The Thor: Ragnarok Rotten Tomatoes/Critic's Reaction Thread - Part 1

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think this is a year where it'd be VERY arguable for any of the 5 CBMs we got so far to be the best of the year. I personally put WW on the bottom of the 5, even though I very much enjoyed it, but I could totally see arguments for any of them.

Totally agree. I don't think Wonder Woman was quite at the level of the others, even though I still very much enjoyed it. Wonder Woman kind of fell apart in the final act once Ares showed up.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Does it really matter which one has the higher average rating?

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter whether one has 93% and the other has 95% either. Rotten Tomatoes isn't that precise. Anything in the 90s is all going to be about the same.

 

[BigThor]

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter whether one has 93% and the other has 95% either. Rotten Tomatoes isn't that precise. Anything in the 90s is all going to be about the same.

Very true

 

[liveman789]

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter whether one has 93% and the other has 95% either. Rotten Tomatoes isn't that precise. Anything in the 90s is all going to be about the same.

Yeah. Blade Runner has a lower percentage at 88%, meanwhile it's average rating is higher than Thor's at 8.2.

 

[TheVileOne]

While I like WW, I think it's climax occurred during the No Man's Land sequence, and the ending was rather lackluster with an one-dimensional villain. But Gadot did prove me wrong with her excellent performance.

I agree. I thought Wonder Woman was good and the best DCEU movie to date, but it's third act was weak and the climax IMHO looked awful. Lots of explosions and shockwaves and you can't even really see what's going on. The No Man's Land scene was the best scene too yeah.

 

[HammerDown]

93%
Average Rating: 7.5/10
Reviews Counted: 259
Fresh: 240
Rotten: 19

 

[HammerDown]

93%
Average Rating: 7.5/10
Reviews Counted: 261
Fresh: 242
Rotten: 19

 

[m2k]

Honestly to me, WW felt more like a 70-75 range RT movie. I don't think it's in the same class as Ragnarok. It's an overall good film but is dragged down by over long scenes, slo-mo, all too familiar plot, hit or miss comedy, thin supporting characters. Dreadful third act imo, very Snyder like as far as imagery and rather lack of creativity.
Jenkins did great in her first foray, but Taika 's mastery in timing, editing, consistency in tone and plot advancement is just on another level.

 

[Darepool]

His action sequences are on another level as well. Wonder Woman's were merely competent.

Ragnarok is just BURSTING with infectious personality.

 

[HammerDown]

93%
Average Rating: 7.5/10
Reviews Counted: 262
Fresh: 243
Rotten: 19

 

[BigThor]

His action sequences are on another level as well. Wonder Woman's were merely competent.

Ragnarok is just BURSTING with infectious personality.

I liked Wonder Woman's action scenes, especially the final fight vs Ares.

But yeah Ragnarok's is better.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

Honestly to me, WW felt more like a 70-75 range RT movie. I don't think it's in the same class as Ragnarok. It's an overall good film but is dragged down by over long scenes, slo-mo, all too familiar plot, hit or miss comedy, thin supporting characters. Dreadful third act imo, very Snyder like as far as imagery and rather lack of creativity.
Jenkins did great in her first foray, but Taika 's mastery in timing, editing, consistency in tone and plot advancement is just on another level.

It's a 8/10 for me but I agree overall the climax of that movie for me is the no man's land scene.

 

[Darepool]

I liked Wonder Woman's action scenes, especially the final fight vs Ares.

But yeah Ragnarok's is better.

I liked the war scenes myself. I found the climactic battle underwhelming. But the sell for that film wasn't the action anyway, just Diana's journey into 'man's' world and the Howling Commandos-like dynamic with Steve and his allies.

 

[BigThor]

I liked the war scenes myself. I found the climactic battle underwhelming. But the sell for that film wasn't the action anyway, just Diana's journey into 'man's' world and the Howling Commandos-like dynamic with Steve and his allies.

True, I don't really remember the war scene.

 

[liveman789]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBWLAKxi-c&t=0s

Red Letter Media reviewed it. They both liked it, Jay more than Mike. Mike kind of goes on a tangent where he wished it were more weird and how he's over the theater chains.

 

[Grootster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBWLAKxi-c&t=0s

Red Letter Media reviewed it. They both liked it, Jay more than Mike. Mike kind of goes on a tangent where he wished it were more weird and how he's over the theater chains.

I've been waiting all weekend for this!

I loved Ragnarok, but I have to say I do kind of agree with Mike's complaints. I thought Hela was well-characterized and all, but I must admit that her storyline didn't interest me as much as the stuff on the arena planet. I sort of wish there was more of that and less of the Hela storyline. I guess if you took away that it wouldn't really be Ragnarok though, lol.

 

[Finarfiniel]

I've been waiting all weekend for this!

I loved Ragnarok, but I have to say I do kind of agree with Mike's complaints. I thought Hela was well-characterized and all, but I must admit that her storyline didn't interest me as much as the stuff on the arena planet. I sort of wish there was more of that and less of the Hela storyline. I guess if you took away that it wouldn't really be Ragnarok though, lol.

I'm the opposite, I think the movie needed about 20% less Sakaar and that screen time should have been given back to the Hela/Asgard plot and the actual primary purpose of this movie, Ragnarok. It's what made me knock a point off my rating because the balance was off.

Better yet, they should have just added 20 minutes to the runtime and given that extra time to the Asgard plot and taken nothing away from the Sakaar plot, then everybody wins. t:

 

[TheVileOne]

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter whether one has 93% and the other has 95% either. Rotten Tomatoes isn't that precise. Anything in the 90s is all going to be about the same.

No offense to anyone. I get why you want the highest RT possible, I think it's just splitting hairs when it gets into minutiae of the actual critic score and then critic score vs. audience score and then how many more "fresh" reviews to go up a percent.

I think a movie like this getting into the 90s is pretty cool. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was a great film IMHO and that only scored an 82. And then think about the other Thor films didn't get reviews this good. The Dark World got the lowest reviews of any Marvel film. So I think it says a lot just that this got the best reviews out of any of them.

Is that gratifying? Yes undeniably. That is totally understandable to get excited about. But as Kahran pointed out, there's probably a margin of error, and anything in the 90 percentage is sorta the same.

But again, it's ironic when people will run to the RT meter as some sort of measuring stick of affirmation of a film's goodness and then reject it when it doesn't go the way they want.

 

[liveman789]

Better yet, they should have just added 20 minutes to the runtime and given that extra time to the Asgard plot and taken nothing away from the Sakaar plot, then everybody wins. t:

[BLACKOUT]Some mourning from Thor would have been nice as well.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Mjölnir]

[BLACKOUT]Some mourning from Thor would have been nice as well.[/BLACKOUT]

Spoiler

He does have a sort of prayer for Odin when he's in captivity.
It's when Loki visits him in his projected form.

 

[liveman789]

Spoiler

He does have a sort of prayer for Odin when he's in captivity.
It's when Loki visits him in his projected form.

Not for him, I was more so speaking about other characters who have been involved in the past 2 movies.

 

[Grootster]

I'm the opposite, I think the movie needed about 20% less Sakaar and that screen time should have been given back to the Hela/Asgard plot and the actual primary purpose of this movie, Ragnarok. It's what made me knock a point off my rating because the balance was off.

Better yet, they should have just added 20 minutes to the runtime and given that extra time to the Asgard plot and taken nothing away from the Sakaar plot, then everybody wins. t:

I think increasing the runtime just a little could have been a good thing. I've actually gone on record saying I like short movies, but this was one case where adding a little bit more to the Hela storyline might have deepened it.

I'm curious if anything was cut from the final battle. I remember a common complaint about GOTGv2 was that the end battle was kind of long and excessive (I sort of feel that myself). I wonder if Marvel cut some stuff so people wouldn't complain the same thing about this (especially since this also had a big destruction battle, and it came out the same year as GOTGv2). It was a great battle, but I was really surprised how quickly it started and finished in comparison to a lot of other Hollywood final battles.

 

[Xeno]

Honestly to me, WW felt more like a 70-75 range RT movie. I don't think it's in the same class as Ragnarok. It's an overall good film but is dragged down by over long scenes, slo-mo, all too familiar plot, hit or miss comedy, thin supporting characters. Dreadful third act imo, very Snyder like as far as imagery and rather lack of creativity.
Jenkins did great in her first foray, but Taika 's mastery in timing, editing, consistency in tone and plot advancement is just on another level.

I can't argue the RT score because that just measures the number of critics who liked WW, but I do think that it was grossly overpraised. It started well but midway through the second act it lost all narrative momentum. The scenes on Themiscyra were very good, stilted dialogue notwithstanding. The relationships were well done, too. But after the action shifted to London the steam started going out of the movie. I wasn't as impressed with the No-Man's Land scene as others were because Diana was obviously never in any danger from the bullets and bombs. That was the very definition of a moment with no stakes; even the Howling Imposters were safe. After that, it's a boring slog through some spy nonsense to get to the CGI nightmare of a finale.

For its inconsistencies and poorly-rendered final battle, I rate WW 3/5. It's watchable because of the charming leads but outside of the first act, it isn't interesting or exciting.

 

[spider-neil]

For its inconsistencies and poorly-rendered final battle, I rate WW 3/5. It's watchable because of the charming leads but outside of the first act, it isn't interesting or exciting.

WW climbing out of the trench happens in the second act and is truly an inspirational moment.

 

[BigThor]

I think increasing the runtime just a little could have been a good thing. I've actually gone on record saying I like short movies, but this was one case where adding a little bit more to the Hela storyline might have deepened it.

I'm curious if anything was cut from the final battle. I remember a common complaint about GOTGv2 was that the end battle was kind of long and excessive (I sort of feel that myself). I wonder if Marvel cut some stuff so people wouldn't complain the same thing about this (especially since this also had a big destruction battle, and it came out the same year as GOTGv2). It was a great battle, but I was really surprised how quickly it started and finished in comparison to a lot of other Hollywood final battles.

I've been seeing people say this a lot and I don't understand where this coming from. The final battle was pretty long and satisfying for me, also the final battle is pretty much ALL fighting.