Movie Review -- Thor: Ragnarok

  It's been four years since the mild disappointment of Thor: The Dark World and you know, I really liked the first Thor movie and I think Thor is one of the funner characters in the Avengers family of films. What did Marvel Studios and director Taika Waititi (that guy with the saucer eyes) do to try to turn this subseries of films around?

  The difference between Thor: Ragnarok and the other two films is noticeable from the very first scene. The tone has taken a noticeable shift to the colourful, comedic, and campy – one might even say, deliberately cheesy. Imagine Guardians of the Galaxy, but with Thor instead of the Guardians. It may take a moment to adjust – especially if you remember what the other Thor films were like – but I think these changes mostly benefit the Thor series whose charm was beginning to wear thin after The Dark World. I said mostly because a lot of the jokes come from characters you wouldn't expect and sometimes they undermine what should be serious moments. Some of the humour feels forced, even immature. It all makes Ragnarok a movie that is very fun, but which borders on self-parody at times. As black Iron Man once said, “Never go full retard.”

  The story revolves around Odin dying (for the second or third time), which releases his evil firstborn daughter Hela from captivity. She takes over Asgard and expels Thor and Loki to a planet called Sakaar. The two must escape Sakaar and save Asgard with a little help from some friends along the way. As I said earlier, Ragnarok has a very different feel to it than the other Thor films. The third act, when things return to Asgard, is when it truly becomes a Thor movie. But the second act, which takes place on Sakaar (AKA 1980's Mos Eisley, USA) is kind of weird, considering the context of Thor 1&2.

  This weirdness is personified by Jeff Goldbloom as the Grandmaster (i.e. himself), the ruler of Sakaar. This dork is a joy to watch and I'd bet any money that Jeff was allowed to ad-lib some of his lines here. All the classic characters are back – Thor, Loki, Odin, Heimdall – as well as a new villain, Hela. She's played by Cate Blanchett who does ham it up a bit but is still very good in the role. Another excellent addition to the cast is the Hulk, badass as ever. And he's even learned a bit of speech since Avengers 2 (2015) adding depth to his personality. Thor is a bit different this time too. Aside from cracking more jokes he now has short hair, a new costume, and doesn't use his signature hammer. One last character I have to mention is a rock-skinned, soft-spoken gladiator named Korg. Voiced by Waititi himself, Korg might be the funniest character in the film but I think he's given too much screen time. In a film that already has Loki, Jeff Goldbloom, and an overall funnier tone does it really need yet another comedic relief character?

  Ragnarok suffers from numerous narrative troubles. These include cheap deaths of established characters early on in the film, a multitude of clunky exposition trying to set up backstory in as few words as possible, and a wholly pointless scene featuring Dr. Strange (which is also nothing but comedic relief). Considering all this pointless stuff, this is a movie that doesn't need to be 130 minutes long.

  In spite of this Thor: Ragnarok is a rather fun and entertaining movie that's worth watching once. I'd say it's better than Thor 2 (certainly more memorable) but not quite as good as Thor 1. It's an alright superhero adventure flick that doesn't try to be taken too seriously. (Warning: the 3D on this one sucks. Avoid it!)

Grade: