And my point is that I don't trust the majority of the sources and I want to hear fellow community member's opinions on it. That's why I'm asking it and not seeing the movie myself just yet so I don't waste my time and money.
Movie Review Rant 2022
- Thread starter OstrichMania
- Start date
Alright, thought I'd post a short, spoiler-free review of Jurassic World: Dominion. Overall, I liked it!... But I do understand why some people don't.
The plot, without giving too much away, is a bit of a drastic departure from what the fans expected from this film, and some of the new elements, I believe, could have been handled a lot better, especially in terms of build up. It's a rather thought-provoking plot which personally brings my mind to the extensive ethical debates in Michael Crichton's original opus. I'll say it like this; it may be the least mainstream Jurassic Park/World movie, and that brings some... Interesting elements with it.
As for the acting, having the original three protagonists return was, against all odds, one of the best parts of the movie; their wonderful chemistry hasn't aged a day since 1993, and they were treated a lot more respectfully than other legacy characters in lesser continuations. The JW cast; Pratt, Howard, etc, are still the great characters the series has developed them into, and I felt genuine personal growth in them throughout the trilogy. These, plus some new characters and the return of (surprising) old faces, make this a very entertaining watch, with their interactions being a highlight throughout the film.
The special effects, in an interesting touch, really reminded me of the original JP trilogy; there were many more practical elements than what I thought would be. As for the dinosaurs themselves, I will say that, while they generally stick to being "genetically engineered theme park monsters", a couple surprised me in their more modern portrayal. Action wise, this is a thrilling rollercoaster ride, with that classic Jurassic spirit mixed in with some James Bond-ish elements. The score, as usual, is excellent.
I'd love to go into more details, especially in terms of the plot and action set pieces, maybe in a JWD-exclusive thread in the future, but this is all I'll say for now; go check it out, reach your own conclusions, and enjoy it, (or hate it, IDC) however you like.
I give it a solid 7.5/10.
The plot, without giving too much away, is a bit of a drastic departure from what the fans expected from this film, and some of the new elements, I believe, could have been handled a lot better, especially in terms of build up. It's a rather thought-provoking plot which personally brings my mind to the extensive ethical debates in Michael Crichton's original opus. I'll say it like this; it may be the least mainstream Jurassic Park/World movie, and that brings some... Interesting elements with it.
As for the acting, having the original three protagonists return was, against all odds, one of the best parts of the movie; their wonderful chemistry hasn't aged a day since 1993, and they were treated a lot more respectfully than other legacy characters in lesser continuations. The JW cast; Pratt, Howard, etc, are still the great characters the series has developed them into, and I felt genuine personal growth in them throughout the trilogy. These, plus some new characters and the return of (surprising) old faces, make this a very entertaining watch, with their interactions being a highlight throughout the film.
The special effects, in an interesting touch, really reminded me of the original JP trilogy; there were many more practical elements than what I thought would be. As for the dinosaurs themselves, I will say that, while they generally stick to being "genetically engineered theme park monsters", a couple surprised me in their more modern portrayal. Action wise, this is a thrilling rollercoaster ride, with that classic Jurassic spirit mixed in with some James Bond-ish elements. The score, as usual, is excellent.
I'd love to go into more details, especially in terms of the plot and action set pieces, maybe in a JWD-exclusive thread in the future, but this is all I'll say for now; go check it out, reach your own conclusions, and enjoy it, (or hate it, IDC) however you like.
I give it a solid 7.5/10.
Can't believe that there's no review for Multiverse Of Madness yet, or Morbius, or The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent, or Chip N Dale...! 
Morbius
I'm two thirds of the way through this film, it's the third time I've got this far, I really don't think I'm ever going to get to the end completely so this is the review you're getting - The film is trash, it could be a good campy horror/comic romp but no, they've only gone and got serious method actor Jared Leto himself to play nobodies favourite Spider-Man villain Michael Morbius. That tells you straight away that this film is in trouble, Jared Leto is death to comic book movies. Other than the dubious casting I found major faults with the writing (bland and cliche), the special effects (those speed lines, urgh!), the family friendly censoring (Morbius is a living vampire, there should be blood, and it shouldn't be blue!)... But in the films defence Matt Smith has a whale of a time hamming it up, he's the only person who seems to be having a good time onset. Unfortunately his performance can't detract from the fact he's a one note villain with not much in the way of motivation other than the film needed an antagonist.
And even though I haven't watched the whole movie I have seen the (infamously bad) post-credits scene. You don't need to watch this, and if you're an actual MCU fan then it will confuse/annoy you for months.
2/10
Well done Sony, you may have made a movie bad enough to give Halle Berry's Catwoman a run for its money with this!
Doctor Strange 2 - In The Multiverse Of Madness
So yeah, is this, the second Marvel movie of the year, any better than Morbius? Yes, yes it is! Whilst this film isn't perfect it's still an enjoyable romp through the MCU and beyond, and it features some pretty good cinematography and concepts as well.
This is the second Doctor Strange film, but if the last time you saw Benedict Cumberbatch in the MCU was in the original Doctor Strange then prepare to be confused. Also helps if you've kept up to date with the Marvel TV shows (In particular Wandavision, What If..., and maybe Loki), and Spider-Man No Way Home, but it's possibly not essential, just confusing.
This film is far darker than anything else we've had in the MCU up to this point but what do you expect when you've got Sam Raimi directing? So many little nods and winks to the horror genre including a fantastic tribute to Ash in The Evil Dead, and of course Bruce Campbell turns up at some point.
The cast is mostly great with Benedict Wong being a personal highlight, the character of America Chavez doesn't get a lot of play in this despite being a major maguffin but her actor does the best with what she's got. And Elizabeth Olsen steals the show, she has one goal and no-one (NO-ONE) will stand in her way. A lot of people complained that she's gone from being a complex character to a one-note villain, personally I think that concept works really well with this film so no objection from me.
Also big cameos abound, absolutely fantastic scene that got slated but again, in my opinion it worked really well with showing us just how powerful Wanda has become.
I won't go into plot details as it's available next week on Disney+ and I'm not quite sure how many people on here have seen it yet.
8/10
The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent
Nicolas Cage plays Nicolas Cage and a younger version of Nicolas Cage, but it's way better than that sentence makes it sound!
This film is part meta-comedy, part by-the-numbers action flick, and part buddy story. The film stars Nic as himself whose career is on a downward spiral, and Pedro Pascal as Javi, his number one fan who may be a bit of a dodgy guy behind the scenes. Javi pays a small fortune for Nic to visit his private estate but things aren't all they seem, soon Cage is working with the FBI to try and find a kidnapped girl allegedly on the property. The film careers back and forth from being a character study to a goofball comedy, and ends with a huge third act final battle with guns and explosions.
There's a few twists and turns but there's no groundbreaking plot twists , just a well thought out character movie with great performances, highly recommended.
9/10
Chip 'N' Dale: Rescue Rangers
When I first saw the trailer to this film I was confused; why are Chip and Dale talking like humans? Why do they sound like Andy Samberg and John Delaney? Why is one CGI and the other animated? Why is Roger Rabbit there?
Fortunately the film answers all of these, usually in quite amusing ways as well.
The film is like a modern day Roger Rabbit in the way that it blends live action and animation, and now CGI as well, together. It's not flawless, sometimes it doesn't all mesh together, but on the whole this film looks great.
The plot is intelligent but easy to follow, and would possibly give the more sensitive children out there nightmares. There's a scene featuring Flounder ( the fish from Little Mermaid) that is particularly dark.
There are numerous cameos throughout, not sure how they got some of them past the licensing department as they're not all owned by Disney, but the credits do feature special thanks to Disney's legal team... But some of the more unusual (and non-spoilery) cameos include Randy Marsh from South Park, the donut cops from Wreck It Ralph, Paula Abdul and MC Scat Cat, Roger Rabbit, Batman, and ET. There are sooooo many more as well, but some are integral to the plot so I'll leave it there.
Acting-wise JK Simmons is a highlight as a gruff police detective who also happens to be a rectangle made of putty, and Eric Bana (Australia's own!) as Monterey Jack whose disappearance sets the whole film into motion. It's also great to have Tress MacNeile back as Gadget, even if the relationship and children she has with Zipper leads to some awkward questions, mainly how did a fly and a mouse ever, well, you know...
When this was released straight to streaming I was a bit confused, why no cinema release? After watching it I can only assume it's because this film isn't exactly aimed at children. There's enough to keep them occupied but there are more than enough jokes that will fly over their heads but give us parents a belly laugh.
8/10
Morbius
I'm two thirds of the way through this film, it's the third time I've got this far, I really don't think I'm ever going to get to the end completely so this is the review you're getting - The film is trash, it could be a good campy horror/comic romp but no, they've only gone and got serious method actor Jared Leto himself to play nobodies favourite Spider-Man villain Michael Morbius. That tells you straight away that this film is in trouble, Jared Leto is death to comic book movies. Other than the dubious casting I found major faults with the writing (bland and cliche), the special effects (those speed lines, urgh!), the family friendly censoring (Morbius is a living vampire, there should be blood, and it shouldn't be blue!)... But in the films defence Matt Smith has a whale of a time hamming it up, he's the only person who seems to be having a good time onset. Unfortunately his performance can't detract from the fact he's a one note villain with not much in the way of motivation other than the film needed an antagonist.
And even though I haven't watched the whole movie I have seen the (infamously bad) post-credits scene. You don't need to watch this, and if you're an actual MCU fan then it will confuse/annoy you for months.
2/10
Well done Sony, you may have made a movie bad enough to give Halle Berry's Catwoman a run for its money with this!
Doctor Strange 2 - In The Multiverse Of Madness
So yeah, is this, the second Marvel movie of the year, any better than Morbius? Yes, yes it is! Whilst this film isn't perfect it's still an enjoyable romp through the MCU and beyond, and it features some pretty good cinematography and concepts as well.
This is the second Doctor Strange film, but if the last time you saw Benedict Cumberbatch in the MCU was in the original Doctor Strange then prepare to be confused. Also helps if you've kept up to date with the Marvel TV shows (In particular Wandavision, What If..., and maybe Loki), and Spider-Man No Way Home, but it's possibly not essential, just confusing.
This film is far darker than anything else we've had in the MCU up to this point but what do you expect when you've got Sam Raimi directing? So many little nods and winks to the horror genre including a fantastic tribute to Ash in The Evil Dead, and of course Bruce Campbell turns up at some point.
The cast is mostly great with Benedict Wong being a personal highlight, the character of America Chavez doesn't get a lot of play in this despite being a major maguffin but her actor does the best with what she's got. And Elizabeth Olsen steals the show, she has one goal and no-one (NO-ONE) will stand in her way. A lot of people complained that she's gone from being a complex character to a one-note villain, personally I think that concept works really well with this film so no objection from me.
Also big cameos abound, absolutely fantastic scene that got slated but again, in my opinion it worked really well with showing us just how powerful Wanda has become.
I won't go into plot details as it's available next week on Disney+ and I'm not quite sure how many people on here have seen it yet.
8/10
The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent
Nicolas Cage plays Nicolas Cage and a younger version of Nicolas Cage, but it's way better than that sentence makes it sound!
This film is part meta-comedy, part by-the-numbers action flick, and part buddy story. The film stars Nic as himself whose career is on a downward spiral, and Pedro Pascal as Javi, his number one fan who may be a bit of a dodgy guy behind the scenes. Javi pays a small fortune for Nic to visit his private estate but things aren't all they seem, soon Cage is working with the FBI to try and find a kidnapped girl allegedly on the property. The film careers back and forth from being a character study to a goofball comedy, and ends with a huge third act final battle with guns and explosions.
There's a few twists and turns but there's no groundbreaking plot twists , just a well thought out character movie with great performances, highly recommended.
9/10
Chip 'N' Dale: Rescue Rangers
When I first saw the trailer to this film I was confused; why are Chip and Dale talking like humans? Why do they sound like Andy Samberg and John Delaney? Why is one CGI and the other animated? Why is Roger Rabbit there?
Fortunately the film answers all of these, usually in quite amusing ways as well.
The film is like a modern day Roger Rabbit in the way that it blends live action and animation, and now CGI as well, together. It's not flawless, sometimes it doesn't all mesh together, but on the whole this film looks great.
The plot is intelligent but easy to follow, and would possibly give the more sensitive children out there nightmares. There's a scene featuring Flounder ( the fish from Little Mermaid) that is particularly dark.
There are numerous cameos throughout, not sure how they got some of them past the licensing department as they're not all owned by Disney, but the credits do feature special thanks to Disney's legal team... But some of the more unusual (and non-spoilery) cameos include Randy Marsh from South Park, the donut cops from Wreck It Ralph, Paula Abdul and MC Scat Cat, Roger Rabbit, Batman, and ET. There are sooooo many more as well, but some are integral to the plot so I'll leave it there.
Acting-wise JK Simmons is a highlight as a gruff police detective who also happens to be a rectangle made of putty, and Eric Bana (Australia's own!) as Monterey Jack whose disappearance sets the whole film into motion. It's also great to have Tress MacNeile back as Gadget, even if the relationship and children she has with Zipper leads to some awkward questions, mainly how did a fly and a mouse ever, well, you know...
When this was released straight to streaming I was a bit confused, why no cinema release? After watching it I can only assume it's because this film isn't exactly aimed at children. There's enough to keep them occupied but there are more than enough jokes that will fly over their heads but give us parents a belly laugh.
8/10
The Tomatometer disagrees:Can't believe that there's no review for Multiverse Of Madness yet, or Morbius, or The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent, or Chip N Dale...!
Morbius
I'm two thirds of the way through this film, it's the third time I've got this far, I really don't think I'm ever going to get to the end completely so this is the review you're getting - The film is trash, it could be a good campy horror/comic romp but no, they've only gone and got serious method actor Jared Leto himself to play nobodies favourite Spider-Man villain Michael Morbius. That tells you straight away that this film is in trouble, Jared Leto is death to comic book movies. Other than the dubious casting I found major faults with the writing (bland and cliche), the special effects (those speed lines, urgh!), the family friendly censoring (Morbius is a living vampire, there should be blood, and it shouldn't be blue!)... But in the films defence Matt Smith has a whale of a time hamming it up, he's the only person who seems to be having a good time onset. Unfortunately his performance can't detract from the fact he's a one note villain with not much in the way of motivation other than the film needed an antagonist.
And even though I haven't watched the whole movie I have seen the (infamously bad) post-credits scene. You don't need to watch this, and if you're an actual MCU fan then it will confuse/annoy you for months.
2/10
Well done Sony, you may have made a movie bad enough to give Halle Berry's Catwoman a run for its money with this!
Looks like MoreBS to me...The Tomatometer disagrees:
splendens
Well-Known Member
Well it was the first to sell one morbillion tickets.Looks like MoreBS to me...
It is one of the movies of all time because it was produced, it was written, it had a cast and more.
We seem to have different definitions of great movie characters...
I saw this yesterday. I thought it was a fun movie. I may or may not have seen the first Doctor Strange (I can't remember if I have seen it or if I just know it from clips - but I have seen the other Marvel movies he is in), I haven't seen WandaVision (but I know what it's about), and I have no idea what What If is. Nevertheless, it is a pretty basic movie to follow without needing to do homework before watching it. The visuals were good, and I liked the Sam Raimi touches which gave it less of a typical Marvel feel.
Overall I liked it, but of course I have some minor quibbles:
America Chavez. I guess that's her name from the comics but it just led to some weirdly deliberate lines ("Is America okay?", "How's America doing?" etc) which didn't sit casually but also didn't go far enough into satire. Also, the weird way the actress stands really threw me off - any time she was on screen I was just thinking "why is she holding her arms like that?" and couldn't focus on what the main characters were doing in the scene! Also also, her character was the reason for the movie's plot but she was just sort of hanging around most of the time not having any impact on anything.
The fight between Scarlet Witch and all the sorcerers at the temple was just ... stupid. I may be misunderstanding this, but they were all capable of using magic, with their glowy shields and whatnot, but then as their big gotcha they started firing actual physical missiles at her from dragon cannons. That's the best that a league of magicians can do against a witch? Throw rocks at her? They all deserved to die! I have no sympathy.
The "What mouth?" scene was stolen directly from The Matrix. It didn't come across as a reference or an homage, simply as a copy.
It can't just be me, either, that wondered about the extreme similarity between this movie's one-eyed tentacle monster and the starfish-shaped holes punching through dimensions, and the one-eyed starfish monster in the most recent Suicide Squad? I think that had to be a coincidence, but it was so weird.
The new Thor: Love and Thunder movie is out over here in a week or so. Looking forward to that.
I said the same thing when I first saw it. I go years without a one-eyed Kaiju tentacle/arm monster and then I see two films in twelve months with one in!
Yeah, can't wait for that myself. The trailers look good and it appears to be mixing the humour of Ragnarok with some of the darker themes from the earlier films. Didn't think I'd be sold on Natalie Portmans return or "serious actor" Christian Bale joining the MCU but from what I've seen so far it looks like I may have been wrong to worry.
Last edited:
On the topic of the MCU, I really don't like these new TV spots that they've introduced. I agree that they can be fun/entertaining sometimes but I'm starting to avoid them entirely because of Multiverse of Madness, where the TV spots leaked important reveals/surprises in the movie such as
I don't like the new direction they are taking where it feels that most of the movie has been spoiled/seen in the TV spots anyways.
Captain Carter's reveal, Zombie Strange's reveal (in a sense), Black Bolt and Maria Rambeau's reveal when the movie was still in theaters, etc,
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
JWD Spoilers Ahead
Honestly my main issue with Jurassic World: Dominion is that it did not get rid of and barely addressed the central problem at the end of the last movie — dinosaurs are now forced to live with humans. Okay, but we need to know how and why they are going to get there? What’s it going to take to coexist with dinosaurs peacefully?
Before I watched the movie, I had already heard bad reviews, so I was not expecting anything phenomenal. I will say it was not as bad as I expected it to be, but what really bothers me was the way it ended. It ended practically the exact same way as Fallen Kingdom, with virtually no development to make that seem worthy! If the movie did not focus on the locusts and actually focused on the central problem, instead of adding a new one, it could have been much better and much more liked.
This is like if you have a weed, and you leave it alone, and then when another weed grows you kill it, but you still have the weee that grew first. There’s still a problem and the solution in the movie feels undeserved.
Rate: 6/10
Also saw Elvis, but that’s for a another day.
Honestly my main issue with Jurassic World: Dominion is that it did not get rid of and barely addressed the central problem at the end of the last movie — dinosaurs are now forced to live with humans. Okay, but we need to know how and why they are going to get there? What’s it going to take to coexist with dinosaurs peacefully?
Before I watched the movie, I had already heard bad reviews, so I was not expecting anything phenomenal. I will say it was not as bad as I expected it to be, but what really bothers me was the way it ended. It ended practically the exact same way as Fallen Kingdom, with virtually no development to make that seem worthy! If the movie did not focus on the locusts and actually focused on the central problem, instead of adding a new one, it could have been much better and much more liked.
This is like if you have a weed, and you leave it alone, and then when another weed grows you kill it, but you still have the weee that grew first. There’s still a problem and the solution in the movie feels undeserved.
Rate: 6/10
Also saw Elvis, but that’s for a another day.
OkapiFan
Well-Known Member
A lot of people are saying this, but I think it is a reference to the Infinity Gauntlet comic run that inspired the events of Infinity War. There is a scene where Thanos brings his brother Eros (who made his MCU debut in the post credit scene of Eternals) to him after wiping out half of the universe. Eros was trying to be trying to act like he was in Thanos' side and Thanos says "let's see how useful you can be, without your mouth!" And then erases Eros' mouth just like Wanda did with Black Bolt in this movie.
Saw this earlier and was a little disappointed if I'm honest. The film felt disjointed and the tone was all over the place. I'll leave it at that since it really has just been released but will give it a 7/10 for now. Not a worthy successor to Ragnarok at all unfortunately.
I watched this last night - "disjointed" is exactly one of the words I used to describe it afterwards. But rather than "a little disappointed" I'd rate it as "a lot disappointed". I doubt I'd give it higher than 5 out of 10. I'm going to rewatch it when it comes out on Disney+ and see if I think better of it then - I liked (for example) Infinity War better on a later rewatch than I did on the initial watch, so we'll see.Saw this earlier and was a little disappointed if I'm honest. The film felt disjointed and the tone was all over the place. I'll leave it at that since it really has just been released but will give it a 7/10 for now. Not a worthy successor to Ragnarok at all unfortunately.
Where to even start with this mess. I saw in a review video that Taika filmed masses of stuff with no clear idea of where the movie was even going, had some big name expensive actors (e.g. Jeff Goldblum) whose footage was never even used, and then just cobbled together something from all of that, and it really shows. I didn't mind a dramatic story about Cancer Jane as Mighty Thor; I didn't mind a super-dark story about Gorr the God Butcher; I didn't mind a light-hearted Ragnarok-type Thor - but not all in the same movie, swapping wildly from one to the other, even within the same scene.
All in all, the movie gave the impression of being a first-draft script used in the hope that ad-libbing comedy would fix it, and then released as a first cut with the studio assuming that because of the success of Ragnarok Taika knew what he was doing. Turns out he doesn't. It reminded me of how The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so excellent, and then with the goodwill from that Peter Jackson reverted to slapstick scenes in The Hobbit trilogy.
The best movie in Love and Thunder would have been the Gorr the God Butcher story. Make the whole movie about him, have him actually butchering some gods instead of just talking about it, then he has to battle Thor, and keep the humour at appropriate points. How Gorr even came into possession of the god-killing sword was ridiculous - he meets his own peoples' god, who then proceeds to call Gorr worthless scum, and then the god just up and goes "hey see that sword there beside you on the ground, that can kill gods like me. Oh, by the way, you're worthless scum and I hate you and your dead daughter."
There were some fun moments in the movie, but just so much awfulness as well. The narration by Korg seemed like super-lazy exposition. The Guardians of the Galaxy actors seemed like they didn't even want to be in the movie, in the few clips they had of them at the start. Thor's action scene at the start was ridiculously slapstick, almost to the point of it being a parody of a Thor movie rather than an actual Thor movie. Russell Crowe's Con the Fruiterer accent (1980s Australia called and wants their racism back!).
I have to say, also, that while I like Guns and Roses, their music was not used effectively here. The Led Zeppelin in Ragnarok was fitted perfectly to the scenes in which it was used, but the Guns and Roses songs in this movie were simply dropped over top of the scenes with no apparent concern for making any connection between the visual actions and the musical beats.
Some things I did like: Gorr the God Butcher - some of Bale's acting was a bit meh but I'm putting that down to poor direction or not being given a second take. The scene where Thor lost his clothes and the Greek goddesses all fainted at the sight of his body (I'm not sure if this was the intention, but my immediate thought was that Greek gods are famously built and yet even the Greek goddesses were overcome with seeing Thor naked). I thought the screaming goats were funny too, which I'm sure is going to be a minority opinion.
Really there were a lot of things in this movie which I would have liked if they were in their own movie, but in juxtaposition with other things in this movie they simply weren't funny or good.
All in all, the movie gave the impression of being a first-draft script used in the hope that ad-libbing comedy would fix it, and then released as a first cut with the studio assuming that because of the success of Ragnarok Taika knew what he was doing. Turns out he doesn't. It reminded me of how The Lord of the Rings trilogy was so excellent, and then with the goodwill from that Peter Jackson reverted to slapstick scenes in The Hobbit trilogy.
The best movie in Love and Thunder would have been the Gorr the God Butcher story. Make the whole movie about him, have him actually butchering some gods instead of just talking about it, then he has to battle Thor, and keep the humour at appropriate points. How Gorr even came into possession of the god-killing sword was ridiculous - he meets his own peoples' god, who then proceeds to call Gorr worthless scum, and then the god just up and goes "hey see that sword there beside you on the ground, that can kill gods like me. Oh, by the way, you're worthless scum and I hate you and your dead daughter."
There were some fun moments in the movie, but just so much awfulness as well. The narration by Korg seemed like super-lazy exposition. The Guardians of the Galaxy actors seemed like they didn't even want to be in the movie, in the few clips they had of them at the start. Thor's action scene at the start was ridiculously slapstick, almost to the point of it being a parody of a Thor movie rather than an actual Thor movie. Russell Crowe's Con the Fruiterer accent (1980s Australia called and wants their racism back!).
I have to say, also, that while I like Guns and Roses, their music was not used effectively here. The Led Zeppelin in Ragnarok was fitted perfectly to the scenes in which it was used, but the Guns and Roses songs in this movie were simply dropped over top of the scenes with no apparent concern for making any connection between the visual actions and the musical beats.
Some things I did like: Gorr the God Butcher - some of Bale's acting was a bit meh but I'm putting that down to poor direction or not being given a second take. The scene where Thor lost his clothes and the Greek goddesses all fainted at the sight of his body (I'm not sure if this was the intention, but my immediate thought was that Greek gods are famously built and yet even the Greek goddesses were overcome with seeing Thor naked). I thought the screaming goats were funny too, which I'm sure is going to be a minority opinion.
Really there were a lot of things in this movie which I would have liked if they were in their own movie, but in juxtaposition with other things in this movie they simply weren't funny or good.
I'd agree. I enjoyed the comedic route that was similar to Ragnarok and personally found the movie to be more enjoyable than Ragnarok (maybe due to the experience? I'd watched Ragnarok on Disney+ so the experience probably wasn't the same as seeing the most recent movie on premiere night), but the storyline of the movie did feel a tad unorganized relative to other MCU movies (although I personally think that it was executed well). My second time seeing the film ended up being more enjoyable, however.Saw this earlier and was a little disappointed if I'm honest. The film felt disjointed and the tone was all over the place. I'll leave it at that since it really has just been released but will give it a 7/10 for now. Not a worthy successor to Ragnarok at all unfortunately.
Last edited:
You agree with Brum that it was disappointing, disjointed, and not a worthy successor to Ragnarok, because ... you liked it better than Ragnarok and thought the movie was executed well?
I don't think those two sentiments are in agreement with one another.
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. Initially in my reply, I italicized just the portion of Brum's post where it states that he felt that the film was disjointed and all over the place:
But obviously as quotes are italicized I should have chose a different way to specify what I was referring to!
But I agreed just with the part that the film was disjointed and all over the place, yes. But what I meant to add was that even though I felt this way, I still personally enjoyed the film more than I did Ragnarok (which may have been due to the experience I had seeing the movie) and thought it was executed well as a movie. I think I should clarify, however, that I feel that the movie was disjointed and all over the place relative to other MCU movies that are better, but as a movie overall it was executed well. Whether the movie is a worthy successor of Ragnarok or not, I haven't really thought of the movie in that way.
Attachments
But if a movie is "disjointed and tonally all over the place" then by definition it is not "well executed" unless that was the deliberate intention of the director (which would be a very rare thing for a movie director to be aspiring for). It has nothing to with "relative to other MCU movies". The movie in itself was very much not well executed.
I'd suppose then that using 'well-executed' was poor word choice on my part, that is my bad. All I meant to say was that I personally thought Marvel had made a good movie (and that's where I made the mistake of using the term "well-executed" interchangeably with what I really meant as "well-made" or simply, a good movie) even though I agreed that the film had it's issues with being 'disjointed' and whatnot. Possibly the difference in my sentiment and yours would be that I felt that those issues weren't so bad that they didn't necessarily disappoint me in any way? I didn't feel that the movie was *so* all over the place that it really affected my thoughts on the execution or production of the film, I'm just simply agreeing and acknowledging that there were organizational issues. I just never particularly thought much of them. I merely enjoyed the story, the characters, the story, and the comedy especially. I'm not so much of a movie analyst and critic as you are
.
Given the comic source material, that'd would have been an interesting story, with past, present and future Thor fighting Gorr. However, this would have required a different director to pull it off convincingly.