2016: The Year in Film: "Captain America: Civil War" Review

Every single person who's ever read this blog is surely aware by now that I'm a Marvel nerd of the highest order. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, a shared universe where events and characters reverberate across different characters' films in the same way that comic books have operated for 50 years is by far one of the coolest developments in popular culture in the last few decades.  Through films featuring Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man (so far) and team up films featuring the Avengers, Marvel studios has created a rich universe full of interesting characters and shared threats. Most importantly, they've shown an ability to greatly expand the universe by bringing in new characters, as each new character has served to enrich the greater universe. Of course, this expanding universe serves to complicate matters for new and/or casual fans, but it is incredibly rewarding for those nerds among us who really care about these things. Last year, Sony and Marvel FINALLY signed an agreement to allow Marvel to use Spider-Man in its films, and with Doctor Strange and Black Panther movies on the horizon, the MCU promises to get much, much bigger.

Thus far, Tony Stark/Iron Man has been the star of the MCU. In what I would argue was the single best piece of casting in the history of film, Robert Downey Jr., who was such a risk at the time that he was cast as Tony Stark that he was literally uninsureable due to his long and troubled history of criminal behavior and drug addition has become the highest paid actor on the planet largely on the back of his charm, charisma and wit in turning Iron Man into one of the most bankable characters on the planet. However, through two Captain America films and two Avengers films, Chris Evans' Captain America has become its heart and soul. Inspiring and fundamentally good, decent and kind, through Captain America we're given a glimpse into what makes superheroes popular in the first place. They are myths for our time and cultural touchstones in an age where little ties large segments of our population together the way that religion and culture did a century ago. Through the MCU thus far Cap (who always had a rebellious streak if it meant doing what was right) has transformed from the loyal soldier to someone who will fight anyone and anything that stands in the way of what a less cynical person might call Truth, Justice and The American Way.

Enter: Civil War. Following the events of the second Avengers film, where the Avengers' battle against Ultron resulted in a city falling from the sky, the original lineup has been scattered. A new lineup of Avengers, funded by Tony Stark is protecting the planet from threats great and small, but there is growing concern over the collateral damage from their battles.

The Good: Chris Evans has turned himself into just maybe the best part of the MCU and a bona fide star. He simply IS Captain America at this point and his decency, charm and resolute sense of wrong and right makes it easy to see why people would follow him through the fires of hell at this point. The rest of the cast is just as good. Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark has an edge of mournful humanity to him that hasn't always been there, and given the tragedy that he's endured through 5 films, it's easy to see why. Other MCU veterans like Scarlett Johannson, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Don Cheadle and Paul Bettany are getting better as they grow more confident in their roles, making the most of their opportunities to flesh out supporting characters. There is a TON going on in this movie, with the location bouncing from Nigeria to the United States to London to Berlin and back again, when, coupled with the sheer number of characters, could have easily sunk this picture under the weight of all it was trying to accomplish. The fact that it services so many existing characters (Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, War Machine, Hawkeye, Ant Man, Winter Soldier and Scarlet Witch all return from at least one previous Marvel film appearance) while simultaneously introducing new characters and hitting so many locales with a dense plot is a testament to the skill of the filmmakers involved. The Russo bros. cut their teeth on TV comedies, having worked on shows like Community and Arrested Development, and their experience there surely guides their ability to service a massive ensemble cast so deftly. Marvel's films have always excelled at fan service, and Civil War is no exception, giving the many Marvel nerds in the audience plenty to cheer about at numerous points in the film. Every single character is given at least one moment to shine, with two newcomers given several. NOT ONLY does Civil War manage to service nearly the entirety of the existing MCU, it also introduces Black Panther and Spider-Man (!!!) who is finally a part of the MCU. Both of these characters are done so damn well that I'm not sure how they could be improved upon, and the only reason they don't each steal the whole movie is that there is so much good stuff going on everywhere else. Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman, is amazing. He has his own self contained storyline within the larger plot, and every aspect of the character is knocked out of the park. He's going to be a lot of fun within his own film and within the larger MCU moving forward. Spider-Man is Marvel's premiere hero and has existed within his own separate movies up to this point. He's had some pretty darn good movies on his own.... but there's never been a Spider-Man that felt this TRUE and honest to what the character is and means to so many people until now. Every aspect of this Spider-Man is pitch perfect and every single moment he's on screen is an absolute blast. Marvel's action sequences keep getting better too, as they keep managing to top themselves by mixing huge effects and spectacle with good character work and plenty of fun fan service. The largest set piece in this film is just maybe the best superhero set piece we've seen yet, and there are at least 3 separate set pieces in this film that are simply as good as anything that's ever been in a superhero movie. The climatic fight sequence is harrowing but EARNED, which is something Snyder/DC never figured out. What makes action scenes great isn't the spectacle alone, that's what video games are for, it's the personal stakes. Marvel keeps raising the bar and I can't wait to see what happens next. Finally, decent villains have been a problem for the MCU. The films ultimately service the characters so the villains tend to be one-off throwaway rivals with the exception of Loki of course. The villain here is comparatively solid, with Daniel Bruhl (of Inglorious Basterds fame) playing an embittered, calculating Zemo, quietly pulling the strings. Ultimately, this is a movie about superheroes and friends fighting, and to pull that off you risk making everyone involved looking stupid and/or unreasonable. The fact that Marvel largely avoids that with the stakes escalating in a germane and believable way is a testament to what they've built and the quality of the actors, writers, and filmmakers involved. Thumbs up, guys.

The TL;DR version of the good: Chris Evans' Cap is amazing. Spider-Man & Black Panther are perfect. The action is great. An absolute joy.



The Bad: the first third of the film is a little bit of a mess. The action is jumping from location to location very quickly and sometimes abruptly, and there are a few points where the whole thing risks falling off the rails completely. It doesn't, but it's close, and there's definitely a little bit of location fatigue while all the film's pieces are being assembled. There are some head-scratching character moments as well, but to be honest that's going to be necessary to get heroes to fight each other.

Ultimately, this is one of the top 2 or 3 Marvel movies yet, and considering how many legitimately great Marvel films already exist, that's quite the compliment. Cap 2 changed the MCU fundamentally, and Cap 3 does so again, with several new characters to play with. Once you reach the halfway point, there is nothing NOT great about this film.

8.5/10.

2016: The Year in Film: "Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice" Review

I seriously can't even imagine how pissed off Warner Bros. and DC are over the fact that Marvel is making widely beloved and extremely profitable flicks featuring their second and third tier characters while DC has yet to establish a shared universe featuring the two most recognizable comic book characters to ever exist. Zack Snyder was brought in to try to bring a shared universe to DC and made the halfway decent Man of Steel a few years back. I mostly liked MoS, but thought that it featured some questionable choices, morality, WAY too much product placement and kind of went off the rails at the end. However, I thought there was enough good there to give the flick a favorable review and it left me cautiously optimistic for what was to come next for DC.  However, pretty much EVERYTHING that happened next only caused me to become more and more concerned for Zack Snyder's sanity and the presence (or lack thereof) of any kind of adult supervision over at DC.  First, the announcement that DC's universe would disregard Christopher Nolan's Batman films (all of which are infinitely better than Man of Steel and which featured a legitimate way forward for Batman). Second, the announcement that DC's universe would continue with a "Batman vs Superman" movie (that was announced featuring a reading from the famous showdown in "The Dark Knight Returns"), where a new Batman would be introduced, followed by Justice League. This set off warning bells in my mind. We were going to go from Man of Steel (a standalone Superman origin film) to full blown Justice League with only one intermediary step? Trouble. Marvel had 5 films before Avengers, and had introduced all of the main characters in a prolonged way. Third, the reveal that not only would this movie feature Batman and Superman, we'd ALSO get Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Alfred, Lois Lane and an assortment of nonsense. Trouble. That's without even going into Zack Snyder's problems as a director. He has a great visual eye. That much is undeniable. His films are absolutely gorgeous and he can direct the hell out of an action sequence. HOWEVER, he's also incredibly juvenile and responds in the worst imaginable way to criticism. It was clear that he was extremely bothered by the backlash to the fact that his Superman in MOS completely destroyed Metropolis for largely pointless reasons. He didn't think it was bad that Superman went out of his way to destroy things, because that destruction looked REALLY cool. Who else thinks that way? Michael Bay. Yes, I'm saying that Zack Snyder is Michael Bay who likes the color black. Zack Snyder is emo Michael Bay. Having him direct and be the architect of your comic book universe is fine... BUT you'd better have adult supervision in place. Chris Nolan was supervising Man of Steel... you'd be wise to leave him around, DC. Instead they gave Snyder MORE power and put him in charge of assembling and creating your Justice League. Sigh.

So here we are. It's been 18 months since the events of Man of Steel, and Superman is at once celebrated for saving the human race and mistrusted for being an alien who caused untold destruction during his battle to save humanity. In Gotham City, Batman/Bruce Wayne distrusts Superman following his firsthand witnessing of the destruction of a Wayne Industries building in downtown metropolis and the deaths of many of his employees.

The Good: First, the film is utterly overstuffed. However, some of the elements that make it overstuffed aren't necessarily problems and are in fact the best parts of the film. Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is set up here, and she is awesome. Every single scene she's in is a treat and she would have been even more amazing if her intro hadn't been spoiled in the trailer. Which seems like a dumb move in retrospect. Ben Affleck's casting as Bruce Wayne was totally derided in fan boy circles... but he's pretty great. His Batman has an intimidating physicality that makes this more violent and jaded dark knight particularly terrifying. The action scenes are well done by and large, and the hints of the Justice League are some of the best parts of the movie.



The Bad: the plot is a mess. By and large, this feels like a 6 hour movie that was cut down to 2.5 hours... and I suppose that's what you get when you try to do the work of 3 movies in one (still too long!) runtime. Character motivations don't make any sense and characters run around doing what they need to do for the plot without the film telling or showing us why that would actually make any sense. Batman is a total fascist idiot when he needs to be, and yet he's exhaustively researching other characters at other points in the same movie. If he's going to exhaustively hack into security systems and what not shouldn't he at least have a conversation with Superman before deciding to just up and murder him? No? Cool, Zack. Good call.

I want to talk about one thing, especially. This film takes the time to show us Bruce Wayne's parents getting murdered. Why do we need that? Is there ANYONE who doesn't know that Bruce's parents died in front of him and was just dying for a scene of a child screaming in anguish as his parents are gunned down in the street? Who decided that was a necessity in a movie that BARELY has an comprehensible plot? That's without even mentioning how damn stupid it is that Martha Wayne's pearl necklace somehow got caught in the murderer's gun. Was it a 30 foot necklace? Or was the gunman shooting her from 4 inches away but she couldn't just slap the gun away? It doesn't make sense, Zack.

Ok, there is SO MUCH that happens because it happens in the comics. The amount of outside knowledge that is required to watch this movie is insane. What is Doomsday, what are his powers and why does he seem to be impossible to kill? NO ONE KNOWS BECAUSE THE MOVIE NEVER TELLS YOU. Why does Clark Kent love Lois Lane? No one knows. Because he does in the comics, duh. Henry Cavill is boring. Amy Adams is miscast and underused. The Daily Planet subplot is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. (Which, btw, how is Clark Kent a reporter in this world? He doesn't have a degree)  Batman is an idiot and Alfred tells him he's an idiot and then he's no longer an idiot for the dumbest reason imaginable. Batman and Superman murder people. Several people. But for some reason not Lex Luthor. There was probably once a good movie here... but it's buried under what should have been a solo Batman movie to set up Batfleck and a separate Man of Steel sequel.


Pro-tip, DC: DON'T HIRE BEN AFFLECK TO ACT IN ZACK SNYDER MOVIES. Haven't you seen The Town? Argo? Those movies are infinitely better than anything Snyder has made or ever will make. This movie is infuriating because it feeds into the nonsense that superhero movies are stupid and pointless. THIS superhero movie is stupid and pointless because Zack Snyder treats his audiences like idiots.

I HATED THIS MOVIE. Except for Wonder Woman. She was amazing.

Watch, but only to hate watch, and to enjoy a few cool scenes.

4/10

2015: The Year in Film: "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Review

As we all know by now, Disney bought the Star Wars franchise from George Lucas a few years back with the promise of making new, ongoing films in the Star Wars universe that hopefully aren't as depressingly horrific as episodes 1-3... which accomplished little other than making children want toys to commemorate heartbreakingly embarrassing betrayals of famous characters and moments and make Obi Wan and Vader's light saber duel in A New Hope look like the worst thing that's ever happened. Patton Oswalt said it best. JJ Abrams, the nerd king, was hired to try to resurrect a beloved franchise, and as more and more trickled out, nerd expectations began to get higher and higher in a very Stockhold Syndrome-y way. By the time the full theatrical trailer was released, nerd-dom was whipped up into a frenzy, and the film shattered all opening weekend and all time domestic box office records.  But we're here to answer the only question any of us really care about: what did I think?

20 years after the events of Return of the Jedi and the defeat of the Emperor, all is not rosy in a galaxy far, far away. Luke Skywalker's attempt to rebuild the Jedi has failed, and the remnants of the Empire have been rebuilt into a powerful and fearsome force that threatens to again shroud the galaxy in darkness.

The Good: it's been said over and over again that the film's deliberate copying of the style, tone and story of the first Star Wars film was a bad thing, but I think the opposite. I believe that bringing back that old mojo was exactly what the franchise needed both as a boost to the fans and a mission statement by Disney of what, exactly, their iteration of Star Wars was going to be. Forget about Lucas' stiff, painstakingly crafted but emotionally empty and hollow attempts to tell tales in the style of greek tragedy. Star Wars by Disney is all about fan service, bold moments, big heroes and even bigger villains. From that perspective: JJ Abrams was the perfect choice. This is the best cast and best acted Star Wars film to date. Relative newcomers Daisy Ridley (as Rey) and John Boyega (Finn) knock it out of the park while having a blast doing so. Ridley is given a TON to do as the second coming of Luke Skywalker and she manages to be compelling and captivating while appearing in virtually all of the film's most crucial moments. Fellow newcomers Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren) and Domhall Gleeson (General Hux) round out the excellent acting among the new additions. Returning are Han, Leia, Chewie, C-3PO and a host of familiar faces from the original Star Wars trilogy. The prequels are largely ignored and forgotten as befits their place in the relatively distant past and their relative lack of quality. Somehow, despite the fact that this is literally the EXACT SAME MOVIE as the first Star Wars, it works. It's an absolute joy, and the callbacks feel like homage more than imitation due to the obvious care that every single person involved is taking in bringing this to life. I'm also going to give a shout out to Adam Driver. Known up to this point from being a totally unique and bizarre dude on Girls, he gives us the best Sith lord we've seen since Vader in Empire. He's full of rage and confusion and emotion and this complex picture of villainy is exactly what this new generation of Star Wars films needed to bring the story into our time and beyond. Kudos to all the actors involved, but especially Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver... who just killed it. 



The Bad: as I said before, this is the EXACT SAME MOVIE as episode IV, with a few tweaks. That is both good and bad, so I'll mention it in both sections. The political picture of the galaxy is a bit confusing and nonsensical, but after the hyper dense politics of the prequels, a little hand waving isn't necessarily a bad thing. Additionally, there's a sloppy middle that just isn't as compelling as the film's first and third acts, which are as good as anything that Star Wars has ever done. The effort to force EVERY beat from A New Hope into this film resulted in some weird decisions, and the updated Catina sequence just seemed out of place. Plus - the weird monster chase? Lame.

However, all in all this is an absolute blast of a movie full of memorable characters, great moments, and enough high drama to propel Star Wars into the future in capable and trusthworthy hands. I'm excited for what's to come, and can't wait for more Rey and Kylo Ren. (plus Poe Dameron and BB-8, guys!) I'm going to dock it a little for some missed opportunities, but I love this movie. Bring on Rogue One, and with Rian (Looper) Johnson writing and directing Episode VIII, something tells me that the next flick is going to blow us all away.

8/10

2015: The Year in Film: "Sicario" Review

Late but guys I had a December month's resolution to not be as lazy!

Prisoners was released a few years back and firmly established Denis Villenueve as a name to watch, It was brutal, dark, and gritty in the style of the very best of the crime/mystery/thriller genre and demonstrated that Villenueve had several unique qualities as a filmmaker. Quality adult dramatic thrillers are becoming exceedingly rare as studios increasingly abandon mid-budget productions for bare indies and huge franchises, so when it was announced that Villenueve's follow-up would be set in the drug war with an A-List cast, Sicario became a film to notice.

Emily Blunt stars as Kate, an ace FBI agent who is recruited by a secretive government task force to pursue the drug cartels that are increasingly spreading their operation throughout the southwestern U.S.

The Good: if you saw "Prisoners", (which, if you didn't, go do so) you know that Villenueve can do "tension" as well as anyone making movies today.  Short on dialogue, score, and background music, Villenueve employs facial expressions, cinematography and sound to great effect. In sequence after sequence Villenueve lets the tension build to an almost unbearable way before allowing the action to unfold in crisp, well-executed fashion. This interplay between long periods of build up punctuated by violence and action differentiates Sicario from what seems to be the norm today, wherein action, seemingly without consequence or justification, dominates the proceedings. The cast is tremendous top to bottom, but especially Benicio Del Toro. I'm not sure that there's another actor working today who could have pulled off the mix of mystery, physicality, competence and brutal sadness that he brings to the table as the mysterious foreign Alejandro. Brolin likewise wholly owns his character, bringing a unique disinterested charm to his portrayal of mysterious government operative Matt. The plot is sharp and moves at a brisk, brutal pace. As the task force seeks to smash or marginally disrupt a major cartel, Kate finds herself in much, much deeper than she anticipated, and finds that the morality of the modern drug war raises serious questions about what it is she's doing.



The Bad: As good as Emily Blunt is and can be, I found her character to be distractingly naive. Given all that she's seen and been involved in, her qualms, while absolutely shared by the audience, don't always ring true.  Additionally, while shadowy people do shadowy things, sometimes the POINT of the whole endeavor is muddled. Not, necessarily, that everything must have a "POINT", but that the makers of Sicario clearly want there to be one, and sometimes that gets lost in the translation from page to screen.

In all, if you find yourself interested in a realistic-feeling, brutal, well-crafted film on the violence wrought by the drug war, you could do much, much worse than giving Sicario a watch.  The film is perfectly directed, features great actors doing good work, and looks absolutely gorgeous. It's not always fun to watch, but it's worth it in the end, and your fingernails will be nubs by the final scene.

8/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Spectre" Review

Daniel Craig's run on James Bond has been pretty darn great, guys. It includes the absolute best Bond film of all (Skyfall) and absolutely raised the bar for what the franchise could be. Combining Bond with director Sam Mendes (who's responsible for American Beauty among other terrific work) led to the triumph that was Skyfall, a film that managed to pay homage to decades of Bond films while creating a visually stunning, emotionally powerful masterpiece of the action genre. So when it was announced that the follow-up to Skyfall would return Craig, Mendes, and all of the principals responsible, expectations were sky high, along with fan anticipation.

Spectre finds agent 007 going off the books in an effort to avenge the events of the previous films in Craig's Bond run and track down the people he believes to be truly responsible for all that has happened and been done to him since Casino Royale. In typical Bond fashion, he's trotting the globe from exotic locale to exotic locale as he discovers that the plot may go far deeper, and far older, than he ever could have thought.

The Good: Craig was born to play Bond, and he slips into the role effortlessly. Even the worst Bond film imaginable would be watchable if it featured Daniel Craig in the lead. Mendes brings his trademark polish and beauty to the film, and it features a few spectacular scenes, particularly the opening 20 minutes or so in Mexico City.



The Bad: in many ways, I'm convinced that the people involved took everything good about Skyfall and drew the exact OPPOSITE conclusions that they should have from how well-received the previous film had been. Skyfall features an enemy with ties to Bond and the British secret intelligence service. So does Spectre. The previous film features threats to Bond's continued operation and the survival of his program. So does Spectre. Skyfall features a battle close to home as everything that an outgunned Bond holds dear is under siege. So does Spectre. The problem is that everything Skyfall did so well, Spectre does in a meandering, roundabout, reductive and unfortunately all-too often boring way. It's overlong, overstuffed, features needless twists and turns and features lazy and preposterous action sequences. In a lot of ways Bond is, at its heart, absurd. However, Spectre takes this absurdity and runs 1000 miles in the opposite direction from the more realistic and Bourne-esque action sequences that had characterized the best part of Craig's Bond run up to this point. JAMES BOND SHOOTS DOWN A HELICOPTER WITH HIS PISTOL. It is as stupid as it sounds. The film took the time to cast the usually outstanding Christoph Waltz as Bond's potential nemesis and he turns out to be a whiny, entitled brat. Yawn. Fresh off of a charismatic, often hilarious and star-making turn in Guardians of the Galaxy, former WWE star Dave Bautista is cast as... a wordless brute. Ultimately, the potentially exciting status quo that existed at the end of Skyfall is wasted in a rehashed snooze-fest that seeks to culminate Craig's Bond run and instead throws the whole thing into doubt.

Ultimately, what we have here is a movie that's been "mailed in" from the top on down and as a result isn't even fun to watch. Mendes, Craig, and everyone else has made a Bond movie that commits the worst of all possible movie sins: it's boring. It's time for new Bond blood. Or even better, let's just stop making Bond flicks for a while, guys.

5/10.