Skip to main content

Hey, let’s do “Get help”.

Thor: Ragnarok
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Thor: Ragnarok is frequently very funny. It’s also very colourful. And quite wacky. But very funny, very colourful and quite wacky are, clearly, the current Marvel formula du jour, such that Kiwi director Taika Waititi isn’t so much unleashing a miraculous, newfound irreverent spirit onto the studio’s assorted favourites as rearranging its recently-upholstered furniture. What makes this case a little different is that the rearranging is in the service of their least interesting title character; Ragnarok comes across as if a whole movie had been based on the scene in the first Thor where the god of thunder goes into a pet shop and asks for a horse.


Am I doing down Waititi’s contribution? After all, he’ll likely receive nothing but raves off the back of this. Well, to the extent that he works a Joss Whedon effect on all the characters herein (good or bad, incidental or main), over-feeding them gags such that they’d be indistinguishable from each other if not for the personalities of the performers (which is why Blanchett’s quips fall entirely flat while Hemsworth’s, for all that he’s pushed too far the other way now as a purveyor of non-stop comedy and non-Asgardian language, mostly travel), yes.


I should emphasise that Waititi doesn’t get a screenplay credit; that’s for Eric Pearson (Agent Carter), with story designated to Pearson, Craig Kyle (various animated Marvel series), and Christopher Yost (ditto, along with a screenplay nod for Thor: The Dark World). In other words, this has been precision-engineered in the Marvel workhouse, with the studio then enabling its selected “auteur” to sprinkle a little of his own magic fairy dust over it. Not too much, but just enough to ensure Thor doesn’t go down as the lame duck of the Avengers characters boasting their own trilogy, charisma and receipts-wise.


As such, the same is true of the direction. There’s enough that’s distinctive here for it to be clear Waititi has brought his own stamp, including a predilection for vibrant colours and designs taken from the page rather than (say) following the Bryan Singer route of all-purpose leather wear (that is, if all-purpose means everyone is wearing it in undifferentiated way). This is his first big movie and his first outside of New Zealand, so if I say you wouldn’t know, and that it looks as impressively staged as any other recent Marvel movie, it’s as much a complement to his second unit director (Ben Cooke, who also worked on the previous Thors in a stunts capacity) and the effects department (the trash planet, spaceship designs etc, are very redolent of the vibrant, upbeat look of Luc Besson SF – if only Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets hadn’t tended to the flatulent).


This is a well-oiled machine, and the action, just like the gags, drop off the conveyer belt like so many sausages. There are definitely moments where you see Waititi’s more pared-down preferences coming through (Goldlbum’s Grandmaster going to town on a space age Casio keyboard), but the big moments have been digitally storyboarded well in advance. In that sense, the nearest comparison is Peyton Reed and Ant-Man.


That comparison is significant, because Ragnarok also suffers on the pacing front. Not in concept, which is actually quite canny and robust, with its Asgard bookend and Thor thrown from the fray, needing to get back in the nick of time to save his people (if not land), complete with a Chekov’s Surtur (Clancy Brown voicing a nicely-designed fire demon) primed to be re-used in the final act (meaning the classic mid-adventure Bond/Indy opening is only apparently superfluous). And, in terms of individual scenes, these are often pitch-perfect, particularly when they rely on comic interaction and pay-offs. But in terms of weight and direction, there’s something lacking here. It was quite a while before I realised, post Thor-Hulk clash, that we wouldn’t be returning to the arena (maybe that was wishful thinking), and it quickly became apparent that every time we cut back to Asgard we were being fed a subplot Waititi had zero interest in exploring.


Mostly because there are no gags to be yielded from it, and when he unwisely attempts to enforce them on Hela (Blanchett, all Shakespear’s Sister when she isn’t Maleficent refashioned as moose), they straight up bomb. This section of the movie is entirely dreary, with Asgardians in peril, Karl Urban unable to pull anything interesting from the hat of troubled not-really-so bad guy Skurge (apart from an ill-advised mockney accent, but I wouldn’t call that exactly interesting) and Idris Elba entirely failing to shine any charisma on the one-note Heimdall (he’s been essentially redundant in all three Thors). Blanchett purveys strictly uninspired villainy, but she’s been here before, her failures (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) proving more memorable than her successes (Cinderella).


Consequently, what should be ticking clock tension working in the background fails to insert itself as strongly as it should. We aren’t sufficiently invested in the stakes Thor’s fighting for, and there’s insufficient urgency in his diversion on Sakaar. Ragnarok flows more successful in the opening act, ironically, when it’s throwing in left-field developments and cameos, than once it has established its credentials. That doesn’t mean the action of the grand Asgardian climax doesn’t carry well enough on its own terms, as predictable it is (although, Hulk fighting a giant wolf isn’t exactly effective use of his abilities), and doesn’t have the occasional surprise (Thor losing an eye wasn’t one I, er, saw coming – the trailers disguised it, for a start – even if its thematically a little too on the nose, aligning him as his father’s rightful heir).


With regard to Waititi’s sensibility, it’s a mixture of hit and miss, albeit the miss is often a consequence of cumulative hits wearing thin through repetition. His indulgently self-awarded role of friendly rock monster Korg, like his vicar in Hunt for the Wilderpeople, often doesn’t get the yuks he should, there to offer deadpan drollery but only intermittently hitting the target. Thor is set up as a butt of his own self-assured bravado, which pays-off handsomely the first or even second time, but you need to know when to hold off (you can entirely see the Jack Burton here, an influence on Waititi, but one film is not the other, so taking it on board wholesale perhaps wasn’t the best move).


So too Hulk. Ironically, as he’s the big selling point here, it becomes evident pretty quickly that the reason Whedon sold him so deceptively easily was that he limited him to short, sharp bursts. Put him on screen with Thor for too long and the rewards begin to wear a little thin. You start to feel like you’re the one bouncing his baseball repetitively against the wall. As such, bewildered Bruce – and thus visible Mark Ruffalo – is a better semi-permanent fixture than his alter-ego, particularly as a fish out of water who has lost several years.


Some of Ruffalo’s baffled interactions with Hemsworth are beautifully delivered (“That doesn’t sound right” in response to Thor informing Banner he beat Hulk easily in combat), but it’s also true to say that the lie Thor tells both Hulk and Bruce (that he prefers each of them to the other) reflects that there isn’t a strong dynamic between these characters, certainly not one that can be sustained beyond quips. It’s additionally unfortunate that we had to be reminded of Whedon’s ill-advised decision to inflict a romantic undercurrent between Bruce and Natasha, just when we were hoping Marvel might choose to forget it, like they had their one-time wedding with Whedon (on the other hand, the light made of Natalie Portman’s Jane’s absence from the proceedings is handled just right).


Also just right is Thor-Loki’s fraternal love-hate. Hemsworth wanting to believe the best of his brother while knowing the worst is inevitable, Hiddleston enjoying himself with the scheming and double-dealing. While Waititi’s reaction to Thor’s prowess is to mock him, his presentation of Loki is consistent with what we have seen before, if maybe a little broader; it’s a joy to see how palpably unnerved he is at the sight of Hulk in the arena, and his unbridled glee at Thor receiving the same treatment from his big green mitts he did in The Avengers. And then there’s their “Get help” routine, illustrating as effectively as anything one might muster how close they’ve been in the past and how easily they slip right back into it.


The remaining supporting cast are variably effective. Tessa Thompson ought to have been a no-brainer – she was great recently in both Westworld and War on Everyone – but is strangely wrong-footed as Valkyrie (are all the Valkyries called Valkyrie? I’m surprise Waititi didn’t riff on that), unable to convince as a hard-drinker, and striking little chemistry with her co-stars (in spite of the insistent voicing of unknowing familiarity between her and Bruce).


If this is to be his last appearance in the Marvel-verse, Anthony Hopkins at least gets to have some fun. Not so much in Odin’s ghostly advice to his son once he has shuffled off to Fólkvangr, but rather when he’s playing Loki playing Odin (his “Oh shi…” on seeing Thor returned, while kicking back watching a play in which he’s performed by Sam Neill – with Luke Hemsworth as Thor EDIT: one of my co-attendees said Matt Damon was in this scene, and I thought he was referring to the Thor actor, rather than Loki. I need better eagle eyes! – is worth all his going-through-the-motions previous essayings of the role combined). It’s also fun seeing Stephen Strange run rings around the Asgard brothers (“I’ve been falling… for thirty minutes!”), although Cumberbatch’s accent remains nothing short of a train wreck. And then there’s “creepy old man” Stan Lee playing a crazy hairdresser (one thing Marvel have consistently hit their marks on lately have been his cameos).


The laurels go to Goldblum, though. I wouldn’t say the Grandmaster is a particularly iconic role on the page, and it certainly doesn’t have that much screen time, but Goldblum’s presence in a movie is as inimitable as Christopher Walken’s – they both have unmistakable, idiosyncratic cadences to match their personalities you just can’t replicate with anyone else – and Waititi wisely gives him a long leash. He was evidently enough of a hit with all concerned that he was awarded the final post-credits scene (“And, uh, it’s a tie”).


As with Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Waititi combines generally funny gags with a level of crudity that makes you think he just gets lucky. Devil’s Anus is exactly the kind of juvenile gobbery he would come up with (even if he didn’t), as is Thor’s hammer “pulling him off” (should wank gags be in Marvel movies? if Waititi’s involved, there’ll no doubt be paedo ones next). It’s that same inability not to go too far you find with Matthew Vaughn, but you’d have though Kevin Feige would know better on when to pull back (rather than off).


If that’s too much, at other key moments he’s unable to ramp up. As in, the populace. Asgard appears to be populated by about fifty people, which is very fortunate when it comes to a mass evacuation (now, in what I assume is a nod to topicality, they are refugees heading for Earth – I wonder if they’ll be welcome?)


Mark Mothersbaugh delivers his first Marvel score, and either he or Waititi have evidently been watching Stranger Things, as pulsing ‘80s synths are the order of the day during driving moments. For the grand battles, though, Led Zeppelin is called upon – not exactly original since Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo first “rediscovered” Immigrant Song for the movies in 2011 (I should probably cite School of Rock, but it doesn’t really count in the same way), a bit like James Gunn re-employing Hooked on a Feeling – and it’s a suitably stirring accompaniment, in yet another nod to Guardians of the Galaxy’s influence as Marvel’s current pace setter.


So Thor: Ragnarok is very funny, but it’s not as funny overall as, say Iron Man Three or this year’s Spider-Man: Homecoming, and it’s very colourful, but in a manner that seems derivative of, rather than as defining as Guardians of the Galaxy. And it’s wacky, but in a jokey sense rather than inventively (again, as per Gunn’s Marvel work). In terms of character, sure, it advances Thor strategically, but not in a way that feels substantial or defining, so it rather underlines that the character just isn’t that interesting (in a similar manner to Waititi turning him into Jack Burton, it suggests he was never that impressive in the first place). It’s a good movie, to be sure, it’s a funny movie, and it’s a superior movie, by quite a margin, to the previous Thors, but it isn’t a peak Marvel moment. Perhaps if it had arrived four years ago, before Gunn it would have felt like the next big thing. Right now, it’s par-for-the-course Marvel.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)
(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

Afraid, me? A man who’s licked his weight in wild caterpillars? You bet I’m afraid.

Monkey Business (1931)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers’ first feature possessed of a wholly original screenplay, Monkey Business is almost brazenly dismissive towards notions of coherence, just as long as it loosely supports their trademark antics. And it does so in spades, depositing them as stowaways bound for America who fall in with a couple of mutually antagonistic racketeers/ gangsters while attempting to avoid being cast in irons. There’s no Margaret Dumont this time out, but Groucho is more than matched by flirtation-interest Thelma Todd.

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers (1932)
(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

Bad luck to kill a seabird.

The Lighthouse (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Eggers’ acclaimed – and Oscar-nominated – second feature is, in some respects, a similar beast to his previous The Witch, whereby isolated individuals of bygone eras are subjected to the unsparing attentions of nature. In his scheme of things, nature becomes an active, embodied force, one that has no respect for the line between imaginings and reality and which proceeds to test its targets’ sanity by means of both elements and elementals. All helped along by unhealthy doses of superstition. But where The Witch sustained itself, and the gradual unravelling of the family unit led to a germane climax, The Lighthouse becomes, well, rather silly.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…