And now, my predictions for tonight's primetime Emmys. These awards are always a bit random, so keep that in mind going forward
BEST COMEDY SERIES
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
It's really tight between this and Atlanta, now that Veep is out of the race. I'm leaning towards the popular newbie to prevail, though wouldn't be surprised to see Donald Glover's popular series start dominating.
BEST COMEDY ACTRESS
Rachel Brosnahan-The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
There's always a chance Allison Janney will win whenever she's nominated, but I find it hard to believe even she can topple Brosnahan's excellent performance as the titular Mrs. Maisel, which has seemed destined to win this ever since the pilot premiered over a year ago.
BEST COMEDY ACTOR
Donald Glover-Atlanta
There's always a question of how important episode submissions are. If it does, then Bill Hader would dominate this category, as his episode submitted a huge range of emotion, landing heavy helpings of both comedy and drama, while Glover's episode doesn't even feature his protagonist, and has him playing a different character for the run time. That said, lately the submissions haven't seemed to matter as much, and so I'm thinking Glover will continue his excellent year with a victory here, potentially as a consolation prize for his series losing the big award.
BEST COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Alex Borstein-The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
Kate McKinnon will put up a good fight, but that was during a year where SNL was a much bigger player in pop culture than it was this year. Borstein is one of the more prominent nominees here amongst her own show, and with a subtle but memorable performance to boot. I bet she'll take the crown here. This category is very open though, and I could easily see Betty Gilpin or Zazie Beets sneaking in and taking it.
BEST COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTOR
Tony Shalhoub-The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
This category is even harder to call than supporting actress, with four of the men having realistic shots, 3 neck-in-neck. I'd guess that once was enough for rewarding Alec Baldwin's portrayal of Donald Trump on SNL, although I don't feel comfortable counting him out entirely. Realistically, though, I think this is between Brian Tyree Henry, Tony Shalhoub and Henry Winkler. Winkler seems like the best bet on paper, as he's a comedy legend who has never won and has the most fully comedic performance of the three, with Henry's being somewhat on the more stoic side. In the end, though, I think Emmy voters will welcome three time winner Shalhoub back with welcome arms.
BEST COMEDY DIRECTING
Atlanta-Teddy Perkins-Hiro Murai
Though Glover himself won last year for directing the show's pilot, Hiro Murai is actually the show's primary director, helming two-thirds of the episodes produced so far. This genre-bending episode is a great showcase for the skills and style he brings to the show, and should easily take this. You always have to watch out for pilots in this category, though, which could wind up benefitting showrunner Amy Sherman-Palladino's work on Mrs. Maisel. However, I suspect that this category will still favor the more overtly stylized Atlanta.
BEST COMEDY WRITING
The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-Pilot-Amy Sherman-Palladino
Here is where I suspect the pilot bias will play in. As I believe Mrs. Maisel will also win Best Comedy Series, there is no reason to suspect its opening hour won't win here first. However, if Donald Glover wins for the Atlanta episode Alligator Man, that is a solid warning that Atlanta will likely take the series award.
BEST DRAMA SERIES
The Handmaid's Tale
Though Handmaid's Tale wasn't quite the water-cooler powerhouse this year that it was last year none of the other nominated series seem to be putting up enough of a fight to take the incumbent down. Though two time winner Game of Thrones is back after not airing any episodes during last year's season, the return season was one of the most poorly received in the show's run, adding to the already difficult struggle of retaking a victory. The Crown is actually the best bet for a spoiler, having performed better than expected during the creative arts Emmy's. Though I doubt it has the power get more votes than The Handmaid's Tale, its popularity and quality should put its tally close to last year's winner.
BEST DRAMA ACTRESS
Elisabeth Moss-The Handmaid's Tale
This one seems pretty sewn up. Even if The Crown manages to top Handmaid for Best Series, Moss' showier role won't likely fall by the wayside. The only spoiler with a decent shot is likely Keri Russell, for the final season of The Americans. Final season's aren't a huge help in the Best Series category, but they tend to do wonders for actors, albeit not always enough to overcome a frontrunner with a heavy lead.
BEST DRAMA ACTOR
Sterling K. Brown-This is Us
This one is a little more exciting. While Brown was the clear favorite last year, costar Milo Ventimiglia was more talked about this year, as the second season of This is Us finally delved into his character's death. While I don't think Ventimiglia will outdo Brown's votes, he could take enough away from his costar to allow a third competitor, Matthew Rhys, to swoop in for a victory. Rhys submitted the series finale of his show The Americans, and as he's never won for his excellent work on the show, voters may realize that this is their last chance to undo their mistakes. Unfortunately for him, I believe Brown's consistently excellent work as one of the most likable characters on TV, along with Emmy Voter's occasional autopilot checking of last year's winners, will lead to him repeating his win.
BEST DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Thandie Newton-Westworld
Honestly, I can see a world in which any of these seven women win this award. The Handmaid's Tale could easily repeat Ann Dowd's win from last year, or give one to Yvonne Strahovski, who is nominated for the first time here. I can also see Vanessa Kirby swooping in on a wave of The Crown support, added to goodwill from her role in Mission Impossible: Fallout. My, admittedly risky, guess is that Thandie Newton will take this category. Though her storyline was stronger last year, Newton continued to be the MVP of Westworld performers, and with three different actresses from Handmaid's Tale nominated here, lacking a clear frontrunner, I think Newton's emotionally powerful work could easily be recognized.
BEST DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTOR
Peter Dinklage-Game of Thrones
Again, almost any of these men winning wouldn't shock me. David Harbour will make a fight of it, but I suspect that Stranger Things simply isn't on voter's minds this year the way it was last year. Matt Smith could also make a play for "The Crown" (pun intended) but I suspect the nomination is his reward. This leaves the two Game of Thrones contenders. As great as it is to see Nikolaj Coster-Waldau finally get nominated for playing Jaime Lannister (which he really should have gotten for season 3, five years ago) Peter Dinklage's two previous wins show that he has a knack as a default win. Though he hasn't beaten heavy favorites, Dinklage's victories came during competitive years without a clear frontrunner, much like this one. It may not have been his best year, but I suspect that he will be the way voter's welcome Game of Thrones back in.
BEST DRAMA DIRECTING
The Handmaid's Tale-After-Kari Skogland
If Game of Thrones had only one nominated episode, or even if one was the clear favorite over the other, I would likely be betting on that here. However, its two episodes seem evenly matched, both representing one of the show's previous two wins in this category. Alan Taylor's Beyond the Wall is an exciting, action packed penultimate episode, much like Season six's Battle of the Bastards. Meanwhile, Jeremy Podeswa's The Dragon and the Wolf is an emotionally resonant finale fill or resolution, like Season five's Mother's Mercy. Their split is great news for The Handmaid's Tale's Kari Skogland, who would be competitive with either of these episodes on their own, but with them both taking votes from each other, should skate to the finish line. Had the Thrones episode The Spoils of War, directed by Matt Shakman, been nominated, that would be the likely winner. Alas, it was not, and Skogland's victory should come with a large margin.
BEST DRAMA WRITING
The Americans-START-Joel Fields and Joe Weisberg
The Handmaid's Tale's season premiere is a very solid competitor, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge's Pilot script for Killing Eve could win in many other years, I expect both will be going home empty handed. This is one of the categories where a series finale can be an incredibly sympathetic choice for voters, and wouldn't you know it The Americans' final episode is nominated here. Though I ultimately think both of its stars will not be able to ride the final season wave to victories, the writers will be the ones to take this home, where low viewership is less of a drawback.
BEST LIMITED SERIES
The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story
Probably the easiest category of the primetime awards to pick, American Crime Story should once again be a dominant force in the entire Limited Series/Movie section of the awards. Godless would be a solid spoiler any other year, but American Crime Story is too dominant to beat.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE ACTRESS
Laura Dern-The Tale
Laura Dern's comeback is likely to continue here with a victory for her excellent work in HBO's The Tale. Her performance is subtle, yet emotional and powerful, all things that usually lead to victory. That said, Jessica Biel and Michelle Dockery will also get quite a few votes, and may be able to ride far greater amounts of screen time to win over Dern.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE ACTOR
Darren Criss-The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story
Much as everybody loves Benedict Cumberbatch, Criss' path to victory here should be relatively uneventful.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz-The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story
Here is the one category where ACS's dominance can be more of a hinderance than a help. Though either Judith Light or Penelope Cruz could win, they may wind up splitting, giving Merritt Wever the win. Ultimately, my guess, though, is that Cruz will wind up with the award.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jeff Daniels-Godless
Showy villain roles are great for awards, and that's just what Jeff Daniels has here. Though he won't win for lead actor in The Looming Tower, he's the best bet here. Edgar Ramirez is a potential spoiler, but I suspect the fact that two other actors are nominated for American Crime story will hold him back.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE DIRECTING
Twin Peaks-David Lynch
It's never a great idea to bet against a film director who's nominated for an Emmy, as previous years show the Television Academy loves when filmmakers "slum it" (increasingly non-applicable term) on the small screen. However, Twin Peaks missed a limited series nomination, suggesting that it may wind up losing here. If so, Scott Frank or Ryan Murphy, for Godless and Assassination of Gianni Versace, would be happy to take it off Lynch's hands.
BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE WRITING
Black Mirror-USS Callister-William Bridges and Charlie Booker
Though American Crime Story and Godless are solid competitor's across the board, Black Mirror is a very respected series of television films, which are regarded mostly for their writing. As very clever send ups of technology, I fully expect their entries to dominate this category in the years going forward.
BEST REALITY COMPETITION PROGRAM
Rupaul's Drag Race
The Amazing Race dominated this category for many years. However, with the times changing, the sheer amount of fun that Rupaul's Drag Race provides will likely place it above its more straight-laced competitors.
BEST VARIETY SERIES
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
It's a shame that Samantha Bee won't be recognized for consistently showing The Daily Show that she should have been the one to take over for Jon Stewart, but John Oliver and Last Week Tonight have fully Usurped the position Stewart used to hold, as the smartest, funniest and most informative Variety Series on television.
BEST VARIETY SKETCH SERIES
Saturday Night Live
Though it wasn't as notable this year as last, it would be foolish to expect anything to top Saturday Night Live for this category, though former cast member Fred Armisen's Portlandia does try very hard.
BEST VARIETY SPECIAL DIRECTING
The Oscars
Though Dave Chapelle and the duo of Steve Martin and Martin Short had very strong specials, if the Oscars could win this category last year, what with the Best Picture snafu, there's little hope for anything to beat it for a year where things ran smoothly.
BEST VARIETY SPECIAL WRITING
Full Frontal: Great American Puerto Rico
Though standard stand-up-comedy shows can and do often win this category, which would lead to John Mulaney, Martin/Short or Oswalt winning, I suspect that the more political and important "Great American Puerto Rico" will use it's different format as an advantage to take this one home.
Monday, September 17, 2018
Friday, August 17, 2018
Who should take over for James Gunn?
One of the big talking points in Hollywood right now is the firing of James Gunn from Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3 due to a series of offensive tweets from years ago that were recently unearthed. While I am working on an opinion piece about that situation, I do not want to publish it until I have made sure it is really thought out. There is some sensitive material involved in this topic and though I think it warrants discussion, I do not want to come into it half baked.
In the meantime, the confirmation that Gunn will not direct the third film of the series, although it may or may not use his script, leads to the question of who will take over for him. More than almost any other MCU director, James Gunn's own personality infused the first two Guardians films to a massive degree, leading to a distinct vision that will be difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, that is exactly what must happen now. It may not address the issues, but we can have a good bit of fun thinking about where this franchise could go.
This will be the sixth time the MCU has switched directors mid-series. Of the other five the only switch resulting in a weaker film was when Alan Taylor took on Thor: The Dark World, after Kenneth Branagh had directed the original. Though Shane Black's work on Iron Man 3 was roughly equal to Jon Favreau's on the original, the Russo Brothers improved both the Captain America and Avengers franchises, and Taika Waititi managed to turn the third installment of the struggling Thor series into a massive hit. Though Gunn's influence will be missed on Guardians 3, history has shown that Marvel is great at picking directors to take over their series, and may even be able to find someone who can add a special something to the property that we didn't know we wanted.
So, to start off with, I'm going to have some fun and look at a few picks that will never happen, but could be interesting in a parallel universe. Then, I will go to my top picks that are at least somewhat realistic. Without further ado, here we go...
In the meantime, the confirmation that Gunn will not direct the third film of the series, although it may or may not use his script, leads to the question of who will take over for him. More than almost any other MCU director, James Gunn's own personality infused the first two Guardians films to a massive degree, leading to a distinct vision that will be difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, that is exactly what must happen now. It may not address the issues, but we can have a good bit of fun thinking about where this franchise could go.
This will be the sixth time the MCU has switched directors mid-series. Of the other five the only switch resulting in a weaker film was when Alan Taylor took on Thor: The Dark World, after Kenneth Branagh had directed the original. Though Shane Black's work on Iron Man 3 was roughly equal to Jon Favreau's on the original, the Russo Brothers improved both the Captain America and Avengers franchises, and Taika Waititi managed to turn the third installment of the struggling Thor series into a massive hit. Though Gunn's influence will be missed on Guardians 3, history has shown that Marvel is great at picking directors to take over their series, and may even be able to find someone who can add a special something to the property that we didn't know we wanted.
So, to start off with, I'm going to have some fun and look at a few picks that will never happen, but could be interesting in a parallel universe. Then, I will go to my top picks that are at least somewhat realistic. Without further ado, here we go...
Top 3 It'll Never Happens
#3
Nicolas Winding Refn
Now, of course, not only will this never happen, but it would be a terrible idea if it did. Nicolas Winding Refn has made a name for himself directing slow, artsy, occasionally pretentious and horrifically violent low budget thrillers. His strengths run almost complete opposite to what a Guardians of the Galaxy film needs. That being said, the very last thing a Guardians film by Refn would be is boring. The sheer level of trainwreck and poor matching of director to source materieal would render the film intriguing. Call it a morbid curiosity, but I kind of want to see what that would look like.
#2
Edgar Wright
On paper, this seems like a perfect fit. Edgar Wright's career is full of creatively over-the-top action sequences, gut busting comedy and even a decent amount of heart. Take all of those, add a keen ear for proper use of licensed music (as shown in last year's Baby Driver), and you have yourself the perfect Guardians of the Galaxy film. Hell, Edgar Wright even has a history with Marvel, as he was the original director brought in to bring Ant Man to the screen. Unfortunately, that history is why he's listed as a "never gonna happen." Edgar Wright left Ant Man due to not wanting to work within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He wanted the film to be completely stand alone, which goes against the world Marvel was and is creating. Especially after the success of Baby Driver, it's hard to imagine Wright's stance has changed, so chalk this one up to a distant dream.
#1
Joe and Anthony Russo
Since the success of 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier Joe and Anthony Russo have become Marvel's top dogs. They are also, thanks to their work on Infinity War the only directors other than James Gunn to have worked with the Guardians of the Galaxy. Their work with the team was exemplary, as they kept the Guardians irreverent tone, while simultaneously allowing them to feel like part of the same universe as the Avengers, with who they finally shared screen time. Though they've shown they can handle the characters, they've spent the last five years working on Marvel's largest properties. After the monumental scale and achievement of Infinity War and its upcoming sequel, it's hard to imagine these two jumping right back into another mega budget tentpole film. I could be wrong, but I think they've earned their rest.
The Top 5 Hopefuls
#5
Adam McKay
After spending the early years of his career working on Will Farrell comedies like Anchorman and The Other Guys, Adam McKay has recently taken to writing and directing more realistic political satire. The Big Short was a film equal parts clever and informative, and this fall's Backseat looks to repeat that formula. As well, the level of satire in Anchorman's massive 2nd act battle shows both a strong understanding of action beats, and how to respect them and make fun of them at the same time. It's difficult to imagine his flavor being as interesting or unique as Gunn's, but he would likely manage the more comedic aspects of the film well.
#4
Michelle Maclaren
Though Maclaren made her name on television, rather than film, her work on series Breaking Bad, The Deuce and Game of Thrones shows a cinematic eye that could suit a big budget franchise film very well. In truth, she's been looking to make her feature debut for a while now, even attaching herself to Wonder Woman, though she eventually left that project and Patty Jenkins took over. She's been working lately on developing the feature Cowboy Ninja Viking with Chris Pratt, so now that that's delayed and the connection is there, she's very potentially one of the names they are talking about. As she has had a strong hand in shaping the cinematic nature of television today, her work would not go amiss.
#3
Phil Lord & Chris Miller
This directing duo used to be known primarily for The Lego Movie and their 21 Jump Street reboot, showing a keen eye for momentum and fun that audiences latched onto. Lately, however, they're known as the guys that got fired from Solo: A Star Wars Story. While the full story is marred by conflicting accounts, it sounds like they were let go for ignoring the script and the Star Wars tone in favor of their own style. Thankfully, Marvel as of late is more open to director's expressing their own vision. It would be different than James Gunn's tone, but a Guardians film by these two could be one of the most fun blockbusters in years, and could allow Disney to apologize for firing them, in wake of Solo's commercial failure.
#2
Taika Waititi
As far as in-house options go, this is their best bet. Taika Waititi's work on Thor: Ragnarok saved that series and character from being at the bottom of Marvel's popularity barrel. Ragnarok's largely improvised dialogue is an absolute comedic high point of the Marvel Franchise, and the crazy visuals and silly-but-still-cool action shows that Waititi took more than a few tips from Gunn's work on the previous Guardians films. Plus, it seems like Marvel and the entire cast fully enjoyed Waititi's personality, and you can bet that his touch would be welcomed back to Marvel with open arms. Without another Thor film on Marvel's upcoming schedule, this could be a great way to bring him back. That said, there's a good chance there WILL be another Thor film, in which case that would take priority for him. But come on, you can't tell me you don't want to see Rocket and Korg share screen time.
#1
Brad Bird
Ultimately, Marvel's best option is to find a new director who can put their own stamp onto the Guardians series while keeping it's greatest strengths. Best known for The Incredibles films, Ratatouille and The Iron Giant, Bird has spent most of his career working simultaneously in action, comedy and drama. Though many of the other directors on this list can handle the action and comedy required of the series, Bird is one of the few who could do all of that, and also possibly make audiences cry through his powerful use of emotion. All four of his animated features are immensely character driven pieces, something which would serve Marvel well. Though Tomorrowland is admittedly... problematic, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol proved that he could handle a big budget, live action film, and he is largely responsible for elevating that series to where it is today. Perhaps not the most likely choice, a Guardians film by Bird would be an exciting, fun and emotional film, and maybe, just maybe, could have a chance to even improve upon the first two films in the series.
Of course, these are all just my opinions. Everyone is more than welcome to disagree, as differing opinions is one of the most fun aspects of film discussion. If you have other ideas feel free to include them in the comments to start a discussion. Soon enough, hopefully we'll see who Marvel picks, and I believe they will make a choice in the end that will, if nothing else, create a fun film on the upper tier of modern day blockbusters. It won't be the same film Gunn would have made, but there's still plenty of potential.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Eighth Grade Review
Comedian Bo Burnham made his feature directorial debut recently with Eighth Grade, the latest coming of age film. Also the latest example of the MPAA's flawed rating process. The idea that this film could be considered unsuitable for 13-year-olds simply because it doesn't restrain itself from showing the more mature language and ideas that 13-year-olds accurately talk about is ridiculous. If you are concerned at all about how appropriate this film is for a child just know that there is nothing gratuitous or over the top, just a dose of at-times heavy realism.
Starring Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton, Emily Robinson, Jake Ryan, Luke Prael, Catherine Oliviere
Written and Directed by Bo Burnham
Synopsis: During her last week of middle school a young girl struggles with her social anxiety.
Visuals and Audio: The coming-of-age film is not a genre known for distinct visual style. Though there are exceptions, they tend to be very low budget, and thus try to use a basic style of shooting in order to speed up the filming process. That is very much not the case with this film. Though it doesn't call attention to itself, the film often picks unusual shot choices that keep the film from getting stale. These decisions also change up somewhat as the film goes along, choosing to tailor its style to the individual scenes rather than have one blanket method of shooting. None of this is very noticeable without going in looking for it, but it does subconsciously add something.
Cast: One of the most intriguing things about this film is how hyper-focused it is on the lead character. While there are, of course, other people around her, her own difficulties relating to the kids around her mean that there is no solid friend group to fill in the traditional roles of a narrative. Instead, Elsie Fisher has to carry nearly the entire film herself, in terms of both comedy and drama. Thankfully she is more than up to the task. There is a certain level of realism and understanding to the character of Kayla. Though it may be on the lower end of the scale of character goals, Fisher's performance taps into how desperate the desire to be liked is for people of that age, making it feel like the most important thing in the world. She finds the perfect balance between wanting to change who she is to achieve that goal, and not being able to change. It creates for a brilliantly relatable and real feeling character, capturing the nitty gritty of adolescence. Ironically, it is because Fisher plays the dramatic beats of the role so well that the comedy works. She's not winking at the audience, she's playing it all straight, and the comedy comes because of the realism and relateability.
The supporting cast is not weak, per se, but they are very much there to support Fisher's role and arc. With only a few exceptions, many of these characters never get a chance to show multiple layers. This is because we're seeing everything from Kayla's eyes. We are not seeing any of these character as they are, but as Kayla sees them, where it makes sense that she may only see their most dramatic features. The most prominent exception is Josh Hamilton as her father. His struggles trying to connect to her are instantly recognizable and heartfelt. Though we never get to see his perspective, we can tell that he's somebody who doesn't really know how to be a parent, but is still putting his entire being into trying to succeed. Their relationship really forms the heart and soul of the film.
Writing: One of the primary things this film does differently than most of the type is the degree to which it shows the impact of social media on childhood. Preteens in this day and age live on Instagram and other similar websites, and the way they communicate is shown to be affected with unusual intensity. The disconnect between how somebody represents themselves on the virtual world, versus how they are in actuality is a prevalent theme throughout. Since these characters are still becoming who they will be, it is impossible for them not to be affected by this, and the film doesn't shy away from that. Supposedly, writer/director Bo Burnham actually took advice from his child actors on how to accurately portray this aspect, such as the kids using Instagram instead of Facebook.
Directing: In going from script to screen, Burnham expertly uses this realism to highlight both the comedy and the drama in the film. Notably, for the most part the comedy and drama are not separate. Kayla's awkwardness is often funny, while at the same time depicting a sadness in the difficulty she has fitting in. Some scenes do lean more heavily one way or the other, but the balancing act is mostly a positive. I say mostly because the way an audience connects to these moments can cause them to be difficult to watch. Just a warning, if you went through similar things to Kayla, then this film can often take you back to those moments, and become occasionally difficult to sit through. It shouldn't ruin the film, but can occasionally take you out of the proceedings mentally, though that is itself a testament to Burnham's achievement. There are also a few moments that highlight the less seen dark side of adolescence, which can be especially difficult for parents to watch. This is very intentional, though. Burnham crafts these moments to show that, though parents may try to protect their kids from the world, the world will find its way to them, for better and worse. This is an especially powerful lesson, as the scenes mark a strong change in tone, highlighting the intensity of the moments.
Verdict: Eighth Grade is a unique, hysterical and occasionally quite difficult portrait of youth in the digital age. Any parents might find it difficult to watch, but it is worth sitting through, as it will help show what their children are going through. For all others, it's worth seeing to find a Dramedy that doesn't follow any sort of cookie-cutter rule book, and makes its own path, although it will hit those with similar social awkwardness quite close to home.
Grade: 9.2
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Mission: Impossible - Fallout Review
The newest entry in the Mission: Impossible franchise is in theaters now. The series has never blown me away, but the buzz was good, so I decided to see if this one would change my mind on the series.
Starring Tom Cruise, Henry Cavill, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Alec Baldwin, Michelle Monaghan, Vanessa Kirby, Angela Bassett
Written and Directed by Christopher McQuarrie
Synopsis: After losing a dangerous macguffin to a terrorist group, superspy Ethan Hunt save the world by taking a path that leads him back to a former enemy.
Visuals and Audio: Amongst the major spy franchises, Mission: Impossible has never been the most stylized. Bourne created a style of its own, and though 007 lacked consistency, its efforts to keep up with the times have often led to striking and distinct visuals. Aside from John Woo's efforts at #2, the Impossible franchise has been less visually dynamic, occasionally to its detriment. However, this film uses that to its advantage. Though not altogether distinct, the visual style goes 100% into making the action look as good as possible. Rather than using quick cuts and other tricks to hide stunts, said stunts are the bread and butter of this franchise, so the cinematography keeps the view of the action crisp, clear and easy to follow. There is something exciting about knowing that what you're seeing really happened, without much in the aid of CGI or tricky editing. The sound design is where this film really excels though. Every impact, every hit every moment carries a power, behind it. Sometimes called the "Oomph" factor, this mixture of clear visuals and crisp, intense sound is exactly what leads to the audience wincing during the hits, and leaning back when there is a large fall a character is facing, creating a level or immersiveness that is unusual nowadays.
Cast: Though certain characters have returned in this series, each installment tends to have a largely new supporting cast. For the first time, though, Fallout seems to be mostly focused on the same characters that Rogue Nation portrayed. Rebecca Ferguson and Sean Harris are back respectively as Ethan Hunt's sometimes accomplice Ilsa and his enemy Solomon Lane. Franchise regulars Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg fill out the rest of Hunt's team. The benefit to this is that the audience and actors are largely familiar with these characters, giving the film a sort of comfort and easy chemistry, wherein the main players don't need an excessive amount of introduction. However, this somewhat leads to the downside where few of the characters add anything new to their roles. The only one to really expand is Ferguson, who is the film's strongest actor for the second installment in a row. Though her Ilsa is familiar, she has new struggles that feel natural for the character, and her chemistry with Cruise is strong, but not without a certain level of uncertainty which aids the characters well. As for Cruise, there's very little to say. His passion for the series is undeniable at this point, and shows no signs of faltering anytime soon. His sheer physicality continues to be the main draw of the series, as watching the star clearly putting his life and body at risk for our entertainment will never truly lose its appeal. Dramatically, there isn't much ground broken for Ethan Hunt in this film. There are some attempts at giving Ethan personalized stakes, but the character has always been more comfortable jumping off of buildings than showing intimacy, leaving Ferguson the emotional heavy lifting.
The two significant new characters really add to the dynamic. Vanessa Kirby's White Widow is a new, sort of morally grey antagonist to the series. The character doesn't have a ton of depth, but Kirby is clearly having fun with the uniqueness of the role. More important is Henry Cavill's August Walker. A CIA agent assigned to watch over Ethan Hunt, Cavill proves to be the perfect foil for the protagonist. August Walker is described in the film as a hammer to Ethan Hunt's scalpel, and that description is perfectly applicable throughout the film. He carries a sense of brutality and simplicity that constantly gets in Hunt's way, and serves Cavill throughout the fight scenes. (I don't have to describe how oddly intimidating the moment he "reloads his arms" is, and how not intimidating it would be in anybody else's hands.) As such, he proves to be the film's most interesting adversary, even with the return of the previous film's big bad, Solomon Lane.
Writing: Oddly even for an action film, the Mission Impossible series usually shoots without a real script. There is an outline, and the director and Cruise have talked about the story arc, but the film is usually made up as filming goes on. This is to keep the focus on the things people come to these movies to see: stunts and action. As such, critiquing the writing is a little difficult since, in truth, it doesn't really matter that much. Is the storyline interesting? Not particularly. It's pretty basic and predictable spy-stuff. Is the dialogue strong and realistic? No, although there's less overt exposition than one would expect, which is nice. The one real strength in the writing here is how it avoids the greatest issues of previous films in its own series. Both Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation spent their first halves building up to their second-act set pieces, with the third act being more of an "and-then" situation without as much anticipation. Fallout instead constantly builds up and readies itself for its final act, keeping that sense of anticipation throughout. As such, it's third act feels like less of a letdown than the previous two, and the audience exits on a higher note.
Directing: Interestingly, Christopher McQuarrie is the first director to return to this film franchise. Though Cruise had long wanted each film to have a different directorial style, he has had a great working relationship with McQuarrie over the last few years, continuing well here. Though McQuarrie puts the smallest personalized stamp of any of the franchise's directors, that actually does benefit the film somewhat. He really has a great understanding of what the audience wants, and how to deliver it to them. A bare minimum of focus is given to emotional and character development, while the rest is about building tension and excitement with fantastic set pieces in cool locations. This works since there is just enough character development for the audience to feel invested, largely resting on previous films, and a sense of simple motivations. It's not the most unique spy film, but it has a great pace that keeps the audience from realizing just how long it is, and he never lets the excitement die down for too long, using his quieter scenes to set up the next big loud one. There are a few cool flourishes he gives, but McQuarrie never lets himself get in the way of Cruise and the stunts, which, for this franchise, is just what is needed.
Verdict: If you aren't a fan of this franchise, Fallout won't do much to convert you. At the end of the day it is just another Mission: Impossible film. That being said, it's the best version of a Mission: Impossible film. Come expecting to see cool stunts and action, and not much more, and you won't be disappointed.
Grade: 8.6
Sunday, August 5, 2018
The Avengers Review
After four years of setting up their main characters, Marvel unveiled its magnum opus: The Avengers. Though not the first crossover film ever made, this film was the most ambitious, in how it kept the continuity of all of its origin films and managed to balance the different characters, prompting many other studios to start making their own cinematic universes.
Starring Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgaard
Written and Directed by Joss Whedon
Synopsis: When Earth comes under the threat of an alien invasion, S.H.I.E.L.D. decides to bring together the greatest heroes the planet has ever seen to prevent global domination.
Visuals and Audio: The first major thing of note is that The Avengers is the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to have a theme that would be used again. Though character themes were developed for the other films, they remained in those other films, with new themes being developed for the sequel, save one or two moments. The theme Alan Silvestri composed for this film, however, has remained the main theme of The Avengers series all the way through Infinity War. As far as themes go it's pretty decent. It feels triumphant and heroic, which is very fitting for bringing six heroes together. It feels a bit like a missed opportunity, however, to not use the character's individual themes together at all, as it could have carried a thematic resonance. Likely the decision was made due to the characters mostly lacking memorable themes, but it's still a shame.
Visually, there's oddly not that much notable. The effects are good, though not groundbreaking, and the editing and cinematography do their job. The major aspects of The Avengers come in its acting and writing. The technical side of the film certainly doesn't hold it back, but it doesn't push itself forward in any significant way either.
Cast: The big question surrounding this film before its release was how Marvel would manage to balance six protagonists, four of whom had already led their own films. Thankfully, all of the actors are fully on board with the needs of the film. While a situation like this can to actors fighting and pushing to be the "main" character, the actors here all accept the film as an ensemble and allow themselves to work within the group. Chris Evans' Captain America and Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man do seem to have the most screen time, but they play off each other well, falling easily into their roles within the group without losing the characterizations they developed in their own films. Scarlett Johansson's role is heavily expanded from her introduction in Iron Man 2, and very much for the better. She is playing an actual character here, who is allowed to fully keep up with the rest of the team, and never shortchanged or used solely for titillation. Chris Hemsworth's Thor has less to do. This is likely due to the fact that his villain is the antagonist of this film, and if he were more prominent it would feel more like a Thor sequel than a true Avengers film. He doesn't have an arc of any sort, but Hemsworth manages to feel comfortable in his role, and he absolutely nails most of his comedic dialogue. Finally, the two new additions to the cast are Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and Mark Ruffalo, who takes over the role of Bruce Banner from Edward Norton. Renner doesn't make much of an impression, spending half the film as a mindless henchman before showing up in the finally to basically just fire some arrows at the enemies. Ruffalo's impact is far stronger. His Banner is much less intense than Norton's, albeit not completely lacking, which befits a character who was designed to fit into an ensemble. Ruffalo has fun with the role, finding a certain sense of humor in the character's predicament. Ruffalo also plays the Hulk through motion capture, and the character is given many of Ruffalo's facial features. For the first time the Hulk feels like the same person as Bruce Banner, which allows their situation to be more relatable. The Hulk himself is made far more fun to watch in this film. Though the character is still uncontrollable and unpredictable, this film uses those traits for comedy rather than for terror. This allows the character to be fun, as well as to not dominate the entire film.
The next step is finding a villain worthy of bringing together an entire team of superheroes. You can speak to the Justice League for confirmation that this is easier said than done. Rather than picking a new villain, The Avengers played it safer and took the best villain they had already introduced: Loki. Tom Hiddleston's performance as Thor's troubled younger brother was the highlight of that film, and he is similarly strong this time around. Now fully evil, Hiddleston makes the most of his scenery chewing, turning mischief into full blown malice and having a ball doing it. though his character is a far bigger threat this time around, he hasn't lost his sense of tragedy from Thor, and the trauma the character has felt is apparent through his actions, and through his more disheveled appearance. He manages to be a perfect foil for each of the Avengers, and gives the proper mix of threat and charisma to warrant an entire team of protagonists to bring him down.
Writing: Easily the largest challenge faced by the film was how to handle the screenplay. This movie had to balance six protagonists: four who had already been developed, one who had barely been introduced and a final one who had been recast with a personality change. On top of this, the film had to create a credible, yet interesting, threat that would feel large enough to warrant an "event" film. Finally, on top of all of that, it had to also be entertaining. To handle all of this, Marvel hired Joss Whedon, a television veteran who had specialized in funny and exciting ensemble television series. This proved to be the perfect choice for the film. Whedon gives most of the Avengers arcs of their own that complimented one another, and a strong and emotional villain arc that was more than just "big guy wants to take over the world." The way the characters interact, argue and finally work together feels genuine to how they had been established in their previous films, except for Hulk and Black Widow who are far improved from their introductions. Whedon also stacks the film beginning to end with his specific brand of witty, quippy dialogue. While this is a trait that would become somewhat overused in later films, here it serves to keep the film's tone light and bubbly. This way the movie never loses its sense of fun and whimsy, even when the stakes are highest. It also helps that most of these lines are very funny, and the actors posses capable timing to make them work at their highest. While the overall plot arc of the film is exceedingly simple, everything that had to go into making it work was so incredibly complicated that simple was about the only way it could have succeeded. While later films would add more wrinkles to the plot, anything more here would have weighed the film down. Those later films needed this one to establish the idea of these characters interacting and saving the world together, and the way The Avengers goes about that is absolutely what these characters and this world needed.
Directing: This was the first film in the Marvel Universe to be written and directed by the same person. This does come through on screen, as the film has many of the makings of a standard Joss Whedon production. This occasionally errs into a mistake, but manages to just avoid it. The thing that keeps it from falling down that hole is that the characters still feel and behave as they did in their prior films. Tonally, the Joss Whedon style is very light and fun. Though he has had heavier moments in his history of film and television making, he mostly avoids them here. The result is a film that moves quickly through its two hour plus run time, making sure every scene has some reason to keep the audience invested. There are occasional moments where this is lacking, but they are quick enough that the film never really loses the audience's interest. The sheer level of fun and enjoyment that Joss Whedon creates is admirable, and a huge reason as to why this film was and is a success. Even with as light as the film feels, Whedon still manages to give the final act some impact. He is able to tap into the differences between the characters so well, that the moment they all come together to fight off the threat, it feels like a momentous occasion. This final sequence becomes a standout action beat, and served as the Marvel third act template for several years.
Verdict: Possibly the most ambitious film of all time when it came out, The Avengers stands as a non stop thrill ride of fun. A nearly perfect balance of its ensemble and a hyper-focus on entertainment value and enjoyability take what could have been a messy film, and allows it to feel so coherent that some viewers felt it too simple. It's not a tremendously emotional film, but it is a tremendously entertaining film. It feels like a true event, one that served single-handedly as a proof of concept. It's such a success that many studios are still trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to copy it. However, it truly does feel like lightning in a bottle: the perfect mix of patience, talent and luck, that forced its series to be taken seriously in the popular zeitgeist.
Grade: 8.5
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Captain America: The First Avenger Review
And now comes the film that comes first chronologically in the MCU, and with the series' first subtitle to let the audience know that this is their first period piece. A lot of firsts for the fifth film in the series.
Starring Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Sebastian Stan, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke
Written by Christopher Markus & Steven McFeeley
Directed by Joe Johnston
Synopsis: During World War II, scrawny aspiring soldier Steve Rogers is given a serum that turns him into a super soldier, who must then take down a secret science division of the Nazi Party.
Visuals and Audio: As Marvel's first period piece, The First Avenger is their first film to try to take on a stylized look. The film's aesthetic is a mix of classic 40s propaganda, and 50s sci-fi. While this mixture might seem odd, it's actually a really solid method of allowing this to be a war film without losing its comic book heritage. The villains take on the more advanced 50s aesthetic: sleek, rounded blacks and grays, bulky laser weapons and uniforms that hide any sense of individuality so they may as well be robots. Meanwhile, the American soldiers exist more or less as one would expect them to. They wear dirty tattered uniforms, drive period accurate-ish vehicles, and don't take too much of a role in anachronism. Still, this film's depiction of World War II owes much more to the films that were released in the first few decades following the war, and none of the gritty realism introduced in the late 80s and 90s is to be found. Even so, this allows the film to be a "fun" war film, something that could have been released in the early 80s. The visuals, along with the music and delightfully dated sound effects, have an old school charm to them that helps this film to stand out.
The only technical downside is that the film is filled with B-level CGI. There are countless shots where the characters look like they were cut and pasted onto computer generated backgrounds that were several years out of date by the time this film was released. A better alternative would have been to go full 80s and use miniatures and matte paintings, with CGI simply smoothing the seams out. While it may not have looked more realistic, it would have been more endearing and nostalgic. Instead, it saps some of the charm that the music, production design and sound added. Still, the effect of Chris Evans head on a scrawnier man's body holds up as impressive. It's hard to see the seams of where Evans ends and the double begins, although the proportions seem very off.
Cast: Chris Evans had an incredibly difficult job ahead of him. Making a totally goody-two-shoes character interesting is a major challenge, one which Christopher Reeve is nearly alone in accomplishing. Still, Evans joins him at the podium. He succeeds where others have failed by finding what it is inside Steve Rogers that makes him so morally strong. Rogers isn't simply good because he's the hero, he's good because he's spent his whole life as a weakling. After years of having no agency in his life, and no way to fight the bullies who have plagued him, he has a real appreciation for what the powerless go through, and a real desire to help them, whether or not he has the physical capabilities. We are able to relate to him because of how much this makes sense to us, and we can attach to him and root for him throughout, even without those humanizing gray areas.
Though it's fully Evans (and Rogers) movie, the supporting cast actually adds a lot of enjoyment. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull, is a fun and fitting antagonist, albeit not particularly nuanced. The character lacks moral gray areas, much like the hero of the film, and instead mustache twirls as much as a man without a face is capable of. He is evil through and through without the slightest drop of compassion; fitting for the head of research of the Nazi's. Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter is also an excellent character, and the film's main example of modernization. Despite being set in the forties, Peggy Carter manages to overcome the era's sexism to have some real agency and drive, commanding the respect of those around her. Though Atwell's performance as an intelligence officer is top notch, she struggles (as does Evans) with the romantic subplot. Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter share a chemistry with each other, but rather than let that drive the romance, the film tries to up the drama by forcing roadblocks between the two characters. Though it's more of a writing issue, the two leads struggle to prevent their characters from seeming immature as a result of it. Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones spice up the ensemble cast. Their characters have no depth, but they are fun to watch and keep the viewers interested. The one weak point in the cast is Sebastian Stan as Steve Rogers' best friend Bucky Barnes. Though he'll go on to be a major character in the MCU, and a better actor, theres very little charisma or interest to Bucky here. He's a plot device mean to motivate Cap more than he's a character, and gives little indication of the great drama he'll be a part of in the Captain America sequels
Writing: The screenplay for The First Avenger suffers from a similar issue to many of these early MCU films: They start stronger than they finish. The first half of the film is very interesting. Spending nearly a third of the film with Rogers before he becomes Captain America allows us to connect with him, and seeing him in this pathetic state makes his pure selflessness easier to swallow. The sequences leading up to Rogers first major superhero act: liberating a POW camp, are fun, character driven, and follow a fully satisfying three act structure. However, after that sequence passes the storyline begins to falter. Steve has already had his full arc at this point. He started out unable to help those who couldn't defend themselves, and through embracing the fact that his good heart was what made him a hero, he acquired the ability to do the good he wanted to do. However, after all of this is still nearly an hour of screen time. What's left at this point is just a good guy and his friends fighting a bad guy and his henchman. The character driven scenes are instead relegated to the Steve/Peggy romance arc, which has already been mentioned as being botched. Though the audience wants to see these two characters together from their very first shared scene, the screenplay feels the need to delay their getting together, seemingly in hopes that it'll make the moment they do more satisfying. Rather than build up their courtship through natural scenes of emotional intimacy, they force in misunderstandings to keep them apart. Steve thinking Peggy is with Howard Stark because they get fondue together, or a nurse surprising Steve with a kiss right when Peggy walks by are not plot developments that feel genuine or interesting. They are blatant emotional manipulation, and they hurt the characters without adding any emotional weight to the moment they do get together. It's simply too obvious to the audience that there's no good reason these characters aren't together, and the resolution falls flat as a result. This is made more obvious by the fact that the rest of the film around them has no real drive towards the conclusion. Captain America simply fights the Red Skull's men in many different scenarios, and then suddenly it's the final showdown. There's very little emotional weight behind it, and as such the film's resolution lacks punch.
Directing: Joe Johnston is an old-school style filmmaker, and was really the perfect choice for this film. Cutting his teeth in the Visual Effects Department of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the original Star Wars trilogy, Johnston has a long history of bringing that old school feel to his films. Though his filmography as a director is light on true classics, he manages to bring a real separate flavor to The First Avenger. Even when the writing fails to give the film dramatic weight, Johnston is able to keep the film light and entertaining, with a sense of adventure and fun that puts the film tonally in line with Indiana Jones as much as with Iron Man. Though he struggles to make the romantic plot work, Johnston shines in the film's action beats, giving them a quick paced thrill that doesn't emotionally tax the audience. A few moments of his "Gee-wiz" sentiment can prompt eye rolls early on, but Captain America: The First Avenger never asks its audience to believe that it is real, it embraces its falsehood and simply asks the audience to enjoy the fireworks. Through these elements, Johnston easily cements himself as the second strongest force in this film, behind only Evans.
Verdict: Many elements in Captain America: The First Avenger toe the line of greatness, but the film unfortunately tells too much of its story too early. As such, where it should be hurtling to a stirring and epic conclusion, it instead is forced to use cheap narrative tricks to shamble to the two hour mark. If the film had expanded its first half into being the entire story arc, with the POW camp liberation serving as the film's climax, it could have served as a great origin story. As is, the movie is still loads of fun. It's got a great style, and Steve Rogers/Captain America is cemented instantly as being very much in the conversation as the Marvel Universe's strongest character. It's absolutely worth a watch, especially for those who miss the 1980s style of action and adventure. It's just frustrating to see the film being brought down through easily avoidable narrative threads.
Grade: 6.9
Starring Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Sebastian Stan, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke
Written by Christopher Markus & Steven McFeeley
Directed by Joe Johnston
Synopsis: During World War II, scrawny aspiring soldier Steve Rogers is given a serum that turns him into a super soldier, who must then take down a secret science division of the Nazi Party.
Visuals and Audio: As Marvel's first period piece, The First Avenger is their first film to try to take on a stylized look. The film's aesthetic is a mix of classic 40s propaganda, and 50s sci-fi. While this mixture might seem odd, it's actually a really solid method of allowing this to be a war film without losing its comic book heritage. The villains take on the more advanced 50s aesthetic: sleek, rounded blacks and grays, bulky laser weapons and uniforms that hide any sense of individuality so they may as well be robots. Meanwhile, the American soldiers exist more or less as one would expect them to. They wear dirty tattered uniforms, drive period accurate-ish vehicles, and don't take too much of a role in anachronism. Still, this film's depiction of World War II owes much more to the films that were released in the first few decades following the war, and none of the gritty realism introduced in the late 80s and 90s is to be found. Even so, this allows the film to be a "fun" war film, something that could have been released in the early 80s. The visuals, along with the music and delightfully dated sound effects, have an old school charm to them that helps this film to stand out.
The only technical downside is that the film is filled with B-level CGI. There are countless shots where the characters look like they were cut and pasted onto computer generated backgrounds that were several years out of date by the time this film was released. A better alternative would have been to go full 80s and use miniatures and matte paintings, with CGI simply smoothing the seams out. While it may not have looked more realistic, it would have been more endearing and nostalgic. Instead, it saps some of the charm that the music, production design and sound added. Still, the effect of Chris Evans head on a scrawnier man's body holds up as impressive. It's hard to see the seams of where Evans ends and the double begins, although the proportions seem very off.
Cast: Chris Evans had an incredibly difficult job ahead of him. Making a totally goody-two-shoes character interesting is a major challenge, one which Christopher Reeve is nearly alone in accomplishing. Still, Evans joins him at the podium. He succeeds where others have failed by finding what it is inside Steve Rogers that makes him so morally strong. Rogers isn't simply good because he's the hero, he's good because he's spent his whole life as a weakling. After years of having no agency in his life, and no way to fight the bullies who have plagued him, he has a real appreciation for what the powerless go through, and a real desire to help them, whether or not he has the physical capabilities. We are able to relate to him because of how much this makes sense to us, and we can attach to him and root for him throughout, even without those humanizing gray areas.
Though it's fully Evans (and Rogers) movie, the supporting cast actually adds a lot of enjoyment. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull, is a fun and fitting antagonist, albeit not particularly nuanced. The character lacks moral gray areas, much like the hero of the film, and instead mustache twirls as much as a man without a face is capable of. He is evil through and through without the slightest drop of compassion; fitting for the head of research of the Nazi's. Hayley Atwell's Peggy Carter is also an excellent character, and the film's main example of modernization. Despite being set in the forties, Peggy Carter manages to overcome the era's sexism to have some real agency and drive, commanding the respect of those around her. Though Atwell's performance as an intelligence officer is top notch, she struggles (as does Evans) with the romantic subplot. Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter share a chemistry with each other, but rather than let that drive the romance, the film tries to up the drama by forcing roadblocks between the two characters. Though it's more of a writing issue, the two leads struggle to prevent their characters from seeming immature as a result of it. Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones spice up the ensemble cast. Their characters have no depth, but they are fun to watch and keep the viewers interested. The one weak point in the cast is Sebastian Stan as Steve Rogers' best friend Bucky Barnes. Though he'll go on to be a major character in the MCU, and a better actor, theres very little charisma or interest to Bucky here. He's a plot device mean to motivate Cap more than he's a character, and gives little indication of the great drama he'll be a part of in the Captain America sequels
Writing: The screenplay for The First Avenger suffers from a similar issue to many of these early MCU films: They start stronger than they finish. The first half of the film is very interesting. Spending nearly a third of the film with Rogers before he becomes Captain America allows us to connect with him, and seeing him in this pathetic state makes his pure selflessness easier to swallow. The sequences leading up to Rogers first major superhero act: liberating a POW camp, are fun, character driven, and follow a fully satisfying three act structure. However, after that sequence passes the storyline begins to falter. Steve has already had his full arc at this point. He started out unable to help those who couldn't defend themselves, and through embracing the fact that his good heart was what made him a hero, he acquired the ability to do the good he wanted to do. However, after all of this is still nearly an hour of screen time. What's left at this point is just a good guy and his friends fighting a bad guy and his henchman. The character driven scenes are instead relegated to the Steve/Peggy romance arc, which has already been mentioned as being botched. Though the audience wants to see these two characters together from their very first shared scene, the screenplay feels the need to delay their getting together, seemingly in hopes that it'll make the moment they do more satisfying. Rather than build up their courtship through natural scenes of emotional intimacy, they force in misunderstandings to keep them apart. Steve thinking Peggy is with Howard Stark because they get fondue together, or a nurse surprising Steve with a kiss right when Peggy walks by are not plot developments that feel genuine or interesting. They are blatant emotional manipulation, and they hurt the characters without adding any emotional weight to the moment they do get together. It's simply too obvious to the audience that there's no good reason these characters aren't together, and the resolution falls flat as a result. This is made more obvious by the fact that the rest of the film around them has no real drive towards the conclusion. Captain America simply fights the Red Skull's men in many different scenarios, and then suddenly it's the final showdown. There's very little emotional weight behind it, and as such the film's resolution lacks punch.
Directing: Joe Johnston is an old-school style filmmaker, and was really the perfect choice for this film. Cutting his teeth in the Visual Effects Department of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the original Star Wars trilogy, Johnston has a long history of bringing that old school feel to his films. Though his filmography as a director is light on true classics, he manages to bring a real separate flavor to The First Avenger. Even when the writing fails to give the film dramatic weight, Johnston is able to keep the film light and entertaining, with a sense of adventure and fun that puts the film tonally in line with Indiana Jones as much as with Iron Man. Though he struggles to make the romantic plot work, Johnston shines in the film's action beats, giving them a quick paced thrill that doesn't emotionally tax the audience. A few moments of his "Gee-wiz" sentiment can prompt eye rolls early on, but Captain America: The First Avenger never asks its audience to believe that it is real, it embraces its falsehood and simply asks the audience to enjoy the fireworks. Through these elements, Johnston easily cements himself as the second strongest force in this film, behind only Evans.
Verdict: Many elements in Captain America: The First Avenger toe the line of greatness, but the film unfortunately tells too much of its story too early. As such, where it should be hurtling to a stirring and epic conclusion, it instead is forced to use cheap narrative tricks to shamble to the two hour mark. If the film had expanded its first half into being the entire story arc, with the POW camp liberation serving as the film's climax, it could have served as a great origin story. As is, the movie is still loads of fun. It's got a great style, and Steve Rogers/Captain America is cemented instantly as being very much in the conversation as the Marvel Universe's strongest character. It's absolutely worth a watch, especially for those who miss the 1980s style of action and adventure. It's just frustrating to see the film being brought down through easily avoidable narrative threads.
Grade: 6.9
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Thor
Time to blast off of Earth for the first time in the Marvel Universe, and get our earliest taste of the further stretches that would await us.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings, Jamie Alexander, Colm Feore, Clark Gregg
Written by Ashley Edward Miller & Zach Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Synopsis: After his impulsiveness nearly starts a war, Asgardian prince Thor is banished to Earth until he can prove he is capable of handling the responsibilities that face him.
Visuals and Audio: This is an interesting film in terms of its visuals. While comic book films until this point had stayed pretty close to Earth, Thor's source material comes from another realm. As such, this was the first film in the MCU to have the opportunity to create a world. It handles this regard beautifully. Asgard is gorgeously rendered, mixing its Ancient Norse influences with the technological enhancements that would come about with a civilization this old. The main problem with this is that the other realms pale in comparison. Half of the film takes place in a small town in New Mexico. Said town has very little of note visually, and provides little in the way of flavor or character. This can't be anything but a letdown from the beauty and epicness off Thor's home realm. Thankfully the film still cuts back to Asgard throughout the runtime, and the first and third acts are primarily based in this realm, but the second act really drags, largely because there's nothing interesting to look at most of the time. It also constantly uses dutch angles. While this has been used effectively to throw off the audience's comfort level, but here they just feel like they're being used for no reason, which does little but distract the audience. Thankfully the film's score is very strong, serving as the best in the MCU at this point in time. It's stirring and melodic, effortlessly combining romance and adventure together. "Sons of Odin" still ranks as the MCU theme I was most sorry to see be forgotten, and "Can You See Jane" helps end the film on a very strong note.
Cast: By this point, Marvel was starting to fill their casts with heavy hitters. While some would be wasted, Thor mostly uses them somewhat well. Thor's father Odin would have been fine in many hands, but entrusting the character to Anthony Hopkins gives the role a sense of prestige and legitimacy that could otherwise have been lacking. On the downside is that Idris Elba was cast in a minor role just before he hit it big. He makes Heimdall one of the coolest characters, but his slim screen time feels like a waste. (Though future attempts to expand the character's role would feel forced.) The human characters are the weakest, by far. Though Stellan Skarsgaard is fine, Kat Dennings' comic relief character is more annoying than funny. Natalie Portman's Jane Foster is also supremely disappointing as a character. While Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was a character who could easily have been one-note, a smart script and strong performance gave her some real agency and nuance. Here, Jane Foster feels like she could have been a stone's throw away from being empowering, but both Natalie Portman and the screenplay only see her importance as being a thing for Thor to fall in love with. In addition, Portman's performance is just... odd. Her line readings are all over the map, like she could never tell whether a moment was supposed to be serious or funny. As a result, she bounces all over the spectrum, leaving little ability to be taken seriously as a person or as a realistic love interest.
Thankfully the film really nails its two most important roles. Chris Hemsworth's role as Thor is textbook star-making. He brings such a natural charisma to the role that you are interested in his story, even when he is at his least likable. He also handles the character's growth well. Thor has clearly become a better person by the end, but you can still see first act Thor within third act Thor and vice versa. The real breakout by far, though, is Tom Hiddleston as Thor's trickster brother Loki. Hiddleston brings heart, fun and a real sense of mischief to the role. He takes full advantage of the brotherly connection between the hero and villain of the film, using that connection to hammer in the emotion at the heart of the film's main narrative. The chemistry between these two leads is astounding, and helps to make up for the films other flaws.
Writing: Again, the screenplay is a mixed bag. The decision to set half of the film in a podunk town in New Mexico proves to be a mistake. The narrative of the film really stalls while we are introduced to the film's least interesting characters. This section also attempts a lot of comic relief with Jane Foster and Darcy, but very little of it actually lands, largely due to the performances. The best part about this sequence is Hemsworth himself, as his dialogue sounds accurately different, and he has the best comedic timing. The real narrative weight, however, comes from Asgard. Though Thor's storyline is pretty straightforward, Loki's arc is actually more emotional and interesting. Loki has some real tragedy in his backstory, and a sense of pathos and motivation that is lost elsewhere in the film. The best decision the screenplay makes is to have the connection between the two brothers be the heart of the story. While they spend most of act 2 separated, the first and third acts bring them togethers, highlighting the changes the brothers have gone through. As such, the screenplay makes up for its mistakes by really making the most important storylines work.
Directing: Kenneth Branagh was a very inspired choice to direct this film. His Shakespearian past adds a feeling of history and grandeur to the film's scenes on Asgard. This film marks the closes the Thor series has come to feeling like the mythology on which it's based. The scenes with Thor and Loki have a sense of intensity and passion that are not often seen in the superhero genre, and as such Loki's sudden but inevitable betrayal hurts a lot more than it could have. However, sounding like a broken record at this point, Branagh struggles to make Earth as interesting. His efforts seem to suggest that he was trying to use comedy to cover up the narrative stalling and relative boredom of the Earth segment, but lacking any visual comedy, and leaving most of the comedy to the film's more confused actors, it doesn't work, and the film really drags through the middle. Thankfully, the Asgard sequences turn out to be more important, and so Branagh's directing works more than it doesn't, although it's close.
Verdict: Though it struggles in a lot of moments, Thor's strengths manage to outweigh it's weaknesses. The Asgard scenes are still some of the most epic and emotional scenes that Marvel has produced, although there's a lot of weak earth material in between them. If you're looking for action or humor, Thor really isn't the film for you, but if you want your superhero with a heavy portion of epic drama and world building, it will absolutely satisfy.
Grade: 7.0
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings, Jamie Alexander, Colm Feore, Clark Gregg
Written by Ashley Edward Miller & Zach Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Synopsis: After his impulsiveness nearly starts a war, Asgardian prince Thor is banished to Earth until he can prove he is capable of handling the responsibilities that face him.
Visuals and Audio: This is an interesting film in terms of its visuals. While comic book films until this point had stayed pretty close to Earth, Thor's source material comes from another realm. As such, this was the first film in the MCU to have the opportunity to create a world. It handles this regard beautifully. Asgard is gorgeously rendered, mixing its Ancient Norse influences with the technological enhancements that would come about with a civilization this old. The main problem with this is that the other realms pale in comparison. Half of the film takes place in a small town in New Mexico. Said town has very little of note visually, and provides little in the way of flavor or character. This can't be anything but a letdown from the beauty and epicness off Thor's home realm. Thankfully the film still cuts back to Asgard throughout the runtime, and the first and third acts are primarily based in this realm, but the second act really drags, largely because there's nothing interesting to look at most of the time. It also constantly uses dutch angles. While this has been used effectively to throw off the audience's comfort level, but here they just feel like they're being used for no reason, which does little but distract the audience. Thankfully the film's score is very strong, serving as the best in the MCU at this point in time. It's stirring and melodic, effortlessly combining romance and adventure together. "Sons of Odin" still ranks as the MCU theme I was most sorry to see be forgotten, and "Can You See Jane" helps end the film on a very strong note.
Cast: By this point, Marvel was starting to fill their casts with heavy hitters. While some would be wasted, Thor mostly uses them somewhat well. Thor's father Odin would have been fine in many hands, but entrusting the character to Anthony Hopkins gives the role a sense of prestige and legitimacy that could otherwise have been lacking. On the downside is that Idris Elba was cast in a minor role just before he hit it big. He makes Heimdall one of the coolest characters, but his slim screen time feels like a waste. (Though future attempts to expand the character's role would feel forced.) The human characters are the weakest, by far. Though Stellan Skarsgaard is fine, Kat Dennings' comic relief character is more annoying than funny. Natalie Portman's Jane Foster is also supremely disappointing as a character. While Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was a character who could easily have been one-note, a smart script and strong performance gave her some real agency and nuance. Here, Jane Foster feels like she could have been a stone's throw away from being empowering, but both Natalie Portman and the screenplay only see her importance as being a thing for Thor to fall in love with. In addition, Portman's performance is just... odd. Her line readings are all over the map, like she could never tell whether a moment was supposed to be serious or funny. As a result, she bounces all over the spectrum, leaving little ability to be taken seriously as a person or as a realistic love interest.
Thankfully the film really nails its two most important roles. Chris Hemsworth's role as Thor is textbook star-making. He brings such a natural charisma to the role that you are interested in his story, even when he is at his least likable. He also handles the character's growth well. Thor has clearly become a better person by the end, but you can still see first act Thor within third act Thor and vice versa. The real breakout by far, though, is Tom Hiddleston as Thor's trickster brother Loki. Hiddleston brings heart, fun and a real sense of mischief to the role. He takes full advantage of the brotherly connection between the hero and villain of the film, using that connection to hammer in the emotion at the heart of the film's main narrative. The chemistry between these two leads is astounding, and helps to make up for the films other flaws.
Writing: Again, the screenplay is a mixed bag. The decision to set half of the film in a podunk town in New Mexico proves to be a mistake. The narrative of the film really stalls while we are introduced to the film's least interesting characters. This section also attempts a lot of comic relief with Jane Foster and Darcy, but very little of it actually lands, largely due to the performances. The best part about this sequence is Hemsworth himself, as his dialogue sounds accurately different, and he has the best comedic timing. The real narrative weight, however, comes from Asgard. Though Thor's storyline is pretty straightforward, Loki's arc is actually more emotional and interesting. Loki has some real tragedy in his backstory, and a sense of pathos and motivation that is lost elsewhere in the film. The best decision the screenplay makes is to have the connection between the two brothers be the heart of the story. While they spend most of act 2 separated, the first and third acts bring them togethers, highlighting the changes the brothers have gone through. As such, the screenplay makes up for its mistakes by really making the most important storylines work.
Directing: Kenneth Branagh was a very inspired choice to direct this film. His Shakespearian past adds a feeling of history and grandeur to the film's scenes on Asgard. This film marks the closes the Thor series has come to feeling like the mythology on which it's based. The scenes with Thor and Loki have a sense of intensity and passion that are not often seen in the superhero genre, and as such Loki's sudden but inevitable betrayal hurts a lot more than it could have. However, sounding like a broken record at this point, Branagh struggles to make Earth as interesting. His efforts seem to suggest that he was trying to use comedy to cover up the narrative stalling and relative boredom of the Earth segment, but lacking any visual comedy, and leaving most of the comedy to the film's more confused actors, it doesn't work, and the film really drags through the middle. Thankfully, the Asgard sequences turn out to be more important, and so Branagh's directing works more than it doesn't, although it's close.
Verdict: Though it struggles in a lot of moments, Thor's strengths manage to outweigh it's weaknesses. The Asgard scenes are still some of the most epic and emotional scenes that Marvel has produced, although there's a lot of weak earth material in between them. If you're looking for action or humor, Thor really isn't the film for you, but if you want your superhero with a heavy portion of epic drama and world building, it will absolutely satisfy.
Grade: 7.0
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Iron Man 2
Continuing right along with the film that didn't give much hope that Marvel could pull off their shared universe. How wrong that would turn out to be.
Starring Robert Downey Jr. Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Don Cheadle, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson, Jon Favreau
Written by Justin Theroux
Directed by Jon Favreau
Synopsis: Dying from his suit, Tony Stark turns to alcohol abuse in what he thinks are his final days, while a bitter former rival seeks revenge.
Visuals and Audio: For the most part, this film fares as well below the line as the first one did. The effects are solid, as are the editing and cinematography. The filmmaking is all pretty solid, nothing too excellent or flashy, but it gets the job done well enough.
Cast: While nobody's arc is as strong as they were in the original Iron Man most of the cast still does a decent to good job. Downey Jr. manages to hold the drama and comedy together, even in its more forced moments, and Paltrow has less to do this time around, but still serves as a grounding presence. Don Cheadle is a minor improvement upon Terrence Howard in the role of James Rhodes/War Machine, although that's likely due to the script allowing him to banter much more. The final positive acting note comes for Sam Rockwell, who's Justin Hammer is easily the best part of the film. Taking full advantage of being the secondary antagonist Rockwell has an absolute blast chewing on the scenery and taking advantage of his plentiful comedic dialogue.
On the contrary, the worst part of this film is it's villain: Whiplash. Played by Mickey Rourke, Whiplash is a mishmash of poorly connected ideas and visions. While other MCU villains may be less memorable, the sheer disconnect from screenplay to performance cements Whiplash as a real low point for the series. Add in his bland motive and various oddities (like that frickin' bird) and you have a character who never had much hope in the first place. As well, this film adds in SHIELD in a big way. Nick Fury, Phil Coulson and Scarlett Johansson all have significant roles to play in this film. The problem is that Marvel hadn't properly figured out how to set up a shared universe yet, so all of their dialogue is incredibly forced and unnatural, preventing the characters from having a chance to feel important or real. Johansson has the most prominent role, and also fares the worst. Though she would go on to become one of the MCU's strongest female characters thus far, here she only serves for sex appeal, and never finds any semblance of nuance or character to flavor that. It's an especially unfortunate treatment of a prominent female character, especially in the same series that created a three dimensional love interest who was able to fully avoid most stereotypes.
Writing: Alright, here we go. The first third of this film is actually pretty solid. It does a decent job of setting up Tony's impending death and conflicts with the government, all leading up to a pretty fun action sequence on a racetrack in Monaco. Unfortunately, after this the film almost immediately loses track of the plot and devolves into a series of subplots fighting for prominence. As mentioned before, Marvel hadn't quite figured out how to connect their films, so SHIELD's role in the film, which serves only to set up The Avengers feels very tacked on, and distracts from the primary storylines. The dialogue in these scenes is also truly atrocious. One particular scene in which Nick Fury motivates Tony Stark to create a new element is likely the single worst scene to come out of this cinematic universe. Aside from the scene having no reason to exist beyond giving Samuel L. Jackson some screen time, the dialogue within is forced, out of character, and in no way resembles human speech. Though the film is already struggling to stay cohesive by this point, this scene really stands out as a major low point, and leads to one losing whatever suspension of disbelief may have still remained.
Directing: Much like the screenplay, Jon Favreau's direction peaks in the first act this time around. An early scene of Tony testifying in front of a senate committee is hysterically funny, and the aforementioned racetrack fight scene is stronger than any action sequences in the first film. It contains a level of intensity and brutality that wouldn't be seen again in this series until The Winter Soldier. (Hell, Happy Hogan straight up rams Whiplash with a car three damn times!) Once this scene passes, Favreau struggles to continue any sort of a consistent tone. While the first film managed to deftly blend drama and comedy, this film leaves them almost entirely separate from each other. The result is that the comedy feels unnecessary and silly, the drama feels uninteresting, and nothing seems to have any importance whatsoever. Because of this, the emotional and exciting scenes fall far short of their potential, and the entire film feels like a clip show.
Verdict: Lacking in any sort of cohesion, Iron Man 2's main issue is that it simply doesn't feel like a film for much of its time. There are too many ideas at play, and none of them are given the attention necessary for their impact to be felt. Though there are some strong performances, and the effects are still solid, the best thing about this film is that it served as an early lesson for Marvel, teaching them what not to do in their future. Thankfully, they took the lesson to heart, and did a much better job at telling their individual stories from here on out. Still, it's worth watching the first third, and pretending it's just a fun short film with the Monaco Raceway fight serving as the climax. It still feels unimportant, but it honestly works better than it ever should.
Grade: 4.9
Starring Robert Downey Jr. Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Don Cheadle, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson, Jon Favreau
Written by Justin Theroux
Directed by Jon Favreau
Synopsis: Dying from his suit, Tony Stark turns to alcohol abuse in what he thinks are his final days, while a bitter former rival seeks revenge.
Visuals and Audio: For the most part, this film fares as well below the line as the first one did. The effects are solid, as are the editing and cinematography. The filmmaking is all pretty solid, nothing too excellent or flashy, but it gets the job done well enough.
Cast: While nobody's arc is as strong as they were in the original Iron Man most of the cast still does a decent to good job. Downey Jr. manages to hold the drama and comedy together, even in its more forced moments, and Paltrow has less to do this time around, but still serves as a grounding presence. Don Cheadle is a minor improvement upon Terrence Howard in the role of James Rhodes/War Machine, although that's likely due to the script allowing him to banter much more. The final positive acting note comes for Sam Rockwell, who's Justin Hammer is easily the best part of the film. Taking full advantage of being the secondary antagonist Rockwell has an absolute blast chewing on the scenery and taking advantage of his plentiful comedic dialogue.
On the contrary, the worst part of this film is it's villain: Whiplash. Played by Mickey Rourke, Whiplash is a mishmash of poorly connected ideas and visions. While other MCU villains may be less memorable, the sheer disconnect from screenplay to performance cements Whiplash as a real low point for the series. Add in his bland motive and various oddities (like that frickin' bird) and you have a character who never had much hope in the first place. As well, this film adds in SHIELD in a big way. Nick Fury, Phil Coulson and Scarlett Johansson all have significant roles to play in this film. The problem is that Marvel hadn't properly figured out how to set up a shared universe yet, so all of their dialogue is incredibly forced and unnatural, preventing the characters from having a chance to feel important or real. Johansson has the most prominent role, and also fares the worst. Though she would go on to become one of the MCU's strongest female characters thus far, here she only serves for sex appeal, and never finds any semblance of nuance or character to flavor that. It's an especially unfortunate treatment of a prominent female character, especially in the same series that created a three dimensional love interest who was able to fully avoid most stereotypes.
Writing: Alright, here we go. The first third of this film is actually pretty solid. It does a decent job of setting up Tony's impending death and conflicts with the government, all leading up to a pretty fun action sequence on a racetrack in Monaco. Unfortunately, after this the film almost immediately loses track of the plot and devolves into a series of subplots fighting for prominence. As mentioned before, Marvel hadn't quite figured out how to connect their films, so SHIELD's role in the film, which serves only to set up The Avengers feels very tacked on, and distracts from the primary storylines. The dialogue in these scenes is also truly atrocious. One particular scene in which Nick Fury motivates Tony Stark to create a new element is likely the single worst scene to come out of this cinematic universe. Aside from the scene having no reason to exist beyond giving Samuel L. Jackson some screen time, the dialogue within is forced, out of character, and in no way resembles human speech. Though the film is already struggling to stay cohesive by this point, this scene really stands out as a major low point, and leads to one losing whatever suspension of disbelief may have still remained.
Directing: Much like the screenplay, Jon Favreau's direction peaks in the first act this time around. An early scene of Tony testifying in front of a senate committee is hysterically funny, and the aforementioned racetrack fight scene is stronger than any action sequences in the first film. It contains a level of intensity and brutality that wouldn't be seen again in this series until The Winter Soldier. (Hell, Happy Hogan straight up rams Whiplash with a car three damn times!) Once this scene passes, Favreau struggles to continue any sort of a consistent tone. While the first film managed to deftly blend drama and comedy, this film leaves them almost entirely separate from each other. The result is that the comedy feels unnecessary and silly, the drama feels uninteresting, and nothing seems to have any importance whatsoever. Because of this, the emotional and exciting scenes fall far short of their potential, and the entire film feels like a clip show.
Verdict: Lacking in any sort of cohesion, Iron Man 2's main issue is that it simply doesn't feel like a film for much of its time. There are too many ideas at play, and none of them are given the attention necessary for their impact to be felt. Though there are some strong performances, and the effects are still solid, the best thing about this film is that it served as an early lesson for Marvel, teaching them what not to do in their future. Thankfully, they took the lesson to heart, and did a much better job at telling their individual stories from here on out. Still, it's worth watching the first third, and pretending it's just a fun short film with the Monaco Raceway fight serving as the climax. It still feels unimportant, but it honestly works better than it ever should.
Grade: 4.9
Monday, July 30, 2018
The Incredible Hulk Review
Continuing on this trip back through the MCU comes Marvel's perhaps most forgotten film, The Incredibe Hulk. Hardly ever referenced, even within Marvel's canon, is there secretly some brilliance hidden in Marvel's second film?
Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell
Written by Zak Penn
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Synopsis: On the run from the US government, Dr. Bruce Banner tries to find a way to cure himself of his destructive split personality, The Hulk, before it can cause too much damage.
Visuals: Being in production the same time as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is the only MCU film that can't claim to be influenced by it. Does this mean it was able to make its own visual style? Sort of. The first act of the film, taking place primarily in Rio De Janiero, has a cool look and feel to it. This act contains the first "Hulk" sequence of the film, wherein the big green guy is kept in the shadows, and his attack is seen from the point of view of the mercenaries chasing him. This allows for some cool work with light and shadows, building the suspense of The Hulk before revealing him. It also greatly helps hide the fact that the effects suck. The Hulk never really looks like he's there. The film's climax, which features him fighting another big CGI guy looks especially cartoony. It's also a shame that the visual style falters after leaving Brazil. The rest of the film is either bright and bland, or too dark and murky. Either way it fails to be memorable.
Audio: Musically, this film recycles its main theme from the television series of "The Incredible Hulk." This is actually a great idea. It is a very good track of music, and cues the viewer into the fact that this film is more an adaptation of the show than the comics. While this decision may not be for the better, the score does its job of helping the viewer to know the tone of the film.
Cast: Now, though the Hulk as a character has continued through the MCU, Edward Norton has not. When it came time to make The Avengers, he was replaced with Mark Ruffalo. Was this an improvement? Yes, mostly. Ruffalo brings an everyman quality to Bruce Banner that aids him in working within the ensemble casts he has been a part of. That said, Norton still capably carries this film. Though it's hard to imagine this Bruce Banner standing out amongst the Avengers, he serves as a likable and flawed protagonist on which this smaller scale film can anchor itself. It's just a shame that the Hulk doesn't share Norton's face or voice, as that would help connect the two alter egos in future films.
Norton still gives the strongest performance in the film. William Hurt is fine as General Ross, notably the only main cast member of the film to ever return to the MCU. Liv Tyler and Tim Roth really drag the film down, though. Of the two, Liv Tyler's Betty Ross makes the greater negative impact. She has a ton of screen time in the film, more than any other MCU love interest, and speaks with an odd vocal inflection that quickly becomes grating. She speaks every line with some mixture of baby voice and whining, which kills any chemistry she might have shared with Norton, and makes her scenes occasionally a chore to get through. Tim Roth's Emil Blonsky/Abomination is the standard bad comic book villain. He seems to take the characters origins as an excuse to scenery chew and avoid nuance. The result is a character that becomes a boring cartoon character well before he becomes... a boring cartoon character.
Writing: This is the aspect of the film that breaks the most from the MCU formula. As mentioned before, the storyline is based more on the late 70s tv series than the comics. As a result, the more "Superhero-y" moments feel disjointed from the primary narrative. The first act in Rio fares the best, giving Banner's efforts at remaining hidden a cool focus, and properly using a Jaws-like approach to build up the Hulk without showing him. The later acts of the film drag on, though, with one note side characters taking up a lot of screen time. This is also the time where the divorce between the film's television and comic leanings becomes more pronounced and troublesome. As has become a Marvel calling card, The Incredible Hulk also makes many efforts to include humor into the proceedings. Unfortunately, these efforts feel slapped on top of, rather than properly integrated into, the script, and largely fall flat.
Directing: Though he never went on to direct another MCU film here, Louis Leterrier actually handles his role here capably. Though there is a tonal disconnect, he has fun with the action and suspense beats. The firs appearance of the Hulk and an action sequence on a university campus are both fun examples of the terrifying and imposing nature of the Hulk. It's a shame, then, that the final act gets caught up in poor CGI and too-dark visuals. He crafts some cool visuals and scenes, but ultimately struggles to properly bring the film together as a whole.
Verdict: The Incredible Hulk certainly is not a complete train wreck of a film, and is actually quite a bit of fun early on. Unfortunately it tries to be too many things at once, and as such falls apart at the end. Still, it does manage to feel quite a bit different than the rest of the series that would follow, and is a vast improvement from 2003's attempt at the character. Still, it's far from required viewing, and is mainly notable as an early diversion, from a time before Marvel found their identity.
Grade: 5.5
Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell
Written by Zak Penn
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Synopsis: On the run from the US government, Dr. Bruce Banner tries to find a way to cure himself of his destructive split personality, The Hulk, before it can cause too much damage.
Visuals: Being in production the same time as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is the only MCU film that can't claim to be influenced by it. Does this mean it was able to make its own visual style? Sort of. The first act of the film, taking place primarily in Rio De Janiero, has a cool look and feel to it. This act contains the first "Hulk" sequence of the film, wherein the big green guy is kept in the shadows, and his attack is seen from the point of view of the mercenaries chasing him. This allows for some cool work with light and shadows, building the suspense of The Hulk before revealing him. It also greatly helps hide the fact that the effects suck. The Hulk never really looks like he's there. The film's climax, which features him fighting another big CGI guy looks especially cartoony. It's also a shame that the visual style falters after leaving Brazil. The rest of the film is either bright and bland, or too dark and murky. Either way it fails to be memorable.
Audio: Musically, this film recycles its main theme from the television series of "The Incredible Hulk." This is actually a great idea. It is a very good track of music, and cues the viewer into the fact that this film is more an adaptation of the show than the comics. While this decision may not be for the better, the score does its job of helping the viewer to know the tone of the film.
Cast: Now, though the Hulk as a character has continued through the MCU, Edward Norton has not. When it came time to make The Avengers, he was replaced with Mark Ruffalo. Was this an improvement? Yes, mostly. Ruffalo brings an everyman quality to Bruce Banner that aids him in working within the ensemble casts he has been a part of. That said, Norton still capably carries this film. Though it's hard to imagine this Bruce Banner standing out amongst the Avengers, he serves as a likable and flawed protagonist on which this smaller scale film can anchor itself. It's just a shame that the Hulk doesn't share Norton's face or voice, as that would help connect the two alter egos in future films.
Norton still gives the strongest performance in the film. William Hurt is fine as General Ross, notably the only main cast member of the film to ever return to the MCU. Liv Tyler and Tim Roth really drag the film down, though. Of the two, Liv Tyler's Betty Ross makes the greater negative impact. She has a ton of screen time in the film, more than any other MCU love interest, and speaks with an odd vocal inflection that quickly becomes grating. She speaks every line with some mixture of baby voice and whining, which kills any chemistry she might have shared with Norton, and makes her scenes occasionally a chore to get through. Tim Roth's Emil Blonsky/Abomination is the standard bad comic book villain. He seems to take the characters origins as an excuse to scenery chew and avoid nuance. The result is a character that becomes a boring cartoon character well before he becomes... a boring cartoon character.
Writing: This is the aspect of the film that breaks the most from the MCU formula. As mentioned before, the storyline is based more on the late 70s tv series than the comics. As a result, the more "Superhero-y" moments feel disjointed from the primary narrative. The first act in Rio fares the best, giving Banner's efforts at remaining hidden a cool focus, and properly using a Jaws-like approach to build up the Hulk without showing him. The later acts of the film drag on, though, with one note side characters taking up a lot of screen time. This is also the time where the divorce between the film's television and comic leanings becomes more pronounced and troublesome. As has become a Marvel calling card, The Incredible Hulk also makes many efforts to include humor into the proceedings. Unfortunately, these efforts feel slapped on top of, rather than properly integrated into, the script, and largely fall flat.
Directing: Though he never went on to direct another MCU film here, Louis Leterrier actually handles his role here capably. Though there is a tonal disconnect, he has fun with the action and suspense beats. The firs appearance of the Hulk and an action sequence on a university campus are both fun examples of the terrifying and imposing nature of the Hulk. It's a shame, then, that the final act gets caught up in poor CGI and too-dark visuals. He crafts some cool visuals and scenes, but ultimately struggles to properly bring the film together as a whole.
Verdict: The Incredible Hulk certainly is not a complete train wreck of a film, and is actually quite a bit of fun early on. Unfortunately it tries to be too many things at once, and as such falls apart at the end. Still, it does manage to feel quite a bit different than the rest of the series that would follow, and is a vast improvement from 2003's attempt at the character. Still, it's far from required viewing, and is mainly notable as an early diversion, from a time before Marvel found their identity.
Grade: 5.5
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Iron Man Review
Now that we are a full decade into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and have a full 20 films, it seems like a proper time to go through them all. As I do so, I will be rewatching and reviewing every film in order of release, and will finish up by ranking all twenty films. The format of these reviews will also change from here on out. Reviews will be organized into different sections, so one can more easily find what they are looking for. And remember, it's all just opinions.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Shaun Toub, Leslie Bibb, Clark Gregg, Faran Tahir
Written by Mark Fergus & Hawk Otsby and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway
Directed by Jon Favreau
Synopsis: When eccentric weapons dealer Tony Stark is injured by his own weapon and kidnapped, he has a change of heart on how his technology should be used.
Visuals: First things first, the visual effects on this film have aged wonderfully. Though it is now a decade old, the suit still looks exceptional most of the time. It also helps that the suit is practical sometimes, giving a tactile sense to it. The editing and cinematography in the film are not flashy, but they do their job well enough. Weirdly enough, they add to this film's real world feeling. It's the most realistic film that's been done by the MCU, and this shows in the surprising amount of grit and brutality in the action scenes.
Audio: Not much to talk about here. The score, composed by Ramin Djawadi, is fine. The tech feel of it is thematic, but overall there aren't many memorable tracks, with only "Driving With the Top Down" standing out. Sound design wise the film is also solid. Much like the editing, it is function over flash, which is something that separates this film from the rest of the MCU.
Acting: Starting with the big one, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance makes this film as memorable as it is. He imbues Tony Stark with a perfect blend of drama and fun. He has a real edge to him in his starting bout, fitting for a man only recently removed from building weapons of war. However, even before his change of heart, the viewer still enjoys watching him. Part of this is due to the fact that Downey is the only one not playing the film straight. The rest of the cast lack Stark's snark, giving more genuine reactions, and allowing Robert Downey Jr. to take the spotlight. The one who fares best is Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, still the gold standard of MCU love interests. She is an evolution of the common superhero love interest, helping to defeat the villain more than needing to be rescued, and serving as a proper intellectual foil for Tony Stark. As for the villain, Obediah Stane stands right about in the middle of the MCU. He unfortunately lacks truly clear motives, or much depth to speak of whatsoever. Thankfully, he's played by Jeff Bridges, who elevates the character with a sense of menace that's not found on the page. The downside to this is that he becomes less interesting upon putting on a suit of his own.
Writing: On the plus side, this film handles the character of Tony Stark exceptionally well. Stark's arc is straightforward in a way that is sorely missed currently. Though there's certainly familiar elements, the character and performance are strong enough to help it feel fresh. In retrospect, however, the film follows the Spider-Man template perhaps a tad too closely. Outside of its lead character, there's nothing unique going on in the film. Thankfully, the screenplay seems to recognize this, and thus the character takes the forefront in a way that allows it to largely overcome this familiarity.
Directing: And now, how did Jon Favreau do at setting up the tone of the MCU? Weirdly enough, in a lot of ways he didn't. While it's natural for a series to evolve as it continues, Iron Man still feels very different from how the rest of the MCU would turn out. It's roots are hooked far more deeply into the real world, and though it set up the tongue in cheek tone, it's protagonist is really the only one who's in on the joke. As far as action goes, nothing too exceptional here. It is notable that the increased realism leads to a level of brutality and intensity in its violence that would almost immediately be toned down. Even so, what this film did set up is the focus on entertainment. It uses all of its tools to make a film that is, first and foremost, fun.
Verdict: Iron Man may not have reinvented the wheel, but by making entertaining the audience its top priority it has managed to be just as entertaining ten years later as the day it was released. It may have more in common with the superhero genre of the early 2000's than with the continuation of its own universe, but it served as a familiar entry point into a new form of cinematic storytelling. Though not the peak of what its genre can accomplish, Iron Man's influence is still felt, and manages to serve as an entertaining film, even taken out of the context of what would follow.
Grade: 8.1
Friday, January 5, 2018
Spearie Award Nominations 2017
Winners in Bold
Runners Up in Italics
BEST PICTURE
Blade Runner 2049
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Logan
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST DIRECTOR
James Mangold-Logan
Martin McDonagh-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Christopher Nolan-Dunkirk
Denis Villenueve-Blade Runner 2049
Joe Wright-Darkest Hour
BEST ENSEMBLE CAST
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Lady Bird
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ACTOR
Timothee Chalamet-Call Me By Your Name
James Franco-The Disaster Artist
Hugh Jackman-Logan
Daniel Kaluuya-Get Out
Gary Oldman-Darkest Hour
BEST ACTRESS
Jessica Chastain-The Zookeeper's Wife
Gal Gadot-Wonder Woman
Sally Hawkins-The Shape of Water
Frances McDormand-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Saoirse Ronan-Lady Bird
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Armie Hammer-Call Me By Your Name
Woody Harrelson-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Tracy Letts-Lady Bird
Sam Rockwell-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Patrick Stewart-Logan
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Sylvia Hoeks-Blade Runner 2049
Dafne Keen-Logan
Catherine Keener-Get Out
Laurie Metcalf-Lady Bird
Allison Williams-Get Out
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Baby Driver
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Lady Bird
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Blade Runner 2049
Call Me By Your Name
The Disaster Artist
It
Logan
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
Logan
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
It Ain't Fair-Detroit
Mystery of Love-Call Me By Your Name
Stand Up For Something-Marshall
This is How You Walk On-Gifted
Visions of Gideon-Call Me By Your Name
BEST FILM EDITING
Baby Driver
Detroit
Dunkirk
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Blade Runner 2049
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
The Shape of Water
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Blade Runner 2049
Darkest Hour
The Lost City of Z
The Shape of Water
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
The Lost City of Z
The Shape of Water
Wonder Woman
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Darkest Hour
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
It
Logan
The Shape of Water
BEST SOUND MIXING
Baby Driver
Blade Runner 2049
Dunkirk
Logan
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST SOUND EDITING
Baby Driver
Blade Runner 2049
Detroit
Dunkirk
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Blade Runner 2049
Dunkirk
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
War For the Planet of the Apes
BEST ACTION SEQUENCE
Atomic Blonde-Stairwell Fight into Car Chase
Baby Driver-Foot Chase
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2-Yondu and Rocket's Escape
Logan-Xavier's Hotel Seizure
Wonder Woman-March Across No Man's Land
Runners Up in Italics
BEST PICTURE
Blade Runner 2049
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Logan
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST DIRECTOR
James Mangold-Logan
Martin McDonagh-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Christopher Nolan-Dunkirk
Denis Villenueve-Blade Runner 2049
Joe Wright-Darkest Hour
BEST ENSEMBLE CAST
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Lady Bird
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ACTOR
Timothee Chalamet-Call Me By Your Name
James Franco-The Disaster Artist
Hugh Jackman-Logan
Daniel Kaluuya-Get Out
Gary Oldman-Darkest Hour
BEST ACTRESS
Jessica Chastain-The Zookeeper's Wife
Gal Gadot-Wonder Woman
Sally Hawkins-The Shape of Water
Frances McDormand-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Saoirse Ronan-Lady Bird
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Armie Hammer-Call Me By Your Name
Woody Harrelson-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Tracy Letts-Lady Bird
Sam Rockwell-Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Patrick Stewart-Logan
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Sylvia Hoeks-Blade Runner 2049
Dafne Keen-Logan
Catherine Keener-Get Out
Laurie Metcalf-Lady Bird
Allison Williams-Get Out
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Baby Driver
Darkest Hour
Get Out
Lady Bird
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Blade Runner 2049
Call Me By Your Name
The Disaster Artist
It
Logan
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
Logan
The Shape of Water
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
It Ain't Fair-Detroit
Mystery of Love-Call Me By Your Name
Stand Up For Something-Marshall
This is How You Walk On-Gifted
Visions of Gideon-Call Me By Your Name
BEST FILM EDITING
Baby Driver
Detroit
Dunkirk
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Blade Runner 2049
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
The Shape of Water
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Blade Runner 2049
Darkest Hour
The Lost City of Z
The Shape of Water
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Call Me By Your Name
Darkest Hour
The Lost City of Z
The Shape of Water
Wonder Woman
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Darkest Hour
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
It
Logan
The Shape of Water
BEST SOUND MIXING
Baby Driver
Blade Runner 2049
Dunkirk
Logan
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST SOUND EDITING
Baby Driver
Blade Runner 2049
Detroit
Dunkirk
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Blade Runner 2049
Dunkirk
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
War For the Planet of the Apes
BEST ACTION SEQUENCE
Atomic Blonde-Stairwell Fight into Car Chase
Baby Driver-Foot Chase
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2-Yondu and Rocket's Escape
Logan-Xavier's Hotel Seizure
Wonder Woman-March Across No Man's Land
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)