Black Panther (2018) ****½ /5: Best film to come out of the marvel cinematic universe but clearly limited by formula in some areas.

Black Panther is one of the greatest superhero films of all time; up until this point of course. It comfortably joins the pantheon of The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2. It is transcendent. It is also the best film produced and directed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Yes, it is better than the famous Iron Man. I am not just saying this because I am black. Historically, Marvel has worked with a particular story template, especially since the MCU was first launched with Iron Man in 2008. There are also elements (Soundtrack etc) in Black Panther that are taken from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. What has occurred in Black Panther is a perfection of this Marvel template which began with the Sam Raimi Spider-man films and was first perfected in Spider-Man 2. I could even say there are even some elements of  Thor: Ragnarok which can be seen in Black Panther. So Black Panther is not the most original of marvel films in some areas; I think I even found some comparisons to Blade. There are other comparisons with The Dark Knight Trilogy, especially The Dark Knight Rises.  

Black Panther has simply perfected the Marvel template but also added some weighty dramatic heft. Marvel was able to restrain itself and stay grounded in Wakanda. Wakanda is fully realized with all the weight of its experiences as a special African country. What it does have is a very  sincere director in the seat in the form of Ryan Coogler who has brought out the humanity in the characters portrayed in this film. There is weighty dramatic heft here that goes along with the Wakandan perspective. The Wakandan perspective is clearly important and intrinsic to the film and forms an organic synergy not clearly seen in other marvel superhero films. Where places in the real world, as portrayed by some other superhero films remain ephemeral, Wakanda forms a core that will obviously put it at the centre of the MCU. It can no longer be ignored. The closest comparison to Wakanda as a fictional space in superhero films, in terms of quality, is Gotham City in The Dark Knight Trilogy. Gotham formed the backbone of The Dark Knight trilogy. Now the issues that place the fictional Wakanda in the spotlight make the central conflict engaging.

The film is about T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) who becomes king after his father’s death. While T’Challa and others are contemplating the route that Wakanda should take (do they open up and share  or do they  remain isolated) Erik Killmonger (Micheal B. Jordan) arrives to expose the divisions in the society and challenges T’Challa’s worthiness to be king.

Positives

Now while I said that Black Panther is not necessarily original I was just illustrating a point that, historically, nothing is truly original as it stands because there is a process of development that must be adhered to. The creation of Wakanda as a fictional African country, which is so advanced that it is probably the richest country in the world, is the major positive for me. As a black person you can’t help but be moved by its grandeur. It’s because it’s so technologically advanced that issues arise about the extent of Wakanda’s contributions to the world; not just to black people. The reality, however, is that it is a nation in the continent of Africa and could be a beacon for black people all over the word. Wakanda is a nation that has been untouched by colonialism and the rapacious greed of white capitalists who would have surely drained the nation of its precious vibranium long ago if they knew about it. In one scene Agent Ross (Martin Freeman ) is referred to as a “colonizer”. It was absolutely brilliant. The core issue, however, is: why Wakanda didn’t do more for its people on the continent? Why not unite the tribes of the African content and protect the people from the ravages of the slave trade which depopulated Africa and set it back for centuries? Credit to Coogler, there is an important scene in the beginning which shows what could have been if Wakanda was actually real. Just imagine if black people had an African country it could look to and see real progress. I’m not trying to steal the spotlight but it’s something I’ve always discussed. Countries with majority black populations are most likely poor, corrupt and torn by war and strife. It is the reality. It was the vision of our great black leaders like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X that we stand on our own together and raise our standards to the level of the advanced nations. We, as black people, should also demonstrate to the world that we can be a force in the world.

Unfortunately, in the real world a lot of black people have been brutalized, almost beyond repair, especially those that suffer at the hands of institutional racism and international classism. Institutional racism has denied us the possibility of reaching our full potential especially in a country such as America which has the largest black diaspora. Obviously some in America will see themselves as strictly Americans but historically there is a lot that unites the black people of the world which is why they are a part of the diaspora. Only when there is an Eric Garner situation do some realize their blackness. The integrationists will think differently, of course, but how far have we really progressed as a people when the majority have been brutalized beyond repair and our standards are those of the whites. If Wakanda were not a fictional country these issues would have been addressed a long time ago. This is why in the film we have the character of Erik Killmonger.

Technically, Killmonger is not a villain based on how things unravel and this is why what he does is understandable. He is portrayed like a villain to promote the film and these films must adhere to the template of hero vs. villain in order to satisfy corporate greed. These films must have a satisfying conclusion. Killmonger is not a villain. Obviously I can’t reveal too much until after the opening weekend but his connection to the throne is understandable, his motivations are clear and his views on how Wakanda should be run differ greatly from T’Challa’s. This does not necessarily make him a villain. Historically, his approach would be revered by some black people. If Killmonger is Malcolm X then T’Challa is Martin Luther King Jr. It’s just a matter of preference. As a black person it’s difficult to see one or the other as hero or villain. By the end of the film you will see how Killmonger has shaken things up and forced real change. Does that make him a villain? I don’t think so. It is probably one of the limitations of the film why he’s cast as a villain because the world has embraced integration. Killmonger’s upbringing represents the real struggle of black people throughout the world whereas T’Challa’s upbringing represents one of privilege and outrageous fantasy. T’Challa and his fellow Wakandans have a head start but have done nothing with it. For me Killmonger is not a villain. Yeah they tried to say that he has a lot of kills on his record but he worked for the CIA so he was just doing his job. Actually, the presence of Everett Ross, in some scenes, is troubling because he is placed on the side of the good. What a joke.

The film does have a strong supporting cast. It is the supporting cast which contributes to the organic synergy of the film. As a nation the supporting cast does represent some particular section whether it be as part of a tribe or part of the King’s bodyguard, the Dora Milaje. The female characters are truly impressive  such as the general Okoye (Danai Gurira), Shuri (Letitia Wright),  Nakia (Lupita Nyongo) and Ramonda (Angella Bassett) but the male supporting cast is just as impressive, especially M’baku (Winston Duke) and W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya). All these characters make you realize that Wakanda has depth and that it’s not just a fictional place on a map. They all have their roles to play and because the scenes are so well acted it gives a more transcendent feel to the whole film.

 My favourite supporting character was M’baku.

The film also does capture the essence of Africa such as the music and the production design. Africa might be a continent but the various African countries also have many similarities in terms of culture and this is evident in the film with notable differences. So while Wakanda is fictional the essence of it is real in many respects; apart from the fictional vibranium of course and the fictional idea of an advanced super state in Africa. The explanation of the rise of the Black Panther was pretty well done at the beginning.

I loved the ending of this film and I was genuinely moved but I obviously can’t spoil it for those who haven’t watched the film. Let’s just say it is a welcome sign of hope for the black struggle which still goes on. Just to be clear I’m not talking about the 2 post credit scenes. I’m talking about the scene right before the end credits. What happens in the final scene shows why heroes like Iron Man and Captain America are wasteful and idiotic. They don’t really save anyone. Iron Man did so in 2008 when there was no burden of marketing placed on him and ever since he has regressed into a tormented megalomaniac; and Captain America is the embodiment of idiocy. The final scene of Black Panther showed how you truly save people; this is why Black Panther is superior to films like Iron Man and Winter Soldier in the MCU.

Ryan Coogler is an exceptional director. I’m pretty sure he was constrained by Marvel executive Kevin Feige or he would have made an even greater film. Black Panther is the best marvel film made since Spider-Man 2

Negatives

The primary negative I have is that Killmonger has been vilified as a villain while characters such as Everett Ross magically wind up on the side of the good. For me that was the most absurd part of the film especially since Ross is on the side of those with disparaging remarks about Wakanda even if he acts as one from the outside world learning about Wakanda for the first time. It was a pleasure to see how M’baku dealt with Ross at one point. Killmonger is not a villain no matter what the marketing execs at marvel or those in the press want to say. A character such as Killmonger has been limited by formula. It is because of this formula why the film couldn’t be even more transcendent.

The formula is clearly a limitation because Black Panther must fit within the grander project of the MCU. The trailer for Infinity War made it clear that T’Challa would survive whatever troubles he faced in Black Panther. In the real world of filmmaking why should T’Challa survive the troubles he faced. By the time Infinity War comes around it will be back to business as usual. I am not blaming Coogler, the director; I am blaming the producers at Marvel such as Kevin Feige. The MCU formula has limited the potential of the Black Panther film and has taken away, somewhat, from its standalone qualities. Spider-Man 2, for instance, benefited from being uninterrupted and was able to reach a certain level of quality. It is testament to Coogler that he surmounted some, if not all, of these limitations. However the line of T’Challa must be preserved since he is supposedly the hero; I just hope that when Infinity War comes around that the white avengers don’t end up stealing the show and make Wakanda into some play ground. I don’t want to see the idiotic Steve Rogers, the former Captain America (the greatest idiot and greatest representative of imperialism in the MCU), trying to upstage T’Challa in his own country. I’m not saying it will happen but it’s likely. Lol I am starting to sound like M’baku, my favourite supporting character. If Coogler knows what’s best then he should turn to making some real films about Africa or the African Diaspora and don’t let marvel call him up to place even more restrictions on him. Coogler shouldn’t return to the MCU unless they give him more freedom to do what he wants. I’m pretty sure that Coogler knows of the limitations placed on the character of Killmonger; not just in story but because he must be cast as a so called villain.

Because of the formula then Black Panther couldn’t surmount some of the troubles associated with the MCU but it has perfected the formula and so Infinity War definitely has a lot to live up to. I am pretty sure Infinity War won’t achieve the same level of synergy as the Black Panther. Infinity War will certainly be more extravagant but it remains to be seen if it will be a better film.  

The Last Jedi (2017) ****/5: This is one the best Star Wars films I've seen in awhile. Rey and Luke Skywalker were the standouts for me. The shifts in perspective were also impressive. Snoke is a unimpressive character.

(image courtesy of Star Wars.com)

The Last Jedi is one of the better Star Wars films I’ve seen over the years. What it does represent is a full break with the past and new battles to be fought by a new generation of heroes. The idea that this is the last time we’ll see the Jedi is  pretty profound historically considering they are the backbone of the franchise with various forces (Sith, First Order) embracing the dark side. Without the Jedi it means that going forward the Star Wars of the future should have its own identity. The character of Rey is so important to this thrust and one can see the possibility of several storylines with the final shot of the film. The Skywalker legacy will still live on through Kylo Ren but the character of Rey represents a fresh break with such an overwhelming family legacy; the Skywalker family story being inextricably tied to the storyline of 6 episodes of the Star Wars franchise. The Last Jedi is also a big improvement over the very derivative The Force Awakens because it’s more original in tis outlook. I didn’t see much traces of The Empire Strikes Back in The Last Jedi but I did see too much traces of A New Hope in The Force Awakens.

The Last Jedi stars, yet again, Daisy Ridley as Rey as she come to terms with her heritage and the force within her while the Resistance led by Leia (Carrie Fisher) faces its greatest test as the First Order is in the ascendancy and hope appears to be extinguished. The biggest name here is Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who represents the last of the old order of Jedi and represents the bridge between the old and the new as his two disciples will be battling out in the foreseeable future. The other characters return such as Kylo Ren, Finn, BB-8 & Poe. A major newcomer to the team is Rose who will hopefully be featured more prominently going forward. His maturity in this film is impressive when compared to the young, swashbuckling Luke Skywalker of old.

Positives

The main positive for me are the characters of Rey and Luke Skywalker; the new and the old respectively. I was impressed with her story and what it means for the franchise as a whole. Her story represents a significant break with the Skywalker legacy. The story of the Star Wars franchise has been the story of the prestigious Skywalker family and its enduring legacies. There were other major Jedi knights before but once there was the purge and Obi wan Kenobi died then the Skywalkers were all that’s left of the Jedi. After The Return of the Jedi it seems that Luke trained a new cadre of Jedi knights, including Kylo Ren, but this came to an end when Kylo Ren was seduced by the Supreme leader Snoke, one of the most unimpressive new characters. Ren seems to have destroyed all that Luke stood for and forced him into hiding or retreat as a failure. This film finally gives the necessary back story and there is some connection established between Rey and Ren but with the advent of Rey it brings back the familiar adage that a hero can come from anywhere. This is very democratic or a good exercise in expansive story telling. It’s actually a relief knowing that Rey might not be yet another Skywalker. If she is then it would be very limiting to the franchise going forward. There is a moment where Kylo Ren dismisses Rey’s supposedly lowly heritage in comparison to he who is from a very prestigious line. This is a major storytelling element because now that the force has awakened it means that new heroes must emerge. The line of the Jedi might end but the force is still present which means the way of the Jedi may become diffused throughout the universe. It might no longer be seen as a holy doctrine with sacred texts but will become a part of everyday life like all great theories or practices. What will remain the same is that only a few people will be able to use the force. The final shot at the end is telling. Maybe by the time of Episode IX Rey will be much wiser and alongside her will be other individuals strong with the force but not necessarily Jedis.

 I loved the final shot in the film. It reminded me of the good old days as a young person when you would stargaze and wonder about the great universe and then think to yourself if these great stories of Star Wars lore were real or wonder about other forms of life in the universe. Star Wars, and others, did that for many then, and The Last Jedi comes close to being as evocative although I’m much older now. In the case of the child in the final shot of this film there are great battles to be fought. It shows that the resistance to tyranny cannot die. The resistance to tyranny is essentially a democratic movement. There is also an important part of the film where Finn and Rose go to a planet where the citizens are very wealthy and are living lavishly where once it was a cesspool. One would consider that this is a positive but when the truth is revealed showcasing the negative- that it was a haven for war profiteers- my perspective shifted and I became aware that this is a thinking film. It’s the first time a Star Wars film has made me think or made me consider something realistically beyond the presentation of this fictional world through the medium of film.  Normally I watch Star Wars films at a distance but there are several moments where shifts in perspective are so important to understand clearly what’s going on in The Last Jedi. Poe has to learn the hard way as does Kylo Ren and Rey, to some extent. Rian Johnson, the director, deserves a lot of credit.

The action in this film was very impressive, especially the space battles. The opening sequence is the most impressive action set piece I have seen in a Star Wars film, especially as a space battle. The only other major space battle of the Star Wars franchise that made such an impression on me was the battle against the Death Star in A New Hope.

The visuals are also very impressive. I really liked the layout of the island where Luke was located. It has a very organic feel and look.

Negatives

The primary negative is that I still don’t get the First Order. They just appeared out of nowhere led by Supreme Leader Snoke. Snoke is such an unimpressive character and the Emperor of the previous trilogies was definitely more sinister. This is probably because the structure of the story was much more elaborate for the previous 2 trilogies which explains why they are still so influential even now. Snoke and the First Order are like an afterthought. I am just not impressed by their development. It will always stick with me that they are a carbon copy of the original malevolent forces led by the Emperor. The comparisons aren’t so clear cut in this film but the presence of Snoke is so unimpressive. At first I thought he was a giant lizard but he has apparently shrunk in this film. I hope that there is some back story in the next installment explaining how Snoke and the First Order came about. This backstory must have some implications for the films going forward. His bodyguards seem to be very strong with the force as well. This will always be a weak point of this new trilogy: no proper explanation about the rise of the First Order.  Say what you want about Episodes 1-3 but in terms of developing the political backstory they were impressive. An effective resistance movement needs a great tyrannical force. The First Order is going after the rebels but how much of an impact is this having on the wider galaxy. Does the First Order have a major presence throughout the Galaxy? Are their forces stationed throughout? I am just not convinced that the First Order is a major force. It’s just roaming about the universe attacking the rebels. In terms of building the universe it does not seem as effective in its incorporation into the physical environment of the universe; the various planets, moons etc. You just don’t get the sense that the First Order is an ever present force apart from when you see them in space battles.

Without a proper outline of the First Order then the resistance loses shape as well. I was not clear who the allies of the resistance were and how widespread is the rebellion. These anonymous allies better show themselves sooner rather than later. The resistance seems to exist in a vacuum as well. What about the political structures which govern the galaxy? These political structures were in place when the emperor seized control in episodes 1-3 but it’s not clear what they are or were in this new trilogy. After this trilogy it’s something these filmmakers will have to improve on instead of just throwing these new developments in our face.

Justice League (2017) ***½ /5: The DCEU is moving in the right direction but some elements are still rushed. A lot of people will be entertained by this film

Justice League clearly demonstrates that DC/Warner Bros. is moving in the right direction. The main problem is that there is still an element of rushing to get things out in order to compete with Marvel. DC’s failure to effectively compete with Marvel where it matters, $$$, is a good example of  the downside of being competitive. Warner Bros. needs to focus on just making good comic book movies based on DC comic book characters. This is why they should have fired Zack Snyder from the project earlier or given another director a chance. The DC films are mostly under the influence of Snyder stylistically. Man of Steel probably would have been worse if he was the main writer and not Nolan. I have already explained the fundamental differences between the styles of Nolan and Snyder in an earlier blogpost. Suffice to say that Snyder is a second rate version of Nolan. The structure of the DC cinematic universe is being hampered by this rushed and disjointed approach or reaching for things that aren’t there. Again I will make some suggestions of how the DC cinematic universe can reach its full potential without SNYDER; without SNYDER then things will begin to take shape. Snyder leaving this project early as a result of family issues is ultimately a good thing even if the circumstances are unfortunate.

This film stars Ben Affleck (Ben Affleck), Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) and Henry Cavill (Superman) who, along with the newest additions such as CyBorg, Flash and Aquaman, battle the forces of Steppenwolf who wishes to take control of the entire planet. These heroes end up forming the Justice League.

Positives

The main positive of this film is that the DC cinematic universe is moving in the right direction, somewhat. I found the film entertaining for the most part. It wasn’t a drag like the overly serious and poorly conceptualized BvS. Justice League is definitely a more straightforward film than BvS but it’s a bit rushed. It is a film made on the assumption that comic book fans will know about the particulars so that they can bypass building something meaningful. Otherwise it makes for a good romp and does not necessarily run out of gas. Some people will watch this film and be entertained by the jokes and some of the action on display.

I know about the character Steppenwolf since I did read comic books in the heyday of the ‘90s and it’s clear that he had the potential to be a great villain for this film if there was a proper introduction. One can actually see this film trying to emulate parts of Wonder Woman and there is a moment when an explanation is provided about the mother boxes. I heard some people frowning about the idea but at least they explained it. If it’s an absurd concept then it can’t be any worse than the infinity stones in the marvel films. It is admirable that they (DC) are actually trying to build a universe with its own mythos. Diana refers to the Age of Heroes (taken from Hesiod) and it seems fitting since she mentions the earth realms involved in the DC cinematic universe, with two being mythic. There’s some Lord of the Rings vibe when she makes reference to the world of men. So it seems that going forward the present Justice league will be continuing the fight from a historical perspective. There seems to be a lot of old world conflicts taking place. To be fair in Man of Steel it was mentioned that a Kryptonian space ship visited earth 20,000 years ago. It seems that DC is trying to say that Earth has a long history with these more advanced alien civilizations. In DC comics we know that Steppenwolf is from the planet of Apokolips  and in this film it was revealed that he visited earth thousands of years ago. So far, therefore, two dominant alien civilizations have already visited Earth. This means that while Earth is not as civilized it does have some value and ancient wisdom (Themyscira and Atlantis). So I understand what DC is trying to do and it does work based on their own comic book lore. All that’s required is some more explanation weaved into the story which should give the actors more to work with once they internalize it. The admirable thing is that the composition of the league reflects this diversity based on the stories already told about the so called Age of Heroes. They only have to reveal the origins of the Flash correctly and effectively. It is likely therefore that the Flash might have some connection with an otherworldly force. Thankfully there was a reference to the Green lantern corps which means that Green lantern might have a solo film. The diverse composition of the league reveals that the DC cinematic universe has a lot going for it; it just needs to emerge from the shadows by just making a good comic book film. As I’ve said before the storylines in DC comics have always been superior to marvel. There is a richness of material which suggests that the DC cinematic universe should be story centred instead of character centred like Marvel films. A lot of DC comic characters have origin stories that can be translated into good films.

DC films clearly have a look that’s distinct from Marvel and it shows here. There are less bright colours. It definitely has more of a real world feel which is why they need to work on the CGI

I also liked some bits of the action especially when it wasn’t CGI heavy. The action was pretty good but it could have been better in some areas

Negatives

The primary negative is that the film is rushed. A better film could have been made if it wasn’t so rushed. It goes by in an instant and then you’re asked to tag along or keep up. A good 10-15 minutes setting up the story could have done wonders. How did Batman become aware of these creatures who feed on fear? Why are they here all of a sudden? Why did Steppenwolf decide to strike now? If he’s in exile then where has he been all this time? I thought they would have introduced Darkseid by now and made it clear that Steppenwolf is just his emissary. At least that’s what I expected. The problem is that they are telling everything from the perspective of Earth. There is nothing wrong in featuring the planet of Apokolips. It would have been much more effective if Steppenwolf was seen taken orders from a mysterious authority figure. The authority figure would have clearly given the go ahead for Steppenwolf to launch his attack. Real comic book readers would know that the figure is Darkseid. Nothing would have been wrong in actually revealing Darkseid. The origins of Darkseid should come later for Justice League  2 which will probably come after the next round of solo films. It would also be good if there was an actual reason given in the intro as to the importance of retrieving the mother boxes on Earth. Obviously this would mean that Earth is one planet that the forces of Apokolips have been unable to conquer. This frustration would more than likely explain the decision by Darkseid to invade the Earth. He will do so eventually.

It’s clear by his actions that Steppenwolf is some second in command and so the brief 5-10 minute intro should have introduced the planet of Apokolips. Maybe another villain can be featured in pt, 2  followed later by Darkseid in Justice League 3. This will give DC time to build something meaningful while giving the usual hints about Darkseid. The reality is that Justice League should have begun setting up the clash with Apokolips and not just throw Steppenwolf into the mix. This is why an intro to the planet itself would have been a good thing. These filmmakers are trying to make it into a big mystery and so it backfired.

DC should spend the time building the solo films before the next Justice League. They have too much good source material to be rushing to get the next Justice League out.

Batman looks a bit stodgy here. Affleck’s performance makes it clear that Batman is an old man behind the costume. He looks out of place when the pace of the action increases and there are parademons everywhere. I thought batman was going to cry at one point when superman joined the party. Flash and Aquaman really show up batman’s age.

DC need to get rid of Snyder or make him take a back seat.

One problem I had with the CGI is that if you take the real world approach then the graphics must be at a high level, Steppenwolf looks out of place here. What about old fashion makeup and then fill in the rest with CGI. As usual it was probably rushed. Steppenwolf was probably an afterthought. I just hope that Darkseid doesn’t look out of place.

I hope there are not inconsistencies with this film and the origin story of the amazons as told in Wonder Woman.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) ****/5: This is a good film but Hulk is the standout character.It is the Planet Hulk story line that makes the movie interesting.

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.