After the rousing and wild success that was Thor: Ragnarok, Marvel Studios demanded that Taika Waititi try to bottle lightning… er, and thunder… once again for the next Thor film. The inheritance was an awkward one, given everything that character had been through during the culmination of the first MCU mega-arc: The Asgardian king renounced his throne, lost his brother (after losing everyone else in his family), accidentally allowed Thanos to Snapture the universe by not delivering a killing blow when it was needed, fell into deep depression, spent years in anonymity, and finally got revenge in a final battle that restored most of what was lost. Then he joined the Guardians of the Galaxy and sped away from Earth for a bit.
Midlife crisis does seem like a natural next step on that journey, doesn’t it?
[Some spoilers for Thor: Love and Thunder]
While it’s still not a good look that the MCU had Thor gain weight in depression and promptly throw it off the instant he decided to move toward “recovery,” the film thankfully doesn’t spend too much time on that piece of Thor’s journey. (In any case, the sandbox that directors receive from other Marvel films can’t be blamed on them, though it’s unfortunate watching creative teams have to deal with decisions they were likely never even in the room for.) It also thankfully doesn’t spend an overlong time on Thor’s team-up with the Guardians of the Galaxy, using their shenanigans as a leaping-off point for the work of Gorr the God Butcher.
Buy the Book
Nona the Ninth
Gorr (Christian Bale) is a man who prays to his people’s god to save the life of his daughter, only to learn that their god was nothing but a fickle brute who cared nothing for the lives of the people who prayed to him. Imbued with special powers by an ancient sword, Gorr vows to rid the universe of gods, and begins making quick work of them. When he heads to New Asgard, he promptly kidnaps all of their children in an attempt to lead Thor toward the end of his murderous plan. Marvel films often hinge on how moving or convincing their villains are, and Bale manages to imbue Gorr with enough emotion and whispering creepiness to make the whole exercise worthwhile. Gorr’s pain is clear, his plan surprisingly simple and thought out, and when he takes the time to face down Thor and his party, the menace of his presence is nothing to scoff at.
There are problems with the movie’s editing and transitions, leading to a bit of whiplash in the telling, but it cannot detract from how endearing the film is overall. Moreover, the choice to ape and draw inspiration from ‘80s fantasy films works in Love and Thunder’s favor on that front, allowing certain weak spots in the narrative to read more like parody, overcoming the shakiness with sheer charm. The soundtrack is wicked smart in its application of hair metal (and Enya?!), the visuals are frequently stunning, and the fight sequences largely avoid the now house-style Marvel-fight-soup that frequently brings these films down in their final act. Fans who prefer their superhero romps free of abundant comedy aren’t likely to enjoy the film at all, but that’s entirely a matter of personal preference, and one that this reviewer is particularly tired of seeing trotted out as a point of criticism. (Make me laugh. Please, for the love of anything good in this world, keep making me laugh.)
While Taika Waititi’s sensibilities skew toward the comical in every sense, there is always a sharp core of trauma enrobed at the center. The appearance of New Asgard is a testament to this, and cannot help but read as a commentary on the touristification of his own Maori heritage—watching Asgardians turn their culture into an interactive model village for curious humans, complete with cruise ship activities, historical reenactments, and Infinity Conez, is certainly worth a laugh… until the full weight of that construct catches up to you. The need to make your people and their vibrant history into a theme park to ensure your survival isn’t remotely funny, and its presence in the story is a direct dig at everything that Marvel’s Disney overlords do to real people in their endless quest to absorb as much cash as reality will allow.
Waititi spent a lot of interviews leading up to this film’s release telling the world that Love and Thunder was a love story, one that he was determined not to shy away from because he could be very cynical, or perhaps too ironic, about romantic entanglement. And sure, the relationship between Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is central to the narrative of the film, but I’m gonna call bullshit on that framing. Love and Thunder is not a romantic film at its center—if anything, it’s a treatise on all forms of love and how this ephemeral feeling shapes us as people. How it makes and unmakes us all. Why it’s the only thing that really matters.
To that effect, the film makes an effort to shower us with as many different types of love as possible, even to the point of delightful absurdity—the key love triangle of the movie is thankfully not one between Thor and Jane and Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), as traditional tenets would dictate (though Val is pointedly “Team Jane” and fully prepared to sweep her off her feet if Thor screws up his shot), but rather between Thor and his beloved weaponry, Mjolnir and Stormbreaker. Seeing Jane wield his former hammer proves to be far too much for the thunder god to handle, and Stormbreaker can sense his wandering eye and frequently seems to be shaming or ignoring him for it. In order to see any part of this adventure through, Thor is required to take Stormbreaker’s feelings into account. This should not work by any stretch of the imagination, and only does because Hemsworth fully commits to the bit so hard that it u-turns back around toward genuine emotion.
Thor and Jane’s romance does take center stage for the majority of the film, but not in a manner of a romcom or even a serious drama. For the first time in the MCU’s history, all the work Natalie Portman did quietly over two films to make Jane a compelling, fully articulated character comes to fruition. The relationship between Thor and Jane, even as a retrospective, makes far more sense in this film than it did in the movies where we actually watched them be in love with each other. But more importantly, Jane’s life, her quirks, her major contributions to science, are given their due. These factors are complicated, of course, by pulling directly from the Mighty Thor comics arc which saw Dr. Foster becoming Thor in response to a Stage Four cancer diagnosis. The question then becomes whether Jane will continue her heroics until death, or quit for another chance to be with Thor. But while their partnership is deeply meaningful for both of them, there’s never the suggestion that romantic love must then become “The Answer” for either or them, no matter how much they might wish it to be.
Instead, the film sets its sights on many other kinds of love, not as a response or rebuttal to romance, but as a broadening of scope and definition. There’s familial love (the role of Heimdall’s son, Axl; Gorr’s pain over the loss of his daughter; Thor’s ever-present grief over Loki’s death), friendship (Jane and Darcy’s constant ribbing; Jane and Valkyrie’s instant and steadfast support of one another; Korg’s blunt but tender bolstering of everyone), even the love of story and history and myth (Korg’s tales to children; Thor’s frequent attempts to shore others up with messy speeches and “Thor adventures”; the Asgardian theatre troupe’s continued low-budget antics). This definition extends far beyond the narrative and into the meta framing of the film, particularly by way of the casting—many of the actor’s children show up in the frames, Waititi’s friends are everywhere, Chris Hemworth’s wife and brother make appearances. Love, and the people who offer it freely, is all over in this movie, pressed into each nook and cranny.
The focus on children and the importance of caring for them thankfully never skews into the realm of “children are the only reason for being in the universe,” which is a common fictional clarion call. This is likely because that focus is never couched in the need for a nuclear family unit; Waititi’s focus on family is undeniably queer in its construction (ask Korg how he was born again) and eschews heteronormativity even when characters seem to be asking for it. What results is a story that seems intent on highlighting the types of love that uplift us, that make us better and whole.
So while Ragnarok might still be the stronger film in a more technical sense, Love and Thunder is a worthy addition to Waititi’s oeuvre, and a welcome shot in the arm to the MCU’s ever-homogenizing options. Here’s hoping that they’ll be back again before too long.
Emmet Asher-Perrin is still pretty awed by how the film’s title and use of “Sweet Child o’ Mine” came back around on this one. You can bug them on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of their work here and elsewhere.
The appearance of New Asgard is a testament to this, and cannot help but read as a commentary on the touristification of his own Maori heritage—watching Asgardians turn their culture into an interactive model village for curious humans, complete with cruise ship activities, historical reenactments, and Infinity Conez, is certainly worth a laugh… until the full weight of that construct catches up to you. The need to make your people and their vibrant history into a theme park to ensure your survival isn’t remotely funny, and its presence in the story is a direct dig at everything that Marvel’s Disney overlords do to real people in their endless quest to absorb as much cash as reality will allow.
Excellent point
There’s a narrative thread I’ve been curious to see explored with Thor’s corner explore post-Endgame (and the setup’s there with Axel and the Asgardian kids): The next generation. They’re the future of Asgard, but they’re immigrants without a homeland. They can never visit their ancestral land and they’ll lack the cultural context their parents and grandparents had as time goes on. It’s not just an American story, but a global one.
I am curious if Leah Schelbach will have anything to say about this movie as I think there’s also some interesting things to talk about from the religious standpoint (what does it mean to be a god, the concept of how different philsoophies treat what are seen as unanswered prayers, suffering, etc) but you are my other favorite reviewer so that’s fine too.
Anyway, I enjoy this review in part because I think it does get to the heart of some of the best parts of the movie and while I know it’s had its detractors in part due to the tone or quick pace (and I have seen some pretty valid/thoughtful discussions pointing out areas where the movie could have lingered a little or spent more time, especially in some of Jane’s journey) I still really loved the movie. But, I do really enjoy Taika Waitii’s work so the movie is basically what I expected and wanted. Somewhat similar in how Raimi’s Doctor Strange was of course going to have a campy horror vibe – that may not be your thing, but it’s clearly what it says on the tin.
The point about New Asgard and how Maori culture is treated is really spot on – we visited New Zealand a few years ago, and we visited a Maori village. It was one of those things I felt kind of weird about and was maybe overthinking a bit. I’m happy to learn more about another culture, and I think that type of exposure is really important, and they clearly took a lot of pride in their culture and art. But I also felt kind of strange about the tourism aspect of it and the fact that there were just these few enclaves left and some of their cultural practices are basically just entertainment to a bunch of white people.
Anyway my random thoughts/questions:
it was a lot of fun and pretty typical Taika Waititi (and I loved the use of the November Rain climax…between this and Stranger Things, 80s metal is getting a nice comeback, haha). I loved the whole arc of Natalie Portman’s Mighty Thor, and I was glad to see the ‘Thor players’ return.
-I’m curious how the existence of the various pantheons relates to the Celestials/Eternals, especially given both the stinger in this and the Eternals. There were a few Celestials outside Ominoptence City. And what about the Egyptian pantheon. Similarly, the ending scene in Valhalla makes me think about how in Moon Knight they mention there are various ‘planes’ for untethered consciousness, so is that where Jane is now?
-The Necrosword (which definitely gave me Nightblood vibes – a talking sword that corrupts its user and drains color!) seemed to want him to go to Eternity (it was what seemed to put the idea into his mind) so I’m also not sure what the ultimate motive of the sword was (or rather, its creator).
-In a way it’s kind of ironic (or maybe even hypocritical, depending on your point of view) that Gor is basically trying to get to Eternity to ask a favor, as it is yet another deity (from a certain point of view). In a way the movie ends the way it starts, with him seeking help from a higher power to save his daughter.
-There are some interesting spiritual/theological themes that are (for me) interesting to dig into. What makes a good god (the ‘best’ gods we see are the ones who sacrifice themselve for their people, which is in effect what Jane does. Not sure if Jane counts as a ‘god’ though but she IS a Thor…), how do we deal with our prayers being denied, how do we challenge/accuse the gods, the existence of suffering and all that. (Incidentally I also just finished reading Till We Have Faces which is kind of a similar theme, just not as funny).
-Of course, given that in the MCU, gods really are basically just a super powered race for the most part but still ultimately fallible and mortal (which, depending on your point of view/belief system may or may not mean they are gods), Gor’s rampage is more about targeting superpowered beings who have set themselves over ‘lesser’ beings but were delinquent in their responsibilties – although he (and I wish the movie HAD spent more time on this) apparently targeted ‘gods’ that were benign or benevolent. (For that matter, what IS a god, by his definition? Do they have to have garnered worshippers on a planet somewhere?)
-I did find it kind of interesting that any reference to an Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian god was missing, and I don’t know if it’s because they just didn’t want to go there, or if it was actually intended to be a deliberate snub (although there was a ‘god of carpenters’ mentioned which did make me chuckle, so that might have been the joke. Ironically, my first thought was actually St. Joseph but I doubt that is who he meant!). But given the type of gods that hang out in Omnipotence City, well…
-I’m always a big fan of the power of love play, and the importance of family, and I like the twist they took with Gor deciding to just wish for his daughter back and let go of his need for revenge. I agree that overall it celebrates all sorts of love/families and it is kind of interesting watching this along side the context of Ms. Marvel (and again, Stranger Things, and in a way, even Kenobi to which I can also make some parallels). A nuclear family is still just a nucleus, you know? We need all the other atoms to form molecules and stuff. I grew up in a nuclear family that was part of a large extended family and I can definitely see how my own experience of raising a family is much more isolated (in part because I moved away) and have been trying to be more intentional about building a community.
There are some things that work in Love and Thunder. There are some things that do not. In my book, the aspects about love in all their entirely is something that works and overcomes all the (very valid) faults of the movie. The fact of the matter is that Gor actually won….but Thor did as well, and the key wasn’t the Act III VFX pummeling of the villain, but the use of emotions in turning the heart of the villain. I very much appreciated that.
@1: Asgardians as stand in for refugees? That”s a meaty topic, but I doubt that it’s something Waititi will tackle head-on (he’ll be much more oblique about it, as he did here). But a thread that could be taken up by others as a sub theme to the major super heroics….
@2 / Lisamarie:
The Necrosword (which definitely gave me Nightblood vibes – a talking sword that corrupts its user and drains color!) seemed to want him to go to Eternity (it was what seemed to put the idea into his mind) so I’m also not sure what the ultimate motive of the sword was (or rather, its creator).
Eh, it’s a consequence of the changes from the source material.
Gorr in the comics ran into the same problem the Sith did with the Jedi Purge: Killing ’em all one by one hell is all well and good, but it’s of hell of a logistical pain in the ass.
Gorr’s solution? Develop a literal God Bomb (assembled from divine components he’d ‘acquired’ throughout his crusade) and then detonate it to simultaneously wipe out all divine entities across time and space at once.
Obviously, Watiti took the basic endgame and went a separate route (and establishing Eternity will likely pay off with the larger MCU cosmology down the road).
Using the Necrosword influencing Gorr with that game plan was also possibly motivated to remove Venom’s (or at least the Symbiotes) connections to the Necrosword (which Donny Cates established in his Venom run, but which the film obviously couldn’t use as his film rights are tied up with Sony)
-In a way it’s kind of ironic (or maybe even hypocritical, depending on your point of view) that Gor is basically trying to get to Eternity to ask a favor, as it is yet another deity (from a certain point of view). In a way the movie ends the way it starts, with him seeking help from a higher power to save his daughter.
Oh, hypocrisy is very much a part of Gorr’s character arc in Aaron’s run and I’m glad Waititi kept that intact.
Volstagg (or at least a future Volstagg) at one point observes that, between his feats and abilities, Gorr has for all intents become his own antithesis: A God by another name.
(Gorr, naturally, does not take this observation well. At all.)
I like to think of this film as yet another proof that Blessings descend in films that remember the simple proof “DC Hero = Marvel Villain” prosper, while those who break this Law incur a dread curse.
Just ask poor old Ben Affleck!
On a more serious note, Natalie Portman with Muscles was -chef’s kiss – the Mighty Hemsworth remains the beating heart of my love for the MCU (with plenty of help, but even so), the kids are alight, Mister Russell Crowe’s campy, campy Zeus was so delightful I now want to see him show up and be SHAZAM’s deeply embarrassing benefactor, Toothgnasher & Toothgrinder were a pain in the eardrums but impressively useful, Omnipotence City is a concept that deserves a whole fantasy novel to itself, Dwayne made me laugh, Eternity was just perfectly realised and I am deeply, deeply disappointed that this otherwise excellent movie disgraced itself by showing … by showing …
I work at a library. I can’t even make myself TYPE the offence, but I think you can all guess which appalling moment of vandalism REALLY got my goat!
Also, in a barely-related note, I have learned that Marvel Studios cast Mr Richard E. Grant as ‘Classic Loki’ and completely failed to give him a movie to call his own.
Now I desperately want to know who his Thor might have been and also inflict a Chewbacca Special on the FOOLS who failed to give us at least a webisode dedicated to Olde Time Thor Adventures – complete with cheesy winged helmet!
@6 – if you are talking about Jane defacing a book I am totally there with you, lol
@6 / ED:
Omnipotence City is a concept that deserves a whole fantasy novel to itself
Yeah, that was one of Jason Aaron’s best contributions during his Thor run. I’m glad it’s popped up in other Marvel books (though it admittedly hasn’t really been used much since Aaron ended his tenure).
Mister Russell Crowe’s campy, campy Zeus was so delightful I now want to see him show up and be SHAZAM’s deeply embarrassing benefactor.
Yeah, Crowe’s Zeus was hysterical. His angry, campy descent down the stairs had me in stitches.
Anyway, on the topic of the other Grecian appearance…
While I do think Brett Goldstein was good casting for the Prince of Power, part of me was kinda wishing they’d cast Henry Cavill. That would’ve been an amusing Meta riff on the Man of Steel Jor-El/Kal-El dynamic.
But I’m really excited about Herc’s introduction and how this thread will be followed up. My big hope is that Herc will be used to bring Amadeus Cho into the MCU.
After all, Greg Pak and Fred Van Lente’s Incredible Hercules still remains a beloved run even a decade later. The Herc-Amadeus dynamic is comedy gold and such an intrinsic part of their characters in the comics. It presents the chance to do a different kind of demigod fish-out-of-warer compared to Thor/Jane in the first Thor film.
Plus, with the older MCU heroes being phased out, it makes sense to keep bring in legacy characters like Amadeus (and to continue promoting diversity).
Also, on a musical note…
While Michael Giaachino did great work on the score (as always), is anyone else irritated that they still can’t keep a consistent musical theme for Thor even 11 years later?
This is the fourth main theme the franchise has cycled through and they keep changing it with every film. I’d hope the MCU was past this kind of musical inconsistency and turnover, but it’s just ridiculous at this stage.
@@.-@ – regarding Gorr’s hypocracy.
I don’t know Waititi’s intent here, but I’m trying to figure out if I find it specifically negative (in that I don’t find appealing to be a higher power to be an inherently bad thing), and in another work might even be part of some larger theme of intercontnectness and understanding that we all need to ask for help sometimes. But it sounds like some of it may also be part of the change to the source material. It’s one thing if Gorr is just trying to create some all powerful OBJECT to destroy all the gods, but then you wouldn’t have the ability to turn the story on its head and have him ask for something else instead (unless the object itself has the ability to grant a wish…but we’ve already done that with the Stones and the Book of Vishanti so maybe we can be done with that).
(I also find it kind of funny in a way that Gorr being persuaded to just ask for something else is kind of similar to the What If episode where they convince Thanos his plan isn’t really that great.)
Regarding Gorr himself being a hypocrite because he himself is a god, that may definitely be true, and it also goes back to my previous question, which is how he defines a god in the first place, especially in a realm full of aliens, interdimensional beings, ‘magic’, Celestials, Watchers, Eternals, etc. What is the power threshold he considers to be a god? The Asgardians are actually pretty low on that list, they’re just aliens with pretty advanced tech, nor do I get the impression they are actively encouraging any type of ‘worship’ at this point (maybe there still are some people on Earth who venerate them, but who knows) although it does sound like in the past they were much more expansionist among the realms. How much suffering among their worshippers, in his mind, makes a god a failed god? (I’m guessing the answer is – any).
I am probably overthinking this :D But I thought it would have been an interesting twist if he had actually been planning to kill Eternity, not ask a boon of it.
This wasn’t the movie I expected, but it was the movie we deserved…
It’s choppy in tone. It veers, bobs, and weaves, while giant goats scream (which made me laugh every time).
I’ve been asking for an adaptation of the Gorr storyline for many years (mostly on old, now defunct blogs). On that score, this movie was somewhat disappointing. Even the promo image of the giant Ice Wolf God killed by Gorr was thrown away, shown in a cropped video frame.
But I was glad that Gorr’s pronouncement that Thor was “unworthy” is not what caused him to lose his name and hammer. That particular bit in the comics never worked for me. Obviously they couldn’t do it here since the hammer was already destroyed by Hela and Nick Fury as the New Watcher is nowhere in sight to convey the message. (Just writing that out reminds me how stupidly convoluted comics can get.)
Jane as the Mighty Thor also didn’t completely work for me in the comics. Not Jane acquiring the powers of Thor, but essentially erasing his name as part of his “unworthiness.” If he was called the Mighty Jim Bob, would she become the Mighty Jim Bob? It’s a name, not a title, even though there’s a throwaway line in the movie asserting that.
Portman was effective and believable as a powerful, confident superhero. Maybe she’ll come back as a Valkyrie, like in the comics. And with the Multiverse coming, perhaps we’ll see multiple Thors on the rise. It’s also past time for Beta Ray Bill to arrive.
I agree that Ragnarok is a better movie overall. Apparently, this one was a four hour cut before the editing process pared it down. Waititi has stated he doesn’t believe in director’s cuts, so we’re not likely to get an extended cut. What’s here is what we get. In the Marvel Factory manner, elements set up here will lead to threads being explored elsewhere.
I enjoyed it by and large and will likely watch it again.
@11 / Lisamarie:
It’s one thing if Gorr is just trying to create some all powerful OBJECT to destroy all the gods, but then you wouldn’t have the ability to turn the story on its head and have him ask for something else instead
Right. Again, Waititi kept the basic concept of the endgame (Instant One-Shot Kill for all Gods) while making it an equally interesting avenue as the source material (in the comics, Thor was teaming up with his Future and Past selves who’d fought Gorr in their own time frames and been drawn into the Present Day fight).
If anything, it’s now one of my favorite MCU Thor moments: Thor’s lost, he has seconds to live…and he’d rather spend his last moments comforting Jane in her own final moments instead of futility trading blows with Gorr.
And it’s that very compassion and love — values which Jane helped Thor embrace all those yeas ago — which turns the tide and gets through to Gorr (though losing the Necro-Sword and its corrupting influence helped too).
It’s also a different route as comics Gorr isn’t as sympathetic and wasn’t redeemed (or at least not in the original God Butcher story; it’s complicated).
@12 / Sunspear:
Portman was effective and believable as a powerful, confident superhero. Maybe she’ll come back as a Valkyrie, like in the comics.
Same. Aaron, Al Ewing, and Torunn Grønbekk all set up and played with some interesting ideas. There’s definitely potential for bringing Jane back and going down the Valkyrie road if they choose.
But it comes back to the question of how much longer Hemsworth’s sticking around in the MCU. Even with the ending — Thor as a surrogate Father raising an adopted daughter and traveling the universe and helping out — I don’t know what more can be done with the Odinson at this point.
@6: Since it was a copy of her own book that she was using to explain a scientific principle, it could be argued that she was annotating, rather than defacing!
The movie was a brilliant love story, and kind of ended up being a superhero version of Love Actually.
It was kind of choppy as it whipsawed from slapstick to sweet to sadness, but I enjoyed it from beginning to end.
Oh dear.. I am a huge MCU fan and and a huge fan T.W’s previous films, yes even JoJo Rabbit that divided opinion, but this was a massive let down for me, the humour was so forced I think I laughed once in the first hour and that was Korg’s narration of the death of the warriors three.
It reminded me if anything of Grenlins 2 basically a sequel that wants to be a parody of the first film, this looked and felt like Marvel done by the Scary Movie team.
Maybe it was just me as I know a few people in my screening laughed at Russell Crowe’s Zeus.. personally I was embarrassed for him, the cod Greek accent was just not funny at all and it sounded more like a fake Italian accent.
As for the plot, and I use the word plot in the loosest possible sense, it resembled something Douglas Adams would have thrown in the bin at concept stage.
After the brilliance of NWH we have now had 2 let down movies in a row from Marvel although this one makes M.O.M look Citizen Kane. Marvel really need a big things from Wakanda For Ever now to get things back on track.
It gives me no pleasure to have to say any of that, very very disappointed.
@9. Mr. Magic: My own pick for the Incredible Hercules was Mr Dwayne Johnson (hey, he played Hercules for Brett Ratner, he can play him for the House of Ideas!), but at this point he might just be too Big for the Prince of Power – on the other hand, any actor cast as Thor’s latest rival (and rival Hero to boot) is going to have to BRING IT when trying to beat the Mighty Hemsworth at his own game, so maybe a bit of stunt casting might not be entirely out of order.
Also, I rather like your notion for casting Henry Cavill – who definitely looks like an Olympian Demigod, even if he lacks the Mediterranean muscleman look I associate with Earth-616 and allied continuities (dark, shaggy, might even be a little brutish if he weren’t too darned charming by half), a mental image that Mr Goldstein conforms to much more closely.
@10. Mr. Magic: Well given that there have been four Thor features to date and he’s changed composer with every single one (and made only two films with the same director) it’s perhaps to be expected – still, I do rather miss Mr Patrick Doyle’s theme, which was undoubtedly my Favourite.
Also, I remain virulently disappointed that the Asgard Repertory Company has appeared in two whole movies without speaking a single word of cod-Shakespearean; what more perfect excuse for a little homage to the original comics (that also works to highlight the deeply hammy nature of this particular troupe) could one possibly ask for?
Odd’s blood, ’tis a thing unheard of that the Mighty Thor shall speak and be spoken of with no more than a merest smidgen of faux-Elizabethan descending ‘pon the ears! (and from Anthony Stark of all mortals).
@17 / ED:
Well given that there have been four Thor features to date and he’s changed composer with every single one (and made only two films with the same director) it’s perhaps to be expected – still, I do rather miss Mr Patrick Doyle’s theme, which was undoubtedly my Favourite.
Same. Doyle’s is still my personal favorite too.
I was so happy when Mark Mothersbaugh brought it back for Thor’s coronation at the end of Ragnarok. That was a nice way of musically closing out the Trilogy.
@14. Dean: FETCH THE WILD HORSES! Let’s see how this Heretic feels about such ‘annotation’ after they get dismembered!! No Mercy for the Book Vandals!!!
(Did I not mention that I am a Library Employee? We take this sort of thing quite seriously).
I liked the movie but it was wildly uneven in tone. Still, a fun summer popcorn movie.
I left the movie with one question – if Thor said to Lady Sif that you can’t go to Valhalla unless you die in battle, how did Jane end up there?
I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was funny and touching at the same time. The actors seemed to be having fun, including the Asgard Players.
Just saying… Korg’s way of having children seemed to forget his reference in Ragnarok to his mother and her horrible boyfriend being the only ones who turned up to his revolution.
Emmet, thank you very much for this positive review. One that does not deny that Ragnarok is technically superior, yet praises Love and Thunder for ultimately being stronger than its flaws. The disappointment and backlash are real with almost every review only pointing out 2 things, its overly comedic tone and clear inferiority. 1 review even said its campy and comedic tone was as bad as Batman and Robin’s, while another’s thumbnail says “This movie HATES you”! Can’t we properly watch and review stuff in moderation, without simplistic cries of “Best thing ever!” or “Worst thing ever!”?!
But even while acknowledging its faults, you have made a convincing case that it is still worthy (pun intended) in its own right. The many explorations of what is love, the core themes of overcoming trauma and loss and even impending death from a terminal illness. I personally like how they brought back Foster in a big way, compensating for Portman’s wasted potential in the last 3 Thor movies, yet making sure Thor is still the protagonist. It is good to see a movie that can do a strong female lead who complements rather than replaces the male lead!
I see this movie as the MCU’s Spider-Man 3, a film too caught up in its own campiness, yet having a heartwarming core which prevails at the end. Also, while SM3 had too many villains and plot threads, Love and Thunder has a clear plot and characters who all contribute towards it. So there’s that.