Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) ***½/5: Good film but we haven't seen the best of Spider-Man yet

(image courtesy of  wikipedia.org)

The most refreshing bit about Spider-Man: Homecoming is the  clear evidence that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is moving in new directions. You do get a sense that this is the beginning of a new phase which is still yet to fulfill its potential. It’s removed from the great and fantastic battles of the Avengers and other films. Marvel is trying to get back to basics even though right around the corner is Avengers: Infinity War which is supposed to be as massive as this film is small. Even after Infinity War and Avengers 4 it’s pretty clear that Spider-Man is the future of the MCU as it stands right now. Iron Man is clearly on his way out as the Spider-Man brand comes back to prominence once again.  This film also improves on the previous Amazing Spiderman films but it’s still not on the level of Spider-Man 2 (2002).

This film stars Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, following his participation in Civil War, as he grapples with his new found responsibilities as a hero. It’s never straight forward because he faces his first real taste in the form of the more grown up Adrian Toomes/The Vulture who’s making a killing ($$$) from the Avengers’ mess. Parker also has to grapple with the angst of teenage life.

Positives

The main positive is that this film represents a new direction for the MCU. Yes it’s grounded in high school social life but it’s clear that the time will come when Spider-Man will become a major force in future films as an adult. This will probably occur after the Avengers battle the mighty Thanos. If the MCU has a future then Spider-Man will be leading the way. It remains to be seen how well Black Panther does. Tony Stark/Iron Man is on his way out. His mentoring of Peter Parker is a clear sign. The high school perspective also gives a very good on the ground feel which is far removed from the excess at the top. It was very refreshing even though the inevitable direction of the MCU must be taken into account. The high school perspective does show how the Avengers have manifested themselves in ordinary everyday life.

Michael Keaton does well as Adrian Toomes/the Vulture. He is clearly menacing but he does challenge Peter’s naivete. He exposes it in a good way which wasn’t the case in the previous Amazing SpiderMan films starring Andrew Garfield. Parker’s naivete does run counter to Toomes’ real world, mature experience. Eventually Spider-Man will understand how important it is to compromise. His quest for a perfect moral order might not be how he imagined it.

There is also some good comedy in this film. It explores all the pitfalls of being Spider-Man which are normally featured in the world of memes. For instance how can he do his fancy web slinging when there are no tall buildings around? It also explores the issue of his identity and how important it is that it be kept a secret.

The supporting cast is really good and the homecoming concept keeps the film grounded in the  high school arena.

The diversity of the cast is amazing even though the hero is still white. Lol. The whiteness had to be preserved of course. Like I said in the future (10-30 years) when this race thing is no longer an issue then we’ll see some real challenges to the typical white super hero who is a paragon of virtue.

Negatives

The primary negative is that Parker doesn’t develop much on his own. There’s no origin story and he basically takes his cues from being an aspiring Avenger and in the shadow of Tony Stark/Iron Man. This is the price he had to pay while sharing a universe with so many other powerful heroes. His own adventures apart from waiting for the Avengers call could have been more interesting. It’s only towards the end that we get a sense of who he really is. The suit tailor made by Stark is not of his own design, and he basically takes his cues from Stark on  superhero matters. Tony Stark/Iron Man is still the big man at the moment and so Parker is like a second fiddle. It would have been more interesting to see Peter develop on his own. You still get the impression that he’s a secondary sort of Avenger who thrives on being a joke. More films will have to come along before we see this Spider-Man become his own man.

The action wasn’t that great probably because Spider-Man hasn’t honed his skills yet. Even the goofy and clumsy web slinging is not very exciting. At least they stuck with the web shooter element because one of the mistakes of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films was the absence of the web shooter. At least this film attempts to break down how it came about.

The film runs on too much comedy which takes away from some of the more serious moments.

It will still be interesting to see how this Spider-Man series unfolds in the next couple of years.

Dunkirk (2017) ****/5: Good historical film but there's just too much spectacle and too much British

(photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

Dunkirk is a good historical based film by Christopher Nolan. One gets the sense that Nolan is more interested in the spectacle of Dunkirk as opposed to its deeper ramifications for World War 2. I say this because a significant portion of the film is about the struggles of the soldiers on the beach in a particular moment in time. It’s clearly an episode, along with the succeeding battle of Britain, which is very close to the British. The soldiers on the ground aren’t the ones who give the orders. They are the ones on the ground awaiting some form of deliverance from the war by being evacuated from the Dunkirk beach in France  as the Germans are now in the ascendancy.  Nolan is simply trying to capture the trials of these soldiers. Yes we know its World War 2 but for the moment it’s all about these soldiers crossing that small stretch of water to land on British shores. I would very much like Nolan to follow up this film with one about the battle of Britain. His take on it should be quite interesting but it would also be a bigger picture with more ramifications about World War 2. Nolan would also do well consider that it’s a battle fought primarily in the sky.

This film captures from various perspectives the event of the evacuation of British soldiers from the shores of Dunkirk in France during the early years of World War 2. There is not one true star in this picture although there are the usual Nolan collaborators such as Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Important roles are given to Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance and Fionn Whitehead who offers the grim perspective of a soldier on the ground level.

Positives

This film is technically top notch and you would expect that coming from Nolan. This time around it’s not just about some interesting concept involving human agents but an actual historical event involving real people. Nolan tells the story in his own way of course and it’s  not really straight forward and can make it difficult for some to follow. For instance, there are scenes at night followed by scenes during the day and then for a time it goes back and forth from night to day. Either Nolan is trying to make the story telling economical or he’s simply telling it from different perspectives. After while you come to terms with the different perspectives: the land, air and sea. The mole, which is the point of evacuation on the beach of Dunkirk, is the perspective from the land. The sea involves the trek from the beach of Dunkirk to the shores of Britain which is fraught with danger because of the aerial bombardment from the Luftwaffe, German fighter planes. From the air the Royal Air Force (RAF) try to defend the ships evacuating the soldiers on the seas from the Luftwaffe. It all adds up and towards the end the presentation of the story becomes more coherent. At the beginning however it is mostly chaotic with sinking ships, soldiers scrambling for some support while stranded in the sea and other soldiers trying to find a quick getaway. There is even a French soldier who tries to escape under the guise of being a British soldier. The early stages of the evacuation involved,  primarily, British soldiers apparently. The French had to wait their turn. My brief reading about the episode reveals that a significant amount of French soldiers were evacuated but Nolan is historically correct by making clear the preference for British soldiers to be evacuated ahead of the French. There is also the perspective of the civilians who came to the aid of the soldiers seeking some return home.  There is an emotional moment, which will certain affect some British people, where the civilians show their support for the soldiers with their boats used in transporting some of the soldiers from the beach to the larger warships or to take some home.  This emotional scene does demonstrate that Dunkirk was an episode that affected the nation. It was not an isolated event. Nolan tries to make this clear by referring to the battle of Britain that was expected to follow.

This film does do justice to the overall big picture of World War 2 in its own small way. There are not many films which show the perspective of war where the Germans are in the ascendancy. Normally films show when the tide turns against the Germans.  The film takes place during the early years of World War 2 with Germany  about to conquer France. The German presence is only visible in the air because the German command called off the armoured approach on the ground and left it to the aerial fighters to halt the evacuation by targeting the British  ships and soldiers on the beach. Apparently we are witnessing a German victory regardless of how many German planes are shot down.  It will be good if Nolan can follow this film up with one about the Battle of Britain then we will be able to see the evacuation of Dunkirk as more than just a defeat. Based on Nolan’s take the evacuation of Dunkirk must have represented a turning point because with the evacuation Britain could still continue with the fight against the Germans especially with its man power still intact for the most part. So when someone sits down to watch some films about World War 2 then Dunkirk should be one of the first on their list. This applies if you’re looking at just the war effort involving soldiers. This film captures a moment when the Germans were in the ascendancy and were about to be in total control of continental Europe with Britain being the only European country in the fight before the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the Americans.  There is another film about Dunkirk made in the 1950s but I haven’t watched it. Nolan’s version will probably be more up to date.

The musical score was very good. A return to form for Hans Zimmer. The cinematography was alsoe exceptional and the scenes from the air were very well  put together despite the chaos on the ground level. This is why I think Nolan would do well making a film about the Battle of Britain.

Nolan has shown that he can make a film with real dramatic heft.

Negatives

Why should people outside of Britain be so interested in what happened with the evacuation from Dunkirk? Is this film really that important? The big picture is always important because the film does not seem very connected to the big picture which is World War 2. The Germans are mostly anonymous figures and there is not much battling taking place apart from in the air. What about the perspective from those up top. Yes Nolan wanted to just capture the experience on the ground which is probably more interesting because of the spectacle but for the overall ramifications about the War it is not very effective. Nolan could have done more with the actual battle that led to the retreat.  The German presence should have been made evident on the ground apart from just bullets and aerial bombers. This is one perspective that was lacking. Even a shot just to show that the Germans are in the ascendancy and that France is about to fall. When I say ‘show’ I mean that I wanted to see the presence of the German army. Someone who doesn’t understand the history of World War 2 will be at a loss as to where those bullets are coming from and why there is this major retreat. All you get are shots fired.

The primary perspective of the Dunkirk evacuation is a British one obviously. There is a minor French perspective but the soldier is literally swallowed up. The French perspective could have been given some more dialogue with subtitles of course. In this film the French are literally mute.  The Dunkirk evacuation of British soldiers was not the whole story and so the film has a very British feel about it as if made to inspire Britons. The reference to the Battle of Britain in this film comes before Churchill made his famous speech.  The British weren’t the only soldiers on the beach but the film is concerned primarily with the effort to evacuate British soldiers which is very limiting in scope. Towards the end it is claimed that the evacuation of the French will begin. What? I thought this was the story about Dunkirk not the British version of Dunkirk. This primary focus on the British perspective will eventually affect how this film is viewed by more impartial filmgoers, such as myself of course. The focus on the British perspective makes the film even smaller and less connected to the big picture of World War 2 because a significant amount of French soldiers were also evacuated. Nolan might be planning to make the Dunkirk trilogy. He could have instead told a bigger film instead of one which is just about British heroism.

This film has some real shallow moments because of the limiting perspective, especially the effort of British civilians to save primarily British soldiers. The emotional scenes ring very hollow because of the dominant British perspective.

So all in all a very good film from the point of view of spectacle but the story is very limited to a British point of view. It’s primarily a tale of British heroism as opposed to one about the overall bigger picture of World War 2. 

Wonder Woman (2017) ****/5: There are some hackneyed and inconsequential elements but this is still one of the best superhero films of the modern era.

(image courtesy of vox.com)

Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero films of the modern era that began in 1978.  There are some iconic visual moments in the film that will influence and define the character for this generation. Wonder Woman/Diana Prince bursts forth from relative obscurity and makes a grand impression. You have to take her seriously. She is a powerful character. Some will even start to wonder how powerful she is and if she won’t end up leading the line for DC. For years Batman and Superman led the line for DC films or films based on characters from DC comics and this culminated in the poorly conceptualized BvS released last year. Wonder Woman may have been featured in some series, animated or otherwise, since the beginning of the modern era of comic book films but there was no film produced featuring her heroics. Most comic book readers know that Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman form the holy trinity of DC comics. They tried to bring this forth in BvS last year in preparation for the formation of the Justice League. Wonder Woman is deserving of a good film because she is such an iconic character. This film is also the best superhero film ever made with a female as the lead. Like I said she is a powerful character and even the men will have to accept that even though some will not have seen such display of power by a female lead in a superhero film. It’s time that she was given her due.

The film stars Gal Gadot as the Wonder Woman, the amazon warrior from Themyscira, an ancient island which is home to the amazons who are all female. Diana is unaware of her godly heritage. She learns as she goes along. Diana leaves her secluded, sacred island to fight in World War 1 or the Great War so that she can confront Ares. She is ably assisted by Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) a British spy, who sounds a lot like an American, who crash lands on the secluded island carrying important secrets that will possibly end the war. It is he who informs the Amazons about what’s happening in the world outside especially the war to end all wars.  Several other male characters also line up alongside her and join in the fight and form an unlikely band of warriors with Diana as the de facto leader.

Positives

The main positive of this film are the iconic visual elements that will come to define how Wonder Woman is identified. Obviously the casting of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/Diana prince has a lot to do with but when she is revealed in all her Wonder Woman glory with all the traditional garb and begins to assume a leadership position on the battlefield then you come to realize how iconic she is. I didn’t have much problem with the final battle because although some people are complaining that it’s typical super hero fare I also saw it as Wonder Woman coming of age where her power reaches its ultimate height. The visual elements surrounding Ares was also significant and seems to be rounded in the visual conception of the Wonder Woman world. The visuals are very important here and so I don’t agree with one critic that the CGI in the final battle could have been from any other film. The visual elements say a lot about Wonder Woman’s world. And when she goes into action you do realize why she is iconic. The bright yellowing light or golden sheen will come to define the character and make her distinctive along with Gal Gadot in the lead. If one looks at the atmosphere of war torn Europe in 1918 with its greying look then you’ll understand why Wonder Woman’s golden sheen look stands out so much. It contrasts with the period.   Gal Gadot does well and she has the look of Wonder Woman and this was immediately identifiable when watching BvS last year. Her naïve charm early on in the film is eventually replaced by the demeanour of a veteran or someone coming into their own and realizing their full potential. The movie does well enough to ensure that Wonder Woman assumes her rightful place. A lot of Diana’s look has to do with the bright Themyscira and it’s good that the filmmakers spent some time explaining how it came into being. I don’t mind exposition because I’m a historian.

I liked the portrayal of European society during World War1. We get a good look at English society and we also get a glimpse of war torn Continental Europe (Belgium and to  a lesser extent Germany) and the contrast between the elites and the casualties of war. There is even some time spent with the Ottomans or in Ottoman territory. I actually liked the character of General Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and what he represents. He is one example of how men are corrupted by war and take relish in destruction. I also understood the Ares element better particularly as the war was coming to an end.

The contrast between Diana and Steve is well played. The ordinary mortal alongside a godly figure. It is interesting and romantic but largely about how he convinces her to embrace the more ordinary aspects of life. Life that is not about the Gods on high or great battles to be fought. Just simple tales of the heart. So it’s well done. And the acting is pretty good.

The action is pretty good. I wasn’t that impressed by some of the slow motion sequences but seeing Wonder woman in full flight is pretty interesting. Seeing a female superhero lead showcase that kind of power is truly something. I didn’t hear much cheers in the audience for what she did but there was quiet acknowledgment that she’s the real deal especially when she was in full flight with bracelet, shield, sword and lasso.

I was pretty surprised that Diana’s heroics didn’t generate as much excitement in the world she inhabited. There was not much question about who is this powerful woman on the battlefield. I’m just glad she wasn’t on American soil. Maybe it was deliberate that she was made into an obscure heroic figure because of the upcoming Justice League films.

Negatives

The primary negative for me is that the film does have some hackneyed elements. Diana clearly doesn’t understand the real world and her message about love saving the world is a bit too corny for my liking. Hopefully in other films they will show how the world is built on racial and class struggles. Wonder Woman does not represent other minorities and is clearly another example of the white race showcasing its power although the island of Themyscira does have a good racial mixture.  Based on Wonder Woman’s reasoning there is not only war to be addressed but the various systems of exploitation all over the world even during peace time. It is these systems that eventually lead to the cycle of war and peace. Her beating Ares did not seem like an earth shattering event. It had to do more with her character than about the fate of the world.  It did not seem as if she achieved much by beating him especially as the war was almost over by the time of their final battle. If Diana’s actions were more effective during the course of the war then the final battle would have been more effective. Was Diana even active during World War 2? Maybe that could be the subject of a sequel. I was not clear why Wonder Woman was made into such an obscure figure. Why was she not celebrated more? This is probably due to her battles being very inconsequential. It would have been good if she went on more campaigns during the war in her quest for Ares and then ending up finding him in the midst of the battlefield stirring up the soldiers. In the film they do mention that Ares is likely to be present at the most intense part of the battle but the war is almost over so then what.

It’s a good origin story but I still wasn’t clear on the role of the Amazons. Diana keeps talking about their purpose yet this race of women prefer to remain secluded. Why are all the gods dead? That shouldn’t necessarily be the case and I think Diana’s world would have been richer if more gods were a part of her world. As a fan of Greek myth I would have preferred if they were still around so that we could have some more insight into how they viewed the world. How is Ares so powerful that he is the only one remaining?  Diana is the sole representative but hopefully the Themyscira will play an important role in future DC films

Overall well done Patty Jenkins.

Why I prefer The Godfather 1&2 to GoodFellas

(Image of the Godfather courtesy of rottentomatoes.com)



(image courtesy of wikipedia.com)

This is one of those posts where I have to briefly get something off my chest. In his review the very influential and popular critic, Roger Ebert, declared that GoodFellas was ‘The best mob movie ever’.  Obviously this was a clear challenge to The Godfather which is not only one of the best mob movies ever made but one of the greatest films ever made. Every time I watch GoodFellas I grapple with Ebert’s statement of opinion not only because I prefer The Godfather 1&2, which I just consider to be one massive film, but because I was influenced greatly by Ebert’s criticism of films. He was my go to critic when I was starting to appreciate the great films. His ‘Great Film’ series influenced me greatly. I also used to scour his catalogue of reviews on the great films of the past as well as the current releases.  I was just beginning to appreciate the great films in my late teens, early 20s period. So when I came across his GoodFellas review where he made that declaration I was stumped for the first time. It is those moments when you realize that you’ll never be able to truly follow someone as completely ever again. You will still go along with what they’re saying and will still agree from time to time but you realize that you have come of age and must challenge those who have influenced you. As I went along I realized that I began to disagree with Ebert on a lot of other points but overall i still find myself agreeing with a lot that he says. I understand now more clearly his middle class position and how that influenced how he reviewed films. There are a lot of reviews where he was clearly biased and tried to instill some relevant moral argument into his reviews. One of the biases in his reviews was his overall love for Scorsese. Need I say  more. I didn’t have to be told because I discovered it on my own just by reading his reviews.

Now to the matter at hand. I do think that GoodFellas is an exceptional film. It is a great film about the mob underworld but it is still not my overall favorite mob film. It has a very high kinetic energy and once it gets started the high tempo never subsides and it moves along quite smoothly. One of its strongest points is the counter narrative by Karen, Henry’s wife. The perspective of an ordinary person drawn into the lifestyle of the mob underworld; taken away by its charm but eventually finding it repulsive. I also like the fall from grace because eventually the glamour of the mob lifestyle, which is essentially presented with a carefree, do what you want sort of vibe is eventually replaced by a more sombre tone as things start to fall apart. The ordinary people who pay their taxes are the suckers until you have to join them once the government gets a hold of you.  It’s a lot like life actually. It is a very good film and it has a lot to say but for me it’s not on the level of  The Godfather 1&2 because it is not a very expansive film. It is quite limited to a small group in the mob underworld: Henry, Jimmy and Tommy. They are primarily enforcers. It’s exciting watching them together but it does not have the big picture feel.  The film is also based on a true story which does make it grounded but in the end it does not say much about the mob underworld and the various intricacies that make it function. The Godfather 1&2 do have that expansive feel where there is a lot of meditation on American society especially how the mob underworld makes its mark. These films do emphasize what the mob underworld represents to society and how it became embedded in American society. It has a lot of meditations on the immigrant experience in America and why family bonds were so important for survival.  GoodFellas might mention the links with Sicily but in The Godfather 1&2 it forms a significant part of the story and we are allowed to see why the links are so important especially how some Italian Americans made the transition from the Old World to the New. Whereas GoodFellas focuses on a particular true story in the mob underworld  The Godfather1&2 is about the mob underworld in general with emphasis on the Corleone family. Yes The Godfather 1&2 are fictional but a lot of it is rooted in the reality of the mob underworld in general or its general history. With GoodFellas only focusing on the enforcers it is difficult to appreciate the big picture. The perspective of the enforcer is much more exciting because it’s more violent but The Godfather 1&2 offer the perspective of the very top which is why you get a better understanding of how the mob underworld comes into being and how it becomes embedded into American society, particularly through its links with the dominant bourgeoisie. So whereas in GoodFellas we get to see how Henry, Jimmy, and Tommy deal small time in drugs and theft in The Godfather 1&2 we get to see how the mob underworld makes real money. Real money on the level of the dominant bourgeoisie represented by the casinos in The Godfather 1&2. Scorsese did make a film about the mob’s participation in the casinos in Casino (1995). Casino was actually the first film where I got exposed to Scorsese.  In The Godfather part 2  Michael even goes as far as making an investment in Cuba. You can’t get bigger than that when explaining the reach of the mob underworld and the dark finance in American society. The money of the mob underworld as highlighted in The Godfather 1&2 makes you wonder about how much money is really circulating in the world economy and how much of it is represented by nefarious activity. The legends about Pablo Escobar’s money are really something. In GoodFellas the trade in drugs is really small time because in The Godfather part 1 they are discussing how the trade will be controlled. Even Paulie in Goodfellas seems like a small timer.

So for me the difference between The Godfather 1&2 and GoodFellas is more about perspective. You realize immediately that the flashy lifestyle of the mob in GoodFellas is really small time and does not offer much in terms of showing the reach of the mob underworld in American society. I mention the 2 Godfather films just to highlight my point about perspective. Even if I was comparing GoodFellas with just 1 or 2 I would still come to the same conclusion. GoodFellas is a very good film and a great film in terms of technique and so on but in terms of perspective it’s not on the level of either The Godfather part 1 or The Godfather part 2. So here I am revealing my own bias for big picture and expansive films. My bias is towards films that say something meaningful about society in general. If it’s based on a true story then even better but here I am revealing my bias for the more epic films. The word ‘epic’ has been taken over by mass media and absorbed in the general culture…. ‘that’s epic’…… but in this sense the epic nature of The Godfathers 1&2 is what I prefer to the small time presentation of the mob in GoodFellas. So yes, I don’t think GoodFellas is the best mob movie ever. Whew! I can finally lay the issue to rest and move on.