With Avengers: Infinity War arriving next May, Kevin Feige's endgame is finally beginning to materialize. In the decade since Iron Man's groundbreaking release, the superstar producer has been building to this critical point, bringing in new characters and creating Hollywood's most powerful franchise. But as one Marvel era ends, another begins, and it's clear that Marvel will be searching for a new identity in the coming years. The studio (and Feige in particular) has had a notoriously prickly relationship with auteur filmmakers, preferring to hire workmanlike directors who will deliver an efficient product over something that doesn't fit the bigger picture of the universe. They'll take Peyton Reed or the Russo Brothers over Edgar Wright or Ava DuVernay any day of the week. But that culture at Marvel is slowly beginning to shift- just look at what James Gunn has been able to do with the Guardians of the Galaxy series. As Marvel Studios moves into its second decade as a solidified brand, it seems to me like Feige will grow more comfortable with bringing in directors who want to experiment and bend the formula to their own distinct point of view.
And this is a good thing. I like it when unique directors are able to make big-budget blockbusters. I was thrilled when I learned that Taika Waititi was going to direct Thor: Ragnarok, and I'm still excited to see what Ryan Coogler does with Black Panther. But in an interesting way, Ragnarok shows the limitations of what even the most creative of directors can do with the Marvel template. If you haven't heard already, the third installment in the Thor franchise is a pretty bold step for everyone involved. It's practically a straight comedy, and Waititi (best known for Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows) injects a great deal of visual energy and innovation into the project. Ragnarok is a lot of fun, and it contains some great laughs and delightful new characters. It's also highly formulaic and way too exhausting, a 130 minute roller coaster that burns out too quickly. Even if Waititi takes Thor into some bold and unexpected new directions, the end result still feels safely in Marvel's wheelhouse. It's a mostly enjoyable ride, but this film just doesn't work as well as it should.
As Ragnarok opens, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds himself in a bit of a tricky situation. He's chained up in a hellish lair, held captive by the demon monster Surtur (voiced by Clancy Brown). Surtur claims that Ragnarok, the end of Asgard as we know it, is coming. Thor laughs in his face, slays the monster, and returns Surtur's crown to the vault on Asgard. Back home, Thor finds that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been disguising himself as Odin (Anthony Hopkins), taking a bread-and-circuses approach to ruling the kingdom. Loki tells him everything is completely fine- Asgard is going great, he put Odin in a nursing home on Earth, and there's no existential threat to the homeland. But upon their return to Midgard, Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) informs the adopted brothers that Odin has found his way to Norway. Once they get there, Odin gives them some very bad news. Ragnarok isn't over- it's coming in the form of Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death and Thor's older sister.
A fight ensues, Mjolnir is smashed to bits, and Thor and Loki end up on the wasteland world of Sakaar. Meanwhile, Hela makes her way to Asgard, smashing the last defenses and enlisting a dopey guard (Karl Urban) to help her take over. Back on Sakaar, Loki finds himself in the favor of the Grandmaster (a delightful Jeff Goldblum), while Thor is captured by the rogue Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson). The Grandmaster runs a popular gladiator game on the planet, and Thor is the contender who will face down the most fearsome of champions. Of course, the champion turns out to be none other than The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), who has been living on the planet ever since he left in exile at the end of Age of Ultron. After a brief smackdown between the two, Thor informs Bruce Banner that he's putting together a team to stop Hela- the Revengers. As Heimdall (Idris Elba) organizes a revolution on Asgard, Thor and his unlikely band of misfits will make their way back home to save the day.
As you can probably tell by this synopsis, there's a lot happening in Ragnarok. This movie is stuffed to the brim with plot, filled with cameos from old favorites and fun roles for new supporting players. But let's be honest, this is par for the course for Marvel. It's more shocking when something like Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 or Homecoming dials down the insanity than when a film like Civil War takes things to new levels of controlled chaos. But thanks to the decidedly comedic approach of new director Taika Waititi, the film essentially turns into a 130 minute long sugar rush, an outlandish, funny, and all-out insane burst of comic book extremity. It's fun to watch Waititi go wild, but it's also seriously exhausting- it was definitely a long day for me when I saw this film, but I walked out feeling more tired than invigorated. There's no doubt in my mind that Ragnarok's story required its length, but Waititi's hyper-energetic mayhem is incompatible with such a critical, epic chapter in the MCU.
Before this film came out, I had a series of conversations with my friend Nick, who is undoubtedly the biggest Marvel fan I know. When reports came out that Waititi was aiming for a runtime around 100 minutes, he thought it would totally ruin the film, citing everything that Ragnarok needed to accomplish as the next step towards Infinity War. At the time, I dismissed those concerns, mainly because I was excited to see the clever Kiwi filmmaker direct a big-budget superhero movie. But even with the extended runtime, I think the idea of Waititi being the wrong choice for this story remains a valid one. Waititi is a comedian- that's just what he does best. He makes hilarious movies, and as evidenced by his vocal performance as Korg in this film, he's a very funny guy himself too. And just like his previous work, Ragnarok is an often-hysterical film, a comedy disguised as a superhero movie. It has a tangible sense of comic momentum, with characters bouncing jokes off one another with astounding ease. In fact, it's so funny that the tone fundamentally conflicts with the story being told, a narrative that is literally one of apocalyptic proportions.
After The Dark World, which remains the studio's biggest critical failure, Feige and other creatives at Marvel wisely decided that Thor needed a serious makeover. They brought in Waititi to give the character a kind of zany kinetic energy, striking a tone that neither Kenneth Branagh nor Alan Taylor could achieve. And then they saddled him with a script by Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher Yost that involved demonic villains, complex plot mechanics, and the literal apocalypse for Asgard. Why this decision was made, I will never know. I trust Feige, and I trust that Marvel knows the destination for this crazy franchise. But Ragnarok feels like two movies competing for supremacy- an old-fashioned fantasy epic about the battle for the soul of Asgard, and a crazy, kooky sci-fi escape movie on a wasteland planet. It's clear which one Waititi has more fun with, and it also reveals the explicit limitations of what an innovative director can do with this material when given specific requirements.
James Gunn remains Marvel's only auteur, the lone guy who can work within the system that Feige has established and emerge with his own distinct product. Should Waititi continue his relationship with Marvel, I have a feeling that he could enter the same class as Gunn. But with this film, he's held back by the inherent limitations of what this story needs to do. Basically, we have to reach that point where we're right where we need to be for Infinity War. That requires another cookie-cutter Marvel story with a boring villain and a "save the world" final battle and a lot of moving parts that end up coming together. But does it require such a standard plot? Would the end result be any different if Ragnarok was a simple escape movie? Picture this- Thor ends up crashing on a planet, finds the Hulk, and he and his fellow Revengers have to escape from Sakaar. All of the stuff involving Hela and Ragnarok is boilerplate Marvel, and while this story is certainly more interesting than some of the standard narratives that the studio has presented before, it's abundantly clear that Waititi has a very minimal interest in the fantasy epic elements. Ragnarok essentially confirms the precise situations that lead to a distinct filmmaking voice having success in the Marvel template. And here's a hint- it has nothing to do with the visuals.
Going in, we knew that Waititi would be making the most overtly comedic Marvel film yet. And based on the trailers, we knew that the visuals would be nothing short of sensational. But we've reached a point where every Marvel movie has eye-popping battle scenes and a seemingly constant stream of witty banter. Having those two elements doesn't necessarily mean that the movie will be a success. If you look at the last few years, the best Marvel films (and the best superhero films in general) have focused on internal stakes for the characters. Guardians 2 had a familiar narrative, but it was rendered beautifully thanks to the surprising emotional depth that James Gunn embedded in that film. Civil War disappointingly didn't off any characters, but it did drive a massive, soul-crushing wedge between the two heroes at the heart of the MCU. When these films shine a spotlight on real character development, they're incredible.
Ragnarok simply doesn't do that. In fact, I think I could make an argument that Thor's journey ended with the original film- there's just nowhere interesting for this character left to go. Even with major plot developments happening at nearly every turn, nothing of serious emotional consequence happens in Ragnarok. Marvel is terrible at giving any actual physical stakes to its apocalyptic scenarios, which means that filmmakers and screenwriters have to work even harder to make these films feel important. As Gunn and the Russos have proved, there's a way to do this. Waititi just doesn't care all that much. He makes a really fun film, one with lots of great jokes, sly innuendos, and old-school visual energy.
And for what it is, Thor: Ragnarok is totally fine. I had a good enough time, and even if the constant silliness of the whole ordeal got tiring by the end, I never felt any disdain for what was happening. But this is nowhere near top-tier Marvel, and I'm concerned that these movies are now just being graded based on how "fun" they are. Movies can be fun and pointless, but they can also be fun and meaningful- those two terms aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of developments in this film that will come to shape the MCU in the coming years, but Waititi ultimately strikes an uneasy balance between disparate elements that falls short of perfection. I'm firmly in the minority here, and I'm okay with that. If you're an avid Marvel fan, you probably know what you want from these films. And if it's wacky energy and fun fanboy moments, you'll likely love this film. But after 17 chapters in the MCU, I also know what I want from these comic book adventures. And as inventive as Ragnarok can be, it just doesn't fully deliver on my expectations.
THE FINAL GRADE: B- (6.8/10)
And this is a good thing. I like it when unique directors are able to make big-budget blockbusters. I was thrilled when I learned that Taika Waititi was going to direct Thor: Ragnarok, and I'm still excited to see what Ryan Coogler does with Black Panther. But in an interesting way, Ragnarok shows the limitations of what even the most creative of directors can do with the Marvel template. If you haven't heard already, the third installment in the Thor franchise is a pretty bold step for everyone involved. It's practically a straight comedy, and Waititi (best known for Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows) injects a great deal of visual energy and innovation into the project. Ragnarok is a lot of fun, and it contains some great laughs and delightful new characters. It's also highly formulaic and way too exhausting, a 130 minute roller coaster that burns out too quickly. Even if Waititi takes Thor into some bold and unexpected new directions, the end result still feels safely in Marvel's wheelhouse. It's a mostly enjoyable ride, but this film just doesn't work as well as it should.
As Ragnarok opens, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds himself in a bit of a tricky situation. He's chained up in a hellish lair, held captive by the demon monster Surtur (voiced by Clancy Brown). Surtur claims that Ragnarok, the end of Asgard as we know it, is coming. Thor laughs in his face, slays the monster, and returns Surtur's crown to the vault on Asgard. Back home, Thor finds that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been disguising himself as Odin (Anthony Hopkins), taking a bread-and-circuses approach to ruling the kingdom. Loki tells him everything is completely fine- Asgard is going great, he put Odin in a nursing home on Earth, and there's no existential threat to the homeland. But upon their return to Midgard, Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) informs the adopted brothers that Odin has found his way to Norway. Once they get there, Odin gives them some very bad news. Ragnarok isn't over- it's coming in the form of Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death and Thor's older sister.
A fight ensues, Mjolnir is smashed to bits, and Thor and Loki end up on the wasteland world of Sakaar. Meanwhile, Hela makes her way to Asgard, smashing the last defenses and enlisting a dopey guard (Karl Urban) to help her take over. Back on Sakaar, Loki finds himself in the favor of the Grandmaster (a delightful Jeff Goldblum), while Thor is captured by the rogue Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson). The Grandmaster runs a popular gladiator game on the planet, and Thor is the contender who will face down the most fearsome of champions. Of course, the champion turns out to be none other than The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), who has been living on the planet ever since he left in exile at the end of Age of Ultron. After a brief smackdown between the two, Thor informs Bruce Banner that he's putting together a team to stop Hela- the Revengers. As Heimdall (Idris Elba) organizes a revolution on Asgard, Thor and his unlikely band of misfits will make their way back home to save the day.
As you can probably tell by this synopsis, there's a lot happening in Ragnarok. This movie is stuffed to the brim with plot, filled with cameos from old favorites and fun roles for new supporting players. But let's be honest, this is par for the course for Marvel. It's more shocking when something like Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 or Homecoming dials down the insanity than when a film like Civil War takes things to new levels of controlled chaos. But thanks to the decidedly comedic approach of new director Taika Waititi, the film essentially turns into a 130 minute long sugar rush, an outlandish, funny, and all-out insane burst of comic book extremity. It's fun to watch Waititi go wild, but it's also seriously exhausting- it was definitely a long day for me when I saw this film, but I walked out feeling more tired than invigorated. There's no doubt in my mind that Ragnarok's story required its length, but Waititi's hyper-energetic mayhem is incompatible with such a critical, epic chapter in the MCU.
Before this film came out, I had a series of conversations with my friend Nick, who is undoubtedly the biggest Marvel fan I know. When reports came out that Waititi was aiming for a runtime around 100 minutes, he thought it would totally ruin the film, citing everything that Ragnarok needed to accomplish as the next step towards Infinity War. At the time, I dismissed those concerns, mainly because I was excited to see the clever Kiwi filmmaker direct a big-budget superhero movie. But even with the extended runtime, I think the idea of Waititi being the wrong choice for this story remains a valid one. Waititi is a comedian- that's just what he does best. He makes hilarious movies, and as evidenced by his vocal performance as Korg in this film, he's a very funny guy himself too. And just like his previous work, Ragnarok is an often-hysterical film, a comedy disguised as a superhero movie. It has a tangible sense of comic momentum, with characters bouncing jokes off one another with astounding ease. In fact, it's so funny that the tone fundamentally conflicts with the story being told, a narrative that is literally one of apocalyptic proportions.
After The Dark World, which remains the studio's biggest critical failure, Feige and other creatives at Marvel wisely decided that Thor needed a serious makeover. They brought in Waititi to give the character a kind of zany kinetic energy, striking a tone that neither Kenneth Branagh nor Alan Taylor could achieve. And then they saddled him with a script by Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, and Christopher Yost that involved demonic villains, complex plot mechanics, and the literal apocalypse for Asgard. Why this decision was made, I will never know. I trust Feige, and I trust that Marvel knows the destination for this crazy franchise. But Ragnarok feels like two movies competing for supremacy- an old-fashioned fantasy epic about the battle for the soul of Asgard, and a crazy, kooky sci-fi escape movie on a wasteland planet. It's clear which one Waititi has more fun with, and it also reveals the explicit limitations of what an innovative director can do with this material when given specific requirements.
James Gunn remains Marvel's only auteur, the lone guy who can work within the system that Feige has established and emerge with his own distinct product. Should Waititi continue his relationship with Marvel, I have a feeling that he could enter the same class as Gunn. But with this film, he's held back by the inherent limitations of what this story needs to do. Basically, we have to reach that point where we're right where we need to be for Infinity War. That requires another cookie-cutter Marvel story with a boring villain and a "save the world" final battle and a lot of moving parts that end up coming together. But does it require such a standard plot? Would the end result be any different if Ragnarok was a simple escape movie? Picture this- Thor ends up crashing on a planet, finds the Hulk, and he and his fellow Revengers have to escape from Sakaar. All of the stuff involving Hela and Ragnarok is boilerplate Marvel, and while this story is certainly more interesting than some of the standard narratives that the studio has presented before, it's abundantly clear that Waititi has a very minimal interest in the fantasy epic elements. Ragnarok essentially confirms the precise situations that lead to a distinct filmmaking voice having success in the Marvel template. And here's a hint- it has nothing to do with the visuals.
Going in, we knew that Waititi would be making the most overtly comedic Marvel film yet. And based on the trailers, we knew that the visuals would be nothing short of sensational. But we've reached a point where every Marvel movie has eye-popping battle scenes and a seemingly constant stream of witty banter. Having those two elements doesn't necessarily mean that the movie will be a success. If you look at the last few years, the best Marvel films (and the best superhero films in general) have focused on internal stakes for the characters. Guardians 2 had a familiar narrative, but it was rendered beautifully thanks to the surprising emotional depth that James Gunn embedded in that film. Civil War disappointingly didn't off any characters, but it did drive a massive, soul-crushing wedge between the two heroes at the heart of the MCU. When these films shine a spotlight on real character development, they're incredible.
Ragnarok simply doesn't do that. In fact, I think I could make an argument that Thor's journey ended with the original film- there's just nowhere interesting for this character left to go. Even with major plot developments happening at nearly every turn, nothing of serious emotional consequence happens in Ragnarok. Marvel is terrible at giving any actual physical stakes to its apocalyptic scenarios, which means that filmmakers and screenwriters have to work even harder to make these films feel important. As Gunn and the Russos have proved, there's a way to do this. Waititi just doesn't care all that much. He makes a really fun film, one with lots of great jokes, sly innuendos, and old-school visual energy.
And for what it is, Thor: Ragnarok is totally fine. I had a good enough time, and even if the constant silliness of the whole ordeal got tiring by the end, I never felt any disdain for what was happening. But this is nowhere near top-tier Marvel, and I'm concerned that these movies are now just being graded based on how "fun" they are. Movies can be fun and pointless, but they can also be fun and meaningful- those two terms aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of developments in this film that will come to shape the MCU in the coming years, but Waititi ultimately strikes an uneasy balance between disparate elements that falls short of perfection. I'm firmly in the minority here, and I'm okay with that. If you're an avid Marvel fan, you probably know what you want from these films. And if it's wacky energy and fun fanboy moments, you'll likely love this film. But after 17 chapters in the MCU, I also know what I want from these comic book adventures. And as inventive as Ragnarok can be, it just doesn't fully deliver on my expectations.
THE FINAL GRADE: B- (6.8/10)
Comments
Post a Comment