Every film you've watched in 2022

[Dread]

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness: of two minds on this one. I've never understood the character America Chavez, and it's clear that none of the writers knew what to do with her because she exists as a plot device. Not fond of that. Rachel McAdams had half a role this time. Not bad. More Wong please. I was really concerned for a minute there that they killed Rintrah. Probably the best part of the thing was the Illuminati sequence, and I'm a little bothered that Wanda beat them all so easily (yes yes yes multiverse, etc.). Cumberbund was tolerable here. It was nice to see a Sam Raimi movie again. 

I also have zero recollection of the doctor he meets at Christine's wedding. Apparently he was in the first one? I drank to forget that movie.

• Features: 49
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 4
• Rewatches: 0

[Donomark]

Nixon: I've got a lot of thoughts on this one, and hope to get them e-mailed over to Hey! An Actor to be heard/read out soon. Long story short, I really enjoyed it.

Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: I saw this one twice, and overall I really enjoyed it. Like No Way Home, it's a fun movie with a lot of very evident flaws. Unfortunately one of those flaws isn't shared by No Way Home in that there's not really a story here. It's a very two-dimensional film with zero thematic heft and hardly any scenes beyond moving from point A to point B. There's a repetition of Strange's sense of happiness and the idea that his hubris and arrogance leads him to ruin and that he's got to change his ways somehow, and that's more said than shown. In a larger context, I do like the fact that the film directly addresses Strange's needlessly dickish persona and works to soften him. Like Chris said in the Flickchart episode we did with Ian, there's no real reason for Strange's story to be about karma or anything. At the shame time it's a shame that this is the first sequel to a movie six years old, and the filmmakers don't seem to be positive on what makes Strange tick, or the WHY of him. To quote my QnoA regarding Batman and Robin, they didn't really have a character arc, they just said that they did. I liked where they ended up with Strange, but they cheated. 

On a far larger concern, my main issue is how Wanda is depicted. Is it a spoiler to say

Spoiler

she's the villain

since the trailers don't hint at it?

Spoiler

The whole Scarlet Witch fake kids storyline, while honestly interesting and a classic from the comics, is ne of the most problematic storylines from the comics, and it seems they learned no lessons in adapting it here. It's really inescapable how sexist of a portrayal she has in this, being "Baby Crazy", and the film has zero interest in redeeming her. My problem is that I didn't feel at the end of WandaVision that this was where she'd lead to. I got the sense that that was the darkest we'd see her go, and she more or less learned her lesson in the end. But between that last episode and this movie, she goes full on evil offscreen, and if you did not see WandaVision and are coming straight from Endgame to this, you are fucked because she is already a villain in progress, after attacking Thanos and mourning Vision at the end of her last movie appearance. But Dr. Strange and the film at large makes very little attempt to reconcile or suggest that their former friend and teammate can come back from the dark side. Even in both versions of Dark Phoenix, the X-Men still thought something could be done to rescue Jean. Elizabeth Olsen was fantastic, and is arguably the best actress in the entire MCU. Every scene she's in, she's frightening, threatening, heartbreaking and surprising. And Sam Raimi directs the hell out of her menace. But I've got no idea what Feige and the other MCU filmmakers thought in terms of audience acceptance to go from following her as a protag in WandaVision to seeing her callously murder people and die at the end in this. It was far too much of a jump to not leave me completely disturbed.

But the Illuminati were cool, especially Krasinski as Reed and classic costumed Black Bolt. Those may have been reshoot moments, but as a comic fan I properly geeked out hardcore, as well as with 90s cartoon Patrick Stewart Prof X. 

Sam Raimi really carries this movie though, ESPECIALLY in the third act. The thing with Doctor Strange is that his best comics were gothic and supernatural and creepy. The final act felt like the best of the Ditko/Gene Colan era, and I loved how it got nuttier and nuttier and nuttier with nary an insipid wise-assed comment to distract from the mood. YMMV on how effective Raimi's wacky directing played for you, but I loved it, especially they line "They don't have to be living..." In terms of being a Dr. Strange movie, this kicks the first film's ass ten times over.

This movie is flawed, severely so. Des is right that America Chavez, ultimately, is a plot device and her character could've been anybody. This is one of the most surface-written, in-need-of-more-drafts MCU movies in a while...but the Raimi directing as the film goes on is so much fun. It just gets darker, and wilder, and more violent and weird, that that's worth the price of admission. The spectacle really puts it over and salvages what I honestly understand to be a lesser-written film to be firmly solid by sheer style alone.

[Dread]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:01 PM, Donomark said:

Nixon: I've got a lot of thoughts on this one, and hope to get them e-mailed over to Hey! An Actor to be heard/read out soon. Long story short, I really enjoyed it.

Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: I saw this one twice, and overall I really enjoyed it. Like No Way Home, it's a fun movie with a lot of very evident flaws. Unfortunately one of those flaws isn't shared by No Way Home in that there's not really a story here. It's a very two-dimensional film with zero thematic heft and hardly any scenes beyond moving from point A to point B. There's a repetition of Strange's sense of happiness and the idea that his hubris and arrogance leads him to ruin and that he's got to change his ways somehow, and that's more said than shown. In a larger context, I do like the fact that the film directly addresses Strange's needlessly dickish persona and works to soften him. Like Chris said in the Flickchart episode we did with Ian, there's no real reason for Strange's story to be about karma or anything. At the shame time it's a shame that this is the first sequel to a movie six years old, and the filmmakers don't seem to be positive on what makes Strange tick, or the WHY of him. To quote my QnoA regarding Batman and Robin, they didn't really have a character arc, they just said that they did. I liked where they ended up with Strange, but they cheated. 

On a far larger concern, my main issue is how Wanda is depicted. Is it a spoiler to say

  Hide contents

she's the villain

since the trailers don't hint at it?

  Hide contents

The whole Scarlet Witch fake kids storyline, while honestly interesting and a classic from the comics, is ne of the most problematic storylines from the comics, and it seems they learned no lessons in adapting it here. It's really inescapable how sexist of a portrayal she has in this, being "Baby Crazy", and the film has zero interest in redeeming her. My problem is that I didn't feel at the end of WandaVision that this was where she'd lead to. I got the sense that that was the darkest we'd see her go, and she more or less learned her lesson in the end. But between that last episode and this movie, she goes full on evil offscreen, and if you did not see WandaVision and are coming straight from Endgame to this, you are fucked because she is already a villain in progress, after attacking Thanos and mourning Vision at the end of her last movie appearance. But Dr. Strange and the film at large makes very little attempt to reconcile or suggest that their former friend and teammate can come back from the dark side. Even in both versions of Dark Phoenix, the X-Men still thought something could be done to rescue Jean. Elizabeth Olsen was fantastic, and is arguably the best actress in the entire MCU. Every scene she's in, she's frightening, threatening, heartbreaking and surprising. And Sam Raimi directs the hell out of her menace. But I've got no idea what Feige and the other MCU filmmakers thought in terms of audience acceptance to go from following her as a protag in WandaVision to seeing her callously murder people and die at the end in this. It was far too much of a jump to not leave me completely disturbed.

But the Illuminati were cool, especially Krasinski as Reed and classic costumed Black Bolt. Those may have been reshoot moments, but as a comic fan I properly geeked out hardcore, as well as with 90s cartoon Patrick Stewart Prof X. 

Sam Raimi really carries this movie though, ESPECIALLY in the third act. The thing with Doctor Strange is that his best comics were gothic and supernatural and creepy. The final act felt like the best of the Ditko/Gene Colan era, and I loved how it got nuttier and nuttier and nuttier with nary an insipid wise-assed comment to distract from the mood. YMMV on how effective Raimi's wacky directing played for you, but I loved it, especially they line "They don't have to be living..." In terms of being a Dr. Strange movie, this kicks the first film's ass ten times over.

This movie is flawed, severely so. Des is right that America Chavez, ultimately, is a plot device and her character could've been anybody. This is one of the most surface-written, in-need-of-more-drafts MCU movies in a while...but the Raimi directing as the film goes on is so much fun. It just gets darker, and wilder, and more violent and weird, that that's worth the price of admission. The spectacle really puts it over and salvages what I honestly understand to be a lesser-written film to be firmly solid by sheer style alone.

Regarding the Illuminati:

Spoiler

It definitely feels like a late addition to the story. At least as far as the lineup of the Illuminati. Do any of them even appear in the same shot as Olsen? It's hard to care about the coolest part of the movie when some of the characters are murdered and Carter and Captain Marvel just sort of look at each other like "well, here we go..." Seems odd.

I thought the whole scene was weird that she was able to kill them all so easily. I get that they're versions of the characters we probably will never see again, but still. Weird to create a team that can easily imprison Dr. Strange and America and have them get their asses handed to them by one person in a few minutes.

But also, the death of Black Bolt was *chef kiss

 

[Dread]

Vampire Circus/Mexico Barbaro/Urban Legends/Urban Legends: Final Cut/Urban Legends Bloody Mary: reviews forthcoming.

 

• Features: 54
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 4
• Rewatches: 0

[Donomark]

On 5/17/2022 at 12:00 PM, Dread said:

Regarding the Illuminati:

  Hide contents

It definitely feels like a late addition to the story. At least as far as the lineup of the Illuminati. Do any of them even appear in the same shot as Olsen? It's hard to care about the coolest part of the movie when some of the characters are murdered and Carter and Captain Marvel just sort of look at each other like "well, here we go..." Seems odd.

I thought the whole scene was weird that she was able to kill them all so easily. I get that they're versions of the characters we probably will never see again, but still. Weird to create a team that can easily imprison Dr. Strange and America and have them get their asses handed to them by one person in a few minutes.

But also, the death of Black Bolt was *chef kiss

 

Spoiler

I personally do not like the whole slaughtering superheroes thing that's gained popularity in the past several years. From Injustice to Invincible and Apokolips War, is comes across to me as perverse, and only done for the sake of portraying these superpowered heroes as victims in a slasher movie. Like, after a lifetime of combat, would they really get punked out so immediately? 

That said, the death scenes of Black Bolt and Reed were really cool on a visual level. I talked with my brother about Captain Carter and Captain Marvel's lack of sufficient reaction at seeing their teammates die, and I think it's because Marvel constantly wants to have their cake and eat it too. If someone let out a blood-curdling scream and lost it at the sight of a horrific murder, it would be too intense for the tone they want their films to go for. Violence is one thing, reaction to it is another. That's another aspect about No Way Home I enjoyed - Peter was allowed to cry after his mother figure was murdered. We actually saw Tom Holland sob into Zendaya's arms even several minutes after Aunt May died. That's real life human behavior, and the MCU often lacks that. No one cries, no one shows a loss of emotion that doesn't seem desperate or instinctual. 

 

[Dread]

16 hours ago, Donomark said:

  Reveal hidden contents

I personally do not like the whole slaughtering superheroes thing that's gained popularity in the past several years. From Injustice to Invincible and Apokolips War, is comes across to me as perverse, and only done for the sake of portraying these superpowered heroes as victims in a slasher movie. Like, after a lifetime of combat, would they really get punked out so immediately? 

That said, the death scenes of Black Bolt and Reed were really cool on a visual level. I talked with my brother about Captain Carter and Captain Marvel's lack of sufficient reaction at seeing their teammates die, and I think it's because Marvel constantly wants to have their cake and eat it too. If someone let out a blood-curdling scream and lost it at the sight of a horrific murder, it would be too intense for the tone they want their films to go for. Violence is one thing, reaction to it is another. That's another aspect about No Way Home I enjoyed - Peter was allowed to cry after his mother figure was murdered. We actually saw Tom Holland sob into Zendaya's arms even several minutes after Aunt May died. That's real life human behavior, and the MCU often lacks that. No one cries, no one shows a loss of emotion that doesn't seem desperate or instinctual. 

 

Well said.

The Lair of the White Worm: review forthcoming, but when there's boobies in the trailer, you know you've got a wild one.

 

• Features: 55
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 4
• Rewatches: 0

[S-T]

Matrix Resurrections - The trilogy wrapped up the story nicely, so this is an obvious cash-in. That's fine. It gives me another movie to watch. But you really don't need to shatter the fourth wall by having the characters in the movie admit that this is a cash-in.

The Meg - This was much better than I thought it would be, though I would have given Ruby Rose a bigger role.

Honest Thief - What I saw of it I liked, but the DVD glitched out on me and I couldn't finish it. Fortunately each movie is only 83 cents with Redbox Plus.

The King's Man - Very different tone from the previous movies.

[Dread]

Atroz: review forthcoming, but JESUS CHRIST!

Santo and Blue Demon vs. Dracula and the Wolfman: review forthcoming, but I needed to know Mexico was going to be ok after Atroz, so this was a palate cleanser.

Dirty Work: first part of a Norm Macdonald double feature with a buddy last night. I'd never seen this before (directed by Bob Saget and also starring Artie Lange [how the fuck did he outlive both those dudes?]). It is now in my favourite comedies list. So fucking funny throughout.

Norm MacDonald Nothing Special: so, Norm filmed 40 minutes of material on his laptop camera the day before he died. It isn't A material and some of it is a little cringy as the kids say, but it gets pretty emotional at a few points. Then, a panel Letterman, Chapelle, Conan O'Brien, Sandler, Spade and Molly Shannon sit around talking about him. Dave Letterman seems old because he can't let go of the "what would this have been like in front of a crowd?" question when clearly that's not what this was meant to be. It wasn't really a special of all the material he wanted out before he died. It was a goodbye. And why Molly Shannon is there when she clearly didn't even know Norm and barely says anything is beyond me. Weird presentation, but glad I watched.

Kids in the Hall: Comedy Punks: this is a fun, if a bit pedestrian two part documentary on the group. Some great insight and amazing footage of their earliest performances, but it's shackling to the "year-by-year" format is a little stale.

350 Days: this is ANOTHER documentary about the toll wrestling takes on its practitioners. This is interesting because there's lots of Bret Hart and Superstar Billy Graham. George the Animal Steele too. Is Ox Baker ever not in character?

• Features: 58
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 7
• Rewatches: 0

[Dread]

Dirty Work: rewatched this with my sons and they loved it.

The Sadness/Mega Time Squad: reviews forthcoming.

The Mephisto Waltz: review forthcoming

• Features: 61
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 7
• Rewatches: 1

[Donomark]

Top Gun: Maverick: Saw this is a theater far below the quality of the movie. As someone who wasn't impressed with the 80s original when he first saw it, I enjoyed this. It's definitely more earnest and serious, but I did get caught in the teeth of it being a Tom Cruise vehicle blending too closely with the needs of the story. Still, I'd like to see it again in IMAX. I didn't think Jennifer Connelly's character added much though, despite her talents.

RRR: Everyone on Earth-2.net should watch this movie right now. Mike, Des, DEFINITELY Chris, the Brothers Wilson, Christian, Dan, Hannah, Will...

[Dread]

2 hours ago, Donomark said:

RRR: Everyone on Earth-2.net should watch this movie right now. Mike, Des, DEFINITELY Chris, the Brothers Wilson, Christian, Dan, Hannah, Will...

Is this the INdian action film? Where do you find it?

[Donomark]

Netflix!

[Donomark]

8 hours ago, Dread said:

Is this the INdian action film? Where do you find it?

Netflix!

[Dread]

15 minutes ago, Donomark said:

Netflix!

Cool. I'll check Hopefully it's on Canadian Netflix. Unless it's a Netflix production. Then it will definitely be there. Over three hours as per the Bollywood usual. I'll wait until my surgery next week when all I'll be doing is watching shit.

[Missy]

Shana and I are making our way through the MCU, but not in any order. Recently we watched all four Avengers movies, the first two Captain America's, Doctor Strange and its sequel, we've got about 45 minutes left in Ant-Man.

They mostly hold up, but Age of Ultron gets really wonky after a bit, and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is the very first MCU movie I would call downright terrible. It's all over the place, relies way too hard on fan service, begs us to care about Strange's failed relationship with Christine, uses a literal device to deliver the plot, assassinates Wanda, is filled to the brim with awful acting, the dialogue made us pause to facepalm multiple times, and while I don't care that it visually breaks the MCU mold I do care that it relies on lame tropes for scares and doesn't push anything forward. As a blessing, because the movies takes places in and acknowledges the multiverse, Marvel could (though they won't) say this whole movie wasn't following the "real" Doctor Strange and Wanda, but ones from another reality.

Rock 'n' Roll High School and Phantom of the Paradise, but more on those soon.

[You Know Who]

8 hours ago, Missy said:

It's all over the place, relies way too hard on fan service, begs us to care about Strange's failed relationship with Christine, uses a literal device to deliver the plot, assassinates Wanda, is filled to the brim with awful acting, the dialogue made us pause to facepalm multiple times, and while I don't care that it visually breaks the MCU mold I do care that it relies on lame tropes for scares and doesn't push anything forward.

Out of curiosity, from whom? I have seen it but bad performances rarely jump out at me during most MCU films (I'm sure they're there but the only ones I can remember at the moment are in Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World).

Jurassic World: Dominion: Still processing this one and glad I ended up seeing rather than skipping it and having too much of it spoiled by social media. I don't dislike it as much as Jurassic Park III (yet) and it does right some of the franchise's previous wrongs. However, there's too much in it that belongs in other movies or stories rather than in a Jurassic Park story, including

Spoiler

James Bond films (with the roof jumping and motorcycle chases in Malta), Journey to the Center of the Earth (with the Dimetrodons in the cave), the Old Testament (with the locust swarms), and the DuckTales reboot (Dodgson is a lot like Mark Beaks -- a critical parody of Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerburg -- and at times as almost as silly).

Spoiler

Also, despite a lot of action sequences and more dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures than any of the previous movies, I can't recall any of the goodies ever getting seriously injured or even bleeding, let alone getting killed or eaten. For all their problems, at least The Lost World and Jurassic Park III maintained the illusion of danger by having people on the heroes' side get ripped in two, swallowed whole, or have their necks snapped). I'm pretty sure the damn super locusts also got more screen time than the T. rex, the Giganotosaurus, or even the three raptor species in this film put together.

O well. At least,

Spoiler

they didn't kill off the T. rex in a quick and nonsensical manner this time.

It also finally brought feathered dinosaurs into these movies (that's not a spoiler; they were in the trailer and now the marketing), and if it keeps getting people interested in dinosaurs, then that can only be a good thing.

 

[Missy]

7 hours ago, You Know Who said:

Out of curiosity, from whom? I have seen it but bad performances rarely jump out at me during most MCU films (I'm sure they're there but the only ones I can remember at the moment are in Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World).

Won't say too much for spoilers, but Cumberbatch and Olsen are both uninspiring. It's route horror movie material they're delivering. Xochitl Gomez isn't the best, but she's 16 and isn't given solid material, so I can easily overlook some of her choices and want to see more of her in the future.

[Davedevil]

18 hours ago, You Know Who said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Hide contents

Also, despite a lot of action sequences and more dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures than any of the previous movies, I can't recall any of the goodies ever getting seriously injured or even bleeding, let alone getting killed or eaten. For all their problems, at least The Lost World and Jurassic Park III maintained the illusion of danger by having people on the heroes' side get ripped in two, swallowed whole, or have their necks snapped).

 

That bothered me too. 

Spoiler

It's supposed to be the Avengers: Endgame of the Jurassic movies, from what the director said, and there aren't any consequences. Even someone losing a limb could've gone a long way to having something they have to live with.

I also think that, for a movie focused so much on references, nobody saying "welcome...to Jurassic World" at the beginning or end is a wasted opportunity.

Otherwise, I thought it was entertaining enough, glad I saw it on a big screen. The two and a half hour runtime was weird, I was surprised they didn't want to make it a three hour one, but maybe on home media, who knows.

[You Know Who]

1 hour ago, Davedevil said:

That bothered me too. 

  Reveal hidden contents

It's supposed to be the Avengers: Endgame of the Jurassic movies, from what the director said, and there aren't any consequences. Even someone losing a limb could've gone a long way to having something they have to live with.

I also think that, for a movie focused so much on references, nobody saying "welcome...to Jurassic World" at the beginning or end is a wasted opportunity.

Otherwise, I thought it was entertaining enough, glad I saw it on a big screen. The two and a half hour runtime was weird, I was surprised they didn't want to make it a three hour one, but maybe on home media, who knows.

There is supposed to be a director's cut.

Also, Malcolm did say it at the end of Fallen Kingdom, so reiterating it in this film would have been a bit much (in a film that already had a lot of too much).

[Davedevil]

Forgot about that, I only saw Fallen Kingdom once, despite liking it quite a bit. Honestly I missed J.A. Bayona's directing on this one. Felt a little like going from Rian Johnson back to JJ Abrams, appropriately enough.

[You Know Who]

19 minutes ago, Davedevil said:

Felt a little like going from Rian Johnson back to JJ Abrams, appropriately enough.

That actually reminds of another thought I had shortly after leaving the cinema, and which I stand by a day later: I enjoyed Rise of Skywalker more than this and that's not going to get better with a second viewing either.

[Donomark]

21 hours ago, Missy said:

Won't say too much for spoilers, but Cumberbatch and Olsen are both uninspiring. It's route horror movie material they're delivering. Xochitl Gomez isn't the best, but she's 16 and isn't given solid material, so I can easily overlook some of her choices and want to see more of her in the future.

You didn't think Elizabeth Olsen was good?

I don't like what they did to Wanda, but I thought the actress killed the villain role. Just, crushed it, especially with Raimi's direction. The scene of her taking over the 838 universe's Wanda was pretty creepy, and she got to be sinister a lot of the time.

There's definitely OTT aspects to her acting, but I'm surprised to hear that she was bad.

I couldn't defend Cumberbatch exactly. I don't think he was bad exactly either, but the MCU doesn't quite know who their Stephen Strange is, even by the end of this film. I think it comes the closest to figuring it out, but the whole "Are you happy" motif felt like a half-measure.

[S-T]

The Batman - This is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong movie, and it feels long. I thought about seeing this one in the cinema, but I took one look at the runtime and gave up that idea.

I loved what they did with The Riddler. It looks like this was heavily influenced by the Hush arc in the comics.

My one gripe:

Spoiler

The car chase between Batman and Penguin resulted in a freeway pile up that rivals the opening scene of Final Destination 2. There is no way Batman would allow that much collateral damage - especially this version of Batman, who eschews killing even murderous mobsters.

Overall, though, definitely worth a rental.

[Dread]

Black Glasses/Diabolik/The Game: reviews forthcoming

Revenge of the Sith: hilarious how bad the dialogue is delivered in these movies.

The Image Revolution: seems to be a movie I come back to every year. I believe it's the only one I've ever kickstarted that has that distinction.

• Features: 65
• Shorts: 7
• Documentaries: 8
• Rewatches: 1

[Donomark]

Love Jones (1997):

This movie is preceded by the legendary soundtrack that my Mom loved to play back in the late 90s. It's awesome, and matches the mood of the film. The movie is a smokey, low baritoned love ballad spoken in poetry over rainy days and bright nights. It's a very 90s kind of romance film, but it's drama more than comedy. Starring Larenz Tate and Nia Long, it's a simple story of two smart young post-college people meeting, falling in love, then out, then back in and out and in again. It's not an ideal love. Larenz Tate is obnoxious AF, but he's realistic in how he is. This isn't a film that roots for him, or even the couple's love to survive. It simply depicts how two flawed people come to recognize how they act when they're in love with each other. That approach, plus Nia Long owning this movie with her goddess-like beauty and perfect shots of her profile in view, plus the soundtrack and jazzy atmosphere make this a strong recommendation. It won't make your heart swoon, but it'll leave you feeling different.

Thor: Love and Thunder:

Alright, so I have a theory about this movie, and Taika Waititi at large.

Consider Zack Snyder. Like him or Hate him, it's pretty accepted by now that Snyder is actively in love with the image and depiction of power on screen. 300, the way he told the story of Watchmen and all of his cut of Justice League, he slows down the image to maximize the "This is awesome" factor he's objectively going for. That's his buy-in with the superhero genre, the reverence towards power.

Taika Waititi is the opposite. Consider not only the irreverent humor but the intent of Thor Ragnarok. He smashes the Thor mythos. He kills off half of his supporting cast, gets rid of Odin, destroys Asgard and shows blatant disregard for everything that came before with a flippant, dismissive attitude towards the supposed gravity of it. He also smashes the reputation of Odin, revealing that he built up Asgard through the piracy of colonialism. 

The same thing applies here, tenfold. Thor is completely stupid (until the needs of the plot makes him not). He doesn't know how to hold, or even start a conversation, he's unintelligent with his own weaponry and he's guided and blinded by his emotions. This holds true of the god characters in this film. The various supporting characters are largely invested by attractions of glory and preeminence, almost to the point of preoccupation. Zeus (accurately I gladly grant it) is a hedonistic buffoon, as is a Hedonism Bot-esque God in an early first scene. Gorr the God-Butcher explains in precise detail that Deity Worship is a fucking fool's errand and the film agrees with him in its depiction of all the super-powered beings, without that being a point of realization from the characters within it. Everything else of presumed weight - be it mythological weapons like Mjolnir, Zeus's lightning bolt or Storm-Breaker, are treated with as much seriousness as radio player in the film. 

My point is that, unlike Zack Snyder, Taika Waititi has a complete disregard for the deity pantheon in the Thor films, and uses them to undermine and ridicule the franchise for the sake of a socialistic, anti-theistic agenda. I don't think this is 1,000% intentional, the humor he incorporates works to be irreverent, but that irreverence moves a lot of weight to...make irreverent what the characters - and ostensibly the audience - are meant to see as reverent. The Thor franchise began...and presumably was meant to be the part of the MCU where the important, powerful, godlike stuff went down. The Guardians corner depicted the lower-blue collar worker cosmic citizens making their way through the galaxy, just as the Iron Man era showed off Marvel's corporate side and Spider-Man showed off the lower floor of that perspective from a high-school POV.

But Waititi is saying "No, this is all silly bullshit, and the pants are gonna fall off these characters repeatedly to present how silly the bullshit is." And that's not...out of pocket for him to do, he's well within his rights as a filmmaker. But with Love and Thunder, it's pretty apparent that the disrespect and outright disdain of the Thor world of the MCU prevents him from granting these previously dignified characters with at many times even a modicum of dignity left. 

But that leaves the finished product a bad product. Tonal whiplash just shreds this movie. Children are kidnapped, gods are being slaughtered, but we've gotta have these constant barrage of jokes I STG feel like they're straight from Robot Chicken. There's such distance from the weight of the moment, that it makes this movie easily Marvel's most insincere effort to date. It's not wall-to-wall godawful, Christian Bale crushes the Gorr role and leaves with his dignity intact, but Hemsworth's Thor watches as though he got his script mixed with Tom Holland's Spider-Man from 2019, and it gets seriously cringey at times.