So, I was born in the 80's.
1989, to be exact. Halfway through the year. So no, I don't claim to be "an 80's child" unless I'm trying to make actual 80's children froth at the mouth (shockingly good fun, actually). Me claiming to be an 80's child would be basically like Scarlett Johansson (who is more of an 80's child than me) claiming to be your mother. It makes no sense and the concept of it is unsettling on several distinct levels.
So, as a 90's child in reality, what do I know about the 80's? Basically just the stereotypes. Technicolor retro-futuristic design, electronic music with bad synthesizers, and hair metal. Turns out those things were actually pretty dope, and not just something you would use to mock kids who grew up in the 80's. As proof of this, I offer up Thor: Ragnarok, which features technicolor retro-futuristic design, electronic music with bad synthesizers, and cinematography perfectly suited to slap across the cover of every hair metal album. It's easily the best Thor ever, and is very near the top of my list of favorite MCU movies.
So what did they do right to claim that spot despite the trailers making the movie look like it was going to be a bad Guardians of the Galaxy rip-off? Well, let’s talk about that for a minute.
First! The tone. This movie was funnier than previous Thor movies, but not necessarily because it tried to be. I’d say the effort put toward humor is roughly equivalent among all three Thor films, I just think Ragnarok was more successful at actually being funny. The jokes were better, the setup for them was better, and the delivery felt more natural. But unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, Ragnarok is not a comedy. The tone is light-hearted for most of the run-time, but that’s more down to the character of Thor and Chris Hemsworth’s incredible charisma than it is to comedic pacing or actual humor. As with the first two movies, Thor is just kinda a light-hearted, wonderfully naive guy, and that’s just fun to watch.
Second! Thor’s character development. Which, seriously, has been incredibly consistent across all three movies, making the Thor films feel like a trilogy inside of the MCU in a way none of the other franchises have managed. Iron Man 2 just re-tread the ground already covered by Iron Man, and Iron Man 3 built off of The Avengers like that was the second movie in the trilogy instead of Iron Man 2. The Winter Soldier started Cap’s character progression by almost doing the same thing as Iron Man 3, considering The First Avenger didn’t have much actual character arc for Steve, and Civil War... wasn’t really even a Captain America movie and featured almost no character development for the title character.
Thor, on the other hand, has progressed from entitled prince to humble king in a very convincing and easy to follow manner across the span of three movies. His progression wasn’t complicated, sure, as I think it’s probably fair to describe Thor as a good-hearted but simple minded sort of fellow. But Ragnarok takes him from thinking he can’t fulfill his responsibility to protect and lead at the same time to understanding that sometimes you lead because you can, not because you want to. He finishes his character arc as a king who we’re finally convinced is worthy of this throne, and for popcorn flicks as basic as the Thor movies have been, that’s pretty remarkable.
Also, as the final follow up to Loki’s “are you ever not going to fall for that” jab in The Avengers, Thor tricks the trickster, hanging a lantern on Loki’s own lack of character development and giving him a chance to grow and change for the first time since the original Thor. Well played, movie. Well played indeed.
Third! Holy crap was this movie pretty to look at. The action, the sets, the lighting, they even managed to make endless fields of garbage look good. The movie is technically very well made, if not exactly revolutionary. The script is great, the secondary characters all have way more personality than in the previous installments, the music is completely on point, matching the visual aesthetic of the film while still throwing back to both of the previous installments where it counted, and the triple-A actors they manage to fill Marvel movies with these days were all expectedly fantastic. In fact, I’d give Ragnarok two awards that I highly doubt any other movie will be able to take away in my lifetime;
1) Best use of The Immigrant Song in a movie, and 2) Best use of Jeff Goldblum since the early 90’s.
Now, was Thor: Ragnarok perfect? Of course not. But was it better than it had any right to be? Was it better than a film that could be described as “an 80’s action throwback staring the Norse god of thunder, the surly green giant, Cate Blanchet’s porcupine-inspired hat, and Jeff Goldblum’s utter refusal to actually act” had any right to be?
Absolutely. With an ensemble cast that are all bursting with personality, story and characters so much better than what blockbusters tend to ever aspire to, a lighthearted tone that still manages to communicate a serious yet simple message, and face-melting (but like in a good way) action set pieces, Thor: Ragnarok is something I never thought we’d get out of the MCU, for all the superhero universe’s merits;
The successful conclusion to a really good trilogy. If they make any more Thor solo films, I’m gonna be massively upset.
1989, to be exact. Halfway through the year. So no, I don't claim to be "an 80's child" unless I'm trying to make actual 80's children froth at the mouth (shockingly good fun, actually). Me claiming to be an 80's child would be basically like Scarlett Johansson (who is more of an 80's child than me) claiming to be your mother. It makes no sense and the concept of it is unsettling on several distinct levels.
So what did they do right to claim that spot despite the trailers making the movie look like it was going to be a bad Guardians of the Galaxy rip-off? Well, let’s talk about that for a minute.
First! The tone. This movie was funnier than previous Thor movies, but not necessarily because it tried to be. I’d say the effort put toward humor is roughly equivalent among all three Thor films, I just think Ragnarok was more successful at actually being funny. The jokes were better, the setup for them was better, and the delivery felt more natural. But unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, Ragnarok is not a comedy. The tone is light-hearted for most of the run-time, but that’s more down to the character of Thor and Chris Hemsworth’s incredible charisma than it is to comedic pacing or actual humor. As with the first two movies, Thor is just kinda a light-hearted, wonderfully naive guy, and that’s just fun to watch.
Second! Thor’s character development. Which, seriously, has been incredibly consistent across all three movies, making the Thor films feel like a trilogy inside of the MCU in a way none of the other franchises have managed. Iron Man 2 just re-tread the ground already covered by Iron Man, and Iron Man 3 built off of The Avengers like that was the second movie in the trilogy instead of Iron Man 2. The Winter Soldier started Cap’s character progression by almost doing the same thing as Iron Man 3, considering The First Avenger didn’t have much actual character arc for Steve, and Civil War... wasn’t really even a Captain America movie and featured almost no character development for the title character.
Thor, on the other hand, has progressed from entitled prince to humble king in a very convincing and easy to follow manner across the span of three movies. His progression wasn’t complicated, sure, as I think it’s probably fair to describe Thor as a good-hearted but simple minded sort of fellow. But Ragnarok takes him from thinking he can’t fulfill his responsibility to protect and lead at the same time to understanding that sometimes you lead because you can, not because you want to. He finishes his character arc as a king who we’re finally convinced is worthy of this throne, and for popcorn flicks as basic as the Thor movies have been, that’s pretty remarkable.
Also, as the final follow up to Loki’s “are you ever not going to fall for that” jab in The Avengers, Thor tricks the trickster, hanging a lantern on Loki’s own lack of character development and giving him a chance to grow and change for the first time since the original Thor. Well played, movie. Well played indeed.
Third! Holy crap was this movie pretty to look at. The action, the sets, the lighting, they even managed to make endless fields of garbage look good. The movie is technically very well made, if not exactly revolutionary. The script is great, the secondary characters all have way more personality than in the previous installments, the music is completely on point, matching the visual aesthetic of the film while still throwing back to both of the previous installments where it counted, and the triple-A actors they manage to fill Marvel movies with these days were all expectedly fantastic. In fact, I’d give Ragnarok two awards that I highly doubt any other movie will be able to take away in my lifetime;
1) Best use of The Immigrant Song in a movie, and 2) Best use of Jeff Goldblum since the early 90’s.
Now, was Thor: Ragnarok perfect? Of course not. But was it better than it had any right to be? Was it better than a film that could be described as “an 80’s action throwback staring the Norse god of thunder, the surly green giant, Cate Blanchet’s porcupine-inspired hat, and Jeff Goldblum’s utter refusal to actually act” had any right to be?
Absolutely. With an ensemble cast that are all bursting with personality, story and characters so much better than what blockbusters tend to ever aspire to, a lighthearted tone that still manages to communicate a serious yet simple message, and face-melting (but like in a good way) action set pieces, Thor: Ragnarok is something I never thought we’d get out of the MCU, for all the superhero universe’s merits;
The successful conclusion to a really good trilogy. If they make any more Thor solo films, I’m gonna be massively upset.
Comments
Post a Comment