“Loki” (2021) resumes where “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) to reveal what happened to 2012 version of Loki (Tom Hiddleston) after he ran off with the Tesseract. The Time Variance Authority (TVA), which preserves the sacred timeline by eliminating variants, arrested him and brought him to their headquarters, but he gets a reprieve when Mobius M. Mobius (Owen Wilson) recruits Loki to find another variant who threatens the timeline.
I was excited to see “Loki.” I am a fan of Hiddleston’s work on and off screen. He is hot though I prefer him with short hair. The cast is notable. Considering that the Disney+ series is introducing us to a new set of characters and mythology, it should feel fresher than its counterparts, but in an unexpected plot twist, I was not into the six-episode series.
For “Loki” to keep me interested, it needed to cover new ground. Loki’s appearances in other Marvel films already explored his journey from criminal against humanity to a self-sacrificing person. Why does Loki need to go through this arc again? I love watching Hiddleston process his emotions, but again? I hate clip shows, and this series reeks of that vibe. One new facet of Loki’s experience gets explored, but it happens to be the one aspect that I had no interest in exploring, which puts me in the minority. It makes the show predictable and boring, which made it harder for me to sustain my interest.
The multiverse is a common concept in our popular culture. Obviously “Loki” has better production values than “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow,” but the latter takes the absurdity and weaves it seamlessly into exploring the characters’ personalities and dynamics. “Legends” already explored the redemption arc of investigating time crimes as a team. It is also stupid funny and knows that it cannot compete so it rushes in the opposite direction towards dumb joy. I watched “Loki” after the masterpiece “Everything Everywhere All at Once” (2022), which raised the bar by using the concept of the multiverse to explore the facets of a character’s personality and potential and delve into intergenerational pain. Marvel’s multiverse falls in the middle of “Legends” and the Daniels’ concept, a mediocre gambit that gives multiple chances to hit rewind, which may be a satisfying acting exercise for the cast, but feels like an ATM with the viewers feeding the machine with money. I would rather have one solid story than multiple variations of one.
A reviewer compared “Loki” to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” (2005), which explains why I was not into it, but I think that the series does better than the film because the idea of a a bureaucracy stifling a god creates better friction than an everyman. Injecting mischief into a well-oiled machinery gives us insight into reflecting on the dissonance between feeling like a unique individual but discovering how basic one is. It also helps us explore the dehumanizing effect of any institution that we have faith in and allow to wield power over us: church, government, class structures. The odd couple dynamic between Mobius and Loki was complementary because Mobius needs someone to put a little spark into him to shake things up more and Loki needs discipline/”grand purpose.” They strike a balance between individuality and greater good group think.
The introduction of this new bureaucracy comes with a lot of exposition. “Loki” tends to get bogged down with explaining the logistics of the multiverse or Loki’s magic without making it clear. For instance, Loki stops to explain “illusion projecting” with “duplication casting” and after rewinding it once, I decided to let it go. I am getting too old to get invested in mythology that may not pay off. I used to think that if I did not understand a concept, I was the problem, but it just means that the writers did not do enough to convey what they wanted. The Daniels never had this problem. It is possible to world build with visual language, not dialogue. As Roger Ailes droned in “Bombshell,” “It is a visual medium.”
While Loki as an individual is engaging, it is still a lot of Loki, and an insufficient one. My complaint about Thor’s appearance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a sense that even the MCU has not explored what a god can do. Loki was never a fighter, which makes the TVA’s ability to put him on a leash credible. The mysterious rogue variant can beat them all yet when Loki confronts that variant, there is a stalemate. I could not buy it. “Loki” puts the titular character in a series of physical confrontations, which was never his appeal. I got tired of him running from a variety of visually indistinguishable disasters. Pompeii, Lamentis and Alioth look similar. I love a good cataclysm, but the incessant running and lack of variety became tedious. When he easily brushes aside an enormous physical obstacle with his powers, I need to understand why he can do it then, but never again does it appear in his repertoire. By the time the series introduced us to other Loki variants who did not resemble the MCU version, it was refreshing and desperately needed.
Before watching “Loki,” I was spoiled with the identity of the variant, whom I enjoyed, but I have one issue. The series gives viewers a glimpse of the variant’s origin story, and in the flashback, the variant’s hair is dark, but the adult version has lighter hair. Just cast a child with similar hair to the adult character because now I am thinking that while this person was on the run, they stopped to get their hair done. Also this character remarks that their clothes are uncomfortable, which was interesting. I want to learn more about this person’s choices and reasoning, but it just gets left behind.
“Loki” casually has him state that he is a narcissist to explain a predictable plot twist, but he is not if he feels guilty. I am not an expert, but neither is the show. It is one of those words that disrupts viewer’s suspension of disbelief. It also roots it in a particular time, which will damage the series from being timeless. Either explore Loki getting therapy and picking up this concept or leave the armchair analysis out of it, and I love being an armchair psychologist. In contrast, Loki being drawn to goats was a delightful horn solidarity delivered with a light touch.
As a completist, I am disappointed that “Loki” has a second season, but I hope that the series treats the show like an ensemble cast. There is rich potential if the supporting characters get developed such as Mobius and Hunter B-15 (Wunmi Mosaku). The problem with jumping to multiverses is that it decreases the amount of time to explore these characters just as we are enjoying them. Gugu Mbatha-Raw as zealot judge Ravonna Renslayer plays against type and though she leaves in search of “free will,” based on her definition of who should have it, there is huge potential for Mbatha-Raw to get gritty. Unfortunately that means that maybe we will meet the Big Bad again, and though I usually enjoy that actor’s work, it felt a bit self-conscious and trite, superficial, not bone-deep delivered.
“Loki” was a chore to get through, especially since the plot twists were obvious from the first episode. Even loving the lead was not enough. Hopefully it will get better with time.