, your standard "we gotta get home and stop the bad guy from taking over" plot. It very much feels as though director Taika Waititi (who created one of my favorite comedies of all time) and the executives at Marvel Studios had two different visions of what this movie should be. Waititi clearly wanted an offbeat cosmic road movie, while Marvel seemed to have a checklist of criteria that needed to be fulfilled in order to set up future event films in the MCU. There's a number of major events and character deaths that don't receive nearly the amount of attention one might expect, and that sense of unbalance and disharmony ends up taking a toll on the film as a whole.

After Thor ends up on Sakaar, the film splits into two storylines; Thor trying to get home, and Hela seizing control of Asgard. Obviously, the two converge during the final act, but I found myself feeling a real sense of tonal dissonance. Everything on Sakaar is more or less comedic (especially when Jeff Goldblum is on screen) and everything on Asgard is 100% serious (especially when Hela is on screen). Not to say that things felt jarring or uneven (each storyline was tonally consistent in its own way), but it made the film feel like it was in conflict with itself. The Asgard storyline feels like a fantasy action/drama, where supporting characters are brutally offed on-screen and innocent families are forced into hiding for their own protection. Meanwhile, the Sakaar storyline feels like a sci-fi comedy/adventure, full of slapstick and comedic subversions. The film's habit of cutting back and forth between each storyline with every scene results in a sort of water and oil situation, where the film struggles with developing a consistent identity.

I don't mean to keep bringing up Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but seeing as how that might just be my favorite MCU movie, it ends up being a fine example of how to craft exactly the sort of film Marvel Studios should strive to make. Despite being very comedic in tone, the constant jokes didn't really clash with the drama; we still felt for the characters and cared about their stories. The comedy is used as a way to get the audience invested in and attached to the characters, rather than simply as a way to make everyone laugh; James Gunn understood this well enough that, by the time the movie is over, there was hardly a dry eye in the theater (despite the final shot consisting of a talking CGI raccoon at a space funeral). It's important not to lose track of that human element, which is something that both Spider-Man Homecoming and Thor Ragnarok struggle with. It's something I touch on in my Wonder Woman Review, how many Marvel movies seem to default to lighthearted action comedy as a way of dispelling the tension that arises when you expect an audience to actually take a flying space viking seriously. Usually it works out well enough, but relying too much on undercutting drama with a joke can make the film predictable. Don't get me wrong, Ragnarok is a very funny movie (I would expect no less from Taika Waititi), but by the third act it had gotten to the point where I didn't take anything at face value. Whenever the music began to swell and something dramatic was about to happen, I immediately thought to myself "what would be the most obvious way to make this scene funny"; cue exactly that happening mere seconds later.

The film's breakneck pace also contributes to this lack of emotional attachment; despite clocking in at just over two hours, there are plenty of elements at play here that don't get nearly the amount of attention we'd hope for. There's never really a dull moment or a stretch of the film where I felt bored (which, don't get me wrong, is excellent), but it also feels like we didn't get enough time with some of the exciting new elements they introduced this time around. There's exactly one gladiator fight (despite how much of the plot takes place on Sakaar), Jeff Goldblum doesn't get nearly as many scenes as he deserves (although this is true of every movie ever made), and a number of character deaths feel brushed over. Karl Urban appears as Skurge the Executioner and, judging from his performance, he could have easily been my favorite part of the entire film, had he been given more attention. This is a film with little to no fat on it, but in removing the excess, they seem to have cut off some of the good meat as well. The opening scene might be my favorite in the entire movie; it's a fun, exciting action sequence that really hypes you up to watch the mighty Thor in action. But from that point on, Thor is removed from the Asgard plot until the climax and thrust into a new setting that isn't really given a chance to shine whenever Jeff Goldblum isn't onscreen. Despite the entertaining cast, this is a movie where the plot is driven moreso by the story rather than the characters.

Now despite all my issues, I think it's worth noting that I really did enjoy myself with Ragnarok. After years of desperately trying to find his MCU niche, it feels like we've finally gotten to a place with the character of Thor where he can really come into his own as a protagonist. While I never really felt the kind of emotions I got with something like Guardians 2, I really can't emphasize what a fun, endearing road movie this is. Jack "The King" Kirby would have turned 100 this year, and this film feels like the ultimate tribute to his influence on Marvel's comics; it's a whacked-out cosmic fantasy romp full of weird aliens and weirder architecture, where ancient mythologies and deep-space civilizations collide. There's even a strong focus on the classic "Kirby Dots" during the credits; this is a classic-era Marvel story with a modern twist, and the result is just a load of fun. The main cast all give strong performances and play off of each other wonderfully; I especially liked Tom Hiddelston as Loki this time around. Not only does he continue to show off what a genuinely solid comedic actor he is, but his arc is easily the most interesting, as he comes to terms with the fact that, while he may be more clever than his big, dumb jock of a brother, he still hasn't accomplished much, despite all of his supposed intellect and trickery. While it's true that there's not much here in the way of ingenuity, you'd be hard pressed to sit through this without having a good, fun time.

Despite its shortcomings, Thor Ragnarok is still a thoroughly enjoyable romp that is really quite hard to dislike. While it's not necessarily among the absolute best of the MCU, it's very easily the best Thor movie to date; it's an offbeat space adventure with a lot of laughs and imagination that has an unfortunate habit of getting in its own way. While I'd still like to see Thor done with a bit more sincerity, what's here is in no way bad or disappointing. There's a load of great performances and some really excellent cinematography, all framed around a delightfully quirky score care of DEVO's Mark Mothersbaugh. If the film did nothing else, it finally accomplished what so many MCU films have tried to do for so long; it gave Chris Hemsworth's Thor something fun and interesting to do. It's not my favorite MCU film by any means, but I definitely got a kick out of it; check it out.

Hey wait a minute, where the hell was Lady Sif?

REVIEW: The Last Unicorn

I've always found it interesting how the benefit of hindsight can add or subtract to a film. Some movies have a habit of taking root in our minds, where subtext reveals itself to the viewer and creative decisions become that much clearer to understand; we're able to step back and see the full picture, sometimes as early as when the credits begin to roll. Oftentimes this kind of post-viewing rumination can lead to that magnificent kind of eureka moment, where the pure artistry at work is pulled into the limelight and given a time to shine. Other times, as the afterglow fades, plot holes begin to make themselves known and the film begins to disintegrate before our very eyes. The Last Unicorn, a 1982 cult classic from the iconic Rankin/Bass Productions, falls moreso alongside the former rather than the latter; while I found my viewing experience to be very hit or miss, it was after the credits had stopped rolling, when I had a chance to really consider the plot from a subtextual standpoint, that the film's true value made itself known to me.

Adapted from Peter S. Beagle's novel of the same name, the story follows the titular unicorn (Mia Farrow) as she attempts to cope with the revelation that she is, indeed, the last of her kind (hence the title; already the film begins to reveal itself to us). After hearing tell of a mysterious Red Bull that supposedly chased all of her unicorn brethren to the ends of the earth, the unicorn sets out on a grand adventure to find and return all the world's unicorns. Along the way, she meets an insecure magician by the name of Schmendrick (Alan Arkin) and a beleaguered maid named Molly Grue (Tammy Grimes), who accompany her on her journey. After a harrowing run-in with the Red Bull, Schmendrick uses his magic to turn the unicorn into a mortal woman (since the bull only pursues unicorns). As the unicorn (now under the assumed human name of Amalthea) adjusts with her new body and place in the world, the group arrive at the seaside castle of King Haggard (Christopher Lee), in hopes of solving the mystery of where the unicorns disappeared to once and for all.

While the plot is very much your standard fairy tale fare (characters go from point A to B to C, encountering different story beats along the way), it's truly the subtext behind it all that keeps everything moving. I must confess that, upon watching this for the first time, I found myself growing quite bored on more than one occasion. The film carries itself slowly to begin with, lingering on individual scenes and focusing moreso on character interactions and dialog than outright action and adventure, but once our trio reaches King Haggard's castle, things grind to a complete stop until the climax. This isn't helped by our protagonists; the only one with any kind of drive or grit is Molly, and she isn't given nearly as much attention as Schmendrick and the unicorn (who are completely passive by comparison). Yes, everyone has an arc and yes, everyone contributes something by the time the story is ended, but there's still not really anyone for the audience to latch onto until Molly is introduced. Schmendrick is endearing thanks to Alan Arkin's humble performance, but that doesn't change the fact that he barely does anything aside from feel sorry for himself for the majority of the film. Meanwhile the titular unicorn comes off as detached and mopey until she's turned human, at which point she basically goes catatonic from having to deal with her newfound mortality. Despite all my griping, I actually really like the kind of offbeat, melancholy tone this gives the entire film; I just wish there was a protagonist I could forge a greater connection with.

With a classically simplistic plot and characters to match, the film is 100% carried by its subtext. Despite essentially being a film targeted towards children, the story is heavy with themes of life, death, and notions of mortality and immortality. One of my favorite scenes involves the unicorn immediately after she is turned human; terrified of her newfound mortality, she describes how she can feel her new body slowly dying around her. It's surprisingly hefty stuff for an animated children's film about a pretty unicorn who turns into a pretty princess. In turning human, the unicorn experiences a sort of loss of innocence, transforming from a pure and immortal creature of the woods to yet another doomed-to-die dime-a-dozen person. However, there's a clear look at the give and take associated with mortality and immortality; the unicorn is shaken by her sudden transition, yet, in the end, values her experiences. Though she'll forever be different from the other unicorns (tainted, in a way), she is the only of her kind to have possessed the proper perspective that allows her to feel emotions such as love and regret. 

By the same token, we have characters like Mommy Fortuna (a witch who runs a traveling sideshow, voiced by Angela Lansbury) and The Skull (a talking skeleton, voiced by Rene Auberjonois); both clearly favor immortality and both possess unending life in their own, personal ways. Mommy Fortuna, despite using illusions and trickery to disguise mundane creatures as fantastical beasts, seeks to establish her own dominance over the legendary animals she imprisons. She covets the immortal life that the unicorn (as well as the harpy she imprisons) both possess, and thus seeks to make her mark as best as she can. Despite meeting her end at the hands of said harpy as her captives escape, she still achieves her own kind of immortality; as she explains, the harpy will spend the rest of its unending life knowing that Mommy Fortuna was the one who held it in captivity. She achieves immortality within the memories of the beast she captured, but at the cost of her own life. Meanwhile, the Skull has been around for an unquestionably long time, laying about in the depths of King Haggard's castle. Despite his eternal life, he still longs for something as simple as the taste of wine. They even establish that, as a skeleton, he's unable to even taste wine, let alone drink it; he explains that it's the feeling, the memory of the wine, that truly matters. Both have achieved eternal life, yet at a cost so terrible, it may as well make the entire point moot. Immortality is life without end, but life without end is no life at all.

Aside from that, the art design is quite gorgeous, even if the animation is nothing to write home about. There's several songs performed by America (the band behind A Horse With No Name) and all of these are quite good; it's when anyone else tries singing that things get really embarrassing really quickly (Jeff Bridge's forelorn love ballad and Mia Farrow's infamous "NOW THAT I'M A WOMUUUUUN" songs are the unintentionally hilarious highlights). All in all, while I've certainly seen better, I can at least understand why The Last Unicorn  is considered a cult classic by so many. I found myself slipping into boredom and frustration here and there while watching it, but in hindsight, I can really appreciate it from an artistic and subtextual standpoint. It's not necessarily for everyone; I found myself in a similar position when watching Wizards, where the film really only revealed itself to me after I was done watching it. Looking back, however, at least Wizards had me thoroughly engaged throughout. There are definitely good things here, but I don't know if I'd call it essential viewing, at least more than once. That said, I'm fairly confident that it would improve upon future viewings. Either way, it's certainly a film I plan on showing my children down the line, so take that as you will.