Many things frustrated me

Rating: 5/10 (27 October 2017)

This isn't really a review per se, I just needed somewhere to get things off my chest about this movie.
So here's a list of things that bothered me:

One thing I love about the Marvel Studios Cinematic Universe is the continuity. Most movie franchises are fairly relaxed on continuity (which I am very opposed to), or in some cases blatantly disregard it (Fox's X-Men franchise, for example), so it's really nice to have a big franchise where everything little thing adds up. However, unless I'm missing something, Ragnarok screws that up.

In The last Thor movie, The Dark World, it is stated that Asgardians live for roughly 5,000 years. This is later corroborated when we learn the convergence of the nine realms (seemingly coincidentally) also happens every 5,000 years, and Odin's father, Bor (then King of Asgard), was the one who dealt with Malekith at the previous convergence (therefore, implying that Odin had either not been born at this point, or was a baby / young child).
Yet in Ragnarok, the history revealed between Odin and Hela suggests Odin has been around a lot longer than that, even that he may have been the first Asgardian, but from The Dark World, we know he had a father (Bor) and a grandfather (Buri). And in the first scene of Ragnarok, Thor says he thought his father killed Surtur the Fire Giant "half a million years ago". This just doesn't add up.

The huge cliffhanger at the end of The Dark World, Loki secretly being on the throne of Asgard, disguised as Odin, is simply disregarded, thrown away as a joke. People had been waiting for the pay-off from that cliffhanger for four years, and it's just wasted.

The Warriors Three, Thor's closest friends, are all killed off nonchalantly, and there is no recognition of that whatsoever from Thor. His three closest friends all killed, nothing.

Where is Lady Sif? She isn't mentioned once. No concern from Thor, it's like she doesn't exist.

Supporting characters from the previous Thor movies are disregarded, no mention of them, bar Jane, who is written out with two lines of dialogue explaining her and Thor broke-up. Again, played for laughs. It renders the relationship between them built up in previous movies pointless.

It ruins one of The Dark World's few good scenes. Loki's sacrifice. Completely makes a mockery of it, now it will never be able to be taken seriously by anyone watching The Dark World again.

The previous points show this movie is disrespectful of what came before it and the work others had put into the franchise.

Loki is wasted, nothing interesting happens with his character this time around, he's just there for laughs, like everyone else in this movie. Bear in mind he is a fan-favorite who hasn't been seen on- screen in four years.

Doctor Strange's role in the movie doesn't feel natural at all, it's very out of place, and somewhat jarring. It isn't even a cameo really, it's blatant product placement for his movie. They're hoping people who skipped Doctor Strange will pick it up on Blu-ray / DVD after seeing his scene in Thor: Ragnarok.

With Mjölnir seemingly permanently destroyed (There would be no reason to bring it back, as Thor would have no need for it now anyway, seeing as it was revealed it simply helped him wield his power, rather than provide it), does that mean we won't get the long fantasied (and teased in Avengers: Age of Ultron) scene of Captain America triumphantly lifting it in a future Avengers movie?

The attempted humor in the opening scene makes me cringe. Half of the gags after that are just people falling over or being knocked over by something, as if it's written by Miranda Hart. Without Jeff Goldblum or the character Korg, the humor in this movie would be painful.

There is no sense of threat or weight to anything that happens because of the relentlessly slapstick tone. You just don't care about any of it. If the characters don't take their situation seriously, why should the audience care?

The entire population of Asgard seems to be less than a hundred people. Honestly, I think I must be missing something here, it was bizarre.

Iron Man Three was originally meant to have an alcoholism subplot, which presumably would have been dealt with in a serious manner, yet Disney shot it down and so it didn't make it past the first draft of the script, presumably because they didn't think it would be suitable for children. Yet, here, in Thor: Ragnarok, Valkyrie is very openly and repeatedly shown with her own alcohol problem, yet in this movie Valkyrie's alcoholism is played for laughs (as is everything else). Surely that's worse? Treating alcoholism as a joke, rather than portraying it in a serious manner in Iron Man Three. Which would you rather your children see alcoholism portrayed as? I don't understand the thinking here.

So there you have it, that's what bugged me. Is it a fun movie? Sure, a few moments that will make you smirk here and there, and some colorful action scenes, it's entertaining, but for me, that's not worth all those issues I mentioned. Maybe I'd feel differently if it had a good story or an interesting villain, but there's just nothing of substance to it.