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: Avengers- Age of Ultron

After months upon months of anticipation and an oversaturation of over-showing advertisements, the second of Marvel's Avengers team-up movies has hit US theaters in the form of Avengers: Age of Ultron. I must admit, my hype for the film had slowly diminished over time; I was shaking with anticipation upon walking out of James Gunn's phenominal Guardians of the Galaxy last summer. However, between the various trailers (which show far more than they should) and the knowledge that the next time the Avengers assemble (albeit years from now in the two-part Infinity War), the result will be bigger and better in literally every aspect, my excitement for Age of Ultron steadily decreased from "frothing at the mouth" to "just another movie I want to see". Unfortunately for the film, my expectations didn't follow such a downward slope, otherwise I probably would have appreciated what I watched more than I did. Don't misunderstand me, I didn't dislike this film; hell, I just got back from my second (and likely not last) screening. I was, however, somewhat underwhelmed. I didn't leave the theater in the same state of pupil-dilating delight that Joss Whedon's first Avengers left me in. This isn't a bad movie, but I feel as though it certainly could have (and indeed should have) been better.

For anyone who's been under a rock for the past year or so, the plot follows the Avengers (Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner) dealing with the genocidal AI known as Ultron (voiced and mo-capped by James Spader). Like many robots designed to protect humanity, Ultron sees the human race as a threat to itself and deduces that the only logical way to keep people from constantly killing each other is to wipe them all out. By his side are Wanda and Pietro Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson), twins from the European nation of Sokovia who volunteered to be imbued with the powers of reality manipulation and super speed for a chance to gain revenge against one Tony Stark. As one would expect from a Marvel movie at this point, the cast also includes Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Nick Fury and Paul Bettany pulling double duty both as Tony Stark's AI assistant, JARVIS, and as the enigmatic Vision. New to the MCU is Andy Serkis, appearing as Ulysses Klaue, a black market arms dealer whom fans of the comics will recognize as arch-enemy of the Black Panther. With an ensemble this large and diverse, it can be difficult to ensure that everyone gets enough screentime and development; it can be a little imbalanced here and there (as one would expect, we spend much more time with Iron Man than we do with Thor or Hulk), but for the most part it's pretty even.

The alumni have all long since settled into their respective roles and play them well. Honestly, all of the performances here are great, the only issues arise from the writing. It's sharp and clever at  best, utterly cringe-inducing at the worst. Captain America went through a significant deal of development and growth in the stellar Winter Soldier; here, he is relegated to occasionally give a teamwork speech and be the butt of jokes about how he's an old-fashioned boyscout who doesn't like naughty words. Tony Stark was left in a very interesting place at the end of Iron Man 3, rethinking his philosophy and mission statement when it came to being a superhero, deciding not to rely so heavily on technology. In Age of Ultron, literally every decision he makes is a bad one (even the choices that end up working out in the end are all horribly irresponsible in context). Honestly, it's kind of shocking just how incompetent Iron Man is for the entirety of this film, in particular during the already iconic Hulkbuster fight. Instead of coming off as a well-intentioned hero who makes a mistake, he's written like a wannabe messiah with absolutely zero foresight. Granted, there IS a plot point that explains this behavior (or at least the aspects of which result in Ultron being born), but that doesn't magically turn this detail into a point in the film's favor. If the intent was to streamline the process of making him into an almost-antagonist in time for Captain America: Civil War, then mission accomplished. Thor has barely any screentime when he's not hitting things with his hammer and Hulk is now involved in an awkward and overly-forward romance with Black Widow (because if there's one thing audiences love in superhero movies, it's unnecessary romantic subplots). Bruce Banner sees himself as a monster because of the beast lurking within him, but the reason that Agent Romanoff thinks of herself as something of a "monster" is so baffling I'm honestly surprised it made it into the final cut. I honestly don't understand the logic in taking the only female Avenger to get so much screentime (a hardened secret agent with a bloody, shadowy past as an assassin) and relegate her to the role of team denmother, able to soothe the savage beast with her gentle femininity (when she's not throwing out witty quips about how she's the girl on the team of "boys"). In short, literally every main character here is better written in their own movies. Widow and Cap were better in Winter Soldier, Tony and Rhodey were better in Iron Man 3, and so on. All that said, the two characters who completely steal the show here are unquestioningly Renner's Hawkeye and Bettany as The Vision.

Hawkeye was infamously underdeveloped in the first Avengers and, in a stroke of good decision making, Whedon has remedied this by giving him entire scenes of nothing but pure character development. It's greatly appreciated and helps cement Hawkeye as something more than "that guy with the bow and arrows who's on the same team as the Mighty Thor for some reason". Renner plays the role as incredibly down-to-earth and it works perfectly; this is a normal, human guy who happens to be really good at archery and that is why he works alongside Hulk and Iron Man. As I mentioned, the other highlight was Paul Bettany as The Vision. The Vision is an intriguing character, in that he is both above and outside of humanity, yet was born of humanity. He feels no ill will towards anything, even Ultron, giving him a distinctly Christlike tone; he is the bridge between the synthetic and the organic, offering insight from both perspectives as a living being and as a machine, born in a lab. Aside from the fantastic performance by Bettany, his powerset is absolutely a blast to watch in motion, so a gold star for The Vision, the peaceful, optimistic Yang to the villainous Ultron's Yin. And speaking of Ultron, we come to my biggest gripe with the movie...

In the comics, Ultron is an advanced AI developed by Dr. Hank Pym (better known as the first Ant Man). Designed to protect the human race, Ultron deduced that the only way to save mankind from itself was to destroy all life on Earth entirely. In the source material, Ultron is a hateful, spite-filled presence and is one of the absolute greatest threats to the planet. In the movie, he is a snarky android who spouts one-liners and fails to ever come off as a genuine threat. I know it's not necessarily fair to compare the comic books to the film; these are two different interpretations through two different mediums. However, that doesn't change that the MCU portrayal of Ultron is one of the most pointless villains to exist in a modern Marvel movie. He's not quite as bad as Thor: The Dark World's Malekith the Accursed, but Loki, Kingpin, Alexander Pierce, and even Thanos (for the cumulative ten minutes of screentime he's had so far) completely blow Ultron's dumb robot eyebrows off of his oddly expressive face. All that said, no disrespect is meant to Mr. Spader; he does a bang-up job in the role and his voice sounds fantastic coming out of a robot that intends to end all life on the planet. As I mentioned, none of the problems with this movie have to do with the cast so much as they have to do with the writing. Instead of loathing humanity with a deep, painful hatred, Ultron makes sarcastic remarks. There's a half a handful of moments when he actually sounds either genuinely threatening or intriguingly vulnerable, but these interesting character moments are too few and far between to salvage this wreck of a villain. His plan is idiotic and he carries himself in a way that makes it seem like he's one musical cue away from breaking into a Disney villain song. James Spader is awesome, but Ultron is decidedly not.

For all my complaining, it probably sounds like I hated this movie; I don't. I actually quite like it. I don't love it the way I love Winter Soldier, or Guardians of the Galaxy, or even The Avengers, but that doesn't mean it's horrible. Truthfully, I was just disappointed; it feels like this movie could have been so much more. It's already long (just over two hours long, to be more specific), but an extended edition would really help patch some of those holes and add some lean meat onto this shallow summer blockbuster. I feel the same way about Avengers: Age of Ultron that I felt about Iron Man 2 when I first saw that years ago; it was an enjoyable time, I definitely recommend seeing it in a theater with a good sound system and a fun, responsive crowd. That said, it simply felt like a preamble; Iron Man 2 was nothing but build up to The Avengers, Age of Ultron was a bunch of build up to Marvel's Phase Three. It's the Avengers, so you're going to have a good time. But don't expect anything revolutionary.