Film reviews by Karl C. Watts

Knives Out (2019)****/5: Great mystery film but some parts are a bit too convenient.

2019-12-07T12:00:00.001-05:00

(photo courtesy of IMDB.com)

Knives Out is a scintillating murder? mystery while offering affective family drama with a comedic touch. The film is also well written and directed particularly if you are familiar with mystery films in general. With the great mystery films things are never what they seem especially as you start guessing. Even if you guessed who did it you still will not be able to figure out how because of the layered presentation and characters going in and out of the narrative. As usual there is a big reveal but this should encourage you to watch it a second time in order piece it together. If it is a great film then many of the clues should be there when you watch it again. Also, it must be said that the issue of murder or suicide is one of the most engaging aspects in the mystery. The motive is also important and it is here that we get a sense of the wider family drama. It is a white petty bourgeois family dependent on the patriarch who is now dead. The introduction of an immigrant nurse from central or South America gives the film a new edge as she pierces through the cynicism with her kind heart. In that sense it is fantastical and entertaining beyond what could have been a turgid portrayal.

This film is directed and written by Rian Johnson and features an all star cast. The stand outs are Daniel Craig, as private detective, Benoit Blanc; Ana de Armas as the immigrant nurse, Marta; Chris Evans as the spoilt grandchild, Ransom Robinson; Jamie Lee Curtis, as Linda Robinson; Michael Shannon as Walt Thrombey and Chirstopher Plummer as Harold Thrombey.

Positives

The primary positive is the murder mystery and what it says about the Thrombey family in general. This becomes apparent when establishing a motive for the murder. The Thrombey family is mostly dysfunctional and a lot of it has to do with their dependence on the patriarch, Harold, who is now dead. Another crucial element is the immigrant nurse, Marta, and her peculiar revulsion of lying. She is portrayed rather optimistically as a pure soul in contrast with the practical cynicism of the Thrombeys. Obviously this mystery says a lot about white America and their relationship with immigrants in general. This makes it a timely topic especially when considering how things unravel towards the end. In the good old days this kind of mystery film would not have such an edge with a character like Marta. It would not reflect white America accurately when their position was more secure in their hold on the country.

The introduction of a character like Marta suggests that these white ensemble films will have to account for the immigrant element in some way. The immigrant is crucial to any social portrayal of white bourgeois America because it is now a defining element in their experience. The film smartly makes this film about a family with a small fortune as opposed to a big one and so the issues regarding inheritance are not so grave. If billions were at stake instead of millions then it would be all out war and the film would probably descend, farcically, into a shoot out. The film can then be seen as a microcosm of white America at a turning point. The mystery and how it unravels merely brings this to the fore. The film would not have been so meaningful without these wider issues to discuss.

Negatives

The primary negative is the sanctified portrayal of Marta in this cynical world. I will not reveal how the mystery unfolds but her role in it and her kind heart seem too convenient for this plot. It is not clear why she is singled out as an invigorating factor because she is just a good nurse and Harold’s friend. The motives of the patriarch, Harold, are also not clear cut and although things are conveniently wrapped up at the end I was not sure of his own motives regarding Marta. He laid out this grand plan on his birthday but is it because of the old adage that the 1^st generation produces and the second generation consumes. Something like that. In some sense he is responsible for the family being so dependent especially in his unwillingness to allow some of them to exercise their initiative and to thrive in some areas. It is also clear throughout the film that he uses Marta to solidify his last hurrah or middle finger to his family. How will she continue to navigate the cynicism despite what appears a somewhat triumphant end? In such a sense the emphasis on such a kind hearted Marta narrows the portrayal and limits what could have been said without it becoming merely comedic.

All in all the presentation of this mystery is technically very impressive but I still have some reservations about the pure hearted intentions of Marta.

Ford vs. Ferrari (2019) ****/5. This is one of the better sports films to be released in awhile but too many major historical inaccuracies. Christian Bale as Ken Miles is the real standout

2019-11-27T10:06:00.002-05:00

Ford vs. Ferrari is one of the better sports films to be released in awhile. While the film took some time to get going, and one could adequately determine the stereotypical personalities and situations involved, it did move me towards the end. For me, the performance of Christian Bale as Ken Miles, the odd man out, deserves commendation. The gravitas on display by Bale is fitting for a film shrouded in polished corporate American values and historical inaccuracies. Matt Damon is Bale’s foil as he plays the pioneer automobile designer, Caroll Shelby. With these two outstanding performances the names of the two pioneers will stick with you along with the thrill of motor car racing. The Director, James Mangold, also got me emotional with his previous bromance, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, which also starred Bale. Similar to that film, the situations or circumstances might be predictable in Ford vs. Ferrari but the unity between the two leads transcend this and evoke a certain eerie, historical feel that these were real people. Capturing the historical record with such entertainment value is commendable and again showcases why moments in time, regardless of the period, are transcendent. Notable historical inaccuracies are present and so I could not rate this film as highly.

This film is based on the true story of the 1966 Le Mans Grand Prix, a 24 hour endurance race, when automaker Ford ended Ferrari’s dominance of the event and thereby showcasing American capabilities in international motor car racing sport. The two individuals that made it happen were Caroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and Ken Miles (Christian Bale). The two have to navigate a web of corporate interests and subterfuge; making it apparent the interests of greed at the heart of fierce competition and the sacrifices that are made by honest working people to build something meaningful for the brand.

Positives

The primary positives are the performances by Christian Bale and Matt Damon. As Ken Miles Bale plays the odd man out but the one with more insight into the ways of the conformists represented by conservative corporate interests. Also, as the odd man out he is able to transcend the demands of corporate interests by breaking the stranglehold that tends to hold back genuine progress. In so doing that individual is able to mould a new direction for future generations by pushing the limits and making them aware of what is possible. It is no wonder that the most dramatic moments involve this character who was way ahead of his time in some respects, from an American perspective. It is even more impressive as his character is based on a historical figure. The current generation will be able to identify with such an individual who pushes the envelope whether they are from 1966 or 2019. Matt Damon does well as Carroll Shelvy who has to do the balancing act between conservative corporate interests and the more eccentric individual Miles who is his friend. He watches it all unfolds and acts as the narrator for the story.

Other perspectives include those of Miles’ wife, Mollie (Caitriona Balfe), and doting son, Peter (Noah Jupe). The supporting cast which represents corporate America also plays its part and it is no surprise that the so called villain, Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas), is within the upper echelons of the Ford bureaucracy, regardless of what the title of the film says. Beebe is not necessarily a villain in the wider sense, although being portrayed as such, because, just like anyone else he is motivated by the self-interest of his company. If he was truly this vindictive then it makes the movie even sadder by the end.

Another positive of this film is the detailed breakdown of the moments leading to the famous 1966 race at Le Mans. The structure of the rivalry is detailed first as a corporate struggle between Ford and Ferrari followed by the professionals who got it done on the ground. The owners of the two companies, Henry Ford II and Enzo Ferrari, are finely portrayed. Ford as a man trying to continue his father’s legacy and Ferrari trying to maintain his own. Ferrari is obviously more intimate with the motor car racing scene than the more sheltered Ford Jr and this is all portrayed throughout the film very well. It even becomes apparent in the final race. In the end they are the ultimate winners or losers because they represent the brand.

The last major positive is obviously the motor racing itself. I am pretty sure that Generation Z would not be disappointed by the motor racing on display in this film. Cars hitting just over 200 mph may not seem major now but in 1966 that was considered very fast. The direction of these races by Mangold captures the adrenaline rush of the sport and why it is a highly valued one with a long lived history. You do get really immersed in the races and the mindset (strategies) of the speed demons on the track and their support system in the pits. More speed but with greater control. This all suggests that the historical forces and methods of the sport have been in place for a very long time although cars have gotten faster etc. Can you imagine Ken Miles having a go with some of these modern cars? The cars of today are probably what he and Shelby had in mind all along. Probably.

Negatives

The primary negative is the biased portrayal of corporate America. Obviously, the historical record already records them as the victors at Le Mans but the film does do its part in having them portrayed as pushing American interests and values while portraying Ferrari as their bitter enemy that must be defeated. Yes, some are sacrificed along the way, and there is significant enmity within Ford itself, but in the end Ford is the victor. I found Enzo Ferrari more relatable than Henry Ford II because he lived it. He was a true sports man but his attitude to the sport is not effectively captured except in sound bites and gesticulation. In the end Ford may have won a couple races at Le Mans but if you check the records Ferrari still has more wins than Ford overall. It is true that Ford is the only American car company to record victories at the event but there is probably a reason why they have not won since the 60s. Instead of portraying it as a bitter corporate struggle we could have gotten a more balanced or well rounded film that could still assert the end of Ferrari’s dominance. A more genuine sports film. Instead we have a couple scenes where Henry Ford II speaks about the greatness of his company but Ferrari must have been great as well, so what about the values of his company. What I see is Ford rising to Ferrari’s standards yet Ferrari is seen as the ultimate loser. I do admit that the 1966 race was special in itself but instead of emphasizing American participation only let us also emphasize that Ford are also the overall losers particularly as they haven’t really made much headway in the event since the 1960s.

The film does emphasize how the small man is sacrificed on the corporate altar but can we really be disappointed at the end. In the end Ford won in 1966 as history says. Yes, there was some subterfuge but ultimately Ford won. In some sense the added dramatic effect can shroud the overall outcome which is implied in the title. This does mean that although there is a stereotypical villain the emphasis on Shelby and Miles sort of obscures the overall objective of Ford to win the race. So the portrayal of internal enmity is unfortunate because in the end it doesn’t really matter which driver wins. I understand that as a sports film it does matter but not as implied in the title. So, if it is Ford vs. Ferrari why focus only on Miles and Shelby and not give a more accurate representation of the other interests of Ford in motor racing. The other Ford racing cars were not discussed effectively as part of the overall objective except at the end of one race.

I mention this because I am sports history enthusiast and so more care needs to be demonstrated when promoting American interests in the film. If you look at the list of winners at Le Mans since its inception you will realize that there are notable inaccuracies in the film. For instance, Shelby is credited in the film as the only American to win the event before the 1966 race and that is not the case. The Italian born American, Luigi Chinneti, was the first in 1949 and he drove a Ferrari. LOL. The next American to win the event was American born, Phil Hill in 1958, and he drove, YES, A FERRARI. LOL. Phil Hill also won driving a Ferrari in 1961 and 1962. It makes you wonder why Ford did not turn to their fellow American lol. In 1965 a North American team won the event before Shelby got involved. The North American team won driving a Ferrari and had 2 American drivers on their roster. The North American Racing team was owned by Ferrari to promote their interests in America. Also, in the list of winners Shelby American Inc is credited as the American team behind the victories at Le Mans in 1966 and 1967, so why all the drama surrounding this race. Ford was the sponsor but the Shelby teams were involved with the creation of the GT40 engine for the other cars that participated in 1966. Why wasn’t this highlighted in the film? That is really unfortunate. Shelby’s team is listed on record as the ones behind Ford’s 1-2-3 triumph. Shelby was not just approached by Ford because he won at Le Mans as a driver but because he actually entered the 1964 Le Mans event with the Shelby Daytona Cobra Coupe which placed 4^th. Ford was actually trying to beat Ferrari long before 1966 but Ferrari was just very good at what it did. Credit to Shelby for having an all American team ending their dominance. It makes you wonder who the real villain is.

This is still one of the best sports films I have ever watched. The character of Ken Miles is the only one to emerge unscathed from my criticism. I wanted to love this film more but too many major inaccuracies.

Joker (2019) ** ½/5: This is a somewhat menacing examination of the descent into madness but not much else apart from constant cackling. Heath Ledger's Joker still remains the standard not this charlatan played by Phoenix.

2019-10-06T20:51:00.001-05:00

(photo courtesy of slashfilm.com)

Joker is a somewhat menacing examination of the descent into madness but nothing else. There is a lot of maniacal laughter or cackling but no meaningful additions about the Joker ethos. There is nothing particularly memorable here in terms of quotes or perspectives. I left only with memory of the laughter and a predictable tale of urban alienation that leads to an explosive reaction in society. The attempt to cover the Joker in blood and to tie him with the batman is especially pathetic and throws off an important timeline in the comic books. There is no reconciliation or expansion of the character’s significance despite the sense of loss and attention seeking; nothing memorable about his role as the prince of crime in Gotham city. They paint a portrait of a pathetic individual who suffers from mental illness who decides to wear a clown mask as a form of reprisal of the perceived wrongs of society and that’s about it. There is a realistic edge to the portrayal but this bogs the film down and it meanders as we, the audience, look for something meaningful to attach to it. The film is not particularly impressive but there were moments which suggest what this film could have been. Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight is still the standard.

The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, an aspiring standup comedian with a medical condition- the pseudo bulbar affect (PBA). He eventually battles through madness and becomes known as the notorious Joker. It is a tale of urban alienation reinforced by Arthur’s interaction with several characters that deepen his sense of loss and inadequacy. Robert De Niro puts in a memorable turn as veteran comedian Murray Franklin along with Zazie Beetz as Sophie Drummond. Arthur’s mother, played by Frances Conroy, also plays a crucial role in the film.

Positives

The primary positive is the realistic approach used to developing the character of the Joker. I never knew of the particular condition that affected Arthur, pseudo bulbar affect (PBA), and that was a real eye opener. The next time one watches the joker in action this will always be at the back of their mind. Before we never fathomed that the Joker’s constant maniacal laughter could be possibly linked to a particular condition. The film also establishes that the Joker is mentally ill and this becomes clear in some of the best moments where he develops an obsession with Sophie. His delusional episodes are a clear indicator why he should be locked up in Arkham asylum despite his savagery. His PBA condition and mental illness can be universally applied going forward because after this film most will accept the fundamentals of joker’s psychosis. This is an alienated man who is denied any form of reconciliation and his response is typically violent. This element of urban alienation, or alienation in general, can be applied to the current mass shooting phenomenon in the USA. The clown element is one way to stand out on Arthur’s part but the main issues is whether or not it is a fundamental problem.

There is this yearning to be accepted by any means necessary and there is the concern that the more negative trends and the complete disregard for society is very attractive. In the film we hear that the wider problem is the rich and the Joker becomes a typical anti-hero or anti-establishment figure challenging societal norms embodied in characters such as Thomas Wayne and the comedian Murray Franklin. It makes you wonder how many jokers lie in wait throughout the world and just need that spark to erupt in wholesale disorder. I guess this is why we have the Batman alternative.

Negatives

The primary negative is that the character of the Joker does not come to fruition in this film. There is a descent into madness and an examination of how affecting alienation can be but nothing transcendent. This is half a film because a film about the Joker shouldn’t just be an examination of madness or PBA but about crime in the city of Gotham. Joker is renowned for his role as the clown prince of crime but this is not present here. He is presented as just a typical sociopath, or psychopath if you prefer, but not the true clown prince of crime. There is actually no real discussion of a crime problem just the hatred for the rich and a violent clown that expresses that hatred. The standard portrayal of the Joker in film was done by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and it was made very clear what he represented in society, an agent of chaos. This is not evident in the current Joker where we only get an insight into madness. There are no memorable quotes to take from this film, just cackling. There is no indication in this film that the joker could actually be a major crime figure. This was very disappointing because the film meanders a lot with many monotonous or unnecessary scenes that drag out the discussion of madness. Although the Joker has to deal with a lot of social issues it is clear that one motivating factor had to be his involvement in the crime underworld, which is mostly absent; no dealings with the mob /organized crime. The character of the Joker without crime is not an effective character.

My last gripe with this film is the absurd connection with the Batman. Some may argue that it was a good thing but I thought it was absurd because it never established the joker as a crime mastermind. His limited form of social upheaval was not the motivating factor for the introduction of the batman. It is a good thing this film will not be a major cultural phenomenon because this would flip the script of the Batman origins. Many will not accept the connections established between the joker and a young Bruce Wayne. It came across as shallow and actually limited the development of the joker’s character independent of the batman. The film lost me at this point because it was more important to discuss the development of the joker independently of the batman. No connection should be established between these 2 absolutes apart from what they represent to society. It was absurd and completely unnecessary and robbed the film of its impetus. It was probably an indicator that they really did not have much to say about the joker as a character apart from him being typically mad and alienated. I was actually looking forward to a post credit-scene where the Joker and the Batman actually meet. Nothing doing, just songs about smiling. Lame. Are they really saying that when the joker first meets the batman he is actually an old man? The timeline for this film is way off. Actually trying to make the Joker the reason for the emergence of the Batman is even worse going forward and sets up some hackneyed revenge scenario.

All in all, I was very disappointed. They got too bogged down in the reality of it all. I want to see the origins of the real prince of crime, not this charlatan played by Phoenix. Heath Ledger’s Joker remains the standard and he never had this much screen time. Next time the filmmakers must learn to make each second count and write a better, more kinetic script. This is the Joker we’re talking about, not some average Joe.

Sprinter (2019) ***½ /5: It is quite predictable but this is a good film based on an authentic Jamaican story.

2019-08-02T09:17:00.001-05:00

Sprinter is one of the better films on a Jamaican subject to be released in the last couple of years. I had zero expectations for this film but it was a genuine crowd pleaser because it tapped into the authentic elements of contemporary Jamaican culture. It is also quite predictable, and this has been pointed out by other critics, but this is an assured production. Writer and director, Storm Saulter, has clearly improved his craft since Better Mus’ Come (2010) but also shows what can be achieved in Jamaican cinema with the proper financing. Unlike other Jamaican film productions it is clear that Sprinter has benefitted greatly from sponsorship and external support with Will and Jada Pinkett Smith serving as executive producers, David Alan Grier playing the head coach and Lorraine Toussaint as Akeem’s mother, Donna. I am not so sure about whether or not the producers are Jamaicans or have Jamaican roots but all are welcome.

This film is generic tale, hence the title, about rising sprinting star Akeem ‘Rasta Rocket’ Sharp (Dale Elliott) as he grapples with various emotional issues, particularly with his mother Donna (Lorraine Toussaint), while trying to fulfill his potential.

Positives

This is an assured production, well financed by Jamaican standards, and showcases the potential of Jamaican cinema or the possibilities that come with portraying authentic Jamaican stories. I was impressed in parts by the acting and the expansive scope of the storytelling. This is not to say that Jamaican audiences are not exposed to foreign or don’t travel frequently but, in recent times, rarely do you see a film based in Jamaica introducing foreign locations this convincingly in a dramatic production. Many Jamaican films are isolated and rarely connect with the outside world in such an authentic way. The external connection is important to the Jamaican experience. The idea of the Jamaican diaspora in the US is convincingly portrayed-a struggling mother seeking better for her family in the US yet trying her best to remain emotionally involved with her children- is very much a relatable topic to contemporary Jamaican audiences. The film does embrace this diasporic connection and gives us a good interpretation through Akeem and his various struggles. Akeem’s brother, Germaine (Kadeem Wilson), also engages in transnational activity, albeit illegally, through scamming which has gained Jamaica negative publicity in the US. He too had promise as a track athlete and is world wise or world weary as he tries his best to look out for his brother and tries to expose him to various possibilities on the business side.

There is also the tension between the amateur values and the professional mindset of running just to make money. Akeem’s amateur values are reinforced by his coach, his father and, probably, his future wife, Kerry (Shantol Jackson). The amateur values keep him grounded but the allure of easy money, flashy lifestyle and the hot girls/gyals is a serious temptation. This is normally a tension seen in the sporting world. Do you run merely for glory or do you run for yourself? Being a part of a groundswell can also be rewarding but it can also leave you destitute or bellied up. Running for glory can give you notoriety but you do have to balance it with some measure of self-preservation. As a sports enthusiast and researcher I can appreciate Akeem’s dilemma and Saulter has done well in exposing these issues.

The use of Jamaican acting talent was also a positive step. Jamaica clearly has some leading acting talents, more prominent on TV shows or stage productions, which are channeled effectively here. This is more evident in the supporting cast and the attempt to go for a more authentic Jamaican sound. Although some of the US actors are clearly off in their authenticity, the Jamaican cast and extras effectively captured the Jamaican experience which made the film very relatable. Some parts are maybe too relatable (Ward theatre as a police station?)

Usain Bolt has a great cameo in this film. You become more appreciative of his legendary status.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is its predictability. In most instances you know where this film is headed and this is informed by a very generic title. I thought something like ‘Rasta Rocket’ would have been more distinctive. The film does not take the hard road to be truly transcendent in the world of filmmaking. Those elements which would heighten the dramatic stakes are not necessarily present. There is just not much loss along the way. How could it end otherwise! Other examples of its predictability are the impact of Usain Bolt, elements taken from Boyz ‘N the Hood and elements taken from other sports films. This is a conservative production and going forward Jamaican filmmakers will have to be more daring in order to tell transcendent stories which will impact globally. Have to be more unique in the telling of the story although having Jamaican audiences identify with the broader canvas can be counted as success. Sponsors need not necessarily be as upfront as FLOW was here. The sponsors do have some bearing on the conservative approach taken but if more sources of financing can be identified then we will get more to the root of the authentic Jamaican experience. The predictability of the film suggests that there is a lot of superficiality here and not enough of a grounded experience. Once we don’t have to portray Jamaica with such fanfare then we will get closer to the truth. For the time being you have to accept that to promote Jamaican films abroad you have to focus on what makes us marketable( Reggae, Bolt etc).

The authenticity was lacking in some scenes and some camera shots in the Jamaican setting were not as effective especially in the open spaces like crowded downtown Kingston or the airport. Jamaica outside of the school setting or the track was not effectively portrayed. Why was the camera hanging so low in some instances? The American based actors were not as effective in portraying authentic Jamaicans although they made a good attempt (Cool Runnings has returned). In some instances the acting, generally, was not as effective especially in some of the dramatic situations and it could be argued that the effect was lost because the scenarios were so predictable. I would actually have preferred a story primarily about Akeem’s brother, Germaine, which would certainly have been less generic. Imagine a story of Germaine, the Rasta Rocket , who entered the scamming life once his athletic career went belly up. His story was such an effective contrast to Akeem’s story and this means that it would be the more effective dramatic tale.

In the end this film had a lot going for it but going forward more authentic stories about the Jamaican experience will truly make the Jamaican film industry sustainable (The festivals which showcase Jamaican shorts are a start). It is an assured production and does give a sense of the possibilities for the Jamaican film industry to thrive in the 21^st century and to appeal to a global audience.

The Lion King (2019) ***/5: The energy was lacking in this remake but for a few flashes. The original animated feature is a superior film. Good update for the current generation.

2019-07-26T08:48:00.001-05:00

(Photo courtesy of imdb.com)

The live action remake of Disney’s original 1994 animated feature, The Lion King, is an inferior product. This is the case with most of Disney’s live remakes so far. They, mostly, lack the energy and intensity of the original animated versions. There is only a mild burst of energy in this live action remake of The Lion King as it simply tries to retread past glory. The voice acting is a crucial factor here and it is clearly inferior to the original. The attempt to add depth and range to the original is mild and only a few areas are really fleshed out. The majesty is lost in this retread which cannot be salvaged by Beyonce’s hollow, booming vocals. This is yet another corporate slog to milk an established brand; and what a brand it is as the opening box office numbers suggest. The minor achievement of this film is that it is an update for the current generation. It is also testament to the enduring quality of one of the great animated films.

The main plot of the film is the same as the original. A young Simba must grapple with the burdens of his legacy inherited from his great father Mufasa to refashion himself as a King of the pride lands. He is met with great opposition by his uncle Scar and his pack of Hyenas while being allied with romantic interest Nala and his friends, Timon and Pumba.

Positives

The primary positive is the update for the current generation of young movie goers who never experienced the thrills of the original 1994 release. It is clear by the reaction of the young members of the audience that the elements that made the Lion King appealing back then still has the power to entertain a digital crazed generation-which piles on the superficiality in droves and creates a vast pile of obsolescence or obsolete material in its wake. Once in a while this generation of digital performers is reminded that there are some things that do last or endure and have great historical value where you can cash in.

The live action remake is made with a certain hyper realism which appeals to this generation which sees the original animated releases as outdated or crude. This allows the film to present the material in a visually appealing way which will hold the attention of some, even those who watched it before. With this live remake one can get a sense of the Western conception of mystical Africa from the Serengeti, Mt. Kilimanjaro, the Sahara desert and the old fashioned jungle paradise (Hakuna Matata). It is obviously a false representation and it is something I already complained about in regard to the original. The live action visuals do give a better idea of how the world of The Lion King is to be understood. A biased Western fantasy where animals reign supreme and man still lives in caves. The mystic and wise baboon is a fitting stereotype of man at one with nature. The appeal of Africa for many white westerners comes through the Discovery Channel and the National Geographic. It is the continent where such a variety of species come together in the circle of life, particularly some of the great mammals of the Earth.

There are some elements of this new realism that I did appreciate such as the idea of Scar’s original challenge to Mufasa and his rule as King which explained why the pride lands were desolate; the clear hierarchy of the Hyena clan led by the female (which is very realistic); Nala’s escape from the pride under Scar’s rule and a variety of species in the jungle paradise inhabited by Timon and Pumba. There were many elements not effectively delineated however and suggests weak direction. Why would prey such as the African Buffalo (in the real world they hate lions and won’t hesitate to kill them), Zebra, etc celebrate the birth of yet another meat eating lion? The herbivore perspective was not effectively highlighted and the contradictions were exposed when the space inhabited by Timon and Pumba which included other animals but was not addressed.

Standout voice acting performances were Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, John Oliver as Zazu, Billy Eichner as Timon and Seth Rogan as Pumba. These actors did make a good attempt to bring back the energy of the original characters. One could make the argument that the lack of energy on the part of some characters is more realistic and the less excitable parts will appeal to a wider range of audiences and not just children. That doesn’t change the disappointment I felt while watching Rafiki voiced by John Kani.

Negatives

The energy and intensity of the original was clearly lacking. The live remake is actually an inferior product dramatically. In their attempt to exhaust the material it became hollow and then derivative when they went back on course. There could have been attempts at more fresh dialogue and maybe some more exposition in certain areas. Imitation is the best form of flattery they say but not the best form of entertainment. As a retread I could only see this as a corporate slog to cash in and I was drained in the wrong way. More could have been done to expand the world of the Lion King and not simply to do a mere retread. As a mere retread the songs do not have the same vibrancy and the attempt to fill in gaps with new songs rings hollow. Hearing Beyonce sing about Spirit as Simba returns to the pride lands was an embarrassment. Never was a song as less fitting for a movie scene as that. The elements that made the original unique are diluted in the name of update only but not integrity. This film highlights the burden of history as succeeding generations refuse to live up to the standards of the past. At each step I cringed as the voice acting never measured up and they tried to imitate, imitate, imitate.

The major elements that contributed to the energy and intensity of the original was the voice acting. This is lacking in the live action remake. In an embarrassing fashion they brought back a much older James Earl Jones to voice Mufasa. Although he voiced Mufasa in the original this time around he was unable to match the majesty and power he conveyed in the 1994 version. He is not intended to voice an old Mufasa but a Mufasa at the peak of his powers. Rafiki was another disappointment with no vibrancy as one of major original African voiced characters. Most of the other new actors were trying to imitate instead of act. Scar was one of the few who seemed refashioned to a certain extent.

The lack of daring was astounding and only a few actors were able to offer some fresh interpretation to their characters. The rest came across as ineffectively developed as a result. This required more energy from the creative team and there was clearly not much vision regarding the interpretation of the original. They did not necessarily have to create something new but to innovate to a point where this would be The Lion King for a new generation and not just a nostalgic retread. This required fresh dialogue, even in cherished scenes, in order to give the characters more range and purpose in their actions. Although some say it’s not good to mess with a good thing, you can because there is always room for improvement. Always unless it is maxed out! That room for improvement is where you innovate and there were so many areas that could have been effectively developed or refashioned. The original already reached a certain peak that would not be matched emotionally just by retreading familiar territory in the same way. They attempted to innovate in areas which were not necessary, such as the soundtrack. When the original was created there was a concerted effort to make the major soundtrack songs hits that would linger in the memory and fit the feel and context of film. I don’t see ‘Spirit’ making any impact on this generation. In one sense they tried to manufacture something that would seem fresh but instead it came across as hollow, purposeless and forgettable because it was unable to convey emotion effectively. The dramatic impetus of the original has been smothered under the corporate drive, poor imitation and a lower standard of filmmaking.

The film will not astound but it will make money because it is an established property.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) ***½ /5: An improvement on the original and a fitting film in the post-Endgame era.

2019-07-21T13:39:00.000-05:00

(photo courtesy of polygon.com)

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019) is a notable improvement on its predecessor, Homecoming, and provides a good update on the post-Endgame scenario in the MCU. The story itself is very much tied to the fallout from Endgame where there is now a world without Tony Stark/Ironman, the linchpin of the MCU since 2008. Who will rise to take his place? This is the central question of Far From Home particularly as it is expected that that person is the humble Peter parker from Queens who happens to be Spider-Man. Mixed in with the legacy discussion is the school trip which happens to be a European tour. It is actually a refreshing break from the American scene and the villain, Mysterio, cuts an interesting figure. The trailers originally suggested that he would be an ally but never indicated how he would become a villain. The film addresses that as well and it is also bundled with the legacy question. As teenage hormones surge so do the elementals as everyone knows by now is a concoction contributing to the grandmaster plan. You know there must be a big hole in the MCU when the Avengers are not drawn to such a crisis and it is left solely to Peter Parker and his allies.

This film sees the return of the Homecoming cast led by Tom Holland as Spider-Man with the introduction of Jake Gyllenhall as Quentin Beck/Mysterio and a first time appearance alongside Spider-Man for another MCU linchpin, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

Positives

The primary positive was the legacy questions. In some instances it can be overwhelming but it is a primary feature of the plot. There are those that are a part of the legacy and those shunned by it. Obviously the villain and his crew were those shunned by the great MCU/Stark legacy and are making one great attempt to be a part of it although it’s not their right. Peter Parker is given the task to continue the great Stark legacy. Obviously at his age that is a big issue to confront especially when you’re more concerned with impressing the girl of your dreams on a European tour with your high school peers. Obviously, how he deals with it leads to major consequences with Quentin Beck/Mysterio. At first when watching the film I thought that Parker appeared so naïve and predictable but upon more reflection I realize that was to be expected of his immaturity. There is a great divide between the adult and teen perspectives that is very well portrayed here particularly how an adult can take advantage of a teen’s naivete. So the adults are thrusting this pressure on Parker not realizing that he has a teenage life to complete. Obviously this burden is lessened as the other supporting characters start to play important roles, especially MJ. Going forward it is possible that Parker will build his a team in the real sense that makes him a better spider-man now that he has embraced these legacy issues. Obviously the 1^st post credit scene is a great tease and ties back to the 1^st Iron Man but with a twist. Tony Stark might have boldly proclaimed his identity but the revelation of Parker’s identity is thrust upon him in a nefarious way. The Spider-Man series is expanding nicely and after this maybe we will get a better sense of who Spider-Man is as a hero now that the legacy questions with Stark, and the associated mishaps, are somewhat out of the way.

The other impressive bit was the chronicling of teenage life and experiences post-decimation. The teenage interpretation of events is refreshing as well as their attitudes to romance. Ned’s take on the life of a bachelor, to being tied down with a woman, to being single again was hilarious and a great example of a supporting character in this genre. These elements are embedded into the plot seamlessly along with Peter’s travails concerning MJ.

The action was pretty good particularly when considering the unique challenge posed by Mysterio. Sometimes with the best villains it’s not just about coming to blows or a general fistfight.

The film gives a good sense of where the MCU is at the moment.

Negatives

The primary negative is the overwhelming issue of legacy to the point where it doesn’t feel like a Spider-Man movie. The legacy questions could have been sidelined without taking over the film. I understand the succession elements involved but there were many moments when it did not give Spider-Man his own moments. Mysterio could still have been a great villain without the Stark element. In a sense if Spider-Man is to stand on his own his universe needs to shine through beyond the teenage circuit. This is why I am looking forward to the third film in the series. Maybe as the series continues to expand and Parker fully embraces the role then we will get a full Spider-Man experience. Until then the films in this series will not fully standout especially as the position is considered an inferior one from the teenage perspective. There was a delightful scene where parker took MJ web slinging and shows the potential inherent in the series to be a distinct and fun with a more adult perspective. At the rate the series is going we will not get to see an adult Spider-Man in full swing.

Toy Story 4 (2019) ****/5: Not much of a step forward from earlier films in the saga but still very rewarding by the end. This is clearly the end of a wonderful franchise.

2019-06-30T15:39:00.001-05:00

I have now watched all Toy Story films in the cinema. I will never forget my first experience with this franchise when the computer based animation of Pixar was not exactly mainstream. Now, the Pixar way is the standard for all to follow. While the Toy Story franchise hasn’t been exactly crowded out it did have to make room for other top notch Pixar productions. With Toy Story 4 the saga clearly has reasserted its importance with the usual high quality production of the Pixar team. Despite not being wholly original or inventive in terms of its presentation it does manage to keep us engaged with a very resonant emotional story.

The film brings back the old crew with Tom Hanks as the voice of the ever loyal Woody and Buzz Lightyear voiced by Tim Allen along with some characters we thought we would never hear from again such as Bo Peep (voiced by Annie Potts). The most important new character is Forky (Tony Hale)-Bonnie’s new darling self made Toy- who is guided by Woody in learning the value of being a toy instead of trash. Woody reconnects with Bo who has been living a ownerless life and the differences between the two seem irreconcilable with Woody as the ever loyal toy. Woody must come to terms with his own value as a toy and why some times it is better to let go and start a new chapter in life.

Positives

The primary positive is the emotional resonant story. While the elements of the story related to what it means to be a toy are not necessarily groundbreaking they are necessary. This film is all about the pain of separation and starting anew and this is why the character of Bo Peep is crucial based on her own experiences as an ownerless toy. Woody seems ever more loyal than ever to his new owner Bonnie , even when she discards him and even when she creates a new toy called Forky. Despite this he has to come to terms with his irrelevance or that it is time to find a new path. The loyalty displayed by Woody however blinds him to the truth about his own situation: that he is unable to let go and his loyalty can become a serious hindrance to others who don’t share his passion. Bo Peep is such an important character and her disappearance and then later reemergence in this film does serve to give the saga, as a whole, some real heft. It does make the entire saga worth watching. There is established a real divide between those toys who desire ownership or some sense of belonging to validate their self-worth and those who wish to be ownerless. It is an important distinction that has not been fully explored in the saga until now. Previously, we used to see toys discarded with no idea of their final destination, or how they carried on after, but now we do thanks to Bo Peep who is now world weary and more cynical but not without longing.

The overall usual plot devices and supporting cast are important to drive the story forward but does not necessarily take away from the overall purpose of the film. There are some lovely shots in this film particularly in amusement park setting. Those bright lights in a particular scene convey a lot in terms of the abstraction and anonymity of particular characters but this makes the pain of separation bearable and one of acceptance. It was certainly a Spielbergian moment. It is also testament to the brilliance of the animation in the film which is second to none in the Pixar roster.

Negatives

The only real negative with this film is that it can seem like a retread of familiar themes throughout the series. The discussion regarding the value of a toy to its owner is not entirely amazing and I thought it would go in new directions particularly when considering the digital age and the impact of smart phones, tablets etc. Instead it relies primarily on familiar themes established since the first. While this is important for world building one hopes that this is truly the end unless they embrace a new set of characters apart from the usual suspects. Even the neophyte, Forky, is simply meandering as he is instilled with certain toy ownership values. He only provides and initial lift but then fades to the background. Everything is a bit too familiar which is why the reintroduction of Bo Peep saved this film from being mediocre. Without Bo Peep this would possibly be the worst film in the saga but her presence elevates it. This goes to show the familiarity surrounding the x-factor of Bo Peep as we arrive at the conclusion. Without Bo Peep many would be questioning the sense of yet another Toy Story film. With Bo Peep, loose strands can be wrapped up and the conclusion can be final.

Hopefully this is the end of the saga as we know it especially after all the emotions on display. It was a fitting end but one can see Pixar be tempted, because of box office success, to add yet another entry. If they do I hope it is with a new generation of toys branched from the original characters.

John Wick: Chapter 3-Parabellum (2019) ****/5: This represents a peak for the series but there are no real emotional stakes; just the matter of John Wick's survival .

2019-05-21T07:40:00.004-05:00

John Wick: Chapter 3- Parabellum is the best in the series if over the top action is your thing. The filmmakers don’t exactly shirk from the fact that the action is the main driver of this series. The action is inventive and mesmerizing at times; but as they say, sometimes there is too much of a good thing. The original connection to the puppy and the wife is lost here yet at the same time there is expansion in the seedy world of assassins and high table overlords. As the title suggests this may just be the beginning of a long struggle and there is no real finality provided and so with John Wick 3 it is possible that the series has reached a peak. There is just too much of a good thing.

John Wick: Chapter 3 stars Keanu Reeves, reprising his role as the titular character on the run from the High table following the murder of one of their members, Santino, in the previous installment. In this chapter, he meets new allies (some from a long time ago) but loses key ones and new enemies emerge out of the shadows, particularly those close to home, as he searches for a way out. Halle Berry also features as Sofia.

Positives

The main positive is obviously the action. The variety of set pieces on display is impressive at times and there are moments when the action is simply mesmerizing. The best in the series so far. At times, it was video gameesque and the audience members were simply in awe with the brutality on display. There are clearly many ways to get killed; a book perhaps. As I mentioned in my review of John Wick 2, there should be a video game based on the adventures of John Wick and, if well made, it should do well in terms of sales. It is clear that the filmmakers were indulgent (video game style maybe), and clearly there are implausible moments where John Wick should have realistically met his end, but for the most part the suspension of reality is convincing.

The impressive world building continues from John Wick 2. The seedy world of assassins and High table overlords is expanded here and we even reach as far as Morocco (Casablanca). It goes to show that the established rules are filtered down in a highly centralized manner. Everyone knows their place and if one steps out of line then some form of blood must be shed. The world building does extend as far as the high table and beyond but it is still mysterious apart from the emissary, the adjudicator (Asia kate Dillon), and one gets a sense that with the expected part 4 in the series the mystery will be unraveled.

Although there aren’t much emotional stakes in this film, apart from maybe Sofia, clearly there is intrigue which fans of the series will appreciate. This has a lot to do with the world building on show since part 1 in the series and how things clearly turn on their head. One wonders when Wick will be able to stand tall and be in a position to dictate his own terms. There are glimpses of it here but at times his character is diminished. If this film is about parabellum then the next installment is clearly all out war. Hopefully by then the action won’t seem too exhaustive.

Negatives

The primary negative is that there is too much of a good thing here. The indulgent action by the end seemed to serve no purpose. The stakes were lowered by the end because there was no sense of finality and the fancy latin word in the title was a mask for all this. The film clearly never intended to resolve much here apart from the preparation for all out war. This means that there is a strong possibility that the beloved action moments of the series will eventually run its course and become exhaustive. This film clearly represents a peak for the series and this probably means that decline is inevitable. They will not be able to sustain the thrill of action if they continue to elude the finality that John Wick’s story clearly craves. The days of the puppy and wife are mostly lost here with bloodshed the only joy to marvel at. There are flashes where they try and reestablish the emotional connection to the original story but this is fleeting and certainly not consistent. All the action we just witnessed was merely preparation for all out war and so what will that mean for the follow up of all out war. Is the character John Wick going to get some mystical powers? He already seems very resilient to the grasp of death. Maybe they will surprise us even further but for the time being the only stakes seem to be John Wick’s survival. It is pretty clear that he is more than capable of surviving. Surviving is normally the basest of instincts hence why there should be greater stakes at least; stakes that will allow the character’s influence to filter through the fantastic, seedy underworld.

Time and time again we see him evade death and eventually that’s all there is. The supporting characters need more heft and meaning in order to up the stakes and clear objectives need to be established in order to get some finality. With John Wick always on the run there must be a time where we can see him take charge and not just be a meandering character simply reacting. Then again, how much of this will be out of character. The emotional stakes will have to be raised and they should be wary of caricaturizing the character and his supporting cast ‘What do you need John?’ ‘Guns, lots of guns.’

Avengers: Endgame (2019) ****½/5: Engrossing final chapter for the MCU infinity saga but i have a few issues about its standalone qualities and some of the more manipulative moments which were too predictable.

2019-04-28T12:15:00.000-05:00

Avengers: Endgame is the engrossing final chapter in marvel’s lengthy infinity saga (22 films). The infinity saga began 11 years ago with the superb Iron Man (2008) and never looked back. With Endgame we’re now at the end of it all and Tony Stark/Iron Man is still as important as ever as the practical linchpin of the marvel universe. No, Endgame did not make me cry at all but there were moments which gave me chills and made me reflective. For Endgame to make me cry it would have to be a serious dramatic film although it does have its moments. In acting terms the real standout is Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man although I was impressed with the story arcs of Captain America, Thor and the Hulk. For the first time I could watch Captain America onscreen and not call him a “idiot” or “a naïve representative of American interests”; I had to be respectful this time. Marvel must be commended for a job well done with the infinity saga although I do have my issues with Endgame particularly the manipulative moments to elicit some response from moviegoers. It still makes you question if this is a great film or if there is just a great mix of characters onscreen. While there were surprises in store I could see some moments coming from a mile away and that goes back to the manipulative moments in the film. I’m a seasoned moviegoer; I have watched all the marvel films and I know a thing or two about movie finales such as The Return of the King (2003) so I was not perturbed or overawed by Endgame in some respects. Despite this one must admit that this is truly the end of an era and the time for new beginnings is long overdue. In terms of MCU filmmaking quality Black Panther is still the leader.

The Avengers, or what’s left of them, must do their best to correct the fallout from the universal decimation which came about as a result of the snap by Thanos in Infinity War. With half of the living population in the universe gone do they just move on or find a way to make things right. Obviously they choose to make things right and led again by the brilliance of Tony Stark/IronMan (Robert Downey Jr.) and the dogged Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), with an important contribution from Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), they do find a way to make it work. This all leads to an epic confrontation with the almighty Thanos and his armies.

Positives

The primary positive is that Endgame represents the end of the monumental infinity saga and so character arcs finally come full circle. The main standouts are clearly Tony Stark/ Iron Man, Steve Rogers/Captain America, Thor and the Hulk. Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) also goes through a tough time in this film. The cosmic appeal of Captain Marvel also comes into play strongly in this film. If they stick to her cosmic appeal she should have a fine series of films going forward. Everything comes full circle with Tony Stark as the man who began it all and Robert Downey Jr. delivers a fantastic acting performance in this film. The main surprise with Endgame was that for long stretches it was very reflective. I was not moved to cry at any point during the film because I have long lamented that the transition to the next generation of heroes is long overdue. I also thought that the episodic quality of these films has actually drawn out the infinity saga unnecessarily. Despite these concerns Endgame did manage to make me reflect on all that has passed since 2008 and a lot of it had to do with the character of Tony Stark/Iron-Man, the brains behind it all. When I first went to watch Iron Man no one expected that it would eventually lead to an Endgame scenario. The Endgame scenario really began to take shape with the first Avengers film (2012) where there was the epic Thanos reveal. These are ways that Endgame gets you to consider all that has passed; particularly as it is in this film we finally get a sense of a transition to a new generation. Characters that were young have now grown up and are ready to take up the mantle of leadership; characters that were once sidekicks now have to make the important calls. This is clearly not the end of Marvel following the acquisition of Fox properties by Disney which include top franchises such as the X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

Endgame means the end of characters that have comprised the Infinity saga that deals a lot in infinity stones. Endgame embodies the essence of the infinity saga very well because everything has to do with the stones; how they are acquired and used. In Infinity War characters started to come to a realization of how important these stones were when combined but in Endgame everyone is fully aware of their importance. The time travel element is important based on how the Avengers are able to collect all the stones in order to undo the decimation caused by Thanos. It’s all about the stones and they hold no more mysteries to us.

The time travel element does lead to new possibilities or alternate realities for the MCU. It occurred to me that Endgame might actually be one of the great time travel films alongside Back to the Future and the rest. Endgame seeks to address some of the deficiencies of time travel films before. One cannot really blame the Avengers for using time travel especially as Thanos, in Infinity War, used it shamelessly to bring back Vision in order to retrieve the mind stone from his head.

There were a lot of crowd pleasing moments in this film and for the last hour it felt like I was at a concert based on the amount of cheering in the cinema. Although in some sense a lot of it can be labeled as fan service one must bear in mind the negative feelings that came with Infinity War. The cheering from the audience felt more like a positive catharsis; a massive sense of relief. There are some moments in the last hour that did give me chills and the power of characters such as Captain Marvel was on full display.

Thanos also demonstrated, yet again, why he is the ultimate villain of the MCU so far and going forward it is clear that his actions will not be forgotten for some time to come with his name becoming a part of the daily lexicon. Those who remembered the snap certainly will not forget and the final battle just goes to show that the Earth has finally assumed a certain stature in the universe whereas before it was perceived as a very backward planet, a shithole. Thanos has found a way to become a major part of pop culture outside of the comic book world and that is a major achievement for the MCU. Regardless of his actions one cannot deny that he was the best test faced by the Avengers on earth and the universe in question. His very strong challenge was crucial especially as many movie goers were clearly looking forward to see how he would be defeated. He played a crucial role in the MCU as the major villain and going forward it should be interesting to see who will take his place. Thanos has set a very high standard.

The film moves pretty quickly for a 3 hour runtime.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is that as a standalone it is not necessarily as great without contemplating the entire infinity saga. Would it have been as resonant if it wasn’t for the 21 films which came before? There is a clear structure to the film itself and some of the surprises in store were not as effective as thought originally based on the no spoiler campaign. In one or 2 instances marvel looked cheap despite amassing billions at the box office. If it wasn’t cheap then it was tongue in cheek. The final battle was clearly a major moment but it was a massive 21 film call up as promised in the trailers and there are clearly some manipulative moments that were seen coming from a mile away and this moment was clearly a marvel event. Once you’ve watched most of the marvel films then you shouldn’t be truly surprised. Also the time travel factor was a bit expected although it wasn’t exactly clear how they would do it. It came across as a simple response to the challenges involved although it did serve its purpose in the long run to set up some interesting sequences. The dramatic moments involve more the arcs of some major characters which began years ago but not necessarily the MCU as a whole. If one takes into consideration the episodic quality of the MCU then it’s more about the characters as opposed to the individual film under review.

The climactic battle also lost some steam towards the end particularly when there were several moments deliberately designed to elicit cheers. In this sense fan service can be seen as a drawback because the moments tend to lose their impact.

I was not moved to tears primarily because this end to the infinity saga was long overdue. Marvel tried to give itself too much to do in the end and so the impact of the 21 films before was lost hence why we had to be reminded via time travel. It’s also not clear how the timeline created new alternatives that would have undone what came before. So for me the impact was not felt to such a great deal because of my misgiving about the episodic nature of the MCU. Marvel never set up the infinity saga effectively from the beginning and if it wasn’t for the Thanos snap in Infinity War there would have been no real stakes in this film. Only now are we being made aware that there was supposed to be an infinity saga from the beginning. So for me the MCU has itself to blame if some people are not necessarily able to get up to speed with the stakes involved or if people like myself are weary of it all. In one instance the final hour can seem like too much but yet not enough to capture all that has been done 21 films before.

Overall I was impressed by the effort to get so much done in this one film to end the infinity saga. The snap has still altered for the long term the direction taken by the MCU but we will have to wait for phase 4 to learn more. I still have reservations about the film’s quality as a standalone feature but it did put me in a reflective mood when considering the 21 films before. Without the 21 films before it could be viewed as yet another episode but we do have our farewells to make to some characters but not necessarily the MCU.

Captain Marvel (2019) ***½ /5: An underwhelming standalone effort but does enough to keep the MCU going.

2019-03-11T00:30:00.002-05:00

Captain Marvel is not one of Marvel’s best efforts although it does enough as the run in to Avenger’s Endgame. There are actually two ways to look at the film: as part of the wider Marvel cinematic universe (MCU) and as a standalone film. Any high rating it does achieve will be as a result of the former as opposed to the latter. It should not get any extra plaudits as a marvel’s first standalone film with a female lead because it does not set the standard of DC’s Wonder Woman in terms of breakthrough status. Although the power on display by the female lead is impressive it doesn’t set her up effectively considering her relative obscurity thus far. There is still so much to learn about her place in the bigger picture especially when considering that she is a not a household name. The failed attempt to make her breakthrough and achieve iconic status was the main reason for the film being so underwhelming as a standalone effort.

This film stars Brie Larson as Carol Danvers- an ex air force pilot and ‘noble Kree warrior’(?) with a sketchy past- who is on a journey of self-discovery which leads to her eventually assuming the mantle of Captain Marvel. Captain Marvel is reported to be the most powerful hero in the MCU and is caught up in the intergalactic war between the skrulls and the Kree and she is the key to ending it. Samuel L. Jackson tags along as a younger Nick Fury before the world got stranger and there is a strong supporting cast featuring the likes of Ben Mendelsohn as Talos, Jude Law as Yon Rogg and Annette Bening as the kree supreme intelligence. Oh, who could forget Goose (cat or nah?).

Positives

Captain Marvel is a strong film within the context of the MCU as opposed to a standalone film. The chemistry between Larson and Jackson is evident in how they play their characters and the mysteries of the plot are revealing to an extent especially when the true power of Danvers is unveiled for all to see. Mendelsohn also has a good turn as Talos the Skrull leader whose motives are questionable up until a certain point. There are a lot of topsy turvy moments that are complimented by big reveals particularly the true power of Captain Marvel and the role she plays in the Kree-Skrull conflict.

The film does place a lot of things in context for the MCU especially the reasoning behind the “Avenger” initiative created by Nick Fury. Kevin Feige has long touted Captain Marvel as the most powerful hero in the MCU (more powerful than Thor in Infinity War) and the film is clearly determined to set the record straight particularly as she is supposed to play a key role in Avengers: Endgame. Another important contextual detail of the film is that it is set in 1995, long before the supposed beginning of the MCU with Iron Man. This does lead to questions regarding the timeline of the MCU as we understand it and that can be a good thing although it can just be seen as yet another big reveal. One wonders why there was no mention of her before in the MCU but it is still interesting when you trace the trajectory of the MCU since 2008 and all the interesting references that might give some clue that there is greater out there. If she had been out of focus for so long then the MCU must be a very big place to explore. The essence of Captain Marvel makes that clear by her absence and it eagerly makes you wonder what she has really been up to throughout the universe to the point where she would never even have encountered a Thanos. This does not even compare to the idiotic Captain America who was presumed dead before being discovered in ice several decades later. This film makes it clear that Captain Marvel has been out and about in the universe for a little over 20 years without returning to earth. Captain Marvel therefore represents something grand as a human from Earth with extraordinary abilities caught up in intergalactic struggles. Thor is the only other Avenger with a similar experience although he is supposedly limited to 9 realms. One gets a sense that Captain marvel has been to much more than 9 realms. Who knows?

Negatives

The primary negative is that this film is not as effective as a standalone film. The reason for this is that the main focus of the plot is to build towards the big reveal of Captain Marvel as this almighty hero and it does not succeed to a great extent. The kree-skrull conflict takes a backseat to this important reveal of Danvers’ true power and identity particularly in the second half of the film. The film literally ends up being about Captain Marvel only; who really cares about the kree-skrull conflict anymore because you come to realize that it’s just a backdrop for Danvers to do her thing. It’s amazing that the kree-skrull conflict was not effectively developed particularly on a visual intergalactic scale. They could have at least put the world on alert instead of relegating it to a couple individuals like Nick Fury. Danvers is not effectively tied to this bigger issue probably only when she flies off into the large universe never to return for the next 20 years or so. Realistically, in the first instance, there was no reason for Danvers to even arrive back on earth following her brief hiatus where she didn’t recall much about her past. The plot spends a lot of time attempting to reveal Carol Danvers’ true identity and the true power within and it barely succeeds because it does not achieve the exhilarating effect that was intended. If it did achieve this necessary exhilarating effect then it would have been a top film but she probably did not have formidable enough opposition apart from her own limitations. The film just becomes too Danverscentric even when highlighting her role in the creation of the “Avenger” initiative and by emphasizing that her return will lead to the deliverance of the universe from Thanos’ grip. The film did not succeed as effectively in this regard because the exhilarating effect was not achieved. This would have taken more time to achieve and she needed more formidable opposition.

The action is a bit stodgy at times. We know Captain Marvel is supposed to be extra powerful but the inspiration was lacking and this is revealed when she put on her predictable light show.

All in all a good film but did not achieve the necessary exhilarating effect which could have elevated it to higher heights within the MCU.