Dr. Strange (2016) ***½/5: Marvel's multiverse has gotten even Stranger if not more profound

(Image courtesy of comicbook.com)

Dr. Strange is another small part of marvel’s grand universe. Like the other smaller parts it cannot stand on its own and only serves to shed more light on the various stories involved in the build up to Infinity War.  At times it seems more like an advertisement of a particular character like Iron Man in 2008 but without the same impact, especially as it has been 8 years since Iron Man was released, launching the grand marvel universe project. It’s certainly not as good as Iron Man because it does not stand up well on its own. It’s more about introducing the character and on that level it succeeds. It limps along when it tries to be grand and all encompassing because it exposes the superficiality of marvel’s universe or should I say multi verse. The visuals are interesting but not groundbreaking.

The film stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange a famous neurosurgeon who loses the power in his famous hands after a car accident. In a desperate bid to regain the power in his hands, after he is let down by western medicine and techniques, he travels to Nepal in the far east based on a tip about their mystical healing practices. There he meets the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who exposes him to the mystic arts and teaches him about its ways. There is also a villain who wants to use dark magic for his own esoteric purposes. There are also other important issues that make Dr. Strange seem like a somewhat important character.

Positives

The primary positive was the transformation of Dr. Strange from a famous neurosurgeon to a practitioner of the mystical arts. In terms of real world value this is where the film has some credence beyond being just another part of the Marvel multiverse.  I appreciated how he had to stretch himself beyond his narrow idea of the world in order to embrace mystical teachings that lead to an even more profound knowledge of the world. One could also say that his initial scepticism about the mystical arts has been done before. We all know the situation where an intellectual is not convinced about fairytales and hocus pocus until he is thrust right into the middle of it. The message here is that no matter how good you are at a particular subject or area you still exist within very narrow boundaries. Those narrow boundaries represent the limits of your own logic or the limits of your own possibilities. Obviously, Strange had to learn a certain sense of humility when considering that he was no longer a mighty, egotistical neuro surgeon who earned some good money. After the crash I said to myself that this will certainly be a film about how the mighty have fallen. It is also a film about how the fallen get back on their feet in a spectacular, magical way. Strange also had to seek the forgiveness of those he mistreated while at the top, particularly his love interest Christine (Rachel McAdams).

The visuals are nice to look at but I wasn’t that impressed. It looks nice in 3D but I just wasn’t thrilled. It’s an exercise in grandiosity without the suitable foundations. It seems more like an artist’s impression.

There are some important links established with the wider marvel universe especially the infinity stone that is used in this film.

Great casting. Cumberbatch does fit the look of Dr. Strange in the comics.

Negatives

The primary negative is that this film is not an effective standalone film. It starts promisingly but once he becomes the mystical Dr. Strange I became a little weary. All the magic on display was more like hocus pocus than anything serious, especially, when you consider the final encounter with the dark lord. I call it hocus pocus because a lot of the elements are just cryptic and have no real bearing on your understanding of anything. I am still not so sure what makes Strange so special in terms of magic. Probably, he’s just a good student. Is there anything innate about him that makes him a special sorcerer? I thought there would have been some big revelation about Strange as a character. There is a lot of grand talk about the multi universe so, maybe, I missed it.

It’s not a bad film but it doesn’t stand up well against the other heavyweights in the marvel universe. The world has just gotten stranger. This doesn’t mean that this film brings about fundamental change at the core of the marvel universe it merely adds to its appeal. Another way to make money. I am not trying to be callous, because, for marvel to be in a position to do a movie on Dr. Strange, which is not a bad film, is testament to their success. It still doesn’t change the fact that it is not one of the heavy hitters.

Captain America: Civil War (2016) ****/5: It works as an Avengers film but it sucks as a standalone Captain America film.

Captain America: Civil War has confirmed what I, and others, have known all along: Captain America is an idiot. He’s not an idiot in the stupid way or lack of intellectual ability, he’s an idiot in the most noble way. He reminds me of the idiot in Dostoevsky’s great novel or the character Don Quixote. He is certainly an idiot from the standpoint of ancient Athenian democracy (go look it up).  His idiocy is certainly incompatible with the real world. In the real world he would most certainly be dead already. He would hold out for awhile with his physical prowess but eventually the great symbol of American hypocrisy would be silenced. I said in my review of  Captain America: The First Avenger that this sort of character is a complete joke when measured against the standards of the real world. He fights for an American ideal but can’t account for US dealings in the real world. This means he doesn’t know what he fights for and this makes him a great noble idiot.  Cap thinks he’s a hero but is certainly not one. He’s the kind of character that would justify US imperialism and exploitation if it called for it. He has a lot of big talk but that’s it. He can’t implement or build anything substantial. All he has is brawn because of a super soldier serum or steroids.

 With that said Civil War is a very good film. The film is not great but it’s a solid one. Civil War works as an Avengers film but it doesn’t work as a Captain America film. As a Captain America film it is very inadequate. If it wasn’t so focused on the Avengers this film could have been a really good Captain America film. A lot of people are calling Civil War the greatest superhero film ever or the greatest marvel superhero film but they need to check themselves. This film is nowhere near the level of The Dark Knight or Iron Man or Spider-Man 2 in terms of transcending the superhero genre and it’s certainly not on the level of the The Avengers in terms of setting a genuine standard for team up superhero films. When compared with The Winter Soldier it is a step down as a Captain America solo film. What this film does do well is to set up Marvel’s phase 3 and so it’s a very good film within the context of marvels’ long term project. It doesn’t stand up well on its own.

This film is about how the Avengers respond when they are held accountable for their destructive actions in the past. 117 countries at the UN ratify the Sokovia accords as a means to keep these agents of US military power in check. They might operate on  a private basis because they are so well funded by Tony Stark/Iron Man but they are an extension of US interests. The US is also the leader of the UN so it’s no surprise that the white house would have a lot to say on the matter. The Sokovia accords split the Avengers into two factions, one (Black panther, War machine, Black Widow, the Vision and Spiderman) led by the great egotist Tony Stark and the other (Scarlett Witch, Hawkeye, falcon, the winter soldier, Antman) led by the great idiot Steve Rogers. With all of this going on a mysterious character known as Baron Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) has his own nefarious plan to tear the avengers apart as he tries to exploit a remarkable secret in the winter solder’s past.

Positives

The primary positive is that this film works as a film about the Avengers. The issue related to the Sokovia accords gives the story of the Avengers a new dimension. This issue of the sokovia accords also sets the stage for the introduction of T’challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman). His introduction does not seem so frivolous given his position as a head of state. I am certainly looking forward to his solo film. As a black man the Black Panther is more appealing to me than the other superheroes. I was not so impressed by the introduction of spiderman. His inclusion was a bit much but his introduction more or less confirms that this is an Avengers film. The introduction of Black Panther and Spiderman compensate for the absence of Thor and the Hulk. Without the Hulk and Thor, the two most powerful members of the Avengers group, this is certainly The Avengers 2.5.Ant man is here as well but as usual he is very disappointing especially as he only provides comic relief.  He’s certainly one of the worst characters in the MCU in my opinion but he must have his place in the Avengers set up led by Captain America. He’s a mildly interesting character without the comic relief. War machine is given some good ground to cover here and I was genuinely surprised. They should have a War Machine film in phase 4. There is interesting ground to cover here by exploring the marginalized black characters like war machine and the Falcon. In terms of  producing a  film War Machine would be the most likely of the two to have a film. He certainly has more power than the wimpy falcon and  his skill set is diversified. Civil War made me realize that he’s not simply just an iron man clone. His suit has its own distinct features. Civil War does give each character a means to stand out.

The great divide between the egotist Tony Stark and the idiot Steve Rogers is very compelling in this film. Obviously the big reveal towards the end has a lot to do with it. The final act in Civil War is  emotionally resonant. Not surprisingly a lot of it has to do with Captain America’s idiocy. In terms of pure emotion and cutting to the core of these characters it’s the best I have seen in a marvel film. In most cases marvel films are very superficial but this one has a genuine core. It was very well done but only when you see it within the context of the Avengers and not as a  Captain America film.

The plan of the villain, Baron Zemo, is very effective. He is a shadowy sort of figure and sometimes those are the worst kind of people to deal with. They know how to infiltrate and destabilize from within. He’s not a dominant villain like Loki. Loki had a somewhat similar plan to tear the Avenger’s apart but he also had force on his side. This villain, Zemo, is clearly more appropriate for a Captain America film because he is not a very dominant figure. The Avengers will finally get a real test when Thanos comes to town in Infinity War. He has ultimate force on his side and he has been operating as a shadowy figure for some time now. It goes to show that Hydra will haunt Cap forever. The Red Skull is truly his greatest villain.

The action in this film is very good. People will certainly be entertained.  The final fight is pretty good as well.

This film has done well to kick off marvel’s phase 3 which will culminate in Infinity War. It’s not a great standalone film and neither does it transcend the superhero genre effectively but it does work when you consider marvel’s long term project. They finally have a story that shows divided loyalties. How the avengers come together again will be very interesting. Captain America films normally do set the stage for the new phases. This film does suggest that the world will get even stranger (according to nick fury)in phase 3.

Negatives

The primary negative is that Civil War is not a standalone Captain America film. This is clearly an Avengers film. It can’t be a complete Avengers film without the Hulk and Thor, who are the most powerful individuals, but the issues are directly related to the Avengers. There are elements related to Zemo’s plan and the winter soldier program, that was developed in Moscow, which would have allowed for a Captain America film to be very significant. If they took out the civil war issue captain america would have had another solid solo film to follow up The Winter Soldier. Captain America, however, is not as marketable in a stand alone film. The reality is that, as a brand, Cap is not as marketable as the likes of Iron Man or Spiderman. Spiderman alone is probably the biggest marvel comics brand. The elements of his new suit also allude to this. Kevin Feige must have recognized that Captain America by himself won’t get over the US$1 billion hump.  Captain America stand alone stories are more interesting from the political thriller standpoint. They could have built on that here based on Zemo’s plan. The Civil War issue gives us other issues that have nothing to do with Zemo and so you get to understand that this is probably the last standalone captain america film. As a captain america film Civil War is awful and cannot stand up very well on its own.  Where they missed the boat is that based on the winter soldier program that Zemo is interested in they could have created a real context for a genuine civil war to erupt amongst various nations, particularly the US, especially when you speak of destabilization. Political destabilization always leads to civil war. Based on Zemo’s plan a civil war did not have to concern the avengers themselves. The screen writers missed the avenue to tie Zemo’s plan into the civil war storyline more effectively.  Such a storyline related to political destabilization would have been more effective than having the Avengers go at each other. Such a storyline would have transcended the comic book element and given Captain America another solid stand alone film. 

This is why this film does not work as a standalone Captain America film. It works as an Avengers film.  We were shortchanged by Marvel because they must have realized that before and after the Age of Ultron that mediocrity was setting in. They upped the ante here to add some vibrancy but after awhile people will understand that this was just another long advertisement for phase 3.  They got very dramatic in this film to drive home some of their points but there is nothing really conclusive.

Captain America is a great noble idiot. This film will make a lot of people anti-captain america. His hypocrisy in this film is startling. Is he really heroic or just an idiot from the perspective of Athenian democracy? (More explanation in a later post) He is more interested in his own agenda than the greater good. He only cares for his friend so who is he really saving. Can he help to solve the problem of income inequality? The civil war in this film is between the dominant capitalist, Stark and the petty bourgeois, Steve. For all of his physical brawn Steve only makes it clear that he depends a lot on the patronage of others to get by. He cannot make things happen on his own. Steve does not seem to realize that the only reason the Avengers can operate on a private basis is because of Stark’s funding. Stark has contributed the most to building up the facilities and to providing the tech used by the lesser heroes like falcon. Steve’s inability to see the big picture makes you realize why he has to go on the run. Without help from another quarter his followers would be living in dire poverty (Hawkeye) and their families made to suffer as a result. Cap is not a revolutionary and so he’s stuck because he cannot make things happen. They keep portraying the captain as a man of big talk and brawn. Nothing more.

In the end this film does work as an avengers film but it sucks as a standalone Captain America film. For it to be a Captain America film it would have to be much more intricate.

The Jungle Book (2016) ***½/5: A good film but there are some deficiencies with the visual presentation. This remake could have been more extensive or elaborate.

(photo courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com)

The Jungle Book is a good film but there were some notable deficiencies in its presentation. The irony here is that most people have praised the visual elements in this film yet I was not as impressed as I watched it in 3D. The visuals were good particularly the CGI creation of the jungle and animals etc but sometimes I was too conscious that I was looking at a green screen. The visuals did not necessarily make the story more effective in my opinion and this is where the deficiencies set in. There are some interesting moments that could have been much more effective if this remake went against some of the traditional elements associated with the original and the stories told by Kipling.  A genuine remake would have been more effective than just sticking to what’s already known. The movie could have been so much more than its American centric approach. The visuals in Life of Pi were more effective in terms of story.

This film stars Neel Sethi as Mowgli an orphan in the Indian jungle raised by wolves. Following the threat of the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) Mowgli leaves the pack to return to human civilization escorted by the black panther, Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) and the bear Baloo (Bill Murray). Mowgli must learn to accept who he is as a man cub in the jungle especially as the threat of Shere Khan looms.

Positives

The primary positive as everyone knows is the visuals on display. It has been reported that everything was created by computer and this means that the CGI on display must be at a very high level, from the creation of the jungle to the creation of the animals. If it is true that all the visuals, except Mowgli, were created in such a manner then it’s very impressive. It can also seem very artificial.  At times the visuals were so good that I felt that I was looking at a green screen. This is the price we pay for great visuals. Some of the settings in the film were truly creepy or full of suspense such as when Mowgli interacts with the snake, Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) or when Shere Khan is at his menacing best.  There is not much more to be said about the visuals apart from go and see it yourself but to beware of the artificial feel that comes with it.

The story is somewhat interesting particularly when it comes to the interpretation of the world by the animals. I’m a big fan of nature but I would not want to be instructed by a black panther or a bear or a pack of wolves. There is only so much they can know which doesn’t make it interesting. There is an attempt to make some of the instructions that Mowgli receives seem profound but it falls flat and more or less reflects the smallness of the world inhabited by these animals. There is no real attempt to go big here. The narration by Kingsley as Bagheera is pretty good despite the limited scope or lack of profundity. One can see how the plot device about Mowgli having to return to the village sets the stage for his interaction with several characters outside of the wolf pack and Bagheera. He is almost swallowed whole by a python, meets a lazy bear, interacts with and then confronts a giant orangutan called King Louie (Christopher Walken).  He then returns to face Shere Khan. There is also some interaction with the Elephants and one does get some sense of how their size has a impact on the environment. It’s very surprising that the elephants don’t talk. Why do some animals talk and others don’t? There is also the issue of fire or the red flower which is a very important plot point especially since fire is seen as the primary reason for man’s power. Mowgli’s tool making abilities or ‘tricks’ don’t seem as profound to the animals as fire (interesting) until the end. I wonder how they will react when Mowgli is able to create and wield a spear.

The voice acting is pretty good. I liked Idris Alba as Shere Khan. The others were good but Shere Khan really does have a menacing presence in this film and a lot of it is due to Idris Elba’s voice acting. Kingsley as Bagheera is like the typical father figure and Bill Murray as Baloo is there for comic relief. Christopher Walken as King Louie comes across as a typical gangster and Scarlett Johansson as the snake Kaa probably could have gotten more screen time.

There are a lot of lessons about the jungle that Mowgli does learn and are used to good effect when it matters.

Negatives

The primary negative is that some of the visuals don’t support a character like Mowgli and this would have called for a more extensive reimagining of the character and how he actually interacts with the jungle. The director Jon Favreau and his writers take the angle that this is just like a cartoon even though it’s partly live action. In this day and age we’re having live action where a character talks to animals like Dr. Dolittle. Is it that Mowgli has a similar gift? He speaks to them in such a candid manner as if he’s speaking to regular people. If this film was a more extensive reimagining of the subject and not just a mere remake then the creators would have found ways to make Mowgli’s interaction with the jungle much more interesting. What kind of languages do bear, wolves, tigers, monkeys and snakes speak? What is their actual language apart from English? The perspective of another human would have been more interesting especially when he or she sees young mowgli walking side by side with a black panther or a bear. At least we would get to see how they are really interacting. Most animals are limited in terms of communication and this is why they are not on our level. Mowgli shouldn’t even be able to speak English extensively based on his own story so it would be interesting to get the perspective of another human character. In the eyes of another human character mowgli would be doing a lot of grunts and gesticulations like a animal. Why does mowgli walk so casually upright? One would expect him to attempt to emulate the quadrupeds (four legged animals) some more. There is nothing wrong with him walking upright but not enough of him truly moving like he was raised in the jungle.

I was not impressed with how Neel Sethi moved as Mowgli and one could tell that he was uncomfortable in some areas. In a animated film it wouldn’t be an issue and the movements of Mowgli would have been more effective. In live action Mowgli’s movement through jungle barefooted and with only a loin cloth does not capture the hazards of the area sufficiently. He runs as if he’s afraid to buck or bump his toe or worried that his feet would be pricked.

This is the advantage of having everything shot in front of a green screen.  Filmmakers no longer have to go on location and so it’s a reversion to the old days where films were made entirely in the studio to cut costs. Oh how little we have advanced. I didn’t even get a sense of India. I am assuming that the story takes place in India so why not some more representation of India. Give us a shot of the Himalayas for Christ sake and invent some story about its legend. A story about the Himalayas being the home of the gods etc.   I never knew there was such a large population of rhinos in India. The elephants look more like African elephants than Indian ones. Baloo does not seem like a typical Indian bear. Looks more like the kind of bear you find in America. And since when do wolves co exist with a tiger. Neel as Mowgli might have the Indian look but he doesn’t act Indian at all and so we’re still  imbibing American values. He speaks American to appeal to American audiences but he has the look of an Indian. Is this still 1967? In this day and age a more extensive reimagining of the story would have required some more of the Indian perspective; more of the Indian mythology etc and how these animals fit in.

These deficiencies in presentation means that the creators had the opportunity to truly remake Rudyard Kipling’s basic jungle stories but instead decided to play it safe. This is a Disney film after all and the major market for movies is still America. Life of Pi, however, did it right. In Life of Pi I got a true sense of India but that was a more mature film so The Jungle Book is exactly what the children deserve. A good film for children but very limited and it won’t have lasting appeal because they did not reinvent the wheel in any considerable way. 

What I expect from Captain America: Civil War and why I am team Iron Man?

(photo courtesy of marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com)

While in an earlier post I commented that Captain America: Civil War, along with Batman vs. Superman, means that the golden age of superhero films are coming to an end, I am actually looking forward to it for various reasons.  I have read some great reviews so far about the emotional resonance in this film which will be welcome since films in the marvel cinematic universe are mostly superficial in their conception. The main reason I am interested in this film is the schism between Captain America and Iron Man. It has finally come after being hinted at since the first Avengers film in 2012. Also what I have come to realize over the course of the many films released in the marvel cinematic universe is that I have become a supporter of Iron Man/Tony Stark and have come to loathe Captain America/Steve Rogers. Iron Man does represent big business, progressive and innovative forces whereas the Captain represents the petty bourgeois moral standpoint and the highest form of American idealism. This moral and idealistic standpoint can also be seen as a reactionary or conservative element that is stagnant because it denies the material forces at work or it can be seen as progressive as many people fail to strive towards the ideal.  The primary difference between the 2 is that Stark knows how to put his money where his mouth is and the captain can only offer grand rhetoric about nobility and freedom.  Steve can try and motivate people but he can’t really get things going. He can’t build anything because all he has is physicality or brawn.

Well the basic plot of the film is that a rift between the Avengers will occur because of the Sokovia accords drafted by the U.N which is dominated by the U.S.A.  The team led by Captain America doesn’t support superhero registration and government control of their actions whereas Team Iron Man is pro registration and believe that the heroes should be kept in check. Why I support Team Iron Man is that in the world we live most ordinary people like myself would be calling for some government oversight. Without oversight it means that superheroes could challenge the jurisdiction of any country with impunity. If a man like Steve Rogers feels like he is above the law then what’s stopping him from doing questionable acts. Tony Stark realized that when he created Ultron albeit with the best intentions. Stark was originally the one who flaunted his individualism but with Ultron he realized that there are limits. He rightfully acknowledges his failure especially as he is chiefly responsible for creating and managing the Avengers team. He finances a large part of the Avengers operation.  He was the first one that started questioning the authority of SHIELD before it collapsed in The Winter Soldier. Check the first Avengers film. Just like in the civil war comic book storyline Stark wants to assume more control of an operation that he is largely responsible for. In order to do that he will need the support of the government. Most capitalists seeking to control a particular sphere will turn to the government. He is more of a boss of the Avengers than Captain America because he is more responsible for the operations of the Avengers outfit that emerged following the collapse of SHIELD. Captain America is just a man who flaunts his legacy as a super soldier with the stars and stripes suit. He is outdated. He has no means to make things happen especially in terms of building operations. He can train the new Avengers but when it really matters can he make things happen especially in terms of operations. He is no more than a petty bourgeois/middle class worker or a skilled fighter in the superhero ranks.  It’s clear then that in Civil War there is a leadership struggle between the big capitalist and the petty bourgeois/middle class individual. In a capitalist society there is only one winner. Captain America is not a revolutionary and so he won’t be prepared to overturn the status quo like Bane did in TDKR. He couldn’t because that would make him an outright villain.

Now  I understand that there must be a villain involved and that Cap cares a lot for his friend the winter soldier but it still does not change the fact that in the real world individuals like superheroes would be regulated. If Batman did not have the tacit approval of the people of Gotham city and the police force then he could not act the way he does.  Batman is strong but he’s not that powerful because he still relies on the state to imprison the criminals. The only way someone like Cap could truly flout the law is if he had Superman or Hulk like power. In such a case that would be understandable. Someone with Superman or hulk like power could not be really controlled unless by very extreme means such as Nuclear power. In The Age of Ultron it was revealed that Stark and Bruce Banner designed the veronica system to keep the Hulk in check but with a superman it would be more difficult. I am just saying that very extreme measures would have to be employed for individuals with tremendous power. Captain America is strong for a human being on steroids or a special serum but he has not been a very effective superhero in most of the big films related to the Avengers.  He played a very minor role in the defeat of Loki and was relegated to saving civilians and laying out the tactics. He was only slightly above Hawkeye and Black Widow because of the steroids/or super soldier serum and his shield.  In the battle against Ultron he also played a minor role. All Cap has is talk in the big moments. A lot of talk. For instance when the city was floating in The Age of Ultron he wanted a solution that didn’t involve blowing up the rock. Blowing up the rock was the same as an escape plan in his mind. He had no bearing on what was going on in terms of solving the problem but he was very demanding in terms of having Iron man find a miraculous solution. That is when I had enough of him.  If it wasn’t for Nick Fury providing some real assistance then Captain America would look like a major buffoon. A man truly out of touch.

Even before Civil War we have seen internal conflict before in Iron Man; the film that launched the marvel cinematic universe in grand style. The main reason Iron Man started flouting regulation was due to the events that happened in that film as a result of Obadiah Stane’s treachery. Previously, Stark was prepared to accept government supervision especially as the US military was his biggest client. He went in a new direction but was then thwarted again with the creation of Ultron. He clearly reached another limit. With the avengers team Stark became involved with a social movement that went against his new found individualism but he responded to it with his own finances however after Ultron he is now back in the fold. No individual can survive without the government in their own country. The government for all its flaws represents the collective in society which is bigger than any individual or corporation. Stark finally  realizes that. Cap can’t seem to fathom it because of his idealism and Hydra’s infiltration of SHIELD. What can he do but run and hide and fight through a couple situations.  If Cap was able to build something concrete apart from just talk then he would have more reason to take the position that he does.

Cap can only challenge the system with ideals but ideals are never enough. His approach worked in The Winter Soldier because the system operated without limits. In the real world the best governments have various checks and balances no matter how imperfect.  The Russos and their team of writers must be blamed because the Hydra plan just made government look too callous. It’s not like World War 2 where you could blame the attack on the Japanese. Who would the Americans have blamed with such an attack from Project Insight? Conspiracy theorists say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in order to go to war and the creative team behind Captain America seem to be in line with that strand of thought. This is why in Civil War Cap is wary of state control because the message seems to be that it is inherently evil or destructive.  The creative team behind Captain America give the impression that most of the major battles are fought from within society which is why there is a culmination of cap’s trilogy with Civil War. This would also explain why Cap has some very ineffective villains outside of government.  The Red Skull and Hydra will forever haunt Cap. He seems to be embracing the Red Skull’s philosophy by breaking out on his own so that he can pursue his own agenda. Even if his friend was controlled by the state and made to assassinate people, he is still accountable. Someone has to answer for his crimes. By doing what he does in supporting his friend who is a criminal then Cap is basically acting in a way that people will fear when superheroes are under no control or supervision. He answers to no one but the American ideal. The Avengers: Infinity Wars will be a much more effective film if the heroes fight alongside the various national governments. It will make the fight against Thanos much more believable than to think that it’s only a fight for the superheroes.

What is this American ideal that Cap clings to so stubbornly? Well it would be simple to say that Cap has a lot of national pride. He went to war for his country so that people could be free. What people I don’t know because the Soviets played a greater role than the Americans in defeating Nazi Germany. The impression given in the Captain America storyline is that it was a noble war effort. Was hydra responsible for the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbour and what would Captain America have done if he found out? Would he still want to be Captain America? America had an independence war (1775-83)  that gave them independence from Britain but slavery still existed in the South. The blacks were an oppressed class when Captain America was around during WW2 yet he was willing to embrace the white American ideal. Who was he really fighting for and are his efforts any greater than Lincoln’s? Does the American ideal have to do with small government so that the individual can thrive and be free? If so then why do the individuals depend on the state to implement checks and balances? Was there ever a time when the state was not crucial in a big way? Is the idea of small government a myth particularly when the collective grows? How does Cap account for the civilians that he wants to be free? He thinks that only by saving them then everything is fine. Not so. Can Cap put systems in place whereby the Avengers don’t come across as just another arm of the US military? Can Cap create anything of use that will make him truly able to implement his idealistic vision regarding regulation? In the end Cap cannot answer those questions because he does not have the means to build anything. All he has is rhetoric.

Iron Man on the other hand was able to go his own route because he had the means to do so. He reinvented himself after the mini collapse of his company. He contributed to building the Avengers with his own resources although he created Ultron. He has played a more significant role in the major events involving the Avengers and he knows how to accept change. In the beginning he was dependent on the state and now it’s no different. Cap is fighting to attain the perfect good in society but he doesn’t realize that corrupt and criminal elements always surface and so you have to live with them in some uneasy alliance to a lesser or greater degree. If Cap is fighting for the cleanest government and for people to be free then he has a lot more work to do. How will Cap tackle income inequality, crime in the inner cities, the need for welfare amongst the poor? What can he really build that will make him completely different from the government?

Seeing that cap is not revolutionary then what is his political objective? He is challenging sinister forces but sinister forces always emerge in the long run. If he was revolutionary then he would have to do some drastic things and he would have to be clear about what he is fighting to change in society apart from the Sokovia accords. He would have to offer a radical alternative but can he really do it apart from saving his friend Bucky. It all goes back to what he’s really fighting for. If he’s just fighting for his friend then what kind of hero is he really? One weakness of marvel so far is that the Avengers mainly fight amongst themselves or create their own problems particularly in The Age of Ultron. Whether Cap likes it or not the Avengers have created a new type of order that must come with its own rules or way of doing things. The understanding that I have gotten from the MCU is that The Avengers have basically replaced SHIELD. They are an arm of the US government whether they like it or not. Everything they do reflects on America’s interests and when they have to wage war with Thanos in Infinity Wars the Avengers fight will be more effective on screen if they fight alongside the many national governments throughout the world, especially the US government. Cap going rogue is therefore counterproductive for the real battles to come and this is why I side with Iron Man who realized that the real fight will come from outer space in the form of Thanos. If the fight against Thanos is for the superheroes alone then it will be a very superficial encounter indeed. Having national governments standby and watch the superheroes do their thing is not very realistic. It will be better if the superheroes are the spearhead in attack against the forces of Thanos. The battles on the ground will inevitably be fought by real world, ordinary soldiers.

Well I am just saying that I side with Iron Man because his position conforms to the real world. Captain America’s idealism is not very appealing to me because I am not sure that Captain America knows what sort of ideal he represents. Even before Civil War he comes across as a very impractical individual that is out of touch with reality. The only ideal he seems to represent is 1930s and 40s America. He just can’t seem to get with the program. If you believe in the collective you have to side with government whether you like it or not. You can try and change it but every group has to conform to certain social standards which assume a government structure. If Cap decides to violate international authority what’s stopping him from doing questionable things.

#TeamIronMan 

The Difference between Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder

(photo courtesy of batman.wikia.com)

Well I recently watched Batman Begins (2005)and it still holds up despite the release of Batman vs. Superman. Batman Begins is a superior film to Batman vs. Superman because it’s just a good, well made film. It’s not even an issue of comparing the two as superhero films.  They should be compared as films. Are they good or not? Batman vs. Superman benefitted from having a comic book extravaganza because it featured, if only briefly at times, many characters in the DC comic book pantheon.  Batman Begins was done well in order to correct the comic book extravaganza that wrecked the Batman franchise in the 90s. One of the reasons Batman Begins was able to win converts is that it was a good film. By superhero standards it’s a great film. In terms of storytelling technique Batman Begins set a high standard in terms of incorporating the superhero in the real world or the world as we know it. By discussing the difference between  Batman Begins and Batman vs. Superman I will discuss the difference between Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. The primary difference is that Nolan is a very good filmmaker particularly when it comes to building his own vision for a particular story and Snyder is not. I won’t use Man of Steel here because Nolan played a significant role in crafting the story.

One of the primary differences between  Begins and BvS is the tone as well as the delivery. Firstly, Snyder botched Batman’s origin story in BvS because it was more stylistic and superficial instead of offering any real glimpses into the character of Bruce Wayne. One of the most embarrassing scenes in Snyder’s take on Batman’s origin story is when he falls through a hole in the surface into the bat cave. After he falls the bats predictably swirl around him but what comes next was more stylistic than concrete. As the bats swirl around the young Bruce Wayne he begins to rise to the surface in a most holy fashion. It is a foolish scene and so is the one where his parents get shot in such dramatic fashion. In Begins Nolan’s approach is a grim affair but it is also portrayed in a realistic way. We understand from the outset that Bruce fears bats because after his fall he was swarmed by bats in the cave. He is also tormented by the murder of his parents. Ra’s Al Ghul teaches him to embrace his fear and become one with it and so how he becomes batman makes sense in the long run.  Snyder tries to simplify all the work Nolan has done by letting us watch a young Bruce rising towards the light and so accept that he must become batman. It therefore shows that Nolan knows how to build his story and explain the fundamentals of an issue that eventually lead to the stylistic or superficial elements that come later. Snyder on the other hand seems to struggle with the fundamentals and more readily embraces the superficial elements. This would explain the numerous dream sequences in BvS which are very superficial in Snyder’s case whereas the flashbacks in Begins convincingly reflect psychological trauma.

Now it has been recently revealed that Snyder deleted a scene from BvS because it was considered too dark. He seemed to be pushing for a very grim affair in this film. Something akin to the dark world in  Sin City. Snyder fails here as well.  There is nothing wrong with a grim film once it can be balanced out by more hopeful elements. Snyder killed off superman in order to drive home his point. He exaggerated in order to convey an issue where he would have been better served to elaborate on the fundamentals. Superman’s, supposed, death did not need to lead to the creation of a justice league because that could have been done with the doomsday fight alone. The holy trinity (Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman) would have already recognized the need to stand together following the doomsday fight.  In that sense it could have been much more hopeful if Doomsday was defeated and the three heroes got together and showed some level of camaraderie even though they were battered and bruised. This is what Nolan did so well in Begins. He did not need to drive home is point by having a main character die. In The Dark Knight it does seem as if Nolan was prepared to take it to a whole new level by having James Gordon killed but he brought him back to the relief of the audience. Nolan toyed with the grim elements but he balanced it. In The Dark Knight Rachel Dawes does die and Harvey Dent becomes Two Face but Rachel Dawes is not a major character like James Gordon. Her death was designed to push Dent over the edge. In Begins Nolan is trying to explain the fundamentals that lead to the creation of Batman’s partnership with other real world individuals in the fight against crime. His major ally is James Gordon but there is also Lucious Fox and Alfred. It’s still a team and we see how all of them come together to make things happen and this partnership leads to the defeat and death of Ra’s Al Ghul. This is not the case in BvS and we don’t necessarily get a sense of how the holy trinity function as a partnership. This would have been better illustrated if Superman didn’t die. If Snyder explained the fundamentals in terms of the  three coming together for a common cause then this film would have been better and it could have simply be called The Justice League: The Dawn of Justice. There would have been no need for Superman’s, supposed, death to create a rallying cry. Nolan by seeking to build the fundamentals of the story succeeds in Begins where Snyder fails because he (Snyder) cannot explain the fundamentals. This is why Snyder has been called out for the ‘Martha’ incident because it reeks of gross superficiality.

Nolan’s expert explanation of the fundamentals means that he is able to introduce several characters without making the area seem overcrowded. Snyder on the other hand, because of his stylistic and superficial approach, makes the area seem overcrowded because he can’t distinguish who or what is important to the story. Snyder’s superficiality becomes especially rank when it comes to the numerous dream sequences and Luthor’s reference to the coming of Darkseid. Snyder thinks he’s telling a story by doing this but instead he isolates the viewer from the story. It is because of the many interludes that the BvS story seems very hollow and trite in its conception.  Goyer and Chris Terrio must also be singled out. The superman issue was weak because the story should have been about Batman vs. Superman only. It would have simplified the issue because, as many people have commented, there is no dawn of justice. BvS would have worked if it focused on how these two characters have different approaches to addressing the world’s problems. It never had to be about the two of them actually fighting. Batman should be clearly more seasoned than Superman and there would be nothing wrong for the two of them to come together to fight Luthor. Simplifying the story is the only way this film could have worked effectively but it couldn’t be simplified because that would require building the fundamentals. Snyder is incapable of building fundamentals. The two heroes didn’t need to be connected through Bruce Wayne’s tower collapsing or their mothers having the same name. Those kinds of connections are more emotional than realistic. Batman would have begun doing some serious investigations once Zod announced his arrival. He wouldn’t have to wait for his building to come crashing down. In Begins Wayne  and Gordon have a connection because Gordon consoled him immediately following his father’s death however if Gordon was corrupt then the connection would not be realistic.  Batman must still have observed or done his investigations to determine if Gordon was one of the good cops ‘one of the few’.  There is a very important scene in Begins when Gordon refuses to take a taste of corrupt dollars. A very important scene because what would be the point of their emotional connection if Gordon was corrupt.

Nolan introduces other characters that are similarly submerged because of the rampant corruption and glorification of crime in Gotham. The idealists have been smothered or extinguished.  What Nolan does well is have them come together in a way that doesn’t seem superfluous or empty. In Begins the characters are either idealists or realists. The realists are very corrupt or unwilling to provoke change whereas the idealists are given to wishful thinking. It’s Batman that galvanizes and brings them together which is a point the joker made in The Dark Knight when he addressed the mobsters. The Joker understood clearly that batman was the epicenter of the positive movement. In Snyder’s case he would have required a more fundamental epicenter to explain the creation of the justice league. He tries to have this done with the death of superman. Nick Fury and his SHIELD operatives brought the Avengers together. Where Snyder missed the boat is that there is no epicenter in BvS so all the characters seem empty. In Begins Nolan makes it clear from the outset that crime is the number one issue to be dealt with and he introduces Ra’s Al Ghul to identify a difference in crime fighting styles. Ra’s is more in line with the ‘eye for an eye’ approach and batman takes the new testament, ‘be your brother’s keeper’, approach. Batman supports rehabilitation whereas Ra’s believes there is no other way but eradicating criminals. Other characters like the Scarecrow become involved but in more subordinate roles. A character like the scarecrow is not just a typical villain but one that represents how ingrained corruption is in Gotham. He represents something. In BvS we have Luthor who doesn’t really represent anything apart from being a harbinger for Darkseid. There is no elaboration on the reasons for his hatred of superman.  Gene Hackman’s Luthor  in Superman (1978)was more sophisticated because he had plans that were foiled by Superman. His plans had nothing to do with Superman; he had to take him out for good reason. Hackman’s Luthor was just a man willing to do dastardly things to get what he wants for his own aggrandizement. This is the Luthor we all know.  He represented the forces of destruction that lay beneath the surface as the great light of the world, Superman, flew around town. Luthor certainly represented something significant in such a scenario but not in BvS. So Snyder never found a way to make his characters relevant or truly representative of something. Nolan did find that in Begins and, again, this is because he stuck to the fundamentals. This would also explain why Nolan could introduce several characters without them seeming superfluous. They represented something.  BvS acts more like extended commentary on this or that instead of actual character building within the context of the dawn of justice.

I just highlighted several elements to showcase the difference between Nolan and Snyder. The primary difference is that Nolan is a very good film maker who knows how to build the fundamentals of his story while articulating his vision and Snyder focuses primarily on the superficial and stylistic elements that mean nothing without the proper fundamentals. Everything you include into the story must be representative of something apart from its stylistic element.  Snyder does not seem to realize this but Nolan does which is why his Batman trilogy will endure while Snyder’s BvS will eventually fade.

Deadpool (2016) ****/5: the film does run out of gas but the characterization of Deadpool is pretty solid. It's a good R-rated slap in the face for the superhero films

(photo courtesy of www.npr.org)

Well I finally watched Deadpool and I thought it was a great diversion from the typical superhero fare with its very violent action and sardonic type of humour.  The R-rating is nothing new to superhero films although Deadpool is not a superhero. The Blade films were just as gory or bloody as Deadpool and yes Blade used a sword as well and he is also marvel property. The Sin City and 300 films were also very gory but there were no superheroes in those although it was based on graphic comic books. The edge that Deadpool has is the humour.  I can see why the film is so popular and yes this does look like the beginning of a beautiful franchise. The film does run out of gas towards the end but the characterization of Deadpool or Wade Wilson’s story is strong enough to carry the film.

This film is about how Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) a former special force operative, who volunteers to be a part of a special  program for very personal reasons. As he becomes the subject of various experiments Wilson becomes trapped and is nearly killed by the chief medical officer.  He does emerge from the experiments with accelerated healing powers, like Wolverine, but it comes at a cost of disfigurement. He then tracks down the man, Ajax, who experimented on him so that he can return to normal.  Yes a romantic relationship had to be in it.

Positives

The primary positive is the characterization of Deadpool. He might be very humourous but there are times when he has to get serious or pause for reflection. Some of the best parts occur before he does turn Deadpool because of the grounded atmosphere in which the various interactions take place. The R-rating also helps because there is a real world quality to it with all the profanity. Well done ryan Reynolds as you seem to have recovered from your Green Lantern night mare.

Deadpool is an anti-hero and that’s fine since we don’t expect him to be saving people. He has one mission of vengeance and that’s it. It made me wonder if this is the kind of film Heath ledger’s joker would have if he ever got a solo film.  By being an anti-hero we don’t get any grand captain america talks about saving people etc.

The sardonic humour in the film is very good. It’s clearly meant to be the antithesis to the typical superhero film with all its moral values tied to box office success.

Marvel seemed to hint at the coming of a character like Deadpool and his profanity. In The Avengers Age of Ultron there are a lot of scenes referring to the use of profane language and how inappropriate it is in a kids film. At least marvel acknowledged its own limitations hence why a film like Deadpool seems so refreshing. Let it go.

The action is pretty good. Refreshing to see some blood. It does show that there really should be more blood in superhero films but we can’t see it because we’re living in the PG-13 era.

The addition of someone like Colussus points fingers at the low production budget and it does seem like it did not get the typical superhero treatment. The production budget for Deadpool is said to be around US$58 million. Most superhero films are in the US$100 million range. Deadpool, in the real world, seriously takes on the mainstream here. Deadpool provides all the important references when he talks to the audience but the low budget is there for all of us to see particularly the small scale of the locations and the isolated bits especially Xavier’s mansion.

Negatives

Although the characterization of Deadpool is strong the story itself does run out of gas towards the end. The early parts are good but once Wade Wilson becomes Deadpool and starts slashing away it becomes a bit repetitive and his single minded mission doesn’t offer much dimensions. There is one dimension when he takes some time off to heal in the care of his black and blind sidekick. By the end however we know enough about Deadpool’s antics and it does get to be a bit of a drag. If  Deadpool’s characterization was bad then the whole film would have suffered and that is testament to the acting and the toned down, real world visual element.

Apart from the sardonic humour it doesn’t have much to  say apart from what takes place in his sordid romantic affair. It really is an anti-hero film because typical superhero films are now expected to make grand statements about humanity whereas Deadpool’s only motive is revenge. It’s a very single minded pursuit and that won’t be for everyone or those that prefer superhero films to have some major statements about heroism.

It’s still a good film. Not exactly great because it does run out of gas but the characterization of Deadpool is strong enough to carry the film.

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) ***/5: A poorly conceptualized film although it’s a comic book extravaganza. Tries to do too much

(image courtesy of bgr.com)

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice is a poorly conceptualized film although it’s a comic book extravaganza. As a comic book extravaganza the film had  all the materials to make something happen but the film goes out with a whimper. DC and Warner Bros. have regressed with this film and if they want to salvage anything from this debacle they should fire Zack Snyder and bring back Nolan or get a director with some quality.  The film has some redeeming features  but because of the poor conceptualization some of the characterizations are poor. This film threatened to boil over into a Batman and Robin scenario except that this is a more grim film.  Snyder promoted the serious nature of the film but he made his source material very evident in this film. He merely copied instead of assimilated the source material which is Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and the famous comic book story The Death of Superman. The storylines in those books were very good but here bits and pieces of them are added on without any real sense of direction. By adding those source materials in bits and pieces some people have claimed that there is a good film underneath. There is not a good film somewhere because of how Snyder and his co writers have adapted the storylines from these two films. Either comic  book storyline from the The Dark Knight Returns or The Death of Superman , could have been adapted into a film of its own and it would have been more successful.  The Death of Superman could have been adapted into Man of Steel 2 and The Dark Knight Returns could have been adapted to a new Batman film before the 2 heroes collided. Just imagine a film entitled Superman: Doomsday or The Death of Superman. BvS is just poorly conceptualized and there is no real objective here. BvS is a comic book extravaganza and Warner bros. clearly hasn’t learnt the lessons from Batman and Robin. They didn’t need to play catch up to Marvel with their own rich source material.  Instead everything seems forced.

This film stars Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman as he tries to come to terms with the all powerful alien popularly known as Superman (Henry Cavill). Their paths eventually collide in a not so good way before there is some resolution. They eventually have to grapple with Lex Luthor and his nefarious schemes in creating the doomsday creature. Lex Luthor  seems to be making way for a very powerful foe (Darkseid?) to come. A foe they will be fighting in the Justice League which opens next year.

Positives

Although the film is poorly conceptualized there are some positives or redeeming features which, if in the hands of a better director, can be utilized much more effectively.  The first positive for me is the casting. They got that spot on. We all know about the design of superman from Man of Steel but Ben Affleck isn’t bad as Batman/Bruce Wayne although he does comes across as a bit stodgy at times. The real win in terms of casting is Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. She certainly has the look. She plays the undercover role as the mysterious and  beautiful Diana Prince well and she also captures the look and feel of the powerful  amazon warrior known as Wonder Woman. In the hands of a good director the Wonder Woman film, slated to be released next year, will do well. The other supporting roles were also very well cast. Jesse Eisenberg’s Luthor is the weakest cast member because his Luthor is merely a rip off of Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight. He does provide a menacing air but we all know what the joker is capable of. They could have gone for a more mature Luthor who is sinister on the inside yet sparkles in the public eye.  The original Luthor from the superman animated series was a very effective villain because he had his hands in everything related to metropolis. It was always difficult for Superman to take him down because of this particularly as many people in metropolis depend on his corporation for their livelihoods. How else could DC have a famous storyline about Luthor running for president. You would never get this from Eisenberg’s portrayal of Luthor. The really suave and more mature Luthor from the animated series would not have exposed himself so easily as the luthor  in BvS. He would have been much harder to take down.

Another positive was the detective work in the film not just from Batman’s side but Lois Lane’s. It was fairly well done but it didn’t lead to any striking revelations.

The other positive for me was the presence of a major villain in the form of Doomsday that was woefully underutilized.  Doomsday should have been the subject of an entire film not just the final minutes. A being this powerful would eventually bring the future members of the justice league into play because his impact should be global. This is why I did not like how doomsday was created.  If he had to be created the way he was then I still would not have liked his limited screen time. There was no method to his madness. No explanation whatsoever is provided apart from how he’s created by luthor. As a result Doomsday becomes a hollow shell.

One thing they also got right was the formation of the trinity: Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is the buffer between Batman &  Superman.  They are truly the original members of the Justice league. Wonder Woman could have played a more effective role when batman and superman come to blows but that role seemed to be reserved for  Lois Lane.

Negatives

The main negative of this film is that it is poorly conceptualized. The storylines from two famous comic book stories are supposedly melded into one. If Snyder managed to meld the two effectively then this would probably have been a great film . The story of The Dark Knight Returns is Batman’s story and superman plays only a supporting role. The Death of Superman is Superman’s story. These are 2 major story lines that were sacrificed at Snyder’s altar. These stories were 2 big to be crammed into 1 movie. What Snyder and Warner Bros. should have done is broken this film up into 2 or 3. It would be titled only The Dawn of Justice Pt 1 or The Dawn of Justice: The Dark Knight Returns.  The posters would feature Batman’s logo and would have adapted the storyline of The Dark Knight Returns  storyline, particularly the part referring to the cross over with superman and without his faked death. It would be a meeting of the 2 only with some fisticuffs involved obviously and could have even featured other minor characters like Green Arrow.  The next film would have been The Dawn of Justice: The Death of Superman. This film would have featured Superman’s duel with Doomsday and the need for earth to be protected by superman in light of these galactic threats.  In fact there could have been a part three  entitled The Dawn of Justice: Wonder Woman. There would have been some cross over between the 3 but it would be more limited. Each film would have been told from different perspectives. Then for the Justice League film to be released next year they would all unite. It would have been somewhat similar to the marvel model but all three films would have been anchored by a particular story related to each character which would have made their stories much more enriching. It would make these characters more pronounced in the public eye. It wouldn’t be just like Marvel because these three films would deal with the famous DC trinity. The original Justice League members. Well if we’re pushing it then they would probably have to include films for the Flash, Green lantern and maybe the Martian later on. These films, if done well, would have given marvel nightmares. BvS as it stands just won’t do it even though marvel is now running out of gas.

What we get from BvS instead are snapshots of what could have been. I am not going into any nitpicking because that would be useless. Suffice to say that DC did not have to rush to keep up with Marvel. Their source material is already so rich that if they made just one of the 3 films proposed by me then marvel would be having sleepless nights. Particularly if it was a good film. Why would DC hurry to catch up with marvel. They already dominated the 1980s and 90s. Marvel was like a mouse to the large DC cat. DC already showed with its Nolan films that it can compete with Marvel by telling comic book stories in its particular style. With BvS they got too bogged down into thinking they have to play catch up. If DC and Warner Bros. held its nerve then when Marvel’s project is finished with The Avengers: Infinity Wars, DC could have taken over completely with their Justice League films. DC did not have to rush because, historically speaking, their comics do have the better story lines.

The Hans Zimmer score in this film is one of the worst offerings I have heard for a superhero film. The choral aspect of the score  was  very contrived. Hans Zimmer did well in Man of Steel  but he really blew it here.

The Batman storyline was very contrived and more supernatural than natural. It reminded me of  Batman Forever.  Batman is shaped more by his dreams than his actions in the real world.

Doomsday was underutilized and could have been more effective if this was just superman’s movie.

Luthor was a weak villain and seemed like a carbon copy of Heath ledger’s Joker.  The Luthor from the comics would have been a better fit. The motives  of the characters  in the trinity are weak or poorly defined.

Zack Snyder should be fired from the project. He wrecked Watchmen and there is every chance that he will wreck the Justice League.  The only reason this film is doing well at the box office is because batman and superman are hot property. The question Warner bros. should ask is: Would Snyder’s film be doing well if it were not for the characters of batman and superman?

Some people should not confuse comic book extravaganza with a good film. It’s good to see certain characters  on screen but it’s even better when most things work from the perspective of the story.

Why Batman vs. Superman and Captain America: Civil War means that the Golden Age of superhero films in the 21st century is coming to an end?

(image courtesy of forbes.com)

(image courtesy of nerdist .com)

The films Batman vs. Superman and Captain America: Civil War will be released shortly. Just before the summer explosion. Batman vs. Superman will be released by the end of March and Captain America: Civil War in May. The two films are expected to make a lot of money and their storylines are largely focused on the conflict between familiar superheroes which are now household names. Both films feature numerous super powered individuals battling each other and probably the usual commonplace villain. This plethora of characters is welcome at the box office but the high level of quantity does not necessarily imply a qualitative shift. This means that not much change is forthcoming and we are now in the overextension or overproduction phase. Batman vs. Superman has a total budget of around US$400 million for example or $250 million without marketing costs.This over extension or overproduction means that the golden age for superhero films in the 21^st century is now coming to an end. By the time The Avengers: Infinity Wars and the Justice League films appear there will be no profound shift just a massive outlay in terms of the typical superhero outing. The original foundations have already been laid and so we’re now in a phase where it’s difficult to be surprised. I know there will be some twists and turns in the films themselves from a superficial point of view but the original foundations won’t be altered. For that to happen a decisive shift in how we view superheroes will have to come about. This won’t come about for now. For the next couple of years the most that can happen is the addition of new characters or films about different characters. Deadpool is only a minor diversion from the norm. It reminded me somewhat of Blankman in the 90s particularly the comedic tone. The diversion is not a substantial one.

A golden age is an age of prosperity and flamboyance. It represents the coming together of many elements into a massive whole which is very positive for whoever is involved. Everyone engaged has their part to play. Everyone benefits in some way, even the minor players. It does not mean that the status quo is equalized but it does mean that whatever benefits were normally derived have been enhanced significantly. Everything that’s produced turns into a massive/surplus profit. For this Golden Age to emerge a significant foundation has to be laid before there is a significant coming together of all elements into the massive whole. We saw this with the release of The Avengers in 2012 for instance. The problem with golden ages is that they are so similar to the boom periods of economic growth where the bust normally follows.  The bust normally follows from the crisis of overproduction where a spate of unsaleable goods are produced or when value is not materialized in sufficient quantities. Overproduction lays the basis for the bust. Some see it coming where others don’t. For someone to reach the stage where they are overproducing it must mean that they are prosperous in some way. The Golden Age therefore represents the peak of development for  a particular entity and also the beginning of its decline. It’s inevitable because every entity is finite or lays the basis for the creation of a new one. Some can accept it and some can’t accept that their time is limited. For the new entity to emerge the previous one has to expire or enter the stage of oblivion. When you rise and then you fall that is a commonplace phenomenon. It has happened to everyone and anything; from empires to rich individuals to the egomaniacs. It’s a historical fact and so I am not trying to come with an agenda against superhero films in general. It is clear based on the production values of these films that we have entered the overproduction phase. It’s the overproduction phase that normally means that the end is coming. The end can be a good thing because decline can be gradual. Decline does not have to be so rapid that an entity collapses immediately. This is why you have the Silver and Bronze Ages which indicate a more gradual decline from the massive prosperity or power or brilliance or wealth in earlier times. When the decline is complete then a new way will emerge. It may take some time but it will come.

Superhero films have had Golden Ages before. There were golden ages involving numerous films with  Zorro, Superman, Batman, Captain America, Spiderman, The Green Hornet, Dr. Strange and Captain Marvel. These films were released from the 1930s to the 1970s but they were made as appendages. They were hardly taken as seriously as we take superhero films today. A lot of them were television films or released straight to television and could not justify the big budgets of today. The first modern Golden Age began with Superman (1978) and ended in 1989 after the abysmal Superman 4: The Quest for Peace  in 1987. There were other minor superhero films released during that period like Flash Gordon , The Incredible Hulk films, Howard the Duck, Supergirl and others. But up until 1987 Superman films led the way and were responsible for the upsurge in appreciation/$$$ for these sort of films in the cinemas. The next Golden Age began in 1989 with Batman and ended in 1998 following  the abysmal Batman and Robin (1997). Other minor superhero films were released during this time from the abysmal ones like Captain America, The Fantastic Four, Justice league of America, Steel to films like Blade, The Crow,  Spawn, Darkman,  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Men in Black and others. Despite these other films Batman clearly led the way commercially and artistically even in the area of animated films like Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993). So it’s only fitting that the Golden age ended with Batman and Robin particularly when one is looking at it from the perspective relating to prosperity.

The next golden age began with Spider-Man in 2002 and is the most extensive and significant golden age because many superheroes were revived during this era including Batman in Nolan’s trilogy, Superman in Man of Steel (no I don’t include Superman Returns (2006) even though it made US$200 million at the north American box office), the Hulk and Captain America. There was also the introduction of the likes of  Iron Man in 2008 and Thor and lets not forget the X-Men and The Guardians of the Galaxy. This golden age is now nearing the end but it is one of the most significant golden ages because more heroes have been given an opportunity to shine because of the massive upgrades in technology to enhance the visuals and smarter storytelling. The sort of storytelling that makes these heroes seem relevant in 21^st century society and not as super powered individuals whose battles are far removed from society. The Dark Knight is clearly the most significant film from the perspective of serious storytelling in comic book based films. Iron Man (2008) was also very good and to some extent Captain America: Winter Soldier. We might even see a Wonder Woman film soon with a lot of feminist issues.  Marvel has lengthened this Golden Age with its 3 phase project which is supposed to lead up to The Avengers: The Infinity Wars. DC also has plans for the Justice League which will follow from Batman vs. Superman. One knows that this is a major golden age because most superhero films make in excess of US$150 million at the North American box office, even Antman.

So why does Batman vs. Superman and Captain America: Civil War represent the beginning of the end? One just has to look at why the 2 previous golden ages ended. This third golden age could easily be broken up into 3. Spiderman alone has gone through several changes to the point where he will be included in Captain America: Civil War. The original spiderman franchise produced by Sony collapsed qualitatively with Spider-Man 3 in 2007. It was then revived with the title The Amazing Spiderman. The spiderman franchise did well in terms of the box office for Sony but now they’ve decided to tie him to the mast of the Avengers. The collapse of the spiderman franchise can represent its own golden age. The same applies to Nolan’s take on Batman which influenced the new direction for superman in Man of Steel which now leads into Batman vs. Superman. Then there  is the marvel phase which began with Iron Man in 2008. I have concentrated all these films into one massive golden age because of the direct competition between companies producing these films. This never really happened to a great extent in the previous Golden ages. Superhero films are now taken very seriously in terms of generating profit for film companies like Warner Bros., Walt Disney, Paramount and Sony. Actors like Robert Downey Jr. are being paid large salaries; salaries unheard of in the two previous eras. These films generate billions at the Box office (North America and the rest of the world) and are capable of attracting those that thought that comic book based films were for the nerds only. A man dressing up as a bat seems logical when compared to the 1960s.

Batman vs. Superman and Captain America: Civil War represent the end because of the overabundance of characters and plots that are more superficial in nature. They are superficial because they have no significant impact when it comes to altering the original foundations that built these characters. Every new film is only an addition to the existing foundation and not necessarily an overhaul. The revolutionary edge that began with the original films has now worn thin. Overabundance is characterized by serious speculation and a lot of imaginary possibilities. I read comic books in the 1990s and early 2000s and that was a big time for the industry in terms of story lines etc. I was so caught up I would even buy Robin’s comic book series and Batgirl’s (the silent one). The overabundance in that era led to a lot of “what if?” storylines. What if magneto fought the Juggernaut? or What if Wolverine fought Captain America? What if Wonder Woman got together with Superman? Etc.  It became very speculative. There reaches a point where  a good,  plain old story is not enough because the demands of the audience will naturally increase. Apart from The Avengers and maybe Captain America: Winter Soldier marvel has still not produced a film that’s better than Iron Man (2008).  The film that started it all. Regardless, people will demand to see more.  The Iron man series got so ridiculous that even Pepper Potts got superpowers at one point. Tony Stark by Iron Man 3 had a mach 50 suit (just exaggerating). By the time of The Avengers: Age of Ultron he created  Ultron, a robot in his own image, Captain America was tossing motorcycles through the air with apparent ease and Thor was dipping himself in holy water to see his vision and then proceeded to bring the android to life. The Hulk has also faded into the background as a backup strong man. His story is now the most superficial of all which is why they created the romance between Banner and Black widow. So much for Betty Ross.  People will want more and now they will get it in Civil War when the heroes face off with each other which is now a “what if?” or speculative scenario just like Batman vs. Superman. Both films will be introducing many characters in order to keep the excitement high for audiences. Expect more films to introduce more and more. It has been reported that The Avengers: Infinity Wars will have around 69 super powered individuals battling the almighty Thanos. What a way to go out with a bang. If that’s not enough then there are the Inhumans. I have to admit that I am looking forward to Black Panther.  In any case the overload of characters will mean that the party will soon be over. But first we will have to wait for the Justice league Films. They will be battling some overwhelming villains in that as well which will require the service of many super powered individuals. Superhero films are becoming very similar to an animated series. There are even various television shows such as The Flash, which has been well received. There was a good series  featuring The Flash in the 90s as well.  I expect that he will be brought into the Justice League set up soon enough.

Until then one might as well relish the overabundance and the many imaginary possibilities on display. Superhero films are so spectacular that Batman vs. Superman has a budget close to US$400 million. I suspect it will do the usual billion at the box office. A cool US$600 million profit. Civil War might also reach a billion with so many characters being featured that people want to see, including spiderman. Whether or not they are good films is another question. They certainly won’t be great films because they are part of an existing structure to maximize profit opportunities and to keep some interest in the long term plans for the executives. These films won’t be altering that structure in a radical way. They are being created in order to preserve the integrity of the structure with some cool additions or some superficial twists and turns.  A lot will be diluted and overextended in order to ensure this. No wonder people are calling Civil War The Avengers 2.5. Maybe we’ll get yet another peek of Thanos preparing to wage his long awaited war to destroy all life in the universe.  The executives might reach a point where they do pull out before the crash or just keep overproducing until the audience has had enough. Batman and Robin was a glorious failure because it was so spectacularly overproduced. It became so far removed from its own reality. The same is happening now for superhero films in the 21^st century. The golden age is certainly coming to an end. We’re probably in the silver age without realizing it.

The Revenant (2015) ****½/5: I liked this film as a brutal examination of the American frontier but was less enamoured with the tale of revenge.

(courtesy of youtube.com)

The Revenant is a harsh and brutal examination of the American frontier but this harshness and brutality does work against it to some extent. A film like this is necessary to counter those that are too unrealistic in their too sympathetic and harmonious picture where the nature of conflict is too simplistic. With that said it is a good film but there is not too much cathartic feeling or moments of genuine emotional release for the viewer who should be sympathetic towards the protagonist.  The film devolves into a typical revenge scenario while initially trying to say a great deal, in mystical terms, about the nature of American society in the early 19^th century. 

The film is about the true  story of Hugh Glass’s (Leonardo Dicaprio) survival in the brutal cold terrain of North West America after being left for dead by fellow hunters John Fitzgerald  (Tom Hardy) and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter). Glass’s revenge is directed primarily at Fitzgerald who is the villainous figure in the film.

Positives

While the tale of Hugh Glass is interesting from a dramatic point of view I was more interested in the big picture description of the American frontier.  The interaction between the white settlers and exploiters  and the Native American Indians. The white settlers and exploiters don’t just include white Americans but also vestiges of a French population that would have been around since the 18^th century.  The interaction between these groups is also reflected in Glass’s story. In the film his son is half Indian and he is aided in his journey back from the dead and for revenge by some Indians. There is even a smaller story where some Indians are on the hunt for the daughter of one of their kinsmen. The paths of Glass and these Indians do cross in interesting ways.  It goes to show how important the historical record of these Native American  Indians are for American civilization. There is even a twist that I thought was humorous. An isolated Indian who meets Glass has his own tale of survival where he claims that the Sioux Indians killed his family and he was seeking to join up with the Pawnee tribe. In Dances With Wolves the Sioux are portrayed as the more humane group whereas the Pawnee are portrayed as the aggressors. The tale of the isolated Indian in this current  film seems to balance out this kind of portrayal in Dances With Wolves. It also goes to show that Glass’s tale of survival would not be as unique to the many Indians who had to deal with isolation and warfare between the tribes on a frequent basis. The Indians also have to deal with aggression from white military forces that regularly burn out their villages in the name of conquest and settlement of the American frontier. Glass’s story only seems remarkable to white settlers who were accustomed to a form of civilization divorced from a serious interaction with their natural surroundings. The Indians had a more symbiotic relationship with the natural environment whereas the whites were primarily exploiters of the surroundings and played a great role in disturbing the natural balance between man and nature. A character like Fitzgerald is typical of the irate and brutal white exploiter.  This is not to say the Indians were saints because that important tale in the film  about  the isolated Indian, whose world was shattered by the Sioux tribe, is testament to the harsh environment of Indian tribal warfare.

When one looks at the film from the point of view where it’s an examination of the American frontier then it’s a very good film. Glass’s story of survival basically involves his full immersion into life on the frontier from the point of view of the Indians and this would explain why they are so important in his tale of survival. His own life story suggests that his interaction with the Indians went beyond the superficial. This is why he has a half Indian son.

His tale of survival is a very interesting one. The attack by the mother bear on Glass is well filmed and it’s harsh and brutal. His recovery is not as profound however but it’s important when one accounts for his improvisation. Like I said it’s not so profound because it’s clear that the Indians had to deal with these tales of survival on a regular basis. So I think the director, Alejandro Inarritu, went a bit overboard, from a dramatic point of view, in attempting to enhance Glass’s tale of survival. This would reinforce the bias that as a white man’s tale of survival in the wild it gives the story more of a flair for melodrama and mystical teachings. The tale of the Indian who was displaced by Sioux Indians was just as harsh as  Glass’s tale. The only difference is that Glass was previously mauled by a mother bear.  The aid provided by the Indians is minimal in this film when compared to the real account.

The tale of revenge may be melodramatic  particularly when you consider the villainous Fitzgerald but it keeps the film going. This film reminded me a lot of Ben-Hur (1959) which was a similar tale of revenge and redemption. In that film when  the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius  says ‘Hate keeps a man alive, gives him strength’ (not exact quote) it  captures  Glass’s tale to some extent.  Inarritu does give Fitzgerald some weight. For instance some people might have sided with Fitzgerald’s stance to leave Glass behind because if  he and Bridges stayed it’s possible that they would have been killed by the Indians on the trail for the daughter of one of their kinsmen. Fitzgerald does have a hard sense of reality. Obviously the melodramatic element comes when Fitzgerald kills Hawk (Forrest Goodluck). A completely false scene that lacks substance. Without that scene Fitzgerald would have been a more sympathetic character.  For instance it is clear in the film that he, and the other mountaineers,  are being exploited by General Ashley in their expedition for furs.

Negatives

The primary negative I had with this film is that its harshness and brutality  does work against it in some way.  There are scenes where the harshness is clearly exaggerated for maximum effect. For instance the scene when Fitzgerald kills Glass’s son Hawk is clearly exaggerated even if you didn't know that Glass never had a son named Hawk according to real historical accounts. It just seems to give more motivation for Glass to seek revenge against Fitzgerald.  The final fight between Fitzgerald and Glass was also greatly exaggerated despite its brutal nature.  The revenge scenario in this film becomes anti-climactic. If Inarritu stuck to some of the original stories about Glass’s hunt for Bridges and Fitzgerald then more meaning would have come from this tale of revenge and it wouldn't have been as simple as it’s told here.  In this film Glass arrives at peace by some strange mysticism associated with his dead wife. I was not moved at all.

The film didn't need to have an outright villain in the form of Fitzgerald. It actually tarnishes his  record as an actual historical character. In the original stories he was still fairly young but in this film he is a seasoned brute. His villainy clearly adds to the melodramatic  or overly dramatic effect in the film. The film would have benefitted if Glass’s tale of revenge was more realistic.

I liked this film as a brutal examination of the American frontier but was less enamored with the tale of revenge.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) ***½/5: This is not a great film and is a bit underwhelming but it will do and is probably enough to jump start the franchise for the current generation

I deliberately waited awhile for the excessive hype of the new Star Wars film to die down a bit before I wrote a review.  I wanted to give a more reasonable assessment without too much backlash from some fans. It’s not a negative review by any means. The Force Awakens is not a great film and is a bit underwhelming but it will do and is probably enough to jump start the franchise for the current generation. It has jumpstarted the franchise in terms of dollars earned at the box office and has broken Avatar’s record in the US but what about its quality as a film. There is the introduction of a new generation of characters but it does seem that  it’s more of the same especially when seen through the eyes of a character that’s about 1000 yrs old.

This film is primarily about the resurgent First Order, representatives of the dark side,  that has emerged from the remnants of the defeated Galactic Empire. They are in conflict with the resistance, representative of good, supported by the New Republic. Thrown in the mix are a set of new characters such as Rey, Finn, Poe, BB-8 and Kylo Ren that will be eventual leaders of the new conflicting forces. Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega)  and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) are on the side of good whereas Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) has been turned to the dark side by his mentor, Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis). There is the return of familiar characters such as Han Solo, Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2-D2 and, more importantly, Luke Skywalker who is crucial to the story because he is the last Jedi but is now in exile.

Positives

The primary positive is that the Star Wars franchise has now been updated for the current generation of 21^st century audiences.  Visually it is certainly the most appealing Star Wars film ever released. It seamlessly blends  CGI and real live models with the real environment. Some locations, such as the one at the planet Jakku, are given a sense of epic scale by fallen star destroyers of the former galactic empire that are now left to gather dust in the desert. The visuals are certainly upgraded when compared with Episodes 1-3 that had a lot of plastic CGI  environments. 

The introduction of new characters is also crucial for the progression of the new series of Star Wars films and some will certainly sit well with modern day audiences. It will be interesting to see how this new generation of characters mature into their roles. It is clearly established that some of the new characters   are raw talents. Even Kylo Ren who aspires to be the next Darth Vader has some way to go when you consider his petulance and temper tantrums.  If he can assume the stature of a Darth Vader in the coming installments then that will be truly impressive because Vader is a legendary figure in filmdom. Rey also represents a new generation of Jedi knights and it will be interesting to see her mature into her role.  Finn and Po will also be key figures for the resistance in upcoming installments. Of all the new characters Finn seems to be the most original. The next couple of films will be interesting because these new characters will clearly be the new leaders of the Resistance and the First Order. The extent that they mature into their roles will be crucial for the series going forward especially as the previous generation of Luke, Han and Leia are clearly being phased out. Luke Skywalker is like the new Yoda for instance.  

Much emphasis has been placed on the First Order and what is clear is that the scale of their firepower dwarfs the former Galactic Empire. It seems that they are certainly more powerful in terms of technology but not necessarily in the ways of the force.  It will be interesting to see what kind of challenge they pose because in the original films Episodes 4-6 it was clear that the Galactic Empire was in control and that there was a rebellion against its tyrannical rule. I am not so sure what the First Order represents here apart from being merely aggressors. In terms of scale they seem to match the former empire but do not seem very intrinsic or built in. The scale of their firepower though should make for an interesting contest.  They may not seem intrinsic but it seems like they are fighting to take over the galaxy by force but what good is that if you keep blowing up so many planets especially if you’re trying to rule through consensus even if it’s a consensus imposed by dictatorial rule.

The final scene in the film was somewhat rewarding and it goes to show how important some of these older characters are. It is the one scene that demonstrates in a very profound way the old vs. the new and a potential changing of the guard for the films to follow.  It’s the most impressive moment in the  film because there is a new hope.

Negatives

The primary negative is that this film is a rip off of Episode 4: A New Hope. The only difference is that the scale is made more epic. The death star  in A New Hope is dwarfed by a similar weapon created by the First Order. Even how they defeat this ‘technological monstrosity’ is similar to how the death star was destroyed in A New Hope. The planet jakku in this current release is similar to Tatooine except there is no binary sunset. The concept where some obscure figure rises up to be a new hope for the Jedi force is also a rip off. Other episodes are also ripped off shamelessly.  Kylo Ren’s conflict is similar to Anakin’s in Episodes 2&3.  There are just too many rip offs and if I have the time I will discuss them in another post. I see where they could have told a more original story particularly if they placed some emphasis on the new republic and by emphasizing the structure of the galaxy that emerged following the defeat of the empire. Why is there the need for a resistance? They should have explained the origins of the First Order in more detail in order to make it seem like a distinctive enterprise as opposed to just following in the footsteps of the former Galactic  Empire because that just sidesteps the issue. Not even George Lucas would have simplified it so.   I see no reason why Luke Skywalker could not be placed at the centre of the story or at least be featured more. The dark side did not have to come back in such a big way so suddenly in the form of the First Order especially as the Galactic Empire was defeated with the Jedi holding the advantage. 

The new characters are given more exposure but they still don’t hold the same weight and the actors are trying very hard to impress upon the audience their importance as characters. The supreme leader, Snake or Snoke for example does not have the same gravitas as the emperor apart from his very tall frame and reptilian features.  Who is he? Where did he come from? yes he represents the dark side but did he just spring from the ground? The original villains in the first 6 episodes of Star Wars had human qualities, including their features, that made them just as menacing. This is in keeping with the difference between The Force Awakens and previous instalments where the scale has been increased tremendously to the point of incredulity or just plain ridiculousness.  A weapon that can absorb an entire sun in a couple of minutes sounds like we are entering the realm of the absurd. The original Star Wars films did also have the absurd but the characters were all grounded in a reality that we could identify with especially the political aspects. The political element is missing completely here and all we have  here is good vs. evil without much intricacy.

Qualitatively The Force Awakens does not have the same impact as A New Hope. It might build on the foundations of A New Hope but it has not created its own distinctive niche. The primary difference is that  the scale of the action has been ratcheted up x 10 and there are some new characters. The Force Awakens won’t be featured much in top ten lists for 2015 but in terms of quantity it is sure to pull in the dollars. What the history of film has shown is that in order to pull in the dollars a lot has to be diluted in terms of quality.  The Force Awakens relies a bit too much on the strength of the Star Wars  franchise that began in 1977. This makes for a very underwhelming experience. I will be looking forward to see how the new characters mature into their roles and become distinctive.