Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
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!!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Look on the bright side, we all said, without really believing it, when lockdown hit in March – time to watch those box sets we’ve been putting off. Well that was, of course, a great idea! For me that box set was possibly the biggest of all: the behemoth that is GOT.
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…
Much like when a new band gets big quickly and you refuse to listen to the hype, I avoided watching the biggest show in the world, even when it was on in the same room as I tried to read a book in the other corner. It wasn’t that I thought I wouldn’t like it, but more that I didn’t believe it could be anywhere near as good as folk were making it out to be, especially as season one looked like only a slight step up on the swords and sandles exploitation-fests that had been going around. I labelled it “Tits and Dragons” and got on with my life for the next 8 years.
March 2020 will go down in history as the biggest spike in streaming TV services the globe will ever see. Literally millions of previously casual watchers, who had been busy having lives and jobs, turned to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV and iPlayer etc, in search of endless hours of easy entertainment they could immerse their bored and twitchy minds inside of. Without internet at home, I had to go a bit more old school and rely on my daughter posting me the DVDs of GOT season by season.
I found season one enjoyable, with caveats, as it seemed to be one massive exposition (and sexposition) workshop. Obviously the main characters were being set up for big storylines down the road. In which sense it reminded me of a soap opera; in how it flitted between characters and relationships, never dwelling on one plot point for more than two minutes. I liked the way the production had set itself up though – the sets and costumes were of a much higher level than was usual for this kind of thing. Then there was those great opening credits, which become impossible not to hum along to as you get more into it.
Sadly, the first big shock moment didn’t shock me, as I’d heard so much about it on social media 9 years ago. But it was still very well done. Bold and brave; to take out a big name that early was a master stroke. By the end of S1E9 I was properly hooked. Although it helped I didn’t have anything else to do!
The next two weeks I had to wait for season two to be posted out, so I embarked on watching all the DVD commentaries too to kill some time in the evenings whilst I waited. This is almost certainly something I wouldn’t have done under normal circumstances and I believe it is what cemented my enjoyment of it as a whole. Listening to the cast and crew reminisce about what a great time they had, and how close they all were, really helped put it into context for me. I was already loving Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey, but their humour and irreverence in the commentaries made it feel like there were pals in the room watching it with me.
By season two and beyond, I was looking at maps, memorizing every minor character’s name, house and motto, and just immersing in it to the point of obsession. As, I guess, millions of people had already done over the years, but now I got what the fuss was all about. It is an addictive show; you have to know what happens next, you simply can’t leave it alone! Whether it is hissing and booing at Joffrey, or loving to hate Cersei, or siding with the bastards and broken things, there is always something engaging going on – and when a character you disliked dies horribly it is so satisfying!
It is a weird mix, however, of moments so horribly signposted, with some dubious acting, and moments of real surprise and emotion delivered with great acting. Many of the characters really grow into their skins as the actors get more familiar and comfortable being them. The writers too get better at putting the right words in their mouths, and learn to minimise the exposition moments. The young ones in particular really grow impressively as it goes on into seasons 3 and 4. Maisie Williams as the slightly sadistic loner Arya Stark especially. I loved how none stereotypical that character was, and have to say her relationship with The Hound was my favourite thing in the whole show.
At the climax of season four, which I believe was the peak of it artistically, the story arc of Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, aka The Imp, becomes so compellingly good you can’t take your eyes off him. I had already come to the conclusion that his scenes were the best ones, but this went to 11 on the dial. And it gets better thinking back on it too. Which can’t truly be said of where they go with John Snow and Daenarys, who are ostensibly the main draw by this point, as all storylines seem to mirror their journeys on opposite sides of the world; a song of ice and fire, indeed.
Seasons 5 and 6 continued to be great, even though the dramatic peaks were hard to top. What did improve was the big set pieces, as episodes such as Hardhome and Battle of the Bastards upper the bar on huge battles, staged masterfully. There were things happening that I had never seen in a TV show before, both creatively and budget spent. Watching some of the making of documentaries was fascinating in this regard. The props department alone was astonishingly detailed, to Lord of the Rings degrees, properly impressive!
To go into story and scene details here is pointless, and I don’t want to include any more spoilers than I already have, just in case there is anyone else like me, that hasn’t done the whole journey yet. Obviously, there was some controversy in where seasons 7 and especially 8 went with some storylines and characters. I thought it was mostly fine, to be honest, I just went with it. But it did become a little stretched and hurried, as it raced towards its conclusion. It’s hard for me to get a proper impression of how tense and then annoying it would be to wait a long time for a new season and then have it not go where you imagined it would. Not a problem for me, as I blitzed the final 4 seasons in about a week.
As the episode ratings of season 8 on IMDb indicate, folk were not happy. There was an element of anti-climax, to be fair, but what else could it have been, now so many people claim it as their own? The end isn’t perfect, and that may have a lot to do with the fact they stopped following the books, because they hadn’t been written. In all honestly, I didn’t care. It was spectacular and diverting enough to keep my attention, and my investment in the characters not brutally killed off was not teenage enough to take it personally. I do have sympathy for fans that felt their loyalty betrayed, but come on… it’s just a TV show.
Watching the same fictional world for more than 70 actual hours can do things to you brain. In conclusion I would say I loved going there! The good things always outweighed the annoying things, and it is an experience I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t done it. Whatever age you are, it is a must see phenomenon, like The Sopranos – oh wait, I haven’t seen that yet either…