|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 8, 2023 23:00:11 GMT -8
As someone who didn't mind the first two Ant Man films (they were generally cute and inoffensive, and Rudd's rather endearing), it's too bad that the new one appears to be so weak and impersonal.
Anyways, I caught Wakanda Forever on Blu-Ray last week, and much like Black Adam, found it to be.....a serviceable action flick with decent acting (but nothing else)? I actually think some of the action scenes in the first Black Panther movie were more dimly-lit and incoherent, but maybe that's because I watched the sequel on home video rather than in a movie theater (where they often tend to project the images too dimly)? Regardless, it's kind of weird that they rendered the water-based culture who were at odds with the Wakandans so closely to the characters in Avatar.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 9, 2023 14:36:10 GMT -8
I don't recall the action scenes in the first Black Panther being too dimly lit (the climax was incoherent, but more the fault of hokey CGI than anything). But there were multiple scenes in Wakanda Forever that were just crying out for more lights, or at least more justification for the dimness. (To use another example while it's still fresh in my head - this week's Mandalorian episode has drawn criticism from some fans for the poor lighting used during several scenes, but I didn't much mind it, since the darkness well-utilized and made sense in the confines of the story.)
Incidentally, I didn't mention it in my earlier post, but the theater showed the new trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 before Ant-Man, and it was somehow more exciting and emotional than the film which followed. Kind of insane that it's been six years since the previous Guardians movie (this one has been postponed several times for a whole bunch of reasons), particularly since it's the subject of the very first post in this thread! Marvel is subtly hyping it as the final film in the trilogy - and it will at least be that for James Gunn, before he jets off to salvage the DCEU - and it look like everyone involved is bringing their A-game. I'm not hyped for much of Phase Five, but am definitely looking forward to that film.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 18, 2023 16:47:18 GMT -8
Saw Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 a couple nights back. It's overlong by some 20-odd minutes, and there's a fair amount of tonal whiplash - some very dark scenes offset by the series' signature goofball comedy. But overall, it wrapped up the series pretty well.
As this is James Gunn's final MCU film, there's a sense that Disney let him go a bit wilder than usual, pushing the limits of the PG-13 rating and leaning into his Troma-fueled past far more than either of the two preceding films. (It's certainly not The Suicide Squad levels of violent, but hardly something for the little kids.) And while the series is inescapably bonded to the broader Cinematic Universe, the film manages to feel refreshingly self-contained as a capper to the trilogy - even Gamora's prior death/rebirth is handled in a way so as to make sense to the six viewers on the planet who haven't seen Endgame.
The soundtrack is fun and inventive, albeit - as with all things about this film - somewhat heavier in tone than the prior two films. The single-take action sequence scored to "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" (how are there two major Chris Pratt movies playing in theaters right now which feature that needle drop?) is a highlight, not simply of this franchise but perhaps the MCU at large. The jokes are generally quite good - Mantis in particular has a lot of great lines, even as her character is developed beyond the somewhat two-dimensional cartoon she was in the previous film. (Between Mantis, Gamora, and Nebula, this series puts the "MCU can't write good female characters" accusation to shame. Though presumably it will be reinforced when The Marvels drops this fall.)
All in all, it's probably the best MCU film of the past few years, outside of Spider-Man: No Way Home (which, let's be honest, isn't fully an "MCU" film). Been a bumpy ride for Marvel in the post-Infinity Saga age, so it's nice to see them pull off a film that recalls their glory days.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 28, 2023 15:36:25 GMT -8
Secret Invasion just wrapped up its six-episode run and... sigh.
I think this is probably the worst MCU show yet. Yes, She-Hulk was bad, but it was a fascinating kind of bad, where every other episode it transformed into a new show, and I was never really bored while watching it. Secret Invasion, on the other hand, is just a dull, muted slog, filled with second-tier characters not worth caring about.
Which is too bad, because it's adapted from a pretty great comic book arc (one that spanned dozens of titles over the course of several months, a scope that the MCU could never match), a George W. Bush-era story about fears over terrorism and whether the enemies are hiding in plain sight. The difference is that the comics featured Skrulls* covertly replacing famous superheroes, while the TV version has them replacing politicians and other stuffed suits that we as viewers have no prior investment in. (I learned nothing interesting from this series about the state of Marvel-world geopolitics, other than the fact that the President of Russia is named... drumroll, please... "President Vladimov.")
Most of the show plays out like a Cold War spy drama with none of the suspense or tension. Once the main threat of the Skrulls is established - "they can be anyone!" - there is little reason to get invested in even the most pivotal conversations, as any character could at any moment be revealed as an imposter. And beyond that, there isn't much in the way of story momentum either - too much of the show is devoted to dull and repetitive conversations, with little of the fun or humor that has given Marvel its bounce for so long. The actors bring some screen power, but Samuel L. Jackson feels surprisingly subdued here, Ben Mendelsohn is wasted, and Emilia Clarke (as many Game of Thrones fans have noted) simply cannot act. The one real bright spot in the cast is Olivia Colman, who brings a spark every time she's onscreen (and engages in the one of the most amusing torture/interrogation scenes I've seen in a spy show.)
The show is just a drag, building to a finale that features some truly lazy fanservice, some awkward last-minute political commentary to keep in tune with 2023 America, and an ending that doesn't resolve much of anything. What could have been a great showcase for Nick Fury - i.e. the character who kicked off the whole concept of the Cinematic Universe in the post-credits scene of Iron Man - feels like a placeholder, another show lost in the sea of Marvel content.
I dunno, man. The MCU movies have been struggling as of late, and the TV shows aren't helping - they're not very well-written or well-paced, and they're just spreading the talent thinner than ever. There's no real focus or cohesion to much of anything, and the individual products haven't been that good on their own.
Oh, and before I forget - that opening theme is awful. The AI-generated imagery looks horrific. Although that's probably some comfort to writers and actors worried about AI convincingly replacing them in Hollywood - we clearly still have a ways to go till we get there. (Although at this point, an AI program could probably write a Marvel show and it would be tough to tell the difference.)
*I predicted when Captain Marvel premiered that the film was making a mistake in depicting the Skrulls as misunderstood good guys, and that future MCU projects would struggle in incorporating the Skrulls as convincing villains. Based on Secret Invasion, this prediction turned out to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 29, 2023 8:28:05 GMT -8
I thought Emilia Clarke was fine, for the most part, in Game of Thrones. The unconvincing turn her character took in the last few episodes of that series was more an issue of writing than acting, as it was just completely rushed. Anyways, perhaps she doesn't have much character range (I haven't seen her in enough projects to say, one way or the other), but I've seen far worse actors and actresses who've never been criticized even half as much as she has at times. But I guess being surrounded by a bunch of middle-aged, classically-trained European actors (on GoT) will do that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 30, 2023 10:13:22 GMT -8
I can't personally speak much to her Game of Thrones role (only ever seen the first season, and I don't think her character played a major part back then). But I do think being a star of one of the biggest shows on the 2010s drew more attention to her acting than many other actors of her age or caliber. That said, I found her to be the quite bad in Solo (remember that film? I wouldn't blame anyone who didn't), as well as the weak link in the cast of Secret Invasion, although she faced some pretty high pedigrees in Jackson, Colman, Mendelsohn, et al.
Incidentally, Secret Invasion apparently had a budget of $212 million, averaging $35 million per episode. That's... unfathomable. Presumably the cast came with a hefty price tag, but even so, apart from the finale, this is hardly a flights-and-tights series that would demand robust CG effects and staging. What the heck is going on.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 30, 2023 18:37:37 GMT -8
Yeah, the budgets of some of these TV shows are very much getting out-of-hand. No wonder so many streaming services appear to be in the red.
And I've seen Solo. I don't recall Clarke bothering me much there, either. Thought she was OK in that (otherwise weak) Terminator film as well. But then again, I'm probably more forgiving of actors' performances than some folks, as over the years, I've seen so many widely-criticized actors kill it unexpectedly in some random role, so I'm not inclined to write most performers off entirely. But I'll take your word for it that her work's not much good in that Secret Invasion show, as it's unlikely I'll ever watch it anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 24, 2023 6:51:41 GMT -8
I saw The Marvels last week, and normally would have posted about it here, but that film deserves special discussion (and not in a good way!) so I wrote a bit more about it than usual on the main site. Both a review of the mediocre film and the troubling future it and other recent misfires spell for the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 27, 2023 11:06:01 GMT -8
Good article Jeremy.
I think the decisions Marvel has made post-Endgame have been downright baffling. They basically put out to pasture their biggest non-Guardians franchises, and were relying on a lot of new names, stories and faces to carry them. Not to mention the disaster that has been MCU's TV slate, which has been a combination of not very good and unnecessarily necessary in the continuity, making even the biggest Marvel fans feel fatigued.
Could they have just continued to make Iron Man and Captain America movies with new actors? They definitely could have, either by passing the mantle on in-universe, or by doing a Hulk and just changing the actor with no one remarking on it. Instead they've been caught up in this weird in between world trying to make these new properties that no one cares about work because they're Marvel and just making a movie about it will make people care. Yes, that worked spectacularly with Guardians, but you had the talent both behind and in front of the camera to make an excellent movie there, if you don't have that you get this wilderness of bleh that has been every single non-Spider-man movie that Marvel has aired since then end of Phase 3.
Marvel just needs to go back to basics, they don't have an unsalvageable universe like DC does, but they need to just cast off the franchising for a couple of movies and focus on making their movies good again, and stop caring so much about the tie-ins.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 27, 2023 15:41:45 GMT -8
In fairness to Marvel, some of their struggles have been due to forces beyond their control - notably, Black Panther was mean to be a flagship character of the MCU in the 2020s before Chadwick Boseman's sudden tragic passing, and it was deemed insensitive to recast him for the sequel. But certainly, the "quantity over quality" issues with the spate of mediocre TV shows has gotten out of hand. Could they have just continued to make Iron Man and Captain America movies with new actors? They definitely could have, either by passing the mantle on in-universe, or by doing a Hulk and just changing the actor with no one remarking on it. I don't think they could get away with recasting actors as indelibly linked to these characters without simply rebooting it - yeah, they did it with Hulk, but the 2008 Incredible Hulk movie wasn't a major hit, so that was pretty easy. Would be tougher to do so with long-term series stars like Downey or Evans, which is why they chose to write them out instead. Interestingly enough, the next "official" MCU movie (that is, not counting Deadpool 3) will be another Captain America film, with Sam Wilson/Falcon taking up the torch - though that won't be out till 2025*. And there's going to be an Armor Wars movie with Rhodey at some point, presumably a spiritual successor to the Iron Man series. So the brands will continue, even if the actors and characters change. The question is whether Marvel can find fresh and interesting things to do with them. *Marvel originally had reserved a film to open in November of next year, but things shifted after the recent Hollywood strikes. Can't imagine why they would not want to release a politically-charged Captain America film in early November 2024.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 21, 2024 17:07:48 GMT -8
I watched Echo, the latest Disney+ TV show set in the MCU. Was really hoping to like this one - and overall, I think it's better than a number of other recent MCU productions - but it just doesn't hold together as well as it should.
First, the good: I like the main character! She could easily have been a "check the box" type of hero (a deaf Indigenous woman with a prosthetic leg), but the actress, Alaqua Cox, does a pretty good job as both actress and action heroine, and she carries well from a supporting role on Hawkeye to a central role here. The use of ASL throughout the season is effective, and the show gets a lot of dialogue across without the protagonist uttering a word.
As a bonus, this is a fun show for fans of Reservation Dogs, as there's a lot of casting crossover. The show is set largely on a reservation in Oklahoma, and several familiar faces (notably Devery Jacobs as Echo's sister) pop up throughout. Lots of talent at work; I just wish the show did more with them.
Because... well, there's the big problem. Echo is only five episodes long, each around 40 minutes - hardly enough time to really build up a deep story. What's more, it's obviously been edited down from a longer runtime - the show was initially announced as six episodes, and there are several points where the seams feel obvious, as though episodes had to be pared down in post-production. This is especially notable in the finale, which ends the show in spectacularly unspectacular fashion.
I'm also a bit annoyed at the "Marvel Spotlight" brand here - the show is being promoted as the first "adult" Marvel show of the Disney+ era, but it's basically a hard PG-13 (the violence is bloody but sparse, and everything else is pretty tame), far less intense than Daredevil or Jessica Jones. The show is also being promoted as a "standalone" Marvel series that viewers can watchwithout broader MCU context, but it relies quite a bit on context from Hawkeye and Daredevil (which is why so much of the first episode feels like a choppy "previously on" segment).
Anyway, this isn't a bad show, and at times comes very close to being a good one. And with a total runtime of about 3.5 hours, it's a pretty brief time commitment. It's just... disappointing.
|
|