Skip to main content

Thor: Love and Thunder is an Abrasive Cosmic-Comedy Misfire


It’s unbelievable that Taika Waititi is one of the most in-demand figures in Hollywood right now. In just the last five years he went from a locally acclaimed New Zealand filmmaker to one of the most successful people in the American movie business. He’s got an Academy Award, is a producer on three highly acclaimed series: What We Do in the Shadows (based on his own 2014 film), Reservation Dogs, and Our Flag Means Death -on the latter of which he is also one of its stars. He’s made several appearances in TV and movies as of late, notably with Disney, and has become something of a celebrated public personality for his soft-spoken wit and forward-thinking ideals in terms of representation and originality. And all of it off of the back of Thor: Ragnarok.
However with all that attention, fatigue is a real danger, and in many ways Waititi has been overexposed -which has done some damage to his unique charms. His comic sensibilities have become more predictable, his persona more of a crutch than a tool. And nothing illustrates this more than Thor: Love and Thunder, his weakest movie to date and perhaps Marvel’s most embarrassing effort post-Endgame. Not all of it is down to Waititi of course, Marvel’s micromanaging machine surely bears a chunk of responsibility; but Waititi is the face of the project -something he has in common with few other Marvel directors- and as such the brunt of criticism is destined to fall to him.
Certainly he doesn’t go to much effort to hide his presence on the film, co-starring as rock monster Korg, who goes from funny side character in Ragnarok to overplayed annoying sidekick in Love and Thunder. The story is bookended by him narrating Thor’s life in a whimsical comedy tone, and from there nary a scene goes by without him making a deadpan remark or doofus observation that wears out its’ welcome extremely quickly. He doesn’t become a particular dead weight though, that the rest of the film is forced against its’ interests to shoulder. Rather, Korg is the one who essentially sets the tone of the piece, and it’s pretty much all downhill from there.
Every Marvel film has been to some degree a comedy -it’s been both a source of the franchise’s charm and one of its’ most over-reliant weaknesses. Marvel isn’t actually terribly good at comedy in general, the quippy sensibility Joss Whedon brought to the studio hasn’t aged well -but the movies at their best can obscure lazy humour or downplay it. Thor: Love and Thunder leans more into its’ comedy than any other Marvel film: jokes progress plot and character actions far more than conflict or relationships do. There was some criticism back when Ragnarok came out that it completely rewrote Thor’s character to accentuate comic relief, make him more goofy than he had been in his previous outings. I didn’t feel that was fair then (and Thor’s early characterization was pretty dull), but it certainly rings true now -the once operatically serious Nordic god is now just a self-important oblivious “himbo” -more of a sitcom character than a comic book hero. His whole personality is written around jokes, killing just about any believability in his investment in the central problem -to the point it brings to mind Johnny Depp in that last Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Chris Hemsworth is more charismatic though, this wouldn’t be such an issue if the movie was in any way funny.
So much of the humour that drives Love and Thunder either feels forced or too insincerely obvious. Waititi’s particular winking style that combines visual absurdity with ironic wit can work great when kept in check -as in his last three movies, which balanced the humour with real pathos. But blown up unrestrained to a grand context where it has no business being only makes it feel tedious -and discourages the audience from genuinely caring about anything. Even a serious beat regarding children being kidnapped is going to be followed up with a joke that saps away any tension. It’s just poor story mechanics, and on top of that, the comedy itself feels like Waititi’s B-material. Every gag involving Russell Crowe’s Zeus (who turns up in the movie just to further complicate Marvel’s world by introducing every mythical entity as real) is a bit half-assed. Early scenes involving the Guardians of the Galaxy are notably cheaper removed from the hands of James Gunn. And all over the place are dry comic attitudes and lazier running gags, such as one character’s obsession with generating a catchphrase and the repeated personification of Thor’s weapons -a bit that is thoroughly run into the ground. Speaking of bits the film is way too proud of, it also brings back the Asgardain actors from Ragnarok, once again played by a stunt cast of Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth, and Sam Neill (with Melissa McCarthy being added to the mix) -and that whole routine is way too long and vehemently unfunny.
Beneath all this dressing is a premise that is halfway interesting. The prologue does well to establish Gorr (Christian Bale), a godly servant whose young daughter dies following what seems to be a long, arduous war -and when his god proves uncaring and dismissive of the loss, Gorr kills him and makes it his mission to kill all other gods as well -soon turning his sights to New Asgard on Earth. Bale is actually one of few redeeming facets of the movie, channeling the silliness of Gorr into a more disturbed characterization -and the make-up on him is fantastic. His kidnapping the children of Asgard is likewise a strong plot point that adds to his menace -even if it is often thwarted by so much levity in the rest of the film. More significant than Bale though is the return of Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, Thor’s neglected love interest from his first two movies. Suffering from a terminal cancer diagnosis, she is drawn to Thor’s old hammer, which essentially gives her his superpowers and she styles herself “Mighty Thor” for no particular reason. Her presence here almost feels like an apology for how she was written off in Ragnarok (not unlike Bo Peep in Toy Story 4), but it once more confirms that Marvel isn’t interested in characters who can’t be superheroes themselves. Her new identity is very abrupt and adds relatively little that Thor and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) don’t already provide -her plot purpose is again to be a love interest. And unfortunately, Portman and Hemsworth have less chemistry than they did nine years ago. It doesn’t help that the romance is written very poorly and the arc that Jane undergoes is so dismal is makes one wonder why they went to the effort to bring her back in the first place. The reason most likely is for fan service, the aforementioned apologia, and to further Marvel’s P.R. of appearing progressive and inclusive, while shying away from any meaningful strides.
On that note, despite Waititi and the casts’ insistence this movie is “very gay”, it’s less so than even the previous Thor film (in fact it’s guilty on more than one account of ‘queerbaiting’). There is one solid action scene on a barren moon where the colour has been depleted, but otherwise the action and visuals aren’t terribly outstanding -barring an occasional touch of that Ragnarok vibrancy. And over the course of the movie there are maybe five jokes that are really solid. That’s nowhere near enough to make Thor: Love and Thunder good or worth seeing though.
There’s a bit towards the end of Ragnarok I never liked that may have foreshadowed the problems and tonal dissonance of Love and Thunder. After the evacuation of Asgard, Korg begins a poetic speech about the value of cultural foundations, before Asgard is destroyed altogether and he makes an “aw shucks” kind of remark about it. A dramatic, emotional beat undercut by a dumb joke. There’s not much basis for considered drama in Love and Thunder -when its’ jammed in at the end for a truly baffling change to Thor’s status quo, it is very alienating. But the dumb joke is there, pervasive throughout, and it numbs everything -it’s been years since Marvel has made a movie that impotent.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more