|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 17, 2022 10:13:19 GMT -8
It's been several years since I watched the first Thor, so maybe the visuals aren't as good as I remember. (I hear what you mean in saying the exteriors and interiors didn't line up or establish a sense of location with each other; that becomes an even bigger problem when compared to the generally flat scenes on Earth.) Regardless, I don't think it's a very good film, and would rank among the lower MCU efforts overall. Love and Thunder may hold your attention more simply based on how manic it is -or is trying to be - and it may well be the second-best Thor film; I just found it difficult to engage with the characters or story. (In part because the film treats everything as one big joke.) Still waiting for Marcel to shuffle its way into my local theater. I'm curious to see the reviews for Nope and Bullet Train; those look like the kind of late-summer entries that could gin up some good critical conversation. I think it could've been really good if they emphasized the Thor/Loki split more. I'd be fine with a family drama that just happened to be set in Asgard.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 17, 2022 10:23:40 GMT -8
I probably wouldn't like that, mainly because I get very bored listening to Shakesperean dialect for extended stretches. (Sorry, Tragedy of MacBeth fans.) Waititi did well in pivoting away from that.
In general, he's drawn on some of the better comic book source material (Ragnarok feels heavily inspired by Walt Simonson's comics from the 80s, Love and Thunder takes a lot of cues from Jason Aaron's 2010s run). I'm not sure if there's still material left to sustain a fifth movie - particularly since so many characters from the initial supporting cast have died - but the mid-credits scene suggests more Thor is on the way.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 17, 2022 18:12:01 GMT -8
I'm curious to see the reviews for Nope and Bullet Train; those look like the kind of late-summer entries that could gin up some good critical conversation. I suspect Nope will get strong reviews, even if they're a bit weaker than Peele's first two efforts. The IMAX presentation is intriguing, as well. Bullet Train looks like a lot of fun: we'll have to see if (what seems to be) the utter frivolity of it turns a good section of reviewers off. I noticed the popular Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny (who we discussed doing that Spider-Man spinoff, El Muerto) seems to be in it. As is Karen Fukuhara from The Boys, who does pretty strong, expressive work on that show, with no dialogue (the hospital musical number was cute, also).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 2, 2022 0:18:33 GMT -8
Saw Thor: Love and Thunder in a Cineplex theater a few weeks ago (along with Bullet Train and a second viewing of Nope) when they were doing a $3.00 movie promotion. I wouldn't say it's a particularly strong film, but I DEFINITELY preferred it to the first two, because, as I said previously, the character (in his own films) only really works as a comedy. Anyways, the movie was extremely silly, but I find Hemsworth endlessly charming and endearing in the role (more on that later), and Bale indeed gave a strong performance here, even if his rather perfunctory role didn't necessarily demand it.
So, I finally got around to giving Thor: Ragnarok and the last two Avengers movies a second look.
Ragnarok remains one of the best movies Marvel has ever produced, because it nails its look, tone, and overall design, is eccentric in a good way (far more than other films in this Cinematic Universe) and is populated with a lot of very engaging actors (you can rarely go wrong with Jeff Goldblum in these types of roles, and Cate Blanchett in, well, any role). It actually wasn't quite as campy as I remembered it being, but that's probably down to it being a touch more restrained than its aggressively silly sequel.
Avengers: Infinity War leans way too heavily on plot exposition and flat and/or ineffectual jokes. I think this is my least-favourite of the Avengers quartet (yes, behind Age of Ultron, where I at least felt the humour landed at a more consistent rate).
Avengers: Endgame, on the other hand, was much more refined in its comedy -- some of which was a bit more low-key, and all the better for it -- and its dramatic character-beats. Much of it is indeed a (somewhat impersonal at times) light-show, but the character-work across-the-board is generally solid, and the big emotional moments are pretty effective. Definitely a Top 5 MCU film at the very least, with only its length leaving it a bit shapeless on occasion.
All that said, I've come to the realization that even though I only really liked one of his solo Thor films, Chris Hemsworth is far-and-away my favourite performer in these things. I don't know that he's a great actor or anything, but he's just about nailed this role right from the beginning, and even more so when they let him be a giant goofball. It's a really funny deconstruction of macho alpha-male roles -- the character has a lot of bluster and bravado, but is very insecure and sensitive -- and he has excellent comic-timing, especially with quiet, under-his-breath throwaway lines.
I might revisit Black Panther before my Disney-Plus subscription is up, but I felt like I kind of got all I needed from that (above-average, by MCU standards) film on first viewing. I can't say that the sequel looks all that appealing to me, though, as it doesn't appear to have much of a dramatic center: it seems like a travelogue for the fictional Wakanda, more than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 2, 2022 6:21:15 GMT -8
Hemsworth's development as an actor over the years is one of the MCU"s most interesting developments, since he was initially cast as a beefcake and it took the Marvel honchos a few years to realize that he's really good at comedy. I don't find him to be a particularly strong dramatic actor, either as Thor or in other roles, but he tends to be quite good when he's just allowed to be funny, and Waititi seems to bring out his most humorous qualities, even in a shaky film like Love and Thunder. (Also, put Beta Ray Bill in Thor 5, you cowards.)
I don't know what to expect from Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, particularly given its heavy (161 minutes!) runtime. But I'm feeling more confident that the film will in fact be a box-office hit, and probably pass $1 billion at the box office (something which no other Phase Four film outside of No Way Home has achieved), and probably give the MCU a much-needed adrenaline boost after the somewhat tepid audience response to their recent films.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 2, 2022 10:47:41 GMT -8
Well, in general, Thor isn't a heavy dramatic role, so I find it a bit difficult to assess Hemsworth's dramatic ability as an actor, because I haven't seen him in enough roles outside of this (mostly) comedic one. That said, when required to be somewhat earnest, I do find him very endearing, and there's something to be said for that.
Anyways, hopefully he tries his hand in other prominent roles rather than just this one, and we'll have a better idea of what he has to offer as an actor. I don't expect him to win any awards any time soon, but he might carve out something of a niche for himself elsewhere.
I'll also be curious to see how his role as Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) is handled, assuming it's ever released, given the more dubious aspects of that individual that have come to light in the past decade or so.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Oct 2, 2022 11:38:17 GMT -8
Hemsworth's development as an actor over the years is one of the MCU"s most interesting developments, since he was initially cast as a beefcake and it took the Marvel honchos a few years to realize that he's really good at comedy. I don't find him to be a particularly strong dramatic actor, either as Thor or in other roles, but he tends to be quite good when he's just allowed to be funny, and Waititi seems to bring out his most humorous qualities, even in a shaky film like Love and Thunder. (Also, put Beta Ray Bill in Thor 5, you cowards.) I don't know what to expect from Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, particularly given its heavy (161 minutes!) runtime. But I'm feeling more confident that the film will in fact be a box-office hit, and probably pass $1 billion at the box office (something which no other Phase Four film outside of No Way Home has achieved), and probably give the MCU a much-needed adrenaline boost after the somewhat tepid audience response to their recent films. The fate of the MCU might be that of mainstream comic books--endlessly convoluted mythology, mostly mediocre quality, impossible for newcomers to get on board due to the sheer amount of material required to consume.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 2, 2022 12:35:28 GMT -8
The fate of the MCU might be that of mainstream comic books--endlessly convoluted mythology, mostly mediocre quality, impossible for newcomers to get on board due to the sheer amount of material required to consume. The larger problem with Phase Four seems to be that it's caught between courting newcomers for the post-Thanos world while finding reasons for the prior storylines and characters to continue. And it's becoming even more convoluted now that the TV shows are directly under the Marvel Studios umbrella, and thus woven into the larger tapestry. Your point reminds me of Sean Howe's Marvel Comics: The Untold Story (an excellent book that chronicles the history of Marvel from the Golden Age to the 21st century), and specifically his comment about the nature of the Marvel Universe as a sprawling story without a definitive finale:
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 2, 2022 13:38:38 GMT -8
While I don't love them or anything, I feel similarly about most of the Marvel flicks (at least prior to Phase 4) as I do about the Harry Potter film franchise. They'd all make a ton of money even if they were piss-poor, but there's enough quality-control -- despite the somewhat redundant house (production) style -- to keep them at adequate quality or above. So a notch above mediocre, in my estimation, for the most part, despite some critics' claims that they're The Death of Cinema, or whatever. Because if the Marvel films weren't eating up bunch of the theater screens that could be used to showcase more adult-themed, "artistic" films, I'm fairly confident something else would be, and the critics, and all these folks who wouldn't really go to the cinema no matter what was being featured, would still be complaining.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 3, 2022 18:46:53 GMT -8
Thing is, we've had long stretches this past year (including the last few months) where there was no Marvel tentpole playing on the big screen, and the box-office results haven't been great. People just aren't going to theaters like they used to, unless there's a superhero at the center.
Semi-related to that, I watched Morbius this week, and if the fact that this film nabbed $160 million on the big screen doesn't prove that Marvel isn't the most valuable brand in Hollywood, I'm not sure what does. As has been asserted in several reviews and through countless Internet memes, this movie (and I use the term loosely, as the film's threadbare story and character arcs barely let it qualify as a movie) is rather bad. Some goofy acting from Jared Leto (who has somehow found himself a worse comic book vehicle than Suicide Squad) and particularly Matt Smith (who does a shirtless dance halfway through the film, because why not) can't salvage this poorly directed, incoherently-staged clone of an early-2000s superhero cash grab. The film is rife with awkward dialogue and choppy pacing that suggests the post-production involved a hacksaw and wood chipper (multiple scenes from the original trailer - released way back in January 2020! - are not in the final film), and the most interesting thing about the whole sorry enterprise is the clunky and confusing way Sony tries to tie the film in to the MCU.
SPOILERS FOR MORBIUS, as if you care:
So at film's end, we have Michael Keaton's Adrian Toomes dimension-jumping to the Morbius dimension due to the shenanigans of No Way Home (even though that's not really how Doctor Strange's spell worked but whatever) and somehow getting hold of his Vulture armor (even though that's alien tech from the MCU dimension but whatever) and meeting with Morbius to literally utter the line "I think a bunch of guys like us should team up." Leaving aside all the plot holes and contrivances at play here: what is Sony's endgame? They've been trying to get a Sinister Six film going since the Andrew Garfield days, but the Sinister Six requires Spider-Man to base their menace around, and now Morbius and Vulture will be teaming up with other villains in a dimension where... um, Spider-Man doesn't exist. How does this make any sense? It all just smacks of a desperate attempt to ride the MCU's coattails, probably because that's exactly what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Oct 6, 2022 17:45:29 GMT -8
The fate of the MCU might be that of mainstream comic books--endlessly convoluted mythology, mostly mediocre quality, impossible for newcomers to get on board due to the sheer amount of material required to consume. The larger problem with Phase Four seems to be that it's caught between courting newcomers for the post-Thanos world while finding reasons for the prior storylines and characters to continue. And it's becoming even more convoluted now that the TV shows are directly under the Marvel Studios umbrella, and thus woven into the larger tapestry. Your point reminds me of Sean Howe's Marvel Comics: The Untold Story (an excellent book that chronicles the history of Marvel from the Golden Age to the 21st century), and specifically his comment about the nature of the Marvel Universe as a sprawling story without a definitive finale: That's exactly it, actually. How can one possibly get invested when nothing ever changes, there's no clear starting or end point, and it's just an endless, impenetrable web of continuity that's impossible to get a handle on. Say what you like about manga like One Piece that go on forever, but there's plenty more manga that have the decency to...ya know, end. Which gives the medium a much greater sense of consequence and weight as a result.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 6, 2022 20:05:58 GMT -8
The larger problem with Phase Four seems to be that it's caught between courting newcomers for the post-Thanos world while finding reasons for the prior storylines and characters to continue. And it's becoming even more convoluted now that the TV shows are directly under the Marvel Studios umbrella, and thus woven into the larger tapestry. Your point reminds me of Sean Howe's Marvel Comics: The Untold Story (an excellent book that chronicles the history of Marvel from the Golden Age to the 21st century), and specifically his comment about the nature of the Marvel Universe as a sprawling story without a definitive finale: That's exactly it, actually. How can one possibly get invested when nothing ever changes, there's no clear starting or end point, and it's just an endless, impenetrable web of continuity that's impossible to get a handle on. It's pretty simple: because people enjoy watching the personalities interact. Some folks are more concerned with "meaningful" plot/story development than others. Whereas some just want to hang out with characters/actors they enjoy for a few hours, every couple of months. Say what you will about these MCU things, but they're at least populated by a fair number of good, engaging actors, many of whom have big, charismatic personalities. Viewers who aren't concerned with following every minute plot/continuity detail can dip in and out of them as they see fit, and simply watch the ones that seem fun on an individual basis, relative to their personal sensibility. If anything, at this point, the MCU mythology is probably considerably easier to jump in on than it was when they were building towards the big Endgame climax. They just need to make the quality of the individual films better than they have been as of late. Most of these characters are fairly familiar archetypes in big, broad stories, so it's not like you really need a PhD to follow what's going on, for the most part. (I say all of this as someone who has enjoyed an alright number of these films without considering many of them particularly exceptional. They're generally fine for what they are, and don't aspire to be High Art. It's just popcorn silliness, and there's a place for that, and evidently a fair number of moviegoers still want to see it. We'll see if that changes in the next decade or so.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 7, 2022 11:05:00 GMT -8
The MCU, for all its convoluted and interconnected storylines, still relatively easy to follow on a film-by-film basis, with the exception of a few of the ensemble pictures (i.e. you can't really watch Infinity War, as one of my friends once attempted, without knowledge of the prior dozen films). The comics are a larger problem, given the endless levels of rebooting and revamping in the attempt to please both new audiences (who are brought in from the films and TV shows) without alienating the old fandom, which is why I find much of the current publishing crop to be borderline unreadable.
To some extent, there is a level of wheel-spinning in the MCU, particularly the farther you zoom out to look at it as one broad story. But movies, unlike books, are bound by the constraints of time - actors age and retire, and barring recasts, characters will come and go with them. Tony Stark and Steve Rogers get a finite conclusions to their arcs before they are replaced by a newer generation of protagonists. And as for the scope, even Marvel can only release so many films a year.
There are signs that the MCU has room for more interesting and experimental ideas. The new Werewolf by Night, for example, is an unusual entry into the MCU - a 50-minute horror special, shot in black-and-white (complete with film-grain effects on the camera lens) and it's surprisingly violent by Marvel standards. (The lack of color probably helped ease the censorship regulations, as the blood spatters are less pronounced onscreen.) And the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special should probably give James Gunn more creative freedom than he's had with the two theatrical GotG films (if understandably less than he did with The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 16, 2022 18:00:23 GMT -8
So Phase Four comes to an end (give or take a James Gunn special) with Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. Is it worthy sequel to one of the best MCU films? W-eeelllll...
The filmmakers were in an unquestionable bind with this film, due to circumstances beyond their control, and - to their credit - they handle it about as well as they can, considering the (understandable) decision to not recast Chadwick Boseman. The scenes dealing with the loss of T'Challa are delicately handled, and the film wisely takes its time to reveal a new Black Panther, letting characters and audiences grapple with the loss.
But Wakanda Forever also aspires to be an action-packed, epic Marvel film, and it's in this vein that it's less successful. Whereas the first Black Panther film built up a carefully rendered villain whose motivations nicely tied into Wakanda's philosophical isolationism, the sequel struggles at times to connect Namor (never once called the Sub-Mariner in this film) and his people to the Wakandans, and huffs and puffs to drudge up dramatic conflict beyond "the rest of the world sucks, don't it?" This is on top of the awkward shoehorning of side characters intended to set up future MCU projects, which distracts and undercuts from some of the story's nobler intentions. (The first BP film didn't include too much in the way of MCU cross-promotion, give or take a post-credits scene.)
These problems would be more forgivable if Wakanda Forever wasn't so bloated (at 161 minutes, it's topped only in MCU duration by Endgame), or if it were visually interesting (too many of the scenes are dimly lit and murky, making it hard to see the action, particularly when the story shifts underwater). But add all these elements together, and you have a cluttered mess of a movie, concluding a cluttered mess of a Marvel phase.
It remains unclear what the future holds for Marvel movies, though the upcoming Ant-Man threequel - which kicks off Phase Five - promises to introduce a new franchise Big Bad and presumably move things in place for the next Avengers film. These last two years have not shown Marvel at their strongest, either in movies or TV (I'd classify only three projects - Spider-Man NWH, WandaVision, and Hawkeye - as above-average). A lot of their recent output doesn't really build to much of anything, and the films generally fall back on superhero tropes that are by now going stale. Here's hoping Marvel does better from here, in part because they're one of the few major tentpoles currently keeping theaters alive, but also because I'd rather not have the most ambitious blockbuster franchise(s) of the 2010s limp off into mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 5, 2023 14:43:26 GMT -8
So Phase Five of the MCU has now kicked off with Ant-Man Occasionally Featuring the Wasp: Quantumania. I would love to say that the film is a rebound in quality from Phase Four and heralds a fresh and exciting new direction for Marvel movies. But if you've seen the reviews, you probably know that it... doesn't.
Quantumania is, by and large, one of the worst MCU films yet - a two-hour CGI extravaganza designed to set up other two-hour CGI extravaganzas, with shoddy special effects (combining the crummy half-finished visuals of Love and Thunder with the dimly-lit action scenes of Wakanda Forever) and loads of exposition in place of character development. It's basically a cinematic shrug, checking off whatever boxes it assumes will please the audience till the credits roll.
Neither of the first two Ant-Man movies are among Marvel's strongest efforts, but they're fun superheroic riffs on Honey I Shrunk the Kids, making creative use of size and scale and growing simple real-world objects to outlandish proportions. But very little of Quantumania takes place in the real world - it's mainly set in a miniscule sci-fi land where everything is cloudy and hazy and unnatural, and nothing jumps off the screen quite like a Thomas the Tank Engine toy or a Hello Kitty PEZ dispenser grown gargantuan. At a certain point, it all just starts to visually blend together into a glazy sludge.
The film's big contribution to the MCU is ostensibly the proper introduction of Kang, the new Big Bad, but while Jonathan Majors does a credible job in the role, the character's motivations are ill-defined and his powers wholly inconsistent. He's also not set up as much of a great threat to the Avengers (who will inevitably battle him in some future film), certainly not to the extent that Thanos was.
There is definitely a way to breathe new life into the MCU, but it involves giving each new film its own purpose and identity. And the last few Marvel films have just felt like setup, for future films and TV shows and shorts and specials and so much more. There's no real investment in the moment, and thus diminishing reasons to stay invested in the future.
|
|