MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride

A THOR: RAGNAROK Thread, Not Limited To Spoilers


8 Responses to “A THOR: RAGNAROK Thread, Not Limited To Spoilers”

  1. palmtree says:

    Holy shit was this movie good.

  2. Ray Pride says:


  3. JS Partisan says:

    Indeed. I hope we get the Guardians dealing with the Collector in their next movie. That would be too fucking wonderful.

  4. brack says:

    Best MCU movie to date for me, and certainly the funniest (funniest film I’ve seen in years at a theater). Loved practically ever shot and scene. The movie just went for it, and it worked. The best time I’ve had in a theater all year.

  5. Michael Bergeron says:

    had some really good out loud laughs … but Iron Man 3 was funnier consistently

  6. Spacesheik says:

    Saw it yesterday and loved it: big, colorful, witty, action packed with plenty of mythology, space opera and visual effects. It isn’t just the best THOR, its one of the best Marvel movies, period.

    A lot of fun, with probably the best cast of any Marvel standalone flick: Goldblum, Blanchett, Hiddleston, Hopkins, Ruffalo, Elba, Urban, etc – with great cameos as well by Matt Damon and Sam Neill.

    Best time I’ve had at the movies in a while. Taika Waititi is one talented mofo director.

  7. Movieman says:

    “Ragnarok” is a cornucopia of delights: definitely in the top-tier of Marvel movies (which for me includes the first and third “Iron Man”s and ’70s conspiracy thriller homage “Captain America: Winter Soldier”). It’s like a goofy Kiwi cross between 1980’s “Flash Gordon” and “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai.” And Blanchett (almost unrecognizable) is the grooviest, funniest villain in a Marvel Corp. product to date.
    The spirit is so much lighter and sillier you can sense series regulars like Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Ruffalo audibly breathing sighs of relief. They actually seem to be having a good time and not just hitting their marks so as not to bump into to-be-added-later CGI.
    Goldblum is hysterical, I thought it was a hoot that (Cali native) Tessa Thompson cops a British accent (in the reverse of the usual) and who knew that Karl Urban was capable of being so smoking hot? (I didn’t even know it was him until checking IMDB later; figured it was probably an unknown-to-me Aussie or New Zealand actor.)
    Waititi is the real deal. If he can make a Marvel movie this pleasurable for a non-fanboy like me, he can clearly do pretty much anything. Can’t wait to see what he tackles next.
    I think it’s a pretty safe bet that “Justice League” won’t be this much fun.

  8. Doug R says:

    “We’re gonna need more Dougs”…

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

What do you make of the criticism directed at the film that the biopic genre or format is intrinsically bourgeois? That’s the most crazy criticism. That’s an excuse for not engaging with the content of the movie. Film critics sometimes, you know, can be very lazy.

Come on, formal criticism is valuable too. But I’m amazed when this is the thing they put in front of the discourse. My situation is that I’m dealing with a highly explosive subject, a taboo subject that nobody wants to deal with.

Karl Marx? Yes, this is the first film ever in the Western world about Marx. And I managed to make an almost mainstream film out of it. You want me at the same time to play the artist and do a risky film about the way my camera moves and the way I edit? No, it’s complicated enough! The artistic challenge — and it took me ten years with Pascal to write this story — was the writing. That was the most difficult part. We were making a film about the evolution of an idea, which is impossible. To be able to have political discourse in a scene, and you can follow it, and it’s not simplified, and it’s historically true. This is the accomplishment. So when someone criticizes the formal aspects without seeing that first, for me, it’s laziness or ignorance. There’s an incapacity to deal with what’s on the table. I make political films about today, I’m not making a biopic to make a biopic. I don’t believe in being an artist just to be an artist. And by the way, this film cost $9 million. I dare anyone in the United States to make this film for $9 million.
Raoul Peck on The Young Karl Marx

“The Motion Picture Academy, at considerable expense and with great efficiency, runs all the nominated pictures at its own theater, showing each picture twice, once in the afternoon, once in the evening. A nominated picture is one in connection with which any kind of work is nominated for an award, not necessarily acting, directing, or writing; it may be a purely technical matter such as set-dressing or sound work. This running of pictures has the object of permitting the voters to look at films which they may happen to have missed or to have partly forgotten. It is an attempt to make them realize that pictures released early in the year, and since overlaid with several thicknesses of battered celluloid, are still in the running and that consideration of only those released a short time before the end of the year is not quite just.

“The effort is largely a waste. The people with votes don’t go to these showings. They send their relatives, friends, or servants. They have had enough of looking at pictures, and the voices of destiny are by no means inaudible in the Hollywood air. They have a brassy tone, but they are more than distinct.”All this is good democracy of a sort. We elect Congressmen and Presidents in much the same way, so why not actors, cameramen, writers, and all rest of the people who have to do with the making of pictures? If we permit noise, ballyhoo, and theater to influence us in the selection of the people who are to run the country, why should we object to the same methods in the selection of meritorious achievements in the film business? If we can huckster a President into the White House, why cannot we huckster the agonized Miss Joan Crawford or the hard and beautiful Miss Olivia de Havilland into possession of one of those golden statuettes which express the motion picture industry’s frantic desire to kiss itself on the back of its neck? The only answer I can think of is that the motion picture is an art. I say this with a very small voice. It is an inconsiderable statement and has a hard time not sounding a little ludicrous. Nevertheless it is a fact, not in the least diminished by the further facts that its ethos is so far pretty low and that its techniques are dominated by some pretty awful people.

“If you think most motion pictures are bad, which they are (including the foreign), find out from some initiate how they are made, and you will be astonished that any of them could be good. Making a fine motion picture is like painting “The Laughing Cavalier” in Macy’s basement, with a floorwalker to mix your colors for you. Of course most motion pictures are bad. Why wouldn’t they be?”
~ Raymond Chandler, “Oscar Night In Hollywood,” 1948