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

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.