Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!