Taika is great, especially as the dude made out of rock, if not a very funny and talented Director and actor.
I particularly welcomed the return of Jane Foster, and I was a little bit surprised at the way that they brought her back. I distinctly remember Mjollnir being back in the possession of Thor and Captain America after Thor stole it from the Dark World timeline... of course, the Asgardians could have scooped up the pieces left over from Ragnarok, but where is that other hammer from Avengers endgame? Maybe it is not really a plot hole, I don't remember where that other Mjollnir got to. Did Steve Rogers return it?
And then it is always great to have the Guardians of the Galaxy involved, this was before Guardians of the Galaxy Vol3 and Nebula's transformation into one of Tony Starks Nanotech projects. I honestly liked her before when she was still partly RadioShack shelf rejects.
And compared to Ragnarok, although there is a lot of humor in this film, it does have some serious drama.
But there are a number of absurd complaints I've read in several dupe "reviews". Let's go over these, shall we?
1) It's FUNNY.
To not like a movie because it is FUNNY? That is the main complaint that I am reading, oh, this is no good because it is FUNNY. Wait, what?
There are some new gimmicks in this film, nothing was wasted. And so Thor assembles a new means of transportation through by Bifrost. Out of... Watch the movie to find out what it is made out of. But it's funny!
2) Nepotism
I also read a number of complaints regarding "nepotism", wait, what! That's a big so what! I don't care who plays what or who, or if they are the son or daughter of some cast or crew member. Yawn. And honestly, I did not know when I was watching the film.
Christian Bale almost reprises his role as the American Psycho. - at first, we believe that this person is irredeemable. But in a major, unexpected twist, well, you will have to watch the film in order to see what I'm talking about.
The film starts getting very serious toward the middle, of course it kind of slightly bothers me that Thor is still a little bit goofy after the events of avengers endgame. But then again, this is also within his character. He was handed a major loss in endgame, and this was his reaction. So, as far as I'm concerned, he is dealing with that loss, which changed him irrevocably.
This is a much different Thor than the person that we met in the first film. And The Avengers. That serious person... Which is totally expected after all the character has gone through.
And these changes were just for films, the comic book numbered in the hundreds, and the character was always ever-changing, even then.
Remember when Thor resided within a geek that had to yell "ODIN" at a hammer which would then turn him into Thor? The character has changed a lot over the course of maybe 40 or 50 years. And then some of his power was siphoned off into another character named Bloodaxe, which was a spinoff title that only lasted a couple of dozen issues- it was related to West Coast Avengers, which then became Force Works.
It's kind of like how the Hulk was always dumb and residing within Bruce Banner. And hulk has gone through a lot of changes. There was a time he was dumb when he was human, but smart when he was "The Gray Hulk"- but back then he went by "Mr. Fixit", he accompanied Wolverine in a few issues. Anybody remember The Hulk versus Thor? It is now called "the return of the Incredible Hulk"- at the time when it was originally broadcast, it was called the Hulk versus Thor, or probably simply Hulk vs Thor. And some of the dialogue from that TV movie found its way into the first Thor film.
3) CGI?
Another complaint was with the amount of CGI, which you can barely tell these days. And this complaint is made by people who don't realize that there are still a lot of practical effects and real, physical locations and objects, even in this film. I'm getting really tired of that old complaint. If we have the ability to make realistic, digital set extensions, then we should use them always. But even with a lot of digital set extensions, a lot of the detail is real physical props, and other real artwork.
I like that this movie focuses a lot on the Asgardian children, and it shows their true potential- including the son of Heimdall.
I like that this film pulls back from the inanity of Ragnarok, although this film includes some of that silliness.
I thought Ragnarok was way over the top, but I did enjoy it. But this film has that same over the top feel at least at the beginning, but it also is balanced with some heartbreaking things.
The final complaint and I see this a lot is about "the writing"
I want to ask the people who wrote those reviews, have you ever written for television? Have you ever written for Broadway or the theater?
You can't just sit down and spew unplanned stream of conscious, everything has to be planned out and mapped out, especially with television.
And it's even more difficult with a film.
And so the question I finally have is: are these reviews taking an extremely long time to post? Because I don't believe I have put anything into these reviews that are anything near as bad as what I have read recently.
I particularly welcomed the return of Jane Foster, and I was a little bit surprised at the way that they brought her back. I distinctly remember Mjollnir being back in the possession of Thor and Captain America after Thor stole it from the Dark World timeline... of course, the Asgardians could have scooped up the pieces left over from Ragnarok, but where is that other hammer from Avengers endgame? Maybe it is not really a plot hole, I don't remember where that other Mjollnir got to. Did Steve Rogers return it?
And then it is always great to have the Guardians of the Galaxy involved, this was before Guardians of the Galaxy Vol3 and Nebula's transformation into one of Tony Starks Nanotech projects. I honestly liked her before when she was still partly RadioShack shelf rejects.
And compared to Ragnarok, although there is a lot of humor in this film, it does have some serious drama.
But there are a number of absurd complaints I've read in several dupe "reviews". Let's go over these, shall we?
1) It's FUNNY.
To not like a movie because it is FUNNY? That is the main complaint that I am reading, oh, this is no good because it is FUNNY. Wait, what?
There are some new gimmicks in this film, nothing was wasted. And so Thor assembles a new means of transportation through by Bifrost. Out of... Watch the movie to find out what it is made out of. But it's funny!
2) Nepotism
I also read a number of complaints regarding "nepotism", wait, what! That's a big so what! I don't care who plays what or who, or if they are the son or daughter of some cast or crew member. Yawn. And honestly, I did not know when I was watching the film.
Christian Bale almost reprises his role as the American Psycho. - at first, we believe that this person is irredeemable. But in a major, unexpected twist, well, you will have to watch the film in order to see what I'm talking about.
The film starts getting very serious toward the middle, of course it kind of slightly bothers me that Thor is still a little bit goofy after the events of avengers endgame. But then again, this is also within his character. He was handed a major loss in endgame, and this was his reaction. So, as far as I'm concerned, he is dealing with that loss, which changed him irrevocably.
This is a much different Thor than the person that we met in the first film. And The Avengers. That serious person... Which is totally expected after all the character has gone through.
And these changes were just for films, the comic book numbered in the hundreds, and the character was always ever-changing, even then.
Remember when Thor resided within a geek that had to yell "ODIN" at a hammer which would then turn him into Thor? The character has changed a lot over the course of maybe 40 or 50 years. And then some of his power was siphoned off into another character named Bloodaxe, which was a spinoff title that only lasted a couple of dozen issues- it was related to West Coast Avengers, which then became Force Works.
It's kind of like how the Hulk was always dumb and residing within Bruce Banner. And hulk has gone through a lot of changes. There was a time he was dumb when he was human, but smart when he was "The Gray Hulk"- but back then he went by "Mr. Fixit", he accompanied Wolverine in a few issues. Anybody remember The Hulk versus Thor? It is now called "the return of the Incredible Hulk"- at the time when it was originally broadcast, it was called the Hulk versus Thor, or probably simply Hulk vs Thor. And some of the dialogue from that TV movie found its way into the first Thor film.
3) CGI?
Another complaint was with the amount of CGI, which you can barely tell these days. And this complaint is made by people who don't realize that there are still a lot of practical effects and real, physical locations and objects, even in this film. I'm getting really tired of that old complaint. If we have the ability to make realistic, digital set extensions, then we should use them always. But even with a lot of digital set extensions, a lot of the detail is real physical props, and other real artwork.
I like that this movie focuses a lot on the Asgardian children, and it shows their true potential- including the son of Heimdall.
I like that this film pulls back from the inanity of Ragnarok, although this film includes some of that silliness.
I thought Ragnarok was way over the top, but I did enjoy it. But this film has that same over the top feel at least at the beginning, but it also is balanced with some heartbreaking things.
The final complaint and I see this a lot is about "the writing"
I want to ask the people who wrote those reviews, have you ever written for television? Have you ever written for Broadway or the theater?
You can't just sit down and spew unplanned stream of conscious, everything has to be planned out and mapped out, especially with television.
And it's even more difficult with a film.
And so the question I finally have is: are these reviews taking an extremely long time to post? Because I don't believe I have put anything into these reviews that are anything near as bad as what I have read recently.