Thor:
Ragnarok is a good film with its twists and its
superficial humour (I seriously laughed only once). I watched it weeks ago but
only now have I found the time to write about it (I’m not getting paid). One
important thing to note is that Thor finally has a film to hold his own with
Iron Man and Captain America. Thor has been invested with a lot of time and
money by Marvel because he’s technically a part of the “holy” trinity which
obviously includes Iron Man and Captain America. The solo movies of these three
have more or less helped to define the direction of the marvel universe. There
are also the Avenger movies but the trinity still takes up the leadership
positions. The Guardians are still on the fringes for the time being since the
major pitched battles will have to include the Avengers. Well -back to my
original point- Thor has finally arrived as part of the big 3. The key to all
of this is the Hulk who has been marginalized for a significant period and is
only just now being developed as a character apart from being the rudimentary
strong man. With the development of the Hulk character Marvel now seems
complete as a universe. With his return to the fold then maybe he can form a part
of the elite characters in Marvel, if they can come to some arrangement with
Universal (I know it might be too late). A film called Planet Hulk would have done some wonders for the marvel universe
instead the original hulk story fits strangely into Ragnarok.
Ragnarok stars Chris Hemsworth as Thor who must battle the forces of Hela
(Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death, for Asgard. In this movie he comes to
terms with his heritage as a son of Odin and he forms key partnerships with the
likes of Loki, Hulk and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson).
Positives
The main positive of this film for me is
not the humour but the character of the Hulk. Hulk actually says more than 2
words in this film. The last time I heard him speak was in The Avengers (2012) when he said ‘Puny God’. After that it was all
‘AAAARRRRR’ ‘RAAAAwr’ and ‘Hm’ until Ragnarok.
Before Ragnarok he became a
rudimentary strong man, almost a secondary character. Bruce Banner was a bit
more developed, but he was known for his PhDs and his relationship with another
fringe character, Black Widow. The Hulk as a character was hardly developed so
it left the Bruce Banner/Hulk conflict undeveloped. It is the Bruce Banner/Hulk
conflict which makes the Hulk interesting as a superhero. Here in Ragnarok he is more developed and
probably has something to offer going forward apart from his great strength.
I’m spending a lot of time with the Hulk because the best parts of the film
take part on the wasteland planet of Sakaar which is known to comic book fans
because of the Planet Hulk storyline. This really should have been Hulk’s story
but they have found a way to get Thor involved. I know about the arrangement
with Universal but just imagine if marvel had a movie called Planet Hulk and it was actually good. Ragnarok shows how good it could have been even without Thor’s
presence. Without this stopover in Sakaar the Thor franchise would have
struggled to reinvent itself even if it had all the comedy in the world.
The movie itself has a fairly interesting
story involving Hela. It does go into a lot of exaggerated conflict but it does
capture in its own way the original premise of Ragnarok, the destruction of
Asgard. The Hela back story is also interesting because Hela is the silent
character whose history has largely been forgotten. It does capture the
hypocrisy on Odin’s part despite his pretensions to nobility. He needed Hela to
conquer but didn’t need her when he became respectable. This goes to show how
politics can influence how history is written. One of the good things about the
Thor franchise is that it never sought to portray Odin as a heroic figure and
the trend continues here in Ragnarok.
The comedic elements are good but they are
stronger on the planet Sakaar. A lot of things happen on the planet during the
film including a change in Thor’s image and brighter tones normally not
attributed to a Thor film. The comedic elements on the planet reflect this
change in image for Thor the character and Thor the franchise. The comedy would
not have worked without the brighter colours. The character of Valkyrie is also
discovered on Sakaar. It seems to be a place where the rejected come and if they
manage it they can be reborn. No
character who lands on Sakaar is the same afterwards, apart from maybe Loki. It
does apply to Thor, Hulk and the Valkyrie.
The fight between Hulk and Thor in the
arena was pretty good. ‘Are you not entertained?’
Negatives
The primary negative is that the film has a
superficial quality that does not really fit with a heavy theme like Ragnarok. Now the Ragnarok would have
worked if the old style of Thor worked or was successful. Then they would not
have needed this sojourn in Sakaar. If the old style of Thor worked then the
theme itself would have been more resonant. Ragnarok seems like an afterthought
but it gets the job done superficially. What I normally read about the Ragnarok is much more brutal than it’s
portrayed here in Ragnarok. The old
Thor style, if it worked commercially, would have captured the pathos of the
old Ragnarok. This Ragnarok didn’t have much gravity. This is one of the first
Marvel films where the heroes are
incapable of overcoming the villain on their own. So this film is not about who
wins; which is good, because of Odin’s hypocrisy. Defeat can be a good thing
and so Thor ends on a high. Ragnarok
seems like a last gasp for the franchise before going under. Technically a lot
of that had to do with the sojourn on Sakaar which is more Hulk’s story than
Thor’s. Hulk might come out the better than Thor here. The Hulk has undergone a
greater transformation than Thor. Without the Hulk twist then this movie
doesn’t work so for me this is just as much Hulk’s movie as it is Thor’s. So
while Ragnarok was a last gasp for the Thor franchise it
actually showed what could have been if Marvel was able to release a series of
Hulk films.
No comments:
Post a Comment