I am still in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And, immediately looking ahead, I want to say that this tape surprised me very much.
The fact is that the previous parts about Thor - the well-known God of Thunder - were quite serious and bombastic, even in places not boring. But the third part is completely different from its predecessors. She's totally different. And this is the case when the amount of humor in the picture is so much that it starts to annoy you. This is also provided that it is not always appropriate in this tape. From the very first minutes of watching, I caught myself thinking that jokes and gags are somehow too much, and the main characters are increasingly crooked and no longer seem so “Gods of Thunder”.
Perhaps the filmmakers decided to play “unreasonable expectations” to the viewer from the first seconds surprised, disappointed, then happy and so on. But that didn't work out for me personally. The constant pun that crumbles on all sides makes you start to get frustrated with the characters. Yes, Thor could joke, and the Hulk might seem stupid, but the former was never an unlucky clown, and the latter never looked like a big kid. The big beast, yes! But here he looks like a big stupid kid. And, frankly, I’m not sure that the creators should have changed the expectations of the film so much.
This is another typical Marvel blockbuster. With a very cool graphics, which, I think, can argue only that "Avatar". With a typical story where you have to save the world again. And with a very typical and, I think, rather faint villain. Or rather, the villain, which this time will be the sister of Thor. That’s just where, who she is, why she wants to destroy everything and why right now, the film won’t tell us. There's no time for this! No jokes will come out of it.
In the end, I think the creators wanted to repeat the satirical success of Guardians of the Galaxy. That’s just the “Guardians” these puns and jokes look organic, and Thor, in my opinion, is not at all about laughter.
- The hero, who was always known as courageous, fearless and arrogant, turned first into a jester, and secondly into a frightened woman. He squeals with horror simply because he is about to meet a local king, begs for mercy when his hair is cut and how a bitch lies to two of Banner’s personalities that he prefers. The Torah is thousands of years old and still doesn’t know what its powers are and needs the advice of a folder. After four films in which he proved himself worthy, he fell too low and too unexpectedly. - For Ragnarok to happen, you need to put the crown of Surtur in the Eternal Flame. Therefore, the heroes did not try to destroy one of these artifacts, did not leave them for storage in different worlds, but put them next to each other in one museum. - The search for Odin on Earth, which has been billed as one of the film's themes and which in itself could be an interesting story, is simply leaking. A car god named Dr. Strange arrives and, in 2 minutes of sparkling chatter, just dumps everything on the screen: here's your One, bye-bye. It's an ineptly ruined storyline. It's a drain. The authors wrote that they could not shoot at least 15 minutes of interesting stories about the search for God in New York. - Even more ridiculous it looks for those viewers who solo Strange did not look and do not know who and why fell on them like this. Its appearance was not even necessary in the plot, since the Rainbow Bridge, if there was an additional setting, could deliver immediately to Odin. - Odin's death is completely copied from the death scene of Master Ugway from Kung Fu Panda. - And there's not a single frame with a live background. It's a gallimite chromakei who just shouts about a few characters talking in front of a green screen. Friends of Thor, who played a more or less prominent role in the other two films, appeared here for a few seconds just to be killed. Could it have been possible to make their death less in vain and incompetent? It's called "character drain." - The film, which is called Thor: Ragnarok, after a quarter of the timekeeping is interrupted, and we are transferred to the film Planet Hulk, which lasts more than an hour. In the end, we go back to the Ragnarok movie. It's an artificial, crazy embedding of one story into another. It looks like a jacket with a sports tight. - Did the Hulk land on another planet... on a plane? Yes, there is a very implicit hint that the plane was dragged into some portal, but how, why? - Hulk lives a quiet life, he is happy and not at all angry. Then why does he stay like this and not return to Banner? The character of Mick (the insect), although little known, still deserved to be shown by canon. In the original, he was a poet and looked quite beautiful to the insect. There's some faceless freak here, an animal that doesn't say a word. - The last of the Valkyries is shown as a betrayer of her duty! a corrupt! a drinker! a dark-haired Latin! who is also a lesbian! It was simply impossible to omit a positive mythological character, even in the series about Xena you will not see this. - The revolution on Sakaar. A bunch of runaway gladiators could pull this off? With local technology, with all his wealth, the tyrant showman had nothing to put down the rebellion? How did the Grandmaster end up in the trash when all the rebels did was escape on a ship? - The entire population of Asgard was placed on the same ship. Yes, not as many people live there as on Earth, but sorry, one ship? - Within a couple of days, the inhabitants of Asgard were left without a king, survived the attack of Hela, were attacked by Surtur, lost Asgard himself, and then, fleeing on a ship, met the ship of Thanos, who would finish them off. It's been a busy day! - In a film with this title, you could express more respect for Scandinavian mythology. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of people, not a single century believed that after death ... will drink, and then fight the ghosts of their wives and children to lose and the universe plunged into darkness. Since it is unlikely that anyone will shoot a big-budget film about the real Ragnarok, as he was represented by the Vikings, the audience could get this event only in the form of a comic book. And in it, the moment of the fall of Asgard was shown without a note of greatness, without regret, and was merged with the laughter of a stone dude and the indifference of the people. - There are as many as 4 villains: Surtur, Loki, Hela, Grandmaster. Of course, none of them receive disclosure. - There's a shit joke, a dick joke. The authors are also obsessed with death. I don't mind black humor per se, but here, twice, the death of a sentient being is spoken of with such indifference as if a toy had broken. To sum up, a few years before that, the studio probably had plans for a serious Ragnarok, since the first and second parts of Thor were filmed in a normal way. But their fees were not high enough, the audience did not need Thor in the form of Thor with his mythology, his character. Therefore, the authors gave us the Torah in the form of a clown. They didn’t even believe in this film, so they didn’t shoot it about what it was supposed to be about, and half of the content was silenced by a completely different comic book arch about another character, and the events of Asgard themselves showed in a glimpse and with jokes. The twilight of the gods is shown without the slightest respect for the source, more than half of the characters are missing, and the rest are a deep degeneration of their images. Loki is being groundlessly heroized. Apparently drawn specifically for girls, Marvel focuses a lot on fan service for them. At the same time, we must admit that the film performs its main function – entertainment. It is a spectacular attraction, it has a large amount of fan service, Easter eggs for fans, it is designed. Therefore, he is able to create a very vile trick with the viewer - to leave satisfied immediately after watching, with a charge of emotions. But if there is a head on his shoulders, the viewer then realizes that he was simply deceived by a trick.
Thor, Odin's son. God of thunder. The mighty Avenger. Goldilocks.
Thor: Ragnarok (2017) is one of the most interesting, in my opinion, films from the cinema of the Marvel Universe.
I watched with great interest the events that took place throughout Thor’s journey, the development of the plot, and especially the relationship between Thor and Loki, etc. The film “Thor: Ragnarok” is interesting both for children, for its fantasticity, variety of heroes and adults, for its life problems and humor.
The plot of this film is interesting with a wide variety of events. From the very beginning, he immerses us in this wonderful world. From the first shot, we begin to think about what happened and how Thor will get out of this situation. Next, we will find out details that we did not even suspect. Asgard's throne is not in the hands of his king. Even more surprising is the moment when we cross the storylines of another Marvel movie. And of course, here begins the most exciting events of this film.
I want to celebrate the work of actors, namely the work of Chris Hemsworth (Thor) and Tom Hiddolston (Loki). Thanks to the play of these actors, you can feel every surviving moment of their characters. Tom Hiddolston is so well compressed all the features of the character that the arguments of fans do not cease to be silent. The main topic of the dispute is Loki and his loyalty. We cannot predict his next decision. Special thanks to the director of this film - Taik Waititi. How accurately the cast was selected. Thor: Ragnarok is the 3rd part of Thor movies. I want to emphasize the uniqueness of this part. This film is not similar to previous ones in that it contains humor, bright colors, new heroes, a new storyline.
Thor: Ragnarok is one of my favorite movies in the Marvel Universe. To switch and rest, I turn on this movie. It lasts 2 hours, but it looks in one breath. After each movie of the Marvel Universe, namely after a short credits show a small episode for the next film. That’s why I want to watch the movie until the end.
Thor: Ragnarok was very interesting and exciting. This film is designed for an audience of 16 years old, but I watched it myself at the age of 15. While reviewing this film, my interest is not lost. I enjoy watching Thor and think the film is perfect for a night of fiction.
Over the years, I’ve had a strange relationship with Marvel movies. I can’t say I’m a fan of the Avengers franchise. Some films I don’t like at all, but Guardians of the Galaxy and the last part of Thor are opposite.
Why is that? It's all about the right positioning. The latest films don’t try to look serious with all the absurdity that is happening in them. Many will disagree with me, but I believe that a film about superheroes should be exactly this: on the verge of absurdity, with a fair amount of humor, with charismatic characters in the lead roles.
On the pluses of cinema.
1) Remembering how dull the first parts of the films about the god of thunder were, this one looks much more cheerful. The character became slightly less serious, but acquired much more charisma.
2) Humor. In some places it passes on the verge of a foul, but, in most cases, it happens enough in the topic and causes a smile.
(3) The symbiosis of Thor and Loki. That’s exactly what films with heroes lacked. Against their background, the remaining characters (probably, except for the Hulk) can be excluded and the film will not lose anything.
What was missing.
1) Like most superhero movies, the film quickly fades from memory and does not pass the test of time. Revisiting the film makes little sense.
2) The unexpected development of Odin’s story looks too strained and created to advance the plot.
Having chosen to wander through nine worlds in search of ways to once again heroize, the heir to the Asgardian throne takes the crown from a fiery demon to prevent the legendary Ragnarok in his home world. Returning home with a new trophy, the prodigal son of Odin instead of his father finds Loki on the throne who took his guise, who has already erected a monument to himself and is amused with plays about his exploits. Loki quickly exposes himself and for a quicker pacification of his brother offers to go to Earth to see the exiled Odin. He only has time to say goodbye to his sons and warn that his death will release the imprisoned eldest daughter Hela, the goddess of death. It is with her that the Torah will have to fight for the throne of Asgard, where it is still necessary to get first: moving between worlds, he falls on the garbage planet Sakaar, where he becomes a gladiator of local fights for survival.
The second change of director does not pass unnoticed for films about the god of thunder. But if the first two films of the series were personal dramas to match the cinematic experience of Kenneth Branagh and Alan Taylor, shrouded in a light romantic flair due to the presence of a clearly marked through love line of Thor and Jane, this time, putting at the helm of the outrageous Taika Waititi, the producers received a completely different format of presenting one of the key characters of the Avengers. This time, whether under the influence of circumstances, or in order to radically change the course, the romantic line and any hints at it were removed, at least - presented in an ironic manner, and the audience received another version of the presentation of the beloved hero. As a supporting genre, a lover of absurdist humor and deliberate outrage, director Taika Waititi chooses canonical action films of the 70-80s with flashy shootouts, charismatic heroes running into brawls, dressing up friendly skirmishes and absolutely ridiculous in their failures situations. Not forgetting about the obligatory fantastic component of the picture based on comics, the strong basis of male friendship in accordance with the same cinematic era add the appropriate entourage: the use of lasers in weapons and lighting, bright saturated colors with neon effect, an abundance of technology for interplanetary flights of bizarre forms. Complementing this riot of colors, brisk dialogue and large-scale battles, of course, the incendiary soundtrack, which is led by the legendary “Immigrant Song” in the original performance of Led Zeppelin. With all the palpable old-school sweetness at its best, the chosen format copes very well with the task of keeping the viewer’s attention, promoting the plot of the entire universe along the way with the introduction of new characters and cameo actors from other films of the series. Moreover, a sharp increase in the number of key figures in the frame does not cause trimming and confusion, since screen time is carefully divided between them in order to have time to turn on and draw the character.
This screen time is also enough to form a general idea about them using non-banal methods of “returning to the past”: viewing old records, flashbacks, finding lost things, etc. So there is an acquaintance with not one dramatic story, when this or that hero has to re-find in himself and for himself the goals and meanings of further existence, first of all, it is Hela herself, in fact betrayed by her own father, and Valkyrie, miraculously survived in a cruel massacre. In the variety of plot twists, using the maximum of all technical techniques, for a quick and boring storytelling on episodes important from the point of view of drama, a very contrasting emphasis is made: the tinkering in the frame slows down, statics are maintained, devoid of deliberate special effects, to create the illusion of stopped time and fix the depth of the situation in the mind of the viewer. Unfortunately, not all such moments can be fully penetrated, although they should be important from the point of view of the development of the hero, especially for Thor himself, because a solo film should mark a new stage of his formation, and here he is more tangible only in the way of using his power. He, of course, is much more like the image of a simple-minded companion pricking guy than the role of a romantic overseas prince with abounding pathos of speeches about the stars. But the most crucial moment of his realization of his destiny is smeared with the scale and effectiveness of the battle that broke out.
It is recommended to revive the dull gray everyday life.
Dangerous: hoping for Chris Hemsworth's naked torso.
Thor, unlike other Marvel films, is advantageously distinguished by a large number of action, new worlds, heroes and the lack of deep plot and dialogue. Yes, yes, in this case, it’s a plus, because Marvel can’t do anything serious in this field, so it’s better not to. Watching the film you get into such an attraction, where there is a beautiful picture, effects, everything is at the level. Since the film does not immediately position itself as serious, but rather comedic, then numerous shoals can be viewed condescendingly.
The only thing that doesn’t look very strange in this universe is the weakness of the protagonist. Like a god, a super warrior who, without technical equipment, must be the coolest warrior in all worlds, is actually very weak. Even in this film, he is first beaten by scavengers, then beaten by a simple Valkyrie drunken clutter, until his abilities are "mocked" by some half-left man from the ground with a couple of months of magical education. It doesn’t look like the coolest character.
In addition to this large joint and many small ones, everything else is at the level and fans of the genre are recommended.
6.7 out of 10
Definitely the best Thor movie, if not the best Marvel movie for me. It’s so strange to write these lines, remembering that the first two parts made me sick. The creations of Branna were so nauseatingly primitive, faceless and boring that it is difficult to believe in the rebirth of this character and love for him new.
Initially, Thor was a dumb but pretty rocker. In the first two parts, he had an incredible bit of narcissism and pathos. And this pathos was definitely a lot. Before us was a standard lyrical hero with absolutely transparent motives, incapable of self-irony. A hero like Superman, he had a beautiful family, a beautiful girlfriend and status. Thor's frozen. I think few people liked this character, because it is difficult to love the ideal. But the new screenwriter and director made him so imperfect and self-ironic that now it is simply impossible not to love a healthy, cheerful big guy. And the funny thing is that both appearance and strength remained with him, just now he is some real, his own guy in the board.
In his quest for the Infinity Stones, Thor was unaware that Loki had assumed the guise of their father and ruled Asgard quietly while their father Odin died. To grieve sons not long, the death of God releases dormant somewhere in the cage older sister, and part-time Goddess of Death, thirsting for power and blood. A new-born relative throws her brothers into the dumpster world and here they have to press, how to return and kick her sister in the ogres and prevent Ragnarok.
Amazingly, there is not a single sagging moment in the film. Each scene is full of humor, able to laugh the most avid cynics. At the same time, along with stupid jokes and gags, there is a huge number of puns and intellectual humor, cameos and references. Fans like me who don’t miss a single Marvel movie will be wildly excited, but the average viewer will laugh. The joke about disguise still unwittingly causes a smile.
Each character in the film anneals, each has its own unique character, no one will pass through the plot for nothing. The relationship with Loki deserves special attention. The game of “help” is great.
I want to see this Thor again and again, so I look forward to his appearance after the Avengers. "Final" as just not ready to say goodbye to one of the few cool and voluminous comic book characters!
10 out of 10
In a nutshell, Waititi did a good job of making this film, although the jokes of the puberty single-cell level were not very inspirational. Probably for this reason, Thor here turned out not to be a Higher Being, the master of the elements and the Higher Knowledge, but some self-interested drunkard from the New York corner. In general, the film is not ice, but quite watchable. P.S. Goldblum was pleasantly surprised. His play is an example of a professional approach to his work.
I started watching what is called “from the end” with the third film. The film perfectly suited my mood (and any film show should correspond to the mood) and liked even more Venom, watched the day before.
Remarkable actors, not overloaded with excessive meaning and morality plot perfectly correspond to entertainment and recreational cinema. And, of course, great graphics and special effects. With humor and dynamics is also complete order.
The only thing that caused surprise is how much passed (in age, but not in skill) excellent E. Hopkins. But there was also a reference to the fact that he played withering Odin.
Loki was also played by Tom Hiddleston wonderfully, if not stunningly. Although, after watching the previous parts, I did not understand how this character lived to Ragnarok, after such a series of terrible betrayals. Apparently, he has some kind of long-term contract with producers, since everything is so easily forgiven him.
The main character (Chris Hemsworth) is moderately brutal and natural, but in my opinion Loki is played more convincingly.
Cate Blanchett confirmed her high level, but the image of the Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), as it seems to me against her background, was embodied somewhat weaker.
I found the first two films much less interesting, especially The Kingdom of Darkness.
In general, a good fantasy, not in vain spent time, and in a year, perhaps, I will review this film.
Tor Regnarek is an example of how the producers had a desire to get the same effect in the wake of the success of Guardians of the Galaxy, but already in the scenery of Scandinavian mythology. On one side of the scales will be the last battle in Asgard, on the other reckless adventures of Thor along with the Hulk on the glider Sakaar.
The producers determine that the audience of the picture does not reach the age of 15, so a lot of bright colors and quick-fire humor are needed. Therefore, Taika Waititi is invited as a director, who proved himself in the genre of comedies. So now every 20 seconds, the main characters will joke about it and for no reason. Since there are two thematic stories in the plot, the director will try to jump between entertainment and action. It’s one thing that Guardians of the Galaxy characters were originally created in a format where their recklessness and humor are very harmonious in the context of the story. But even the Guardians understand about the term “not to bend”, because if the humor in “Regnarok” still looks tolerable at first, then by the middle you begin to really get tired of its inappropriateness. Forget all of Thor’s character development in the first two parts. In the third, we will see a child in the hall with slot machines.
I like the image of Cate Blanchett as Hela. Despite the fact that we are told the backstory of the character, there is no clear explanation why Regnarek should come right now. The Hulk appears as a green monster, but again behaves like a real teenager. Participates in the battle of gladiators, rejoices in small things, dreams of fights with a child's smile on his lips. Even more surprising when in the shoes of the Hulk, the green monster tolerably speaks fluent American. I feel like I’m in He-Man of the Masters of the Universe, but not in Marvel. A separate question with actress Tessa Thompson. Producers began to shove her into different franchises, but she, no matter what she took part in the film, always manages to walk with a stone face and a completely clumsy acting. For the role of Valkyrie to find a more implausible character than her acting will be difficult.
The finale is made in the best traditions, when all the heroes, as well as the characters with Sakaar, arrive in Asgard and participate in a huge battle. We can safely assume that this is not a continuation of the Thor, but one of its branches. Because instead of the development of the main character, we will observe many events that can please young teenagers, but not fans of Scandinavian mythology.
Unlike the Scandinavian Olympus, the Marvel universe is not limited in the choice of characters and places of action and thanks to a stormy imagination, the mythical Rognarok, literally meaning the death (fate) of the gods and the whole world, takes on a new, rather bizarre form with the placement of action on a certain “warming planet”, the economy of which is based on the organization of gladiatorial fights, where Toru, the lord of elemental spirits, had to fight with “chthonic creatures” mentioned in Scandinavian myth.
Characteristic features of chthonic creatures are traditionally distinguished by the presence of supernatural powers, animal-likeness and werewolves and the allegorical Hulk - a kind of modern "Jekil and Hyde" - being the owner of scientific intelligence, on the one hand, and an almost complete absence of the creative principle, on the other, is a vivid example of "a severe form of schizophrenia" or possession of "chthonic forces."
“Thor: Ragnarok” is based on the comic book “Planet Hulk”, and, therefore, the Hulk must be and is the central, driving motive of the plot, designed to express the painful contradictions of the grandmaster (Demiurge) with the rulers of the underworld and the human soul as a direct field of war. Thus the bloody strife of the "Gods of Asgard" is like an illustration of the moral chaos reigning in human minds, and the clash of warring forces - beneficent and pernicious - is a direct expression of the schizophrenia of the modern world.
Although Marvel's anthropomorphism was somewhat naive, it was nonetheless a good allegorical depiction of an epic battle, even though the Scandinavian Olympus was a primitive commentary and a collection of pathetic pranksters who, long retired, are still successfully used in the Marvel comic book universe. In this we are certainly grateful to them and comparing the Scandinavian gods with identical prototypes from more “transparent” theogonic systems, as well as given the commercial adaptation of the Scandinavian Olympus to the schizophrenic world of the Hulk (including placing everyone in the gladiatorial arena of the “warming planet”), it does not seem difficult to understand the seeming nonsense.
To the picture did not seem another collection of useless anecdotes, you can miss everything, including “unauthorized promotion” or sending Odin – the father of the gods – to the “home of the elderly” and the image of Thor – the master of the elements – the god of dementia, unable not only to know, but also to foresee, such a significant event as “Rognarok”. The only logically motivated divine characters remain the goddess of death – Hal with Odin’s blood brother – Loki, who is a symbol of passions in contrast to the intensity of the vital heat of the first. Like all the other Gods of Fire and Light—Fire that burns and destroys, as well as warms and gives life—Loki ended up being treated as an “destroying fire.” The name Loki, as we learn from Asgard and the Gods (page 250), is derived from the ancient word liuhan, to enlighten. Therefore it has the same beginning as the Latin lux, Light. Therefore, Loki is identical with Lucifer or the Light carrier. In early Scandinavian theogony, Loki was regarded as merciful and benevolent—a principle of good, not evil. Hal – the goddess of the land of the dead in early mythology was a kind and benevolent mother – the goddess of the earth, but later became the “mistress of shadows” – the female Pluto, bringing death and sorrow to this world.
Thus discrediting the good and heroic gods - Odin and Thor: endowing the first with unreasonable cowardice, and the second with hopeless stupidity and sending the "sweet couple" - Hal with Loki - "to overthrow the established regime", with the addition of "captive werewolves", the authors turned everything upside down, presenting the most amazing and unprecedented example of scenario ingenuity.
In view of such a bizarre and very dubious battle “good with evil”, where Hal is a direct reflection of the “hell of the elemental world”, and Loki is the mediator between heaven and hell, it becomes clear why Loki was endowed with the authority of the Old Testament Noah, however, the viewer to judge for himself what is true and what is fiction.
The first thing I want to ask you before I start sharing my impressions is: “How long have you been to the attractions?” In particular, the well-known “Quantum Leap” for some reason comes to mind, and now I will explain why: you are thoroughly trained with instructions, for a long time morally prepared, seated, insured in a chair, give the latest recommendations, and now, when you are ready to receive the most insane emotions in life, START occurs ... ... ............... you fly close your eyes and scream at the top of your voice, and open them already on the ground, feeling only a slight attack of nausea in trying to comprehend this 10 seconds agony.
I experienced a similar storm of emotions when watching the third part about the mighty Scandinavian Thunderer, in an ironic reinterpretation of the Australian director Taika Waititi, who, it seems to me, not completely departing from the vampire image in one of the previous films, simply sucked the plot out of the screenwriters’ finger and made a “pop” kitsch movie.
Perhaps this is the problem of the source because not being a fan of the MCU, I am not familiar with comics, but having read at one time EDDU imagined the TORA completely different, moreover, entire dossiers on superheroes are walking on the network and there, the characteristic of Odin’s son is so impressive that he should be at least the most significant in the ranks of the Avengers and the strongest creature (I emphasize the creature because he has nothing to do with the human structure of the body) in the universe. And since this is another solo film about his adventures, albeit within the framework of the general world of Marvel, then along with the interaction with other characters and the disclosure of new details of the narrative, it was necessary to more deeply show the formation of the future King of Asgrad’s personality, and not only unsuccessful muscle play, but compressions at the level of toilet comedies.
The thundering plot, in all senses, deprives the secondary Persians of the imagery of their mythical prototypes: Loki doesn't look insidious, rather skodly; the Hulk line is plucked from the Sakaar comic book series; Valkyrie generally went down a shaky path with damage to the Nordic appearance; a huge wolf Fenrir, such only in comparison with the Lilliputians; and the villain, although brightly played, is still caricatured, because there is no sinister subtext in it, which, on the eve of the upcoming denouement, completely kills the essence of the term put into the title of the film, Ragnarok.
Yes, the director mentioned in early interviews about stepping away from the canons in order to achieve the organicity of the story, but to me it is like interfering with beer and cologne in an attempt to throw an incendiary party. Unless that the soundtrack Immigrant song performed by old men Led Zeppelin saves this actor’s cabbage, adding at least some tension.
And even considering the film as a bridge connecting the characters with the finale of the Avengers saga, you do not expect further transformation of Odinson into the King of Thor, the leader of the Ases and the defender of 9 worlds.
Unfortunately, the review turned out to be extremely negative, probably due to the fact that the creators’ calculation was on the viewers of the scenes that were depressing to colorful pictures and the general dynamics of scenes under the age of 18, to which I have not been a member for a long time. And we should expect seriousness from the picture, where the gods sit “on a leash” with people (read scriptwriters)!
I’m not afraid to say it, but Taika Waititi managed to make the best movie of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ragnarok has it all: crazy drive, interesting story, crazy humor, colorful characters, dazzling special effects and all this is flavored with a beautiful soundtrack.
But it is worthwhile to dwell in more detail on humor - Ragnarok is simply saturated with jokes and gegs, and they are much more elaborate than even in Guardians of the Galaxy - this is most impressive. Of course, the fact that Taika Waititi knows how to joke everyone understood after “Real Ghouls” – but so much! How this humor brightened the eternal pathos of the Torah, gave it a new radiance.
Waititi’s Ragnarok is more like a long series of The Simpsons from the first seasons, where humor was multi-level and could be both fun and funny to the point of colic. For this, by the way, many fans criticized Thor, but Kamon is after all comics, a purely entertaining genre, and there is always Captain America for pathos. Of course, there is pathos in Ragnarok, but here it looks more than appropriate, Waititi managed to create a perfect balance where jokes and gegas mix, with heroism and pathos.
Ragnarok managed to bring the Marvel Cinematic Universe to a new level, and it is nice that this universe is developing and is not afraid to experiment, because Thor Ragnarok turned out to be a very not typical Marvel film.
9 out of 10
Taika Waititi did almost the impossible - made a good film about Thor. Two previous solo albums of this character stars from the sky were missing, and Thor himself was quite boring, as for me, a character. Waititi grabbed the god of thunder by the shoulders, shaken tightly and kicked him into extremely uncomfortable conditions, flavoring the new misadventure of Thor with a ton of humor.
'Thor: Ragnarok' is a bright, dynamic comic book that captures the viewer from the first minutes and drags him to the final credits, and even a little further. To be honest, I’m not very familiar with Marvel comics, unlike the rival DC lineup, so I admit that ' Ragnarok' may violate some canons of story-sources. But due to ignorance, I watched the triquel ' Torah' I am as an ordinary viewer, and in this respect - the film is really good.
I'll celebrate the good caste. In the usual images of Thor, Loki and the Hulk in ' Ragnarok' starred Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo, respectively. I don’t think I need to explain anything here – these actors have long grown into their roles, in which they look great. But there were fresh faces. Cate Blanchett embodied the image of Hela on the screen, and the majestic villain from her turned out simply magnificent. Beautiful Tessa Thompson played a combative Valkyrie, which will stop the starship on the approach, and a small army will tear up with bare hands. Carl Urban played a small role, and in a small cameo appeared Doctor Strange performed by Benedict Camberbetch. In general, the cast of the film is all right.
Of course, 'Thor: Ragnarok' can please and visual. The picture in the film is great, the graphics in a couple of places are noticeable, but not critical, and the action is simply beautiful. Very pleased with the high-quality production, and the action scenes are mostly filled with drive, attracting attention.
A bonus is a good soundtrack, the already mentioned great humor, but I will not even dwell on the plot. As with most Marvel movies, the story is purely nominal here - just to justify the fun happening on the screen.
As a result - 'Thor: Ragnarok' is worth watching, it is a great entertainment product that fulfills its task by all 120%. I definitely recommend it.
One of the best comedic action movies at the moment!
Many people have met Marvel characters from comic books. But it was #39; a new time' and the creators were given a great opportunity to show heroes and villains in action on TV and cinema screens. This is how the great Marvel Cinematic Universe was born, which for several years has fascinated and fascinated the viewer with stunning films and 'Thor: Ragnarok' is no exception.
It should be understood that this part is completely different from the previous ones. Many may notice that it is more bright, colorful and from a humorous point of view very rich. All this was achieved thanks to director Taiki Waititi, who is known for his unusual temper (in a good way). I can honestly say that it was just more enjoyable to watch the last film than the last two, which are a bit depressed. . .
Discussing films Marvel you can not even touch on the topic of special effects. Everyone has long known that this is one of the few film companies that simply cannot disappoint and mess up in this regard (in most cases).
I would like to talk more about acting. I met Chris Hemsworth not so long ago and, to be honest, I did not go into his filmography, but still watched a couple of pictures. At the moment I consider him an amazing actor! Many members of this profession find it very difficult to combine two absolutely opposite directions - drama and comedy. But Chris did a wonderful job with that. Tom Hiddleston's character surprised me with its comical character. Fans of 'The Avengers' will agree with me that Loki is known for his sarcasm and ability to stumble upon Hulk, but still I have not seen him in such a comedic image. That's the Loki I like better!
In the end, I can say that the film is worth the money and worth the time spent on it. And the actors, and the effects, and the plot - all form one whole and nothing goes beyond this whole. GOOD JOB!
Did I like the movie? -Yes!
Would I have seen it a second or third time? -Yes!
Many Hayats of the first and second "Thor" for the plot, but let's be honest, there are prescribed characters, their good development, and all the storylines started in the work itself or the works of predecessors, have their completion. The structure of the first two films is simple, but they are solid, and the characters in them are real people, not cardboard.
The most outrageous thing about Taika Waititi’s work is that instead of respecting other parts, developing ideas embedded in them, the director wanted to spit on it all, doing something of his own ... and what cannot be ignored, he “pushed” it seems, only to “tick”.
At the end of the “Kingdom of Darkness” the viewer was thrown a chic intrigue, hinting that it would be revealed in the sequel. Alas... Thor calculates Loki without any conclusions, and Loki does nothing. Where is the clever character who has been inventive in all the previous films and has been able to move towards his goal through cunning? Thor's smart? Then where is the worthy clash of minds? Taiki Waititi changed Loki without explaining the change. The director was also rude about the topic of family and love: Thor does not grieve about the breakup of his beloved, with whom he did not take his eyes all (!!!) of the second film, the relationship of the brothers does not change, and Odin does not care what Loki does with his kingdom.
But added a bunch of events and plot twists that do not affect anything, but are needed solely for practical purposes.
Loki and Thor may not have visited. Dr. Strange, and not much would have changed. The storyline of the Hulk seriously attracted attention. I do not mind, but the plot branches should complement and deepen the main story, revealing the inner world of the characters, the reasons for their actions, complicating the world. Innovations do not save Asgard from the fate of empty scenery, and the characters do not change significantly in the film, remaining lopsided and flat.
The episodes with Hel parallel the events on the Arena and the only reason Hel is needed in the plot is to provide the promised Ragnarok, and also: "We must have a villain." Half of Marvel’s films are sinners, of course, unwritten antagonists, but there is a feeling that the danger is serious and dominant in the film, and then the end of the world is pushed into the background. At the same time, the future death of Asgard and Thor’s worries about the fate of the house were indicated in Avengers: Age of Ultron, which Waititi ignored. There is no sense of tragedy at all (in comedy this can also be done), Thor is cheerful and cheerful as ever, although the house for him should clearly be no less valuable and important than his beloved and return to Asgard after exile.
There is a lot of humor in dramatic scenes. This is not justified by the character and the situation. After all, Thor is not Peter Quill or Stark, for whom jokes have always been characteristic, even if the battle is in full swing.
Of course, Thor: Ragnarok has good ideas and interesting events. The Hulk Arena itself is an interesting find, and seeing Asgard not as a separate place, but as a planet along with Kiln and Earth is a good development of the universe.
However, let’s look at it objectively: Are the change in genre from drama to comedy, the addition of a little more scenes and a couple of characters from other solo films – these significant changes affect the quality of the script and the integrity of the story? I don't think so. In the film, the main thing is history, in history, structure, and here it causes a lot of questions.
Instead of high-quality cinema, the viewer was given a two-hour stand-up from Taika Waititi through masks in the form of characters we loved.
A review of the triquel of adventures of the god Thunder I want to start exclusively with caressing adjectives. Positive, funny, bright, beautiful, not a bit boring.
Marvel/Disney’s decision to direct the cool Taiko Waititi is comparable to almost the same insanely faithful decisions in the person of James Gunn (“Guardians of the Galaxy”) and the Russo brothers (second and third Cap)! Despite the obvious pressure from Kevin Feige to do everything according to the same patterns, no one prevents to bring the Marvel universe to the cinema a little bit of their own. So here Waititi, gushing with delightful satire and detachment in “Real Ghouls”, brought in the continuation of the tales about Asgard and his sons his bit of madness and hilarious humor. Speaking of humor. Many reviewers dubbed the third Thor a comedy not to be taken. And they're right about something. Not a minute goes by that the film did not fall into some kind of gag, and sometimes even reaches the classic buffoonery. The first appearance of Valkyrie is worth it. It's everywhere. I'm not talking about the stone gladiator and his partner. Every phrase thrown makes you twist in spasmodic laughter. Do you have any friends who are friends with you?
But critics are wrong only in the fact that many recorded, cheerful covering the whole film with a thick layer in the minus of this picture. If we were shown what was happening with a serious mine, then believe me, the claims would grow much more. And so the creators almost immediately disowned the attacks: “We actually burned during the creation, which we advise you!”
But there's one thing. Triquel, despite its ease in narration and what is happening, although it was seen that "on the positive", but not through the sleeves. How can you carelessly approach a movie that shoots the wet dream of girls under 16 and above Tom Hiddleston (aka Loki)? That's right.
Tons of charisma on the part of the god of Slyness and Mischief are provided, which means that the girls from the session will come out wet and contented, from tears of tenderness naturally. But Loki's not the only one. Begin to bend your fingers, almost all the main characters, and secondary here tried to glory. Mark Rufallo appears for a few minutes, but his frustration discourages and amazes. And everything about Banner adds tons of cod and frenzy to that splendor. Hela in the face of Cate Blanchett, although he does not take the pedestal of the best villain Marvel, but definitely the title of “sexy chicks will destroy the whole world with a flap of his hips” deserves. And the constantly boozy Valkyrie, eclipses the serial Jessica Jones for two times, with the ability to drain all alcohol production on a planetary scale, and then also break a couple of ridges. Hell, yeah, a movie where Jeff Goldblum really plays, not like he always does, isn’t that an indicator of quality?
Let's get to the visual component. And believe me, she's so good! The film can be safely put on the shelf to the most beautiful films of Marvel, along with both parts of “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “the Avengers”. As many reviewers tirelessly repeat, you can put any frame on the stop and print a chic wallpaper on your desktop or where you usually shove your favorite frames there. There are no complaints about the installation either. By the second viewing, for example, I noticed a cool feature of the transition of the Hulk muzzle on the Quinjet screen on Banner's face. The action can be seen in places that sharpened to the 3D format and at home on an ordinary LCD TV does not look as impressive as I would like. And the track that was in the first trailer on site. In the two most successful scenes.
The drawbacks of the painting are naturally there. Since we still have an apocalypse in the Asgard Masshatb, the humorous tone of the tape completely kills the possible drama. She doesn't exist. And in the end, there is something to complain about in terms of the script and some visual decisions. For example, the plot teleportation of the main villain is clearly a bit discouraging.
And it is these disadvantages that slightly cut the scores of a very good film. Clearly the best in the trilogy of soloists about the god of Thunder. And one of the best movies in the Marvel Universe. If I’m ever asked to name the top five movies in this universe, it’s definitely going to be in the top five, but unfortunately in last place.
9 out of 10
I'll tell you right away. The third part of Thor's adventures is a pretty good entertaining movie. If the viewer has the goal of just relaxing, laughing and having a good time - the film is more than suitable for this. There are tons of jokes of different caliber and degree of appropriateness, charismatic and cheerful main characters, bright and beautiful action, as well as an atmosphere of endless fun. Complied with all branded ' Marvel' chips, even with a noticeable inflection.
However, as someone who watched the MCU from the beginning, and already has a certain image of Thor in my head, the film was somewhat disappointed. . .
The authors, led by director Taika Waititi, who had previously shot exclusively comedies, as if they decided to forget everything they knew about the thunder god of the local universe and make a kind of ' Guardians of the Galaxy', so liked by the audience. If you’ve seen the first two, you can forget them. The connection with the previous pictures is too minimal, even in terms of the plot. Ending 'Thor 2' meant global problems for the protagonist and his people. However, from the very beginning we are told that nothing serious will happen and everything will be based solely on humor.
Therefore, the images of all familiar characters undergo serious changes. The loss of the main character almost does not cause him sadness and sadness. Loki no longer seems sinister, interesting and dangerous. The former greatness of Odin is absolutely not felt, and he himself resembles a helpless old man. The secondary characters - Thor's friends - were symbolically merged in a couple of seconds, demonstrating what this film does with a connection to past parts. The main villain Hela took, in fact, straight out of thin air. Although her appearance is very good, and the motivation is quite understandable, she will not be able to take a place among the best Marvel villains.
The Hulk deserves a special mention. What they did to him in this movie is something. Marvel finally spit on the original 'The Incredible Hulk' and made it so that the Hulk already has more control over Bruce Banner himself. How he ended up in this story is one big story hole. And what he then did is a very convenient for the screenwriter opportunity to please fans of comics with a reference to one of the plots, without explaining it with the proper degree of logic.
Of course, at least some degree of drama and seriousness managed to leave. After all, nine worlds are under threat. However, all this is present here only for a tick, at least somehow justifying the development of the plot according to such a scenario. The problems of the main characters are not felt - it is difficult to empathize with a person who has lost someone dear, if in a couple of minutes the picture again turns into a comedy farce. Even the consequences of the ending of the film with its scale are not felt as such. That is, it is perceived as simply something unpleasant, but absolutely not catastrophic and does not fundamentally change anything.
Add to this the traditional for such a movie blunders, plot holes, assumptions and conventions, and you get a third part of Thor. Only here the god of thunder, who knows how to call lightning, can knock out the stun gun. And only here the god of cunning and deceit, who wanted to get power in any way, will do anything but enjoy this very power.
Again, I'm not saying the movie is bad. Nope. This is an objectively good blockbuster, suitable for one-time viewing, not without drawbacks. The only problem is that he was made into a comedy that cuts through all the cracks, ignoring the very essence of the character and his story. To some extent, it's even a reboot, not a sequel. . .
As Chris Hamsworth recently admitted, he had already given up any hope of making Thor a really interesting character, as director Taika Waititi appeared on the horizon with his original vision of the great Thunderer. Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel, did not mind changing the tone of the films about Thor from a pretentious fantasy action movie to an adventurous comedy, which as a result gave us Ragnarok, one of the most fun and crazy films from Marvel.
Going to search for the infinity stones, Thor never achieved anything, leaving it to the Avengers. And now he has a new enemy, which is not so easy to defeat. We are talking about the sister of Thor and Loki, the goddess Hela, who broke out of captivity and decided to subjugate Asgard, and then the entire universe.
According to the description, you might think that Taika Waititi shot something epic, pathetic and dramatic, but Ragnarok turned out to be a surprisingly light film that laughs from beginning to end. Even the toughest scenes are easily presented, there is no tragedy at all. I really liked this approach and was really interested in how it all ended.
The Torah changed the hairstyle, and in this case it was not without the ubiquitous Stan Lee. In addition, Loki returned to the game, which now has more screen time. And Jeff Gollblum played simply magnificently, as he should frolic in the image of the dictator Grandmaster, who captured the best fighters from all over the Galaxy.
Many viewers say that the events of Ragnarok deserved a much darker tone, but I don’t think so. Still, Marvel knows how to entertain and does it even when the idea is to sit down and cry. I have no doubt that Taiki Waititi’s film will be one of the best in the Marvel series. I suggest you have some fun.
The main characters: the god of thunder with a name like a browser; the character resurrected for the second time; the horned cow; the probable Hulk; All-father, just so there's Tessa Thompson's character. In the comedy 'Thor: Ragnarok'.
On first impression, we can say that the film is quite different not only from its brothers ('Thor' and 'Thor 2: Kingdom of Darkness'); but even more from its cousins, representing the structure of the entire MCU. And it's not even that it turned out to be an even bigger comedy than The Guardians of the Gallactic. Part 2' and in the very structure of its plot.
First, it is worth clarifying that the annotation on the page of the film, telling it & #39; plot & #39; is a brazen lie, because events will go, well, not so. Browser... or rather, Thor the god of thunder goes to earth in search of his father Odin, and he is like: ' Well, son, you are an adult, so I will tell you the terrible truth that you have a crazy sister. Do you think you can do it yourself? 39. As a result, clashes with Hela Thor and Loki get to a certain Sakaar, where they meet the Grandmaster. He and Hela are the two main antagonists of the film, although in the case of the first, this is not fully traced. But Surtur is not even a character at all, but a plot tick. The structure itself is built on two storylines: in one the protagonist without an antagonist, and in the other the antagonist without a protagonist. Thor and the Hulk try to get out of Sakaar while Hela tries to give a shit.
So how did I get hooked on this seemingly ordinary Marvel movie? It's more of a comedy than an action movie. But to say that the movie ruined it is to lie. Yes, many of the characters here have been portrayed as idiots compared to their counterparts from previous films. Thor suffered the most from this. But new characters are being added. And they all joke, joke... and they all joke! Apparently, the writers thought that before the great finale, you should relax. In the end, later came out 'Black Panther' and it is simply nothing in terms of humor, so the balance is maintained (Thanos is pleased) .
Marvel's villains have been improving in quality lately. There are two of them, and I can’t call them both bad. The Grandmaster did not receive a large amount of screen time, and yet showed himself in all the positive and negative sides. You can’t call him too interesting, but he had quite a powerful charisma, because he joked almost more than a stone stuffed Korg. Hela is a separate story. He's a very, very strong character in every sense of the word. She is strong physically and plot. It was even more interesting to watch her line than the Thor line. Of course, she has not yet reached the level of empathy she had in 'First Avenger: Confrontation' 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' or 'Black Panther' is yet another item on the list of cool antagonists of Marvel movies.
'Thor: Ragnarok' Cool. He has a lot to love. For humor, for plot, for villains, for intrigue, and also Hela has a good dog. Something extraordinary that would have impressed me in a special way, I did not find, and it is not necessary. I am sure it will be in the semifinals of the third phase: 'Avengers: Infinity War'.
'Thor. Ragnarok' is a funny film from the director of the film 'The Real Ghouls' - Taika Waititi.
The characters are good. They were well exposed. Only little screen time went to Skurj - Hela's assistant. Thor has become somewhat atypical and has greatly distinguished himself from the past films. The God of Thunder started squealing, joking. In short, like Shazam in a recent solo. The Hulk learned to talk. Valkyrie is a very controversial character. Here she is drunk, in good condition.
Strange.
The plot is simple. Plenty of blunders. Short as usual.
Visual is good. Sometimes the chromakei gets really shot. So, everything is at the level of Marvel movies.
The soundtrack is good. Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" is in his head. It's okay here.
The humor here is good, but there is too much. Ragnarok or the end of the world is losing its seriousness. They just make a joke out of it. They took a dude who appeared in previous films (I recently found out about this), killed, joked and all, went on.
The film is not serious, but very funny.
The first two films about Odin’s sons were pretty good, especially the debut. The third 'Thor' just awful. Changing the director (Taika Waititi – if he’s wrong!) and changing the whole concept of the characters clearly did not work. Forget the serious Thor, forget Loki, who bears the seal of the tragedy, this younger brother and son, besides... 'Thor' is a stupid clown, and nothing more. Do we have the end of the world? Let's sprinkle idiotic ' jokes '! There was a god of thunder, and there is no god: now we have some fool shaking in the chair of a barber, aki a first-grader, afraid of vaccination. Did your father just die? I don't care, we'll make up... Drunk Valkyrie fell into a pile of garbage? Hulk hit the bridge? That's funny! For someone, maybe... But not for me.
The idiotic tone of the narrative prevents you from perceiving the characters, the plot, which kind of revolves around such a serious thing as Ragnarok, and in general interferes with everything, the whole film is sitting with a sour expression - so sick of the stupidity happening on the screen. The same 'Guardians of the Galaxy' somehow manage to be funny enough, not descending to complete idiocy, but in the case of ' Thor 3' it somehow does not work (I wonder why? Maybe it's as humor? However, a bad example is contagious, the virus of dullness ' Torah 3' was picked up recently ' Aquaman' and, judging by the collections, this is very, very much liked by many. Alas.
At the moment 'Thor 3' along with 'Captain Marvel' is the worst thing in the MCU.
2 out of 10
'Wow! No cowards... Scary business. How am I supposed to live now? - Thor saw the Hulk.
It is possible without any idle speculation to state publicly that the project of the Cinematic Universe & #39; Marvel' fully justified itself: it not only instilled an unearthly love for the culture of comics, but also became the best from a commercial point of view, bringing fabulous profits to the production center. However, film adaptations about Thor, a powerful god from Scandinavian myths, who became the will of the imagination of comic book writers and a superhero, have always stood apart. The thing is that even historically, Thor is not one of the main favorites of the "Marvel" & #39; and the level of popularity is pretty inferior to the same Captain America, Spider-Man and Iron Man. And as a result, in terms of business separate from crossovers about the Avengers, Thor is commercially less profitable. Even the actor Chris Hemsworth, who embodied the image of Thor on the screen, is inferior in status to Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, who played Iron Man and Captain America, respectively. But, there is a suspicion that the triquel ' Torah' with the subtitle ' Ragnarok' can turn everything upside down.
The ideological inspiration for the third part of the adventures of the divine son of the powerful Odin was the serial arch of the story. Hulk. That is, about the scientist Bruce Banner, who at a time of intense anger turns into a green monster, shattering everything around (inspired by the creation of this character, as people know reading, the motives of the work ' Strange story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'). The arch has a common name ' Planet Hulk' and with its help, the story of the dangerous adventures of Thor, who first finds himself at home in Asgard, where his father indulges in unthinkable pleasures, while expelling his main associates from his posts. Thor instantly realizes that Odin is his named brother and pretender to the throne Loki. Then Thor goes into space, where he finds himself in the arena of gladiatorial fights, controlled by a certain Grandmaster, and fights with a friend in the Avengers (the Hulk), and then returns to Asgard to take up a fight with Hela, the eldest daughter of Odin, preparing all the worlds an apocalypse called ' Ragnarok' That is, the creators are not limited to only one direct storyline brewing epic battle superhero and supervillain.
The third film about Thor and the third change of director. After Kenneth Branagh and Alan Taylor ' Commanding Bridge' was occupied by a New Zealander with an exotic name Taika Waititi, known for the tapes ' Real Ghouls' (2014) and ' Hunting for Savages' (2016). Waititi is not only a director, which is also quite a good comedian, so he contributed to his ' Torah' a lot of jokes and funny episodes. In general, for the cinematic universe ' Marvel' this is not a novelty, but rather a distinctive feature when superheroes against the background of universal mortal danger do not miss an opportunity to throw a sharpness. But in ' Tore', the humorous streak blossomed with a violent color and began to live its own life, so the viewer will be pleased to see not only solid action based on special effects and computer graphics, but also from time to time to float in a smile (you can laugh in places). As for the action itself, this, as always, is put on a wide foot and scale conquer. A lot of fights, amazing techniques, fabulous and fantasy weapons will not let the fans get bored ' Marvel' However, the fragments all had the impression that Waititi has this in excess.
And an unprepared viewer who does not know everything about the universe ' Marvel' (if there are still any), it may seem that the characters are in abundance. Every time someone new appears, someone who even in the pages of the comics is of secondary importance, it can really get dizzy. On the other hand, there is another category of audience, which enthusiastically delves into the knowledge of the fantasies of the creators ' Marvel'. In 'Tore: Ragnarok' there are, for example, the same Grandmaster, and also Valkyrie, Skurge, Korg, Surtur... In general, you can get tired of diversity, but still curiosity about what else the cinematic universe offers us takes its toll. The role of Hela, the main antagonist ' . . Ragnaröka', performed by Kate Blanchett, one of the best actresses of recent times. But what is there to be surprised, because soon (if not already) Hollywood celestials will begin to ask each other: ' Have you not starred in the film adaptations of comics?!!' Blanchett is always great, but I still want to see her in more serious films. The Grandmaster was given to Jeff Goldblum, who was once in space in the image of a scientist and saved our world from the invasion of aliens in ' Independence Day' (1996), but here he is on the other side of the barricades and the image he has is some caricature, as if it was a slightly changed hero of Chris Tucker from ' Fifth Element' (1997). But Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo keep their characters at a good level, besides Thor was also given a little drama (you can pay tribute to Waititi for the development of the character).
Of course, fans of the universe ' Marvel', of which millions, have already watched this comic book, and many found the opportunity to get to the premiere. But there are those who are extremely skeptical about this genre, so at the end of the review a few words will address them: you can scold the studio ' Marvel' for their mainstream and operational thinking, but still at least a one-time viewing the same ' Thor: Ragnarok' I am sure worthy. In any case, in my opinion, this film is one of the most unusual in the cinematic universe and clearly stands out (although there will be many critics, I think).
8 out of 10
I’ve heard a lot about this third Thor movie, both good and bad—some people really liked it, some didn’t. The reviews were mixed and I knew I would understand when I finally saw it myself. Having seen this blockbuster, I want to say that this is definitely not expected. The story and the film as a whole liked it. The fantastic film is spectacular and with an unpredictable scenario, the story of which took Thor and the audience with him far, far away.
We had a fight recently.
- Did I win?
- No, I beat you easily.
- This is not possible.
- I'm not going to lie.
What do you always expect from a new Marvel movie? Epic story, cool special effects, new secrets in the plot, pleasant atmosphere, dynamics, favorite characters and something new. This film pleased with its unpredictable story, in which Thor was with the Hulk. The second should not be here at all, but it is, and it was funny.
According to ancient prophecy, the kingdom of the gods Asgard will fall, Ragnarok will come, and there will be chaos. This gloomy prediction began to come true when the sister Thora appeared in Asgard, bringing death, but not only she brings fear and horror. The fiery demon Surtur was what I feared. The mighty Thor awaits new trials and upheavals. Left by his beloved, he alone confronts a powerful evil, but he is waiting for a surprise and an unexpected meeting with another avenger.
I fell in the dark for thirty minutes! (Loki)
I don't know how the script was wrapped up, but it was fun. What I liked was the idea, the scale of the film and the good characters. The movie looked great and with eyes wide open. Thor here, of course, is great. Chris Hemsworth plays him well. His hero is my favorite avenger, and in this part he is especially good. It was especially nice to see Tom Hiddleston in the face of the insidious Loki – a brilliant acting of a complex character.
Cate Blanchett joined the cast. She is a respected actress, and the role of the villain sister plays with hurrah. Jeff Goldblum was unexpectedly seen in the movie Marvel, but Mark Ruffalo again pleased. He is one of the most respected actors of his generation, and to be honest, it turned out that Edward Norton did not continue to play the Hulk, and the actor was replaced by Ruffalo. Hulk in his performance turned out much better and more charming.
- Alive?!
- Yes, of course, alive.
- What are you doing here?
- Don't you see me? I'm sitting in a chair! Where's yours?
- They didn't give me a chair.
After Ragnarok, I want to watch Infinity War. The movie is cool and spectacular, it has more advantages than minuses, and personally I treat it positively. No one expected to see it, and the movie surprised me. It was a bold reboot, and the third part is extremely unusual.
"Thor: Ragnarok" is an American, adventure, fantastic fantasy with a taste of comedy, drama and action movie. The film is mixed a lot, and the creators of the picture face in the dirt here did not fall. The film deserves attention and is radically different from the first two films. You have to see it with your own eyes.
Welcome to voice activation.
- Thor.
- Access is closed.
- Thor, son of Odin.
- Access is closed.
- God of Thunder.
- Closed.
- A mighty avenger.
- Closed.
- A mighty avenger.
- Closed.
- Damn Stark. Goldilocks.
- Greetings.