Thor: Ragnarok is set to release in two weeks, on November 2nd, but even though there's plenty of time before release, the reviews are already up. So far, the movie is doing fairly well as far as reviews go.
Out of 47 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, the movies is sitting at 46 of the 47 being positive and an overall 98% fresh rating!
Most reviews tend to agree on a couple of things, the movie is just a series of jokes. The jokes are actually well-placed and fun, so it's not a bad thing, but it does minimize the importance of things. The Hulk is great, Thor is fine, Cate Blanchett is great, and CGI is silly at times.
Below you can see spoiler free excerpts from reviews:
"Thor: Ragnarok is a goofy, kitschy- but- fun romp and the most purely entertaining of the three Thor movies, marked by its distinctive designs, ‘80s synth score, and assemblage of spirited characters. It’s carried by the excellent chemistry between Thor, Hulk, and Valkyrie, who give humanity to a visual effects-heavy spectacle that finally makes good on Thor’s title of God of Thunder. But it’s also a film fragmented by its clear preference for its B storyline (Sakaar) over its A storyline (Asgard). Thor: Ragnarok’s desire to go for the gag also hurts the movie in a few key serious moments that deserved to pack more punch than they did."
"There’s a lot more to the bloated story, but honestly, none of it is very interesting. In fact, it’s endless. You don’t care what’s happening or what’s going to happen next. We’re just led from place to place for a hash of foggy reasons that no one will ever remember 10 minutes after leaving the theater. But that’s not really the point of this movie. Ragnarok is basically a Joke Delivery System — and on that score, it works. The movie is fun. So to recap: Taika Waititi was mostly the right director for the job. Chris Hemsworth is hilarious. Tessa Thompson is going to be a star. And while Ragnarok’s story is an aimless mess, you won’t stop laughing. In other words, it’s a… B"
"That said, it is most certainly still a Marvel movie. There are massive battles, world-ending stakes, and massive computer-generated creatures. They’re arguably some of the weakest parts of the movie, but not because Waititi [film director] can’t deliver on the spectacle. He does so incredibly well, injecting real visual flair into the proceedings as he toys with a budget and sense of scale he’s never had access to as a filmmaker. But when the film shifts gears into traditional Marvel mode, it prompts a twinge of regret, because no fight sequence can live up to the eccentricity that runs through the rest of the film…
"It all comes together to create a film that’s simply a joy to watch, with a personality that’s wholly its own. That’s no small feat, particularly given how saturated we are with superhero movies. And it is also worth noting that the quirks of Thor: Ragnarok may not be for everyone. There are no sacred cows in Waititi’s movie, and fans who prefer their superheroes straight-faced and without meta-commentary might chafe at its irreverence. But the willingness to play with genre tropes is one of the most exciting things about Thor: Ragnarok. Marvel felt comfortable letting Waititi bring his sensibilities to bear on the material, even if it might go a step too far for some viewers. That’s the kind of creative flexibility that has always seemed difficult for the studio to embrace. But with filmmakers like Waititi, Gunn, and Black Panther director Ryan Coogler all making their marks on the universe, perhaps we’re entering a phase where Marvel is embracing its directors’ individualistic voices instead of trying to beat them down."
"Is there anything to criticize? Of course. There's some sleight drags in the pacing that are entirely excusable based on the service they give to the characters. There's some problems with Hela, which here manage to include Karl Urban for some reason. Urban plays a conflicted warrior with no real allegiance who is repeatedly tested by his new master in a series of trials that don't matter because no one cares about the stakes of a character that clearly cannot survive the film.
"There's some world-building lore and backstory that fails to answer the complicated questions that the film asks, probably because it just wasn't nearly as much fun as everything else happening on screen. But to say that there's ten minutes that could've been cut, that's a pretty mild criticism.
"Thor: Ragnarok is a big bet for Marvel. It deviates from everything it’s structured the franchise to be, but it’s also a perfect example of taking big risks for even bigger wins. Thor: Ragnarok is winning like no Marvel movie has won before."
"There are a great many corners cut, plot holes papered over, and laws of physics bent out of recognition in this movie, to be honest. And if you’ve sat through the past dozen recent Marvel movies, you’ll find the core elements very familiar – a rag-tag team of heroes (Thor unimaginatively dubs them “the Revengers”), an all-powerful antagonist, an impending apocalypse, and a set of essentially unkillable characters. Added to which, the liberal use of CGI and green screen makes for a visual flimsiness. Even the scenes set in “Norway” look fake.
"But Thor: Ragnarok gets away with all of this because it’s so winningly, unpretentiously funny. It basically throws up its hands at its own ridiculousness and plays it all for laughs – and it gets them. The price of this irreverence is the possibility of taking anything that happens all that seriously – even the potential destruction of the Norse gods’ home (that’s not a spoiler either: it’s the title of the movie). There’s a potentially intriguing subtext about Asgard’s gilded spires – and by extension European civilisation – having been built on the suffering and riches of others, but, being a bit of a downer, it’s dealt with fleetingly. The romp must go on."
