Thor: Ragnarok (2017) non-spoiler Review

Thanks for the review. The other two Thor movies sucked imo but I've read that this is apparently a big improvement. I might get around to seeing this but I am certainly in no hurry to.
It sounds like a typical run of the mill MCU film which is typical. Lame one liners , lame jokes to break any kind of tension that is built in scenes , mediocre cgi , forgettable villain etc etc.

I do like the director though. Think he's quite talented (and Hunt for the Wilderpeople was a great little film) . TBH , I 'm more looking forward to see what he can do with Akira than this Thor crap.

just curious... what did you score previous movies of the series and your preference of the movies?

because for me both previous Thor movies were a 6/10 and i sorta expect roughly the same with this one. some of the better super hero movies as not many are worth re-watching but these are amongst the small amount that are.

How much screentime does Jeff Goldblum have?

Thanks for the review. Looking past the high numbers of the rotten tomatoes site, and actually reading the reviews themselves, one can see that most of the reviews actually agree with you.

I watched one of the clips with him in it and I love how hammy he is in the clip.

poelzig



Yeah, a barely passing grade on my scale (like for IMDb standards of 1-10), without getting into the 5.5-6/10 etc stuff, would be a 6/10.

because, in a very basic sense, movies are ultimately one of the following two categories for me (as this is nice and simplified)...

6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch from time-to-time as the years pass. although 7's and higher are what i consider 'favorites' which is only 196 movies out of the 2,125+ total movies i have seen.)
5/10 or lower = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch(with rare exception))

with that said... while a 5/10 is not a bad score from me (and is usually decent enough to have seen once/not wasted my time), it's a forgettable movie and i cannot give a forgettable movie a positive score which ultimately lumps it up into the Thumbs Down side of things at the end of the day.

p.s. i don't see a D+ as a 'barely passing grade' as anything lower than a C- surely must be more negative than positive. i can't really see anyone disputing that much. but i guess if someone looks at that scale as long as they flat out avoid the 'failure' grade (like a E or F) as a passing grade then one could argue a D- is a passing grade. but when i look at grading stuff in general i tend to use the scale more evenly, like with IMDb's for example with the 1-10 scale with a 5/10 being middle-of-the-road/average and then it scales up and down fairly evenly from there (this also seems to be similar to what the OP does here to). it seems some people on IMDb, i used to be one of them, that consider a 7/10 or higher as a positive score and a 6/10 or lower as a negative score but that's simply TOO limiting as adjusting things so a 6 is a positive gives much better use of the overall rating scale especially so your not lumping just passable movies into the higher score ranges as when i had that old scale there was too many movies jammed into the 7/10 range when some where clearly better than others for me (which is where the 6/10 largely fixed that). but i have since taken care of that which i think it was Sep 2014 when i readjusted things to the basic 6 and higher as positive, 5 and lower as negative.

particularly in THIS case. If you actually stop to read the reviews themselves the praise isn't as glowing as it seems on the face of it. Still, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.