Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

I’m gonna let it sit a while. I’ve been known to change my mind occasionally.

 

[Greg.K]

It was quite an enjoyable time at the movies, it wasn't quite up to the level of Ragnarok but it did have its moments. Especially liked the Thor kids, the bits with jealous Stormbreaker, and especially the screaming goats. I was a little disappointed that the goats didn't feature in a mid credits scene.

I still think Waititi is the best thing to happen to the Thor series & character and I'm looking forward to his next installment.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I still think Waititi is the best thing to happen to the Thor series & character and I'm looking forward to his next installment.

I would question when he is going to be able to do another one. His next project is a Star Wars movie, so that's going to keep him busy, along with various other projects he has a hand in.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I was quite disappointed with this.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I was quite disappointed with this.

Why?

 

[Sean Bryan]

Why?

I don’t love Watiti’s tone and sensibilities. He somehow managed to make it work in Ragnarok, but it just didn’t work for me in this. Nothing felt like it had weight or tension. The pacing seemed off to me. The Guardians didn’t feel right and were quickly removed from the story. I didn’t like Crowe’s Zeus at all. There were a few really nice moments, and a few cool moments, but over all I just felt “meh” most of the time. And that is absolutely not what I hoped to feel about a new Thor adventure.

I hope it grows on me more in future viewings, but I honestly don’t really feel like I want to watch it again anytime soon, and that’s pretty rare for me with an MCU film. So, quite disappointed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don’t love Watiti’s tone and sensibilities.

Often, a director will come to my attention because Kevin Feige decides to hire them. I hadn't seen anything by the Russos, James Gunn or Jon Watts before they came on board the MCU. But every once in a while, Feige will go and get a director I already like, which was the case with Waititi when he signed on for Ragnarok. Have you seen his Hunt For the Wilderpeople? I really loved that movie.

I am normally on board his tone and sensibilities. But I agree that, here, there was something off about the mixture. He is usually much more adept at mixing comedy with real emotional stakes, and we don't have to look any further than Ragnarok for proof of that. So I'm at a loss to explain why this one was different.

Nothing felt like it had weight or tension.

I agree with that.

The Guardians didn't feel right

How so? I ask this because although I agree with many of your other points, I didn't have a problem with the Guardians. But as you noted, they're not in it much.

and were quickly removed from the story.

Did you expect them to stick around the story for a long time? I was not surprised at the smaller size of their roles. If they had a significant story arc in this film, that would necessitate changes to Vol. 3 to reflect their growth. Since Vol. 3 was written a long time ago to come out first, I didn't expect them to stick around In this movie long-term. I looked at this as just a bonus appearance from them that wouldn't have happened if Vol. 3 was made on its original schedule.

I didn’t like Crowe’s Zeus at all.

In this particular case, I think that was the point. The movie clearly wants you to dislike him, so Crowe did his job in that regard.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I thought Crowe made Zeus unlikeable, but he was also funny to me. His accent sounded more Italian than Greek to me or was that the real intention.

The film made me laugh out quite a few times so I enjoyed my showing. The screaming goats were hilarious as I laughed every time they screamed.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Felt mostly "meh" towards this installment of Thor and company.

 

[Malcolm R]

Based on the reactions here, it sounds like The Dark World all over again.

Is this going to be the opposite of the Star Trek franchise (even numbered sequels are best) where the even numbered sequels suck?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Based on the reactions here, it sounds like The Dark World all over again.

I think it is clearly better than The Dark World. It's not as good as the original Thor or Ragnarok, which remains the best of this sub-franchise.

The Dark World didn't really feel like it was anyone's vision in particular. Love and Thunder certainly feels like Taika Waititi's vision, which certainly makes it much more distinctive than that movie even if not everything works.

It doesn't help that Ragnarok is such an obvious comparison because that one is so much better. But I don't think this is a bad movie. I certainly wasn't bored during it. It just should have been better than it is and doesn't really stick with you after it's over.

His accent sounded more Italian than Greek to me or was that the real intention.

I'm guessing he was trying for Greek but didn't quite get there.

On another note, here's a video with Taika Waititi and Tessa Thompson breaking down a scene. Spoilers, obviously, so don't click on the video if you haven't seen the movie yet.

 

[Sam Favate]

I enjoyed it. Sure, it's a notch below Ragnarok, and the absence of Tom Hiddleston is acutely felt. I mean, I like Korg as much as anyone, but he's not the foil that Loki is.

The opening scene made me think they cued up Star Trek V by mistake: Arid, cracked landscape with a parched, bald man wandering around. But Christian Bale was very effective, and if you watch the progression of his scenes, you really do see the corruption of his character by the sword. Bale was very effective.

Chris Hemsworth is very satisfying in this. It's not his best outing as Thor (for that, I might go to Infinity War) but he's very comfortable with the character and the fun he seems to be having is infectious. (Thor and Rocket in the same movie and we can't hear Thor say "Rabbit" once?) Same goes for Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie. She was in it a lot but I wished we saw more of her, and got deeper into her character.

Natalie Portman was better as Jane than she's ever been before. They finally gave her something interesting to do, and she lived up to it. That said, I could have used more explanation of how the hammer both strengthened her and made her weaker. It didn't seem to make sense to me. I mean, if she kept the hammer, could she have continued to thrive?

I very much enjoyed Russell Crowe, and I'm not known as a Russell Crowe fan (some movies of his I like, some I don't). But his Zeus, and especially his scenery chewing, was one of the delights of going to the movies. I hope they've set him up to recur. (A battle of the gods, maybe?)

I always liked Jaimie Alexander as Sif and was glad to see her back, but as I feared, her part was miniscule. Thankfully, they left it open for her. But she's an interesting character that we've never really gotten to know. They should explore her more, and the fact that Thor's own father saw her as a mate for his son.

Another thing that could've used more explanation is how Gor's daughter was saved by the interaction with Eternity. Now, Eternity is a character (an entity?) that I never quite understood even when I read comics, which was decades ago. I'm willing to chalk the little girl's fate up to cosmic powers (something like the Q from Star Trek?) and leave it at that.

The movie is missing the kind of big, triumphant moment that Thor had in films like Ragnarok, Infinity War and Endgame. That's okay - they shouldn't repeat themselves, but it doesn't feel as satisfying without it, even if he is ultimately triumphant.

One of the charms - and some might say the problem - of these Marvel films is the chance to revisit the Marvel Universe and spend some time there. I will always fall on the side of being happy to spend the day in that expansive set of cosmos.

 

[Jake Lipson]

the absence of Tom Hiddleston is acutely felt

I think it was important to keep Hiddleston out of this story in order to maintain the significance of Thor's Loki's death in Infinity War. Even though we now know the other version of Loki from his TV show, Thor doesn't know anything about that and hasn't experienced what that Loki has experienced. That Loki didn't go through The Dark World and Ragnarok with Thor either, which is a big difference. Even though I understand the desire to see Hemsworth and Hiddleston together again, I don't think there was a way to fit that character into this story. To do that, they would have to take up a lot of time catching Thor up on the events of the TV show, and it would undermine his sense of loss again for very little benefit. This movie had enough other things going on that they didn't need Loki too. I didn't really think about him at all during this.

if you watch the progression of his scenes, you really do see the corruption of his character by the sword.

I agree that Bale was good. Bale is always good. But honestly, I don't think they needed to have the sword corrupting him at all. "The gods failed to save my daughter and don't give a crap about helping people so they're going to die" was enough of a motivation that I don't think it needed further explanation.

In general, I hate "the magic evil object corrupted them" as a storytelling device because to me It is lazy writing. I hated it when Multiverse of Madness did it with the magic book to justify Wanda's extreme change of personality from the last time we saw her, too.

(Thor and Rocket in the same movie and we can't hear Thor say "Rabbit" once?)

I would guess they simply didn't feel the need to repeat that joke. The only way to play that any differently than it did in Infinity War is if Thor actually sees a real rabbit for comparison with Rocket. Since Rocket wasn't coming to Earth in this movie, there wasn't a real way to do that.

Same goes for Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie. She was in it a lot but I wished we saw more of her, and got deeper into her character.

I agree. I think the issue is that she doesn't really have an arc here, She got a big one in Ragnarok, but they didn't really seem to have an idea of how to actually progress her character in this one. Thompson is good in it, but Valkyrie ends this movie in the same place as she begins it. I did love that she had The Phantom of the Opera T-shirt, though.

I mean, if she kept the hammer, could she have continued to thrive?

I just took what the movie said at face value.

Spoiler

It took so much strength for Jane as a mortal to wield the hammer that she wasn't fighting the cancer. The powers didn't stop her from having cancer while she was being Thor. They just masked it.

I hope they've set him up to recur. (A battle of the gods, maybe?)

Given the events of the mid-credits scene, I think it is very clear that Crowe will be back at some point.

I always liked Jaimie Alexander as Sif and was glad to see her back, but as I feared, her part was miniscule.

I don't think Taika Waititi is very interested in Sif or the majority of the supporting cast in the first two movies. That's why he discarded so many of them for Ragnarok. He made that clear again during the narration from this movie when referring to characters in a throwaway manner like "that guy died," etc. I would be very surprised to see Sif explored substantially if Waititi is directing.

Another thing that could've used more explanation is how Gor's daughter was saved by the interaction with Eternity.

The person who got to Eternity first could wish for anything they wanted. What Gorr wanted was his daughter back. I think that pretty much covers it.

The movie is missing the kind of big, triumphant moment that Thor had in films like Ragnarok, Infinity War and Endgame. That's okay - they shouldn't repeat themselves, but it doesn't feel as satisfying without it, even if he is ultimately triumphant.

I actually liked that the final scene with Thor and Jane and Gorr was quieter. It was a nice change of pace. If the rest of the movie had given us some more quieter moments instead of tagging everything with jokes, the story might have felt more emotionally impactful.

One of the charms - and some might say the problem - of these Marvel films is the chance to revisit the Marvel Universe and spend some time there.

I love spending time there too. I don't think many fans would say that spending time there is the problem. I think one of the larger issue with this movie is that it didn't really bring anything new to the table that we haven't seen before. It was pleasant and well-made and the actors seemed to be having fun in it. There's nothing really objectionable about it. But we have also seen much better.

 

[Hanson]

Just got back, the movie. I laughed so loudly and so often that my throat is hoarse.

I spent the first half of the movie wondering when it would fall off, but it never did. Humor is subjective, so I get why some people didn't like it, but for me and my kids it was a total blast. I chortled at pretty much everything.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Humor is subjective, so I get why some people didn't like it, but for me and my kids it was a total blast.

For me, the humor in and of itself wasn't the problem. There was funny stuff in there and that's a good thing. It was that the humor was so over-the-top and so consistent throughout that it detracted from the other elements that the story also needed.

 

[Hanson]

I very much enjoyed Russell Crowe, and I'm not known as a Russell Crowe fan (some movies of his I like, some I don't). But his Zeus, and especially his scenery chewing, was one of the delights of going to the movies. I hope they've set him up to recur. (A battle of the gods, maybe?)

I was howling at Crowe's Super Mario accent and hambone performance.

Another thing that could've used more explanation is how Gor's daughter was saved by the interaction with Eternity. Now, Eternity is a character (an entity?) that I never quite understood even when I read comics, which was decades ago. I'm willing to chalk the little girl's fate up to cosmic powers (something like the Q from Star Trek?) and leave it at that.

Gorr's plan was to ask Eternity to destroy all the gods. But with the sword having been destroyed, he began dying. But the corruption that overtook him started to dissipate, and he ultimately chose love instead of hate by asking Eternity to bring his daughter back to life, knowing that Thor would look after her. The resurrection also gave her god-like powers.

The movie is missing the kind of big, triumphant moment that Thor had in films like Ragnarok, Infinity War and Endgame. That's okay - they shouldn't repeat themselves, but it doesn't feel as satisfying without it, even if he is ultimately triumphant.

That last scene before the credits was awesome. I got a little choked up when Korg dubbed them Love and Thunder.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I got a little choked up when Korg dubbed them Love and Thunder.

Spoiler

I wish they would have allowed us to know Love as a character better. She is dead for literally the entire movie until the end. I understand that her being dead was key to Gorr's motivation. But we don't know anything about her, which makes it more difficult to care when Thor takes custody of her.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Spoiler

I wish they would have allowed us to know Love as a character better. She is dead for literally the entire movie until the end. I understand that her being dead was key to Gorr's motivation. But we don't know anything about her, which makes it more difficult to care when Thor takes custody of her.

We'll find out more about her

Spoiler

in the next Thor movie.

 

[Joe Wong]

Spoiler

I wish they would have allowed us to know Love as a character better. She is dead for literally the entire movie until the end. I understand that her being dead was key to Gorr's motivation. But we don't know anything about her, which makes it more difficult to care when Thor takes custody of her.

Spoiler

This is where (I believe) an extra few minutes could have added some depth to the film, by fleshing out some characters, including Gorr and his daughter. If Love is to return in Thor 5, I’ll accept her character developing more then. But like you said, we don’t really know her in this film.

However, it looks like Gorr is done for now. As great as Bale was, I wanted to see even more of him as the God Butcher.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Spoiler

This is where (I believe) an extra few minutes could have added some depth to the film, by fleshing out some characters, including Gorr and his daughter.

Spoiler

The problem here is that she's dead for basically the entire body of the film. So, structurally, I'm not sure how they would be able to develop her character if she can't be in it, even with extra running time. She has to be dead, because if she is alive then Gorr loses his motivation to kill the gods, but by having her dead, were just supposed to be happy at the end that Thor adopted, basically, a random unknown kid. They wrote themselves into a very particular corner with that design. You'd almost have to spend more time with her before she dies in order for the audience to be invested in the possibility of her resurrection, but the film as written can't really kick off until Gorr has that motivation to kill the gods. I don't know how to solve that.