Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

I'm a sucker for Marvel and I'd watch anything they make. Those terrible movies with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garden and whoever played the Punisher are the proof.  What I'm trying to say is that's pretty obvious I was excited for Thor: Ragnarok. However, this time there wasn't just the fact that it's an MCU flick, but especially the fact that Taika Waititi directed it. Last year, he left me speechless, in a very good way, with Hunt for the Wilderpeople, and that's the real reason why I was really looking forward to seeing this. And once again he left me speechless. This indeed is the most entertaining, exciting and fun Marvel film since Deadpool.

Set after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron and picking up when Thor: Dark World left, first Thor (Chris Hemsworth) finds out that his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has taken over Asgard; then a new menace arrives, Hela (Cate Blanchett), the ruthless goddess of death who wants to steal the throne and rule Asgard, he gets imprisoned on the other side of the universe and finds himself in a deadly gladiator contest where he has to face an old friend of his, the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), in order to survive and save Asgard.

It's a rather simple plot, a little predictable at times and it doesn't always make a lot of sense but it does have a few aces in the hole and the pace is just perfect which makes it very compelling.

And that's because of the direction Thor: Ragnarok took. Instead of being another dark-toned family drama like the previous Thor movies, Waititi's film relies more (like only) on humour. I'm sure many will complain about this, maybe saying that the dark tones were the only thing separating the Thor movies from the rest of the Marvel movies that all look the same (DC fanboys are so going to say this), but it works here. The humour is spot on (very close to Deadpool's): the jokes never feel forced and there are plenty of funny moments. This film is basically like a buddy-superhero movie with some sibling rivalry.

All that comedy though kind of throws away Thor's development achieved with the previous movies. Thor isn't indeed the serious God anymore, but he a funny guy. But this change is more than welcomed as Chris Hemsworth does comedy way better than drama. Seriously, I had no idea he could be so funny. The reason why I liked this Thor better though is that for the first time the God of Thunder is shown in all of his strength. Without the hammer.

The humour isn't the only charming side of Thor: Ragnarok. The visuals are just as charming, which makes of this one of the most beautiful to look at Marvel movies. The film is an explosion of vibrant colours, the photography and editing are stylish and the locations are just stunning. The CGI could have been better though. While it's great during the action, sometimes the background looks a little flat.

Just like the characters since there's no development whatsoever in here. I'm still trying to understand what the writers were trying to do with Hela's henchman played by Karl Urban. That character was such a mess. It's not like Tessa Thompson's alcoholic Valkyrie was that better. Or Cate Blanchett's Hela. Blanchett is very charismatic and her presence is just perfect for Hela, but the character itself wasn't that strong which is pretty common with Marvel. She did get more screen time than most Marvel villains though.

Worth of a mention are Benedict Cumberbatch who reprises his role of Doctor Stranger and Jeff Goldblum who plays Grandmaster, the host of that gladiator contest I mentioned above. The first has a hilarious cameo at the beginning of the film, the latter, although his performance reminded a lot of Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, is very amusing.

THOR 2 Will NOT Feature Thanos But Another Major Villain Plus Loki!

THOR 2!!! Yes. And another major villain! Mads Mikkelson perhaps? I think that's the safe bet as he is confirmed to be joining the production as a villain - and you don't get much better than him really. I am a big fan of his work - you could see his raw talent going as far back as PUSHER. He can say so much with just a look - he doesn't even have to verbalize.

So some questions! What villain will Mikkelson be playing? Will he be teaming up with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who is definitely in the sequel? Some have been speculating that Mads will be playing The Executioner. Hmmm.

One thing is for sure: Thanos will NOT be worshipping death in this movie. Producer Kevin Feige spoke about the super villain and THOR 2 to Empire: "No, future, future. But there will be a major new villain. A major, major new antagonist..."

I have to agree with Marvel's line of thinking here. Keep the uber villain until THE AVENGERS 2 and keep bringing out the rich library of antagonists from Marvel's vault. And I certainly want these villains to be authentically from Marvel and not newly created villains. Why on earth would you do that? 

So what else did the super producer have to say about THOR 2? Says Feige: "We're going to see the other side of Asgard. It's not all polished and golden in this film. And the events of Avengers will have affected Thor for sure. His relationship with Loki will continue to evolve, and the biggest part is Natalie and Thor returning with Jane Foster."  

Mads Mikkelson in VALHALLA RISING

THOR 2 is looking exceptionally bright with the addition of Mads. Man I love how Marvel casts their movies! Joining Mads will be Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Jaimie Alexander and Ray Stevenson. 

Marvel will begin shooting the production this summer in London and it is being directed by Alan Taylor (GAME OF THRONES). You can set aside theater time in your calendar for the movie starting on November 15, 2013.

Sources: CBM | Collider | Variety

Marvel Jumps Into 3D With Both Feet! THOR And CAPTAIN AMERICA Going Stereo!!

Well it's about time! I fully thought that IRON MAN 2 could have raked in an extra 25% minimum if it went to screens in 3D, but oh well.

Click images to enlarge. This is the first official image of Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Anthony Hopkins (Odin) and Tom Hiddleston (Loki).

Officially, it will be THOR being the first entry with CAPTAIN AMERICA coming after in 3D. Marvel is a company who meticulously maintains it's intellectual property (although some will say the current X-MEN comics are off somewhat - too many monthly titles and Wolverine is in practically ALL of them), so it is no surprise that they are going 3D with their future projects.

What will be a surprise to many is that these first two movies will be converted 3D. Yes, in spite of the slap in the face we got from TITANS and AIRBENDER many still have supreme confidence in 3D conversion. So do I. I know it can be done right. But the time and money NEEDS to be spent. It sounds like Marvel is doing it the right way.

Kenneth Branagh on 3D (LATimes): "We came to feel that in our case 3-D could be the very good friend of story and character for a different kind of experience," Branagh said, taking a break from post-production. The filmmaker said the terminology of the 3-D process initially made him cringe -- at first, it was "math and physics and way over my head," he said with a chuckle -- but then he started to pulse with the unexpected artistic opportunities. "It's another draft of the story that can reveal itself in a different way," he said. "I had a healthy degree of skepticism up front ... I've become somebody extremely excited about working with possibilities of doing it this way. A pretty careful conversation is what we've been having for quite some time about what we know has to be the most sensible decision: Is it led by story? Can this offer a different type of experience and exploit what we have in the story? It absolutely can ... we travel very long distances in the movie and the opportunity to export and exploit the journey of the hero is really offered up as a great potential enhancement here."

THOR is due to hit theaters May 6, 2011.

With CAPTAIN AMERICA, Joe Johnston investigated native 3D briefly but decided against it...--

(From LATimes): Johnston did a one-day test shooting with a 3-D rig -- as opposed to shooting in 3-D and converting -- and said it was "a nightmare" due to bulky gear, calibration issues and restricted filmmaking options. He said he's a firm believer, though, in the conversion approach if done right and he's enthused to move forward. "It's a new challenge and it's exciting," Johnston said.

Personally, it sounds like he didn't want to mix and match cameras for the various shots he has, nor take the time to truly get into shooting in 3D. A one day test? Not likely to get you to change your shooting style. You can easily use REDs or FUSION cameras for larger scenes and something like a SI-2K or even an ALEXA for more intimate shots. So sounds a bit like a cop out with an easy target to blame. To each their own though.

What both directors had better watch is to ensure their movies have a balanced 3D style to them. THE LAST AIRBENDER suffered horribly from this as the converted scenes were practically flat while the CG scenes popped like a champagne bottle (Remember those warship hulls sticking out at you?). I hate seeing movies like that almost as much as a generally bad conversion like CLASH OF THE TITANS.

CAPTAIN AMERICA is slated for a July 22, 2011 release.

I have a good feeling about them though. If Marvel can follow the conversion success of ALICE IN WONDERLAND or even the partial scenes from previous HARRY POTTERs, they should be fine.

Marvel is all about spectacle. If you think these turn out well, wait until AVENGERS. That movie is truly the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for all of this work. That project should be conceived and shot in native 3D and I will push for that at all costs. Native 3D and of course that we need to see the Iron Man Hulk Buster suit too :-) I have a little surprise coming up about that suit. More about that in an upcoming post in a month or so.