|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 12, 2021 12:19:55 GMT -8
I agree with most of your points. My feelings toward Homecoming have cooled a bit since I first watched it (especially now that Spider-Verse has raised the bar for all Spidey movies), but I like the cast and the sense of humor (more self-conscious and less cheesy than the Raimi trilogy). The action scenes remain a sore spot - no more interesting or distinguished than most of the MCU fight sequences. Also, the main thrust of the upcoming film is Peter trying to undo something that was revealed in the FIRST POST-CREDITS SEQUENCE of Far From Home. I didn't know what the story was going to be for the third film at the time, but now that I do, it's pretty inconceivable that they didn't put that MAJOR PLOT POINT in the film proper. Yes, I know they want people to stay for the end credits (though they trolled viewers for it with the post-credits Captain America cameo in Homecoming), but surely they realize that many viewers get up and leave the moment the credits hit, and that said sequence was a much better ending for the film than him just swinging with Mary Jane. These post credits tags should be supplemental enhancement of the narrative at most, but not the primary narrative beat. I saw Homecoming opening night back in 2017, in a fully packed theater, and 99% of the audience stayed till the very end of the credits. People have been conditioned to expect post-credits Marvel sequences (even if the ending to that specific film was a troll), and I imagine many of them have learned to stay at least through the mid-credits scene. To that end, the JK Simmons scene in Far From Home was a mid-credits scene, immediately following a stylish closing credits sequence (rather than a slow and boring text crawl), so I'd imagine most people stayed for that one, at least. Incidentally, I'm surprised that the plot for No Way Home appears to crib its outline from "One More Day," which is probably the most hated Spider-Man story in comic book history. Contextually, the comic and film are quite different, but I expect Feige and co. knew what they were getting into by paralleling that story. Curious to see how they handle it, since it's being billed as the final Spider-Man film in the Tom Holland series and Marvel/Sony have been relatively mum about the character's future.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 17, 2021 16:18:32 GMT -8
I watched Shang-Chi last night (missed the theatrical release for schedule-related reasons) and was generally fine with it. The cast is quite strong (with standouts being Tony Leung as the well-characterized villain and Awkwafina as the best friend/comic relief), and the martial-arts sequences are well-realized, marrying the wuxia action of Crouching Tiger with the street-level fisticuffs of Jackie Chan popcorn flicks. (The film crew included several Chan alumni for staging the action sequences, and it shows; one scene even appears to be a direct homage/ripoff of a certain action sequence from Rush Hour 2).
The film's weaknesses are the typical Marvel weaknesses - the action eventually devolves into a bloated third-act CGI climax, with highly variable special effects and a general sense of uninvolvement. At least one of the MCU cameos in this film is fun and clever; others just seem self-indulgent. It's also not clear where the MCU as a whole is headed in this post-Endgame environment (and the directions heralded by shows like Loki do not seem especially promising), so the attempts in this film to set up The Future (i.e. that mid-credits scene) come off as hollow and generic.
On another note, I remain impressed that both Shang-Chi and the Eternals - obscure characters who are best known for starring in second-tier comic books in the 1970s - are now helming two of the biggest box-office hits of 2021. Truly you cannot underestimate the power of the Marvel brand.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 20, 2021 15:25:46 GMT -8
Well, Marvel's finally done it - they've made a TV show I might actually want to watch!
WandaVision came very close to being up my alley but didn't quite win out. But a half-hour legal comedy starring a fourth-wall breaking Tatiana Maslany, with all my fave brown-girl-character-actors (Jameela Jamil, Renee-Elise Goldsberry, Ginger Gonzaga) in supporting roles? Sure - I guess I can sit thru whatever inane lore Kevin Feige wants to throw at me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 19, 2021 20:27:07 GMT -8
Unlike a few inconsiderate online lunkheads, I am being rather careful about discussing Spider-Man: No Way Home spoilers. I saw the film last night, and my initial post will avoid any specific spoilers.
- I saw this in a packed theater, during a late Saturday night screening. The guy sitting next to me smelled like weed, and the guy sitting in front of me was constantly vaping throughout the film. Ah, it's good to be back at the movies.
- There were nearly 30 minutes of previews/commercials before the film started, including the same obnoxious Sing 2 promo that's been playing everywhere for the last several months. Illumination trailers annoy me, albeit not as much as Illumination films.
- Oh yes, let's discuss the movie. I liked it quite a bit! It's darker and weightier than the first two Holland films, but it still balances out the heavy moments with great flashes of humor and wit. Allowing for a few issues in Far From Home, the MCU Spider-Man franchise has easily been the most consistent Spidey series thus far. (Hopefully the Spider-Verse sequels can measure up to their predecessor.)
- There were several scenes during this film where the audience cheered and applauded, and at least one moment where they went absolutely wild. I don't think I've ever seen that level of reaction in a movie theater, and apparently the effect was replicated in others theaters nationwide. No surprise this got an A+ CinemaScore.
- I am quite impressed by Marvel's coordination in having the fifth episode of Hawkeye airing a few days before NWH's release. There is a stealth connection between the episode and the movie that will be recognizable to anyone who's watched both, but not distracting to anyone otherwise.
- As the movie ended and I stood up to go - after nearly three hours of sitting - my legs took a moment to wake up from their long slumber and I tripped in the aisle. Not my proudest moment! But I guess it added a nice slapstick finish to an enjoyable experience.
- Fun fact, this film is already the highest-grossing film (domestically) of 2021. And there is a very good chance that the top five biggest moneymakers of the year will all be Marvel movies. You may draw whatever conclusions from this as you wish.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 20, 2021 0:50:03 GMT -8
I saw it on Thursday night, and quite enjoyed it as well. I still wish the action during the big sequences was framed in a way that would better allow the viewer to fully process the chaos -- especially when you've got multiple similar-looking characters bouncing around -- but the character interplay in the the movie remains enjoyable as always. Zendaya was a really good choice for the MJ role: she's scrappy yet charming, able to effectively modulate the more melodramatic moments while tossing out sly asides. Holland, of course, feels more kid-like than any previous live-action Spider-Man, but he's got an appealing innocence that works well, and never comes off as smarmy when he's wisecracking.
The theater I was in also shrieked and applauded a few times during certain character reveals, even the Netflix-related one. I've seen some pretentious folks mocking this online -- "the actors on the screen can't hear you," etc.), but whatever, let people have their fun in a communal setting, as with the pandemic, it's been a long time coming.
I think one way in which this run of Spider-Man films notably stepped away from traditional depictions is in how overpowered he was in technological regards, thanks to his association with The Avengers, and specifically, Stark Industries. I'm glad this film addressed that issue, as there's still meat on the bone, should they choose to go a more "classic" route with this cast in the future.
Anyways, that's all I'll say about the film for now, as I imagine some folks here have yet to see it, so I'll leave more spoilerish discussion for a later date.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 20, 2021 11:10:43 GMT -8
Zendaya appears to be one of the few actresses to emerge from the Disney Channel conveyor belt with a career that is both impressive and well-warranted. Too many child actors flame out quickly and get tossed aside, so good to see her making inroads.
I have heard multiple people criticize the MCU Spider-Man films for the way they undermine the "friendly neighborhood" angle of the character by making him heir to billionaire tech and gadgetry, and understand the issue, but I applaud Marvel for doing something different with this iteration while still adhering to the character's core persona.
Seeing that a fourth Holland film has now been greenlit, I am curious to see how the Sony/Marvel partnership will progress. Far From Home is Sony's biggest film ever, and there's a good chance that No Way Home surpasses it. So I expect both studios will want to stay the course for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 28, 2021 15:42:04 GMT -8
Ok, Spidey has crossed $1 billion worldwide (and still climbing), so that's a nice arbitrary point from which to break the spoiler embargo. But in case anyone's still cautious, what follows are SPOILERS FOR SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME:
Let's start with the downsides. No Way Home features what is commonly referred to in film parlance as an "idiot plot." The entire central conflict of the movie could have been avoided if Peter had properly articulated the caveats of Dr. Strange's spell beforehand - or better yet, if the spell had been more targeted in scope (i.e. making everyone forget about the Mysterio video, or even erase it entirely). There are multiple plot holes throughout the film, relating to its connection to earlier Spider-franchises (Electro never learned Spider-Man's secret identity) and within the MCU (if everyone "forgets" about Peter at movie's end, does that mean all video/media evidence about him is erased as well?), not to mention multiple conveniences/contrivances (whose idea was it to let the Lizard "stay in the van"?). And yes, even the fanservice can get a little self-indulgent in spots.
But leaving these issues aside - and I want to stress that they are quite minor in the scope of the film itself - No Way Home is an incredible accomplishment, as well as one of the most emotionally satisfying films in the MCU. The writers acknowledge some of the shortcomings of the previous Tom Holland films - particularly that he's had an easier time than prior Peter Parkers - and obligingly up the ante. The film understands that Peter needs to grow up, and this film features multiple points that underscore his increased maturity. It raises the stakes for his character, and earns every minute.
The inclusion of the other Peters, in addition to being clear nostalgia plays, is a great way to highlight the MCU Peter's growth. The Maguire and Garfield Spideys (who, it should be noted, get well-rounded arcs in this film - with sendoffs certainly better than the final films in their respective franchises) have been through a lot more than Holland's version, but he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with them here, proving himself worthy of the Spider-Mantle.
Anyway, sorry for all the spider-puns, but I liked this movie a lot, and it continues to resonate in my brain over a week later. 2021 was an uneven year for the MCU (both in film and on TV), but it ended on an impressive high note.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 28, 2021 22:49:35 GMT -8
SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME SPOILERS...............
I mean, the central plot is pretty muddled. It at first seems to suggest that the already-dead villains will die again when they return to their original universe, simply because they were already dead. But of course, the premise is that if the Spideys remove their evil superpowers, the villains will instead revert to being FINE UPSTANDING CITIZENS who will, in fact, not die. Well, at least at the hands of their individual Spidey...in the past. It's not just multiple-universe paradoxes, but also time-travel paradoxes. And it ain't no fair that the Spideys still get to keep their powers, when it's, in fact, suggested that Andrew Garfield's Spidey is full of rage, and has probably been abusing his powers since Gwen Stacy died (heh).
Anyways, I mostly kid, because in this case, the ends mostly justify the means, in bringing this overpowered (by Stark Industries) Spider-Man back down to a more reasonable, relatable scale. Though I doubt that any future Sony/MCU Spider-Man movies will perform quite as well as this one commercially (unless they invoke the multiverse in a significant manner again), it'll be interesting to see how they approach Holland's Spider-Man in a context more closely resembling the previous incarnations. It was sort of appropriate that both of the previous Holland films featured field trips, because in some ways, they felt like diversions that never settled into the typical Spider-Man setting and mythos.
I DO hope that Holland's Peter and Zendaya's MJ find their way back to one another in future installments, because I think they've got good chemistry, and replacing her with a traditional Gwen Stacy would probably be a downgrade. She probably only signed on for three movies, but I'm sure they'll chuck a ton of money at her and Holland to come back for more (he'll probably get low-eight-figures, on account of how well NWH performed).
I said that the previous two Holland films had a fair number of dumb verbal jokes that were helped along greatly by a brisk pace and an carefree tone. The humour here was more situational and character-based, and thus had a bit better hit-to-miss ratio for me, even though the overall film had a more serious tone. I do think they didn't fully exploit the comedic possibilities of three-Spideys-at-once, but can understand why they'd generally want to keep the focus on the current, primary one.
Though I don't find the film to possess great artistry (in visual craft and whatnot), it's worth noting that after I saw Licorice Pizza and Nightmare Alley today (cheap Tuesday with a gift card), I considered giving No Way Home a second look right after. And I may yet. That would be the first time since the first Avengers that I would've seen a Marvel film more than once in theaters. Whatever its flaws, it's probably my favourite Marvel film since Thor: Ragnarok (which I haven't seen a second time yet, partly because I was afraid it wouldn't be as good as I remembered). It's a big-scale movie that doesn't lose sight of its more intimate interpersonal conflict, and I can fully understand why mainstream audiences have responded so strongly to it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 29, 2021 12:20:03 GMT -8
I think No Way Home may have overperformed slightly due to being the first true "event" movie after nearly two years of global stress and panic. Much like the original Sam Raimi Spider-Man was the first action blockbuster of the post-9/11 era, No Way Home is boosted by the fact that it centers on an iconic superhero at a time when the world could really use one.
To be a fly on the wall during those Sony vs. Marvel boardroom negotiations... I'm guessing Sony sees the finale of this movie is a handy backdoor in case this truly is the end of their partnership with the MCU. Sever all ties with the wider Marvel universe and wipe the slate clean, but still leave the opportunity open for him to reconcile with his friends from the prior Spider-Man films.
To that end, I'm sure they'll find a way to keep Zendaya in the series; she is a budding movie star and probably the most bankable name in the cast by this point. I find it heartening how the Spider-Man franchises have continually grown and improved on the girlfriend front - the first series features Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane (terribly written character), the second gave us Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy (passable character), and now we have Zendaya's MJ (very good character). Encouraging to see the movies learn from prior mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 29, 2021 17:57:06 GMT -8
The biggest problem I had with Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane was that she spent so much of her time screaming. It's the same issue I had with Kim Basinger's Vicky Vale in Tim Burton's first Batman flick. Keep that shit in slasher movies, please.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 21, 2022 20:35:12 GMT -8
Okay, I'm finally going to respond to Scott's list, 27 months after it was posted. Here are the top 10 issues: 10. Ant-Man and the Wasp is not a "nothing movie about nothing" because it sets up a key plot point in Endgame and also has a giant Hello Kitty Pez dispenser. 9. "The more powerful you make your superhero, the less interesting they become." This is patently false. Plastic Man is technically the most powerful superhero in the universe, and he is hilariously interesting. (Make a Plastic Man movie, DC. Cast John Mulaney. Do it now.) Within the MCU, the complaint does apply to Carol Danvers, a character who is never given any sort of personality or character flaws, but not to Dr. Strange, who has the character trait of shaky hands. 8. Captain America: Civil War actually feels very natural and organic. It was released during an election year, which is the perfect time to release any "X vs. Y" movies. Can't get more organic than that. 7. Thor: Ragnarok shouldn't be judged based on Infinity War, because most of Ragnarok's strengths are based on it being disconnected from the larger MCU. As all future Thor movies should be. 6. It is blasphemous to suggest that any Marvel movie is funnier than Thor #3, particularly Thor #1. 5. "Stane isn't one of (Jeff Briedges') better characters." Technically false, since Jeff Bridges does not play "characters." He plays exactly one role in his career, and that role is Jeff Bridges, man. 4. Endgame >>> "serviceable." 3. Age of Ultron is a little better in retrospect (since it sets up a lot of other Marvel films in various ways) but it's still Age of Ultron. 2. I want to take your word for it, but I also really, really want to know why First Avenger is in your Top 3. The image of scrawny CGI Steve Rogers is still imprinted on my brain. 1. With your #1 pick, you claim to love movies that are about "family," yet you don't enjoy the Fast and Furious movies? Ridiculous. The Guardians movies are about family and so are the F&F movies (which you can tell because they interrupt the action every 20 minutes to say the word "family" or something.) Plus, they both have Vin Diesel! So remember kids, if you want to make a good action movie, the key ingredients are family and Vin Diesel. Anyway, i hope this was helpful and worth the two-year-plus wait. Maybe I'll make my own MCU ranking and Scott can snark on that in return. I was about to complain that Jeremy had still not responded to my rankings, before realizing he did in one of my stages where I was not very active on the forums. I concede on all points, except I think scrawny Steve Rogers is almost as attractive as normal Steve Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 2, 2022 19:21:02 GMT -8
I did not watch Eternals in theaters, in part because it is based on a terrible comic book and in part because it was apparently weak enough to earn the MCU its first-ever Rotten Tomatoes splat. But it's available on Disney Plus now, so I took the plunge, hoping that maybe it wouldn't be as rough as I was told?
But regrettably, Thor: The Dark World has now been dethroned as the worst film in Marvel Cinematic Universe. While I respect the motivation to buck the usual in-house formula (which, as proven by Black Widow and Shang-Chi, has grown stale) Eternals is a giant mess of a movie, an epic of almost stunning incompetence. Every creative choice in this film - from the script to the tone to the casting to the special effects - is nothing short of baffling.
The underlying problem with the film is that it features nearly a dozen main characters, none of them ever seen in an MCU film before, most of whom are poorly developed and starved of personality. Marvel is usually quite good at bringing out the human element in its characters, but in a cast where nearly everyone is a truly godlike superbeing, it's difficult to latch onto any of these heroes and care about their trials and motivations. Some of the actors (like Gemma Chan as the de facto main character) are fine, while others (e.g. Richard Madden as the Superman of the team) are painfully miscast.
It's also a depressingly drab film, bereft of the visual flair needed to sustain its 156(!) minutes. As with her prior films, Chloe Zhao has an eye for striking sets and backgrounds, but these clash poorly with the flat, airless action scenes that pit the Eternals against generic CGI monsters. After a while, it all just blurs together. Couple this with the confusing narrative that time-jumps more often than Dr. Sam Beckett (this may be the first MCU movie that is actually hard to follow, even if you've seen all the others) and you have one of the dullest superhero movies since... pretty much ever. Yes, folks, this movie is even more boring than Wonder Woman 1984.
Honestly, I'm not even frustrated so much as bewildered. Even when they're not firing on all cylinders, Marvel usually knows how to generate assembly-line crowd-pleasers with competent efficiency. To see them miss the mark this badly is... surprising, to say the least.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Feb 3, 2022 16:08:06 GMT -8
Jeremy, what was the "Eternals Hiroshima thing" about?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 3, 2022 17:13:33 GMT -8
Jeremy, what was the " Eternals Hiroshima thing" about? Minor SPOILERS for Eternals: For reasons too convoluted to explain, the Eternals have been tasked throughout history with "helping" humanity along its developmental path. To that end, there's a scene midway through the movie set in 1945 Hiroshima, where Phastos (the gay black man who is the technology whiz of the team) is seen crying over the destruction. He blames himself for the creation of the atom bomb, since it was his genius that helped mankind advance far enough to develop it, and this motivates him to quit the Eternals. The scene triggered controversy from multiple directions. People on the left complained that it was in poor taste for Marvel to imply that a gay black man was responsible for Hiroshima. People on the right complained that using the atom bomb as Phastos' dealbreaker was dumb, since there are a lot of of worse acts throughout world history (heck, even in the 1940s) that highlight the evil/destructive power of humanity, and that Marvel singling out Hiroshima was meant as anti-American commentary. And everyone complained that including a devastating real-life event in middle of a superhero fantasy film was out of character for the MCU.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Feb 3, 2022 17:50:34 GMT -8
Jeremy, what was the " Eternals Hiroshima thing" about? Minor SPOILERS for Eternals: For reasons too convoluted to explain, the Eternals have been tasked throughout history with "helping" humanity along its developmental path. To that end, there's a scene midway through the movie set in 1945 Hiroshima, where Phastos (the gay black man who is the technology whiz of the team) is seen crying over the destruction. He blames himself for the creation of the atom bomb, since it was his genius that helped mankind advance far enough to develop it, and this motivates him to quit the Eternals. The scene triggered controversy from multiple directions. People on the left complained that it was in poor taste for Marvel to imply that a gay black man was responsible for Hiroshima. People on the right complained that using the atom bomb as Phastos' dealbreaker was dumb, since there are a lot of of worse acts throughout world history (heck, even in the 1940s) that highlight the evil/destructive power of humanity, and that Marvel singling out Hiroshima was meant as anti-American commentary. And everyone complained that including a devastating real-life event in middle of a superhero fantasy film was out of character for the MCU. Been a while since I watched it, but isn't one of the most iconic scenes in The Avengers when Sam Jackson decides that he's going to ignore the U.S. government's "stupid-ass" decision to end a war by detonating a nuclear weapon on a major civilian area? Isn't that a not especially subtle swipe at Hiroshima? (Particularly given that Loki is explicitly likened to Hitler in another iconic scene from the same movie?)
(Also, if these are gods who have existed since the dawn of humanity, why is there a black one and a Desi one and a Chinese one and an etc etc?)
|
|