Posted in: Marvel Studios, Movies, Review | Tagged: disney, Marvel Studios, thor, thor love & thunder
Thor: Love & Thunder Too Much And Not Enough At The Same Time {Review}
Thor: Love & Thunder takes everything people loved about Ragnarok and dials it up to 11, but that holds the film back. Taika Waititi's style is completely bonkers, which does not work for everyone, and certainly leads to a film that feels all over the place. Pointless sidequests, a villain who disappears for most of the film, and some really disappointing character choices waste good performances from Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman.
Thor Brings Plenty Of Thunder For Sure
We pick up with Thor living a life of peace and reflection, as seen in the trailers for the film, traveling around with the Guardians of the Galaxy, with Korg (Taika Waititi) by his side. When he learns of Gorr (Christian Bale), who wields the powerful Necrosword and earns the nickname The God Butcher, he and the Guardians go their separate ways, and he heads to New Asgard on Earth. When fighting alongside King Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), he is surprised to see his old hammer, Mjolnir, being tossed around by a new hero, The Mighty Thor, his ex Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). The three try to recruit other gods to take on Gorr, including Zeus (Russell Crowe) and stop him once and for all.
Before Ragnarok, many would not have had Thor becoming the MCU's comic relief on their bingo cards. That is what happens when you bring in Waititi, who is a gifted filmmaker. Sadly, his style just does not work for Thor. Everything in this film is trying so hard to be wacky, to the point of annoyance. Perfect example: the goats. When you see the film, you will know what that means. They serve zero purpose, and frankly may be the most annoying thing in a film this year. Visually, once again, the MCU stands alone with some of the best set designs and action sequences you will find in theaters. Minus a few dodgy scenes near the beginning with some unfortunate-looking green screen work, there is nothing to complain about.
One wishes Waititi wasn't so worried about staying weird to the point that it suffocates the story. The film is all over the place, awkward, and surprisingly not very much fun. A whole sequence in the middle of the film that goes on far too long only really feels placed into the film to set up a credits sequence. All of the chemistry between Thor and Valkyrie that made Ragnarok, so fun is gone, and Thompson looks as bored as Valkyrie when she has to sit through meetings and doesn't get to punch something. Gorr is an intriguing villain but is absent for most of the middle part of the film and fails to live up to his nickname. Not a whole lot of god-butchering going on. But there are a lot of throw-away, referential jokes in every scene, all the time. Every single moment of levity has to have some kind of humor attached to it, its grating and unwelcome.
Chris Hemsworth does turn in his second-best Thor performance, but the character works best when he is around other Avengers to play off of. He is funny here, and where they end up leaving the character at the end is very interesting. He is at his best when he is around Jane Foster, as he and Portman have more sparks between them here than in their last two Thor movies combined. They do Jane dirty, though. Not only do they botch showing her origin, but there are decisions made that, had they gone a different direction, would have kept the strong story they gave her for a good part of the film intact instead of deflating it.
That is overall a pretty good way to sum up, Phase Four as a whole. Nobody thought that the momentum Marvel Studios carried into Endgame would be sustainable, but the films we have been getting have not felt like they have much of a direction. Not that there has to be a big bad either, but at this point, it almost feels like we got another Thor film because we had to, not because it was necessary. The films are increasingly starting to feel like one-offs and not part of a shared universe, cameos aside. Thor: Love & Thunder is not a film that begs for repeat viewings and fails to leave a mark at all, really, and that is a shame.