Reviews by
The Logical Conclusion...Not the Best Conclusion.
_The Avengers_, the end point of Phase One. After watching all of Phase One for the first time and essentially blind (outside of 2008's _Iron Man_), I was quite excited to see how the first proper team-up would look. The previous movies would be tongue-in-cheek with a few references to other heroes, such as _Iron Man 2_ with the appearance of Captain's shield. In _Captain America: The First Avenger_, there were several instances where the movie highlights fun references or pieces of world-building that were relevant to past movies. Despite that, it doesn't feel like I needed to have watched those previous movies to get enjoyment out of the general movie. This all comes ahead then in _The Avengers_, No longer are characters off-handedly mentioned or small easter eggs that appear in a movie for fans of the character. Instead, the characters must team together to help defend humanity from utter destruction. A direct sequel to all the previous MCU movies. With the exception of _Iron Man_, which had received a direct sequel following the first story, the movies were essentially standalone. They would tease something larger at play with certain plot points, or the now infamous "post-credit scene" they would put after the credits to show what you could expect next from Marvel. However, the knowledge of the previous movies is essentially required for _The Avengers_. That is quite novel, a certain charm that isn't typically found in a Hollywood franchise. It is aided by how each release was spread apart, making it easy for consumers not to feel overwhelmed by needing to watch so much. If they were keeping up, it was just a movie or two a year. I wish I could say the movie itself was worth the buildup. I understand how the movie was created and marketed, likely to be watched in a theater, where certain moments are highlighted to draw crowd reactions. Moments like the sweeping shot of all the Avengers assembled (eh, eh?), the epic moments where characters clash, and some witty comments made to one another. That, I would assume, would create a great experience for those who were able to attend. This doesn't excuse or give a free pass to the movie. The movie itself felt long, moments dragging, and uninteresting plot points after uninteresting plot points. Assembling the team was pretty alright, but the characters felt strangely written, as if they were all turned up to eleven. For example, Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, is a strict Boy Scout archetype. He did come off like that in _Captain America: The First Avenger_, but not to that extreme. He wanted to do right, was a bit naive about achieving that, but was also willing to compromise and listen to see what could be done. In this movie, it was quite the opposite: a boy soldier who just took orders and did not listen to anyone. Little depth outside of the death of a character affecting him...somewhat. It isn't illustrated well, as no matter what, Captain would have done right. That sounds backward, but the "little push" that Fury talks about as we mount towards the final battle doesn't really feel like a proper motivation I would expect to work on all those characters. The writing itself is quite poor. Outside of the characters acting more like poor copies of themselves, the one-liners and quips don't land. It's either pointing out something, a quirky trait of a character, or sarcasm. One gag I keep groaning in disgust at is the "joke" Tony Stark makes on the bridge around an SHIELD agent playing Galaga on his work machine. I would have expected it to cut to it when Stark mentions it, but instead it saves the punchline to the end of the scene. The impact of the gag is lost at that point, instead feeling drawn out and poorly paced. The editing is horrific. Characters sometimes blip into place for action sequences, shots aren't held long enough quite often to absorb a character's emotion or reaction to something, and moments of intrigue are lost. A good example is when the team is fighting in the room with Loki's stick. Tensions are rising, and cutting is used to showcase how chaotic the atmosphere becomes as the argument becomes more heated. A sweeping shot between the different characters begins, which would've been a great shot if the movie hadn't randomly cut to continue the sweep awkwardly. Was there no way to have that shot be in one sequence? It felt strange, took me out of the moment. That is found all over the movie due to either poor sequencing or poor editing, or even both. It leads to a frustrating experience, as it makes it feel like when the camera isn't on the character, time itself freezes. The audience must see everything, even if it leads to a bloated Act 2. Camerawork and lighting are quite flat. Many have compared it to a high-budget TV Movie, which I can understand the comparison point. The composition of many shots isn't interesting, leading to a very samey experience in watching the movie. Action sequences are essentially composed and directed all the same, so once you know how it'll usually go, it becomes quite an uninteresting thing to see. Scenes lack depth, scope, challenge, and a lack of purpose in why a certain shot was picked to be filmed that way. Locations that the characters engage in aren't shown off, only revealed when it's convenient or would've been in the shot anyway. For example, the climax. In it, the viewer is never shown anything related to the opposition. We are left in the dark on how large of a team the enemy has against our heroes. Assumptions can be made on how much the enemy army may have had with a carrier shown in the movie. Yet...it was kept afar, destroyed, and quickly resolved. No shots of interiors, of what the enemies saw of when Stark did what he did. It leads to another resolution, with little struggle, and to little satisfaction. This can all be chalked up to "you had to be there". That I can understand why one may enjoy it. However, on its own merits and craft, it simply isn't, to me, a good movie.
A Small Rebound for the MCU.
_Thor_ was an interesting watch for me. The beginning to me was the worst part of the overall experience. As although it tries to build from a moment in media res where the audience is confused of how our titular character ended up in the situation he was in, it takes far too long to reach that point again that it loses its impact. Beyond the introduction and the somewhat clunky characterization of Thor, the film itself was pretty okay. It wasn't the worse thing I've seen, but I wouldn't say thus far it was the best thing the MCU had put out. Loki, to me, was a clear standout. Despite the small amount of screen time he had, his story and impact is greatly felt and appreciated, especially in comparison to how two-dimensional the previous villains the MCU has had. Motives are pretty understandable, the general actions don't feel forced, and it overall leads to a satisfying climax. This cannot be said for Thor's character, as I felt he learned his lesson and went on his hero journey a little too quickly, leaving a bit to be desired. One important thing as I would like to point out is the start of stylization for the MCU. Deliberate choices for how certain things may be shot or how the editing is done for the movie is much more apparent in comparison to the previous movies from the MCU. Throughout the movie, many Dutch angles are used... I would argue too many that it becomes a bit disorientating and strange to watch the movie, but the effort is still appreciated. The goal to play around the framing to help evoke the feeling of comic panels does certain land for some shots or scenes, but that is overshadowed by any other time that wasn't the case. Perhaps they should've played with the film ratio itself to reach that point, or used more match cuts (such as the storm dust picture match cutting with the overhead shot of Thor in the hospital) that may have aided from the fatigue of constant Dutch shots.
A Gentle Stumble.
Released the same year as _Iron Man_, _The Incredible Hulk_ tells the story of Bruce Banner, the man when exposed to intense emotions, becomes the dangerous and freak of nature known as Hulk. The film was at first pretty good. It sets up a quick and simple introduction to Banner, explaining the inciting incident that leads to him having gamma radiation, before having to hide away from the government. Little flourishes like how long has it been since Banner has since turned back to Hulk again, his routine, the clear pattern of trial and error of figuring out how to stop his "illness". Engaging and ensures the audiences gets an understanding and appreciation of Bruce. Soon, the first major conflict arises with him being found and he finally becomes Hulk. It's nicely done, showcasing well what makes Hulk so engaging to watch as a character. The scene isn't overly full of action, where it's just guys running in and constantly mag dumping the guy, but instead it's a nice and incremental increase in pace to the climax of the scene where the audience and the characters of the story understand the beast they are dealing with. Then the rest of the movie continues on. It becomes a much more subpar experience, as I could see what they were going for...but the execution falls flat. As for example: when Bruce transforms into the Hulk again, we get back to back shots of Emil Roth and General Ross reacting to that. However, it's strangely done with dolly zoom shots. Usually, these are done to highlight a character's emotional reaction to something or a revelation (like in Vertigo when John experiences vertigo and the world distorts while looking down). For Roth and Ross, both have seen Bruce transform already before, both are aware of what's coming, and both are funnily the only few survivors of the Hulk attacks. It would have made more sense if Betty perhaps had gotten the dolly zoom for her shot, as that would have been more effective in highlighting her seeing this side of Bruce. This, alongside the quite poor cinematography and editing choices, create a very bad movie experience. This isn't aided by the pacing being quite slow comparatively to the start of the movie, where it had me engaged. By the end, the movie was quite boring, the battles lacked real urgency, motives were flimsy at best, and much of the images were entering and leaving my head. What is interesting outside the first twenty or so minutes of the movie is the already interconnecting pieces of Marvel coming together. References to the previous work already appear, which go outside of being just an easter egg. That is quite interesting, making me curious what Marvel has planned next.
A Failure of the Arts.
This film is a complete disservice to Michael Jackson's achievements and history. It's boring, doesn't challenge the audience at all, and it tries to paint Michael Jackson as the most unchanging person of all time. _Michael_ isn't a Michael Jackson movie, it's a Michael Jackson PR move. The movie is made not to truly tell the story of how Michael had his start as a member of the Jackson 5 and become the "King of Pop", but instead the sanitized image the Jackson estate hopes becomes the main image of the man going further. There are sprinkles of moments where the audience learns about Jackson's method of making music, as he famously couldn't read or write music notes, but it happens all for two scenes. Excluding that and a couple of very short recording sessions, it's almost entirely made of performance recreations and odd moments to show Jackson has a pure soul & was always a good person. ALWAYS. Across a little over two hours of runtime, Jackson is not once shown in a negative light, in the wrong, or even making any mistakes. He becomes a christ like figure, one that befriends all who walks through his path, animal or not, and anything that Jackson does that the public as noted as being odd (like his aforementioned animal befriending or his enjoyment of things that are childish) as only...quirks...quirks that make him so innocent and lovable. Unintentional or not, it's showing of his mental struggles that the filmmakers clearly didn't want to approach with a foot long pole. Due to Jackson's lacking change as a character across the two hours, it leads to a very boring experience. Michael Jackson is an interesting person, especially to analyze how things in his first half of his life would lead to what most people know about the pop star in his second half. However, due to his near flanderization as a person, it leads to Jackson never truly being shown the true innovator he was for music. Although the film checked off the box of watching Jackson make a track technically, it would've been a million times more interesting to see him create a song in full. Seeing how it began to fill out, maybe working with his producers to get it all locked in, before finally hearing everything come through in the final mix. Something like that occurs in a montage of Jackson working on his "Thriller" album, but it's vapid, clearly meant to illustrate the whole album experience, and felt as though it could've been done to just show "OH MICHAEL JUST LOVED MAKING MUSIC!!!" What this leads then is for the audience being able to enjoy Michael's journey to becoming the best, or the performance recreations. The former is completely lackluster, with the closest we get to anything to struggle for Michael Jackson is breaking off from his father. Sparing that pretty boring section, Michael gets abused and...that's really it for struggles. People don't relate to Michael, but as well is shown to have a loving family sparing his father. He struggles to get his music videos on MTV, but it's all done in a single scene where it's also shown he got his way (maybe during the "Off the Wall" section, Michael tries to get a music video of his on the channel so a motivation is created for him to push even harder for MTV???). Michael never struggles with dancing or singing, nor is shown any mental anguish about the fame. What this leads to is a character I can't root for. Sure, I feel bad that he struggles with his father and the "Peter Pan syndrome" he clearly develops over time...but as well, he doesn't really struggle for any of his success or have any doubt about himself. Sure, eventually Michael gets the head burn, but again, Michael deals with it like it's someone who sneezed on him. A little bothered, but he acts all the same by the next section begins. Okay...what about the performance recreations? Don't waste your money nor use an A-List reservation if this is why you want to watch _Michael_. It's better to watch all those performances on YouTube, rather than the slow, clunky, no energy or style recreations the movie has. It doesn't even include the full performances of any tracks beyond a slightly shortened version of "Bad." Even _Bohemian Rhapsody_ had a better recreation of Queen's live performances compared to whatever this film has. This movie WILL gross some absurd amount just due to who it is about. Does that mean the film is suddenly good and the critics are wrong? Well, with that factor of numbers = success, that would mean 'Dance Monkey' by Tones and I is one of the best songs of modern history because it has over 3 billion streams on Spotify.
Fashionable, Chic, and a Surprising Hit for All.
It's pretty clear how this movie became a favorite of the public twenty years ago. It's witty, snappy, and features some amazing performances from the main cast. The film is easy to follow for someone who may not be fully interested in the fashion industry, while also doubling as an outstanding love letter to anyone involved in fashion. It was pretty great, though I did find the second act quite boring. At times, it felt redundant to keep repeating specific milestones or character moments that felt accomplished by a section of the film that had just happened prior. It's still entertaining, but will not be something I looked forward to if I ever do a rewatch. There weren't any shots that jumped out to me, which was disappointing. The editing really did carry the feature, especially with the sequence where we see Andy step up her game. It's still a great time, one that I can see many enjoying years to come. It's clear that despite how the film is dated for its "modern day" setting, its heart and its usage of specific narrative structure centered on struggling through to the top is still enjoyable to much of the audience. It's aided by just how intoxicatingly wonderful Miranda is to watch on the screen, as anything and everything she does to make Andy struggle is just so engaging. If anything, not even for the fashion, watching for the dynamic between Andy and Miranda is the reason to watch this. Just impeccable character moments between the two that somehow build to an amazing ending.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.
The movie's beginning, like the rest of Phase One, is a pretty good time. A fine enough introduction to the character, why the audience should care, and why the character stands out against the people around them. For Steve Rogers, it's due to the fact he's a good man despite his many physical and health issues. The movie does an overall adequate job in showcasing the heart Roger has...though I wished it continued throughout the film. I think that is the biggest problem, outside the quite lacking villain (a consistent issue that has been plaguing this phase) and the action sequences, is that Rogers doesn't change. He gets the chance to finally be on the frontline, to battle for what he believes in, to experience war...but it's all very clean and very optimistic. I don't think the movie needed a full halt to suddenly have Rogers be depressed and go 180 on the tone, but a bit more pushback from the people around him or perhaps a sequence on how losing a man he knew had affected him. Beyond that, the movie's action sequences are rather lackluster, lacking a real wow factor due to the poor cinematography or proper back and forth for most conflicts. Characters like Agent Carter or Bucky Barnes do appear with some personality, but it often feels more there to fulfill certain archetypes like "love interest" or "war buddy". It's disappointing, as I can see the seeds of great characterization in the short snippets we do see a character act, such as Agent Carter's sharp shooting in the first chase scene and in the climax. It was still a good time in a similar vain of _Iron Man_, but it just falls short in reaching the highs that movie had gotten. Average popcorn flick that I don't see myself coming back to over some of the other Phase One flicks.
2 Iron 2 Men 2 Stars.
_Iron Man 2_, the first sequel to the MCU that possibly shows a rough future. 2008's _Iron Man_ was a pretty alright film for me, so I was interested to see how a direct sequel would fair. After sitting down and watching it, I felt it was slightly disappointing. Comparing it to the 2008 original, a feeling of disconnect can be felt. It does make sense if the development stories of what occurred behind the scenes are to be believed, which I do with how the final product came out. As for example, when I think of the 2008 original, I think of the licensed tracks and usage of guitars that emphasized Tony Stark's character and energy. Jump forward to Iron Man 2, and much of the score is strings and orchestrated. A minor change really, but it goes further than that. The cinematography takes a hit, leading to flat shots or uninteresting fight sequences. The story has well isn't as interesting as one would hope. While it was at first enjoyable seeing what Stark had to deal in the sense of balancing his company and his new-found Iron Man duties, it tires quickly. It becomes a little of a boring watch, especially once the second act begins. While there are interesting ideas present, it all leads to a worse product or a more unpleasant viewing in comparison to _Iron Man_.
The Beginning...
_Iron Man_ began what would become the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", or the MCU. The first act is so...so good. A hard rock backing track before hearing the heavy clanks of metal, the intrigue of the clash of the bright sky's turned dirty and dank lighting. And before long, an awakening in Tony Stark to become the hero he was destined to be. Masterclass in all aspects for a first act. Then the rest of the movie is just average. Most of the cast is stilted in acting, with the clear exception being Robert Downey Jr. as Tony. He is Iron Man, playing the character incredibly. Cannot be said about the rest of the cast, as often it felt they felt very much one-dimensional and lacking any development in any shape or form, causing much of the performances to come out flat or lacking. As stated before, the story begins great, though by its 3rd act does have the movie fall apart due to the lack of real development to the antagonist. His motives are only really mentioned offhand in the climax battle, with other scenes featuring the character really appearing to show he's a bad guy by doing bad things with no clear reason why he's doing those bad things beyond feeling like it. This isn't aided by the movie having a different character propped up like the villain, before it's revealed to be a twist villain. Not done well, not interesting either. Overall, a slightly above-subpar action flick to watch if bored. I understand why some may hold it special to their heart thanks to the MCU, but comparing it to the action movies of the 2000s (I mean, The Dark Knight released the same year), it just doesn't hold up as well.
To Love or To Dream...
Now past a decade from its release, _La La Land_ remains a crown jewel for the general audience. It's rare for such a film that is quite a bit different than one may expect of the era to remain such a beloved fixture of pop culture and subconscious of the public. It features singing, dancing, an adoring romance, and above all else, a message for the public to hopefully take to heart. The story is modern day LA, where across a year, two slightly past their prime dreamers find one another and try to reach for the stars alongside one another. Unlike other "schmaltzy" romances, _La La Land_ felt as genuine as it gets. Even as it's most over sentimental, it doesn't feel like it's forcing the audience to coo or feel forcefully engaged with what's occurring so the audience leaves with a better feeling before they left. Instead, it teaches the audience of the ups and downs of either side, both of love and heartbreak. This contrast is explored primarily through the use of post-modern and surrealist dance numbers, one that breaks down the literal walls and rules of the world to give way to express the emotions of the situation. There aren't literal points in the world where sudden spotlights are placed on Mia and Sebastian when they meet, but it sure feels like that. It's through the use of post-modern filmmaking that we get some of the best points of the feature. One sequence is reminiscent of classic Hollywood song and dance numbers, another could be similar in Spike Lee's _25th Hour_, another could be making a date just so magical it transcends reality. It's still refreshing to see the blending of classic and modern filmmaking being applied to a love story that, by this time of the late 2010s, had a certain look and feel that was beginning to grow tired. I must admit...I do have minor issues with _La La Land_. The biggest issue is its difficulty really surpassing the past. It points to many classics of the past (_Rebel Without a Cause_, _Casablanca_, and _Singin' in the Rain_ etc), but I do feel that outside of it's final sequence and the sweeping silent date, a lot of the film was really good from what the genre was putting out, but lacking that little bit more to truly "pizazz" me to becoming a defining touchstone of romance films that many audience members seem to hold onto the film. I recognize the portions and parts of the film that did aid in the film's treasured status, but as well find myself finding parts of the film that make it a pretty simple romance story that at times were a bit too tried and familiar. No matter the case, it's now a classic, and I can understand I am a minority of the positive side that see the film this specific way. It's a crowd pleaser with great flourishes of post-modern, one that 99% of the audience will at least like.
