Captain Marvel - Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

How do I write a review when I’m too tired and stressed to be clever?  When I’m not sure how to be spoiler free?  I guess I do it by being straightforward and not caring if you don’t want to know plot details.


First off—a confession.  I don’t know a whole lot about the comic book version of Captain Marvel.  She was never a character I felt compelled to dive into the details of.  A few things I do know: she has a military background and she’s super powerful; her real name is Carol Danvers; she used to be known as Ms. Marvel; and, until relatively recently, she wore a skimpier costume.  The reason I bring this up is to say I’m not sure how well the comic version and the movie version of Captain Marvel match up.  I’m not sure that matters all that much for the purposes of this review, but I thought I’d put it out there.


One thing to know going in—this movie is background.  By that I mean that it takes place around 1995, more than 20 years before current Marvel Cinematic Universe (or MCU) events.  The character of Captain Marvel was teased at the end of “Avengers: Infinity War”.  This movie serves as her introduction, how she fits into the MCU, and why she hasn’t shown up before.


Another thing you should know—this movie doesn’t entirely stand alone.  If this is the first Marvel movie you see, you’ll probably be somewhat confused.  There are characters from other films: Agent Coulson and Nick Fury (de-aged and sans-eyepatch), along with the main villain from “Guardians of the Galaxy” in a semi-cameo.  The alien race known as the Kree factor in heavily.  They were also introduced in “Guardians”, then explored more thoroughly in TV’s “Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D.” Season 5.  As the MCU keeps growing, the necessity of familiarity will get more pronounced.


Alright.  Review.


In my review of 2015’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” I wrote that Marvel has a formula.  My premise was that the formula wasn’t such a bad thing.  There were enough variables with enough potential for changing the ratios of elements such as humor and drama that the formula hadn’t gotten stale.  I’m not sure that’s the case anymore.


For example, there are scenes that feel like they’re being recycled from previous movies.  There’s a fight scene on a train (also done in “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and “Spiderman 2” with Tobey Maguire).  There’s also another incident that reminded me forcibly of Groot (an ambulatory, talking tree from “Guardians of the Galaxy”) bouncing bad guys around a hallway.  In Captain Marvel, Groot was replaced by a creature that looks like a tabby cat until giant tentacles erupt from its mouth.  Both of these scenes in “Captain Marvel” were fun and well done.  I don’t need bigger explosions, but my preference would be more original action.


Another example was the sound track.  One of the strengths of the Marvel franchise to this point has been that the films for each character or team have had a different style.  That seems to be breaking down somewhat.  The sound tracks for the two Guardians of the Galaxy films have been songs from the ‘70s.  The latest entry in the Transformer’s franchise (admittedly a different studio), had an ‘80s punk rock sound track.  And the music in “Captain Marvel” is ‘90s alternative.  Taken individually, they’re all very well done.  The song selections are fantastic and really fit the aesthetic of their movies.  My objection is the laziness of reusing the pattern.


Just one more gripe, and this involves a spoiler in case you want to skip this paragraph.  Captain Marvel’s origin is explored in this movie, including how she got her powers.  She was in close proximity to the explosion of an engine that was powered by alien technology.  Her body somehow absorbed the energy, so now she can fly and “shoot” destructive bursts of power from her hands.  However, it seems to me that without a renewing power source, her abilities should have been depleted by use.  I would have loved some sort of explanation as to why they haven’t.


My conclusion regarding “Captain Marvel” is that it was well done, but lazy.  The recycled action and reused sound track style, while enjoyable in the context of this movie by itself, were disappointing because I’d seen and heard them in other settings.  They point to what could become a systemic problem in Marvel movies unless they’re recognized and corrected.

Ready Player One - The Perfect Nerd Movie... or Is It?

Ready Player One is a movie that has all the elements needed to be an awesome nerd flick.  It’s directed by Steven Spielberg, who brought us classics like E.T. and Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Much of the movie is set in a virtual video game world.  There are references to a ton of cult classic movies, video games from all eras, and the best sci fi TV shows.  There was even a Gundam, which is from my favorite anime of all time (because, giant robots!).  And that’s just scratching the surface.  I’m positive there were a ton of things that I missed.

I’ve been a self-proclaimed nerd all my life.  I appreciate Star Trek and Star Wars, super heroes and elves, video games and anime.  Given all of this, you would think that Ready Player One is a movie I would be totally crazy about.  But somehow it didn’t appeal to me as much as it should have.  I’ve been trying to identify why that is ever since the film ended.  Here’s what I’ve come up with.

First, it felt like it was trying just a little bit too hard to be as nerdy as it possibly could be.  The more obscure and old the reference, the better.  There were a few that I really enjoyed—the Gundam mentioned above, Serenity from “Firefly”, and a couple Star Trek nods.  Aside from those, most of the references were to cult classic horror movies, few of which I have seen or enjoyed.

Second, the virtual world depicted didn’t really appeal to me.  There didn’t seem to be discrete video games, just mash-ups of a whole bunch of them.    Everything was player versus player, a popular mode of game play, but not one that I like in the slightest.  There also didn’t seem to be anything new, as if creators gave up making original games this year and the industry shifted focus exclusively to the development of hardware.

Third, none of the main characters were at all socially awkward.  Their flaws were superficial.  As a nerd myself and knowing others of my ilk, that is not my experience.  There also seems to be a stereotype that gamer girls are Goths that was perpetuated in Ready Player One.  All the truly nerdy characters worked for the big bad guy corporation, so were bad guys by association.  There was one exception, but while he was an important character, I wouldn’t classify him as a main character.

Finally, I wondered how the real world functioned in this version of the near future.  A major premise of the film was that everyone gamed to one degree or another.  Were most jobs automated?  Was child neglect a major societal issue for the entire human race?

That’s not to say that everything was disappointing.  One of the things I was worried about going into this movie was the possibility of a heavy handed political commentary.  I was pleasantly surprised that there wasn’t one.  Granted, unless it’s heavy handed, I tend to miss it.  The clearest message that got through to me was that big business is evil and the heroes are independent little guys—which could be a political message these days, I suppose.

The quality of the special effects was about par for the current course.  The CGI was visually appealing, but not truly ground breaking.  Maybe the most impressive part of the special effects how smoothly the many different styles of avatar characters interacted with each other.

In summary, I think my problem with the movie is that it felt like it was made by people who are outsiders looking in on a culture that they’ve never truly experienced.  They tell a story that’s based on what they’ve studied academically rather than practically.  All the necessary elements were present, but they were put together haphazardly and without true understanding.  The movie is based on a book which I’ve never read, so I don’t know how much was the fault of the movie makers and how much should be laid at the feet of the author.  What I do know is that I was disappointed by the result.  Maybe someone who doesn’t self-identify as a nerd would enjoy it more.

Pacific Rim: Uprising - A study of sequels

I believe that movie sequels fall into two categories.  There are those that are planned for and part of a longer story—The Empire Strikes Back and The Two Towers, for example.  Then there are those that are part of an episodic series of adventures of a character or group of characters, such as the James Bond movies and the Marvel cinematic universe. 

The first type has a significant level of consistency with the same creative vision and production throughout the series.  The sequels are planned for and the larger story is often mapped out in advance.  Because of that, if the first movie is good, the sequels tend to be good as well.

The second kind is sometimes hit or miss, depending on if the next story is compelling or not.  The danger with this type of sequel is that the creative teams can be different from one installment to the next so that there are inconsistencies in the way the sequels feel.  Sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn’t.  One example of a series that has been successful is Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible.  I have enjoyed every film in that run, even though there have been five different directors for the soon-to-be six movies. 

There’s a subset of the second category as well: the sequel that gets made only because of the success of the original.  Whether these will be good is very hard to predict.  Often, the sequel identifies what was especially enjoyed in the first movie and does more of that.  See Cars 2 (an over-the-top Tow Mater) or The Mummy 2 (the same villain and a reprise of certain undead henchmen).  The sequels of this type that do work are ones that decide to tell a different story while being true to the original characters.  One of my favorite sequels of this type is Hellboy 2.

With that introduction, it’s time to talk about Pacific Rim: Uprising.  In my opinion, I believe it’s a sequel in the vein of Hellboy 2.

The first reason for this is that Uprising’s cast has very little overlap from the original film.  There’s also a new director.  But unlike the first three or four Mission: Impossible movies, there was effort put into establishing continuity.  The events of Pacific Rim weren’t overly rehashed, but they did matter; the missing characters weren’t forgotten but were memorialized (mostly); and the new characters don’t really feel forced into place.  Therefore, the overall personality of this movie is different from the first while maintaining the world’s integrity.

The second, and maybe bigger reason, is that it didn’t suffer the insecurities of the Transformers sequels, which relied on a repeat of and increase in the successful devices of the first film.  Where Transformers 2 and 3 played up the characters’ idiosyncrasies and immaturity, Pacific Rim: Uprising kept that to a relative minimum.  The new characters had new quirks, and the returning characters were consistent rather than magnified.  Switching things up kept the humor, if not exactly fresh and original, at least not completely stale.

That’s not to say that the movie didn’t have flaws.  The story was formulaic, many of the characters were stereotypical, and there were plot holes.  This wasn’t a movie to make you think.  It relied heavily on action and special effects—which isn’t always a bad thing.  There weren’t any award-caliber performances.  But it knew it’s audience and it didn’t try to take itself too seriously, which is about the worst sin a movie like this can commit.  And it’s giant robots versus giant monsters!  There’s something about that concept that will draw me to it every time.

I know that I’m in the minority even among movie goers for liking Uprising.  I wonder if some of the disappointment came because of the dissimilarities to the original and the high cast turnover.  While I saw those things as strengths, it isn’t hard to see how some would see them as weaknesses.  For those who missed some of the original characters, there were hints that there’s a possibility at least one could return for future installments, should there be any—and there were some not-so-subtle indications that there could be.

In conclusion, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a sequel that worked because it both built on and differed from the first movie.  I enjoyed it and am looking forward to the implied third film.

Star Trek Beyond - Beyond What?

The latest of the new timeline Star Trek movies came out, so of course I saw it.  I loved the first two with Chris Pine, Zachery Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, and Anton Yelchin.  I like that they don’t overwrite the canon of the original Star Trek universe, but diverge into an alternative universe, allowing for new adventures.

This latest installment is called Star Trek Beyond.  I wondered about the choice of that title.  After seeing the movie, I have some theories:

• Beyond expectations.  The early trailers for the movie did not look promising at all.  They were all but incoherent and the uniforms looked terrible.  When I saw the first trailer, I wasn’t sure I wanted to see the movie.  But it’s Star Trek, so inevitably I gave it a go.  And I’m not sorry that I did!
• Beyond amazing action.  From space battles to phaser battles, the action was terrific.  Related to that, the special effects were very well done.  Without being specific, the scene with the motorcycle (yes, a real, internal combustion engine motorcycle in a sci fi movie) was one of my favorites.
• Beyond great character and ship designs.  For characters, I loved the look of the main helpful alien chick (the very pale one with black patterns on her face) and one of the crewmembers.  I found myself marveling at the variety that is possible, even when mostly limited to the human figure as a starting point.  For ships, the ones belonging to the bad guys weren’t necessarily super original in their look or the way they flew, but their method for fighting their enemies isn’t something that I’d seen before.  It was scarily impressive.
• Beyond dizzying.  The director seemed to love odd camera angles.  They were used rather often, making it look like people were standing on a wall until the camera rotated so that they were upright.  Doing that a time or two is okay, but the frequency exceeded what I enjoyed.  However, what was annoying when filming people was fantastic when depicting ships moving.  The reminder that there’s no up or down in space was subtle, but very welcome.
• Beyond convenient.  One of the struggles writers must have is trying to introduce things that are necessary later on in the story without making their introduction or usage seem contrived.  These writers (one of whom was Simon Pegg, aka Scotty) made a good attempt, but didn’t succeed terribly well.  That wasn’t enough to ruin the movie for me, though.  I liked the tech, items, and other things that were introduced.
• Beyond respectful.  One of the things that I have loved about this latest run of Star Trek movies are the nods and references to the original series.  As I stated at the beginning of this post, none of the old cannon has been dismissed.  Without spoiling anything, there was a really good tribute to Leonard Nemoy’s Spock, and a touching reminder of the rest of the original starship Enterprise crew.

I highly doubt that the people who named the film were thinking along the lines that I was, but Beyond is a very appropriate title!

The Legend of Tarzan - Apes Attack! Gnus Later!

Late again.  But I’m done traveling for a bit, so I hope that I’ll be more on time with watching movies and writing reviews.

I took the opportunity to see The Legend of Tarzan recently.  I had a peek at the Rotten Tomatoes ratings before seeing it:  The professional critics didn’t like it a whole lot, but movie goers were more positive about it.  The ads for it did a good job of piquing my interest, and I have to say that they represented it fairly well.

One of the things I was curious about was how everything would fit into the movie, specifically how Tarzan’s origin would be treated.  It seemed like a lot to try to shoehorn into a film that’s shy of 2 hours long.  I appreciated how the writers handled it, though.  Instead of telling a linear story, the origin was told in flashbacks.  We were given bits here and there as the movie went along.  And, credit to the writing/editing, they did not make the movie seem choppy and disjointed.  I thought there was a good flow throughout.

 Related to the story format, the movie was well paced.  It started with some action and set the stage for the rest of the film.  There was some decent character development—more with deeds than with words, which is a very good thing.  And even when there were down times between action scenes, I didn’t get bored.

I’ve mentioned before that I like to see some blood on the hero.  And there was some of that.  Tarzan wasn’t invulnerable.  But he could sure put up a fight!  And with a nicely sculpted torso, arms, and shoulders, too.  I did find myself wondering when he found time to shave, and where he carried his toiletry bag.

There were some clichéd bits here and there.  A bit of a spoiler here (be warned), Tarzan doesn’t want Jane to accompany him on the trip to Africa because of the danger.  Jane insists on going anyway.  And, surprise, she’s promptly captured by the bad guys and used as bait for her husband.  Granted that there wouldn’t have been as much of a story if she’d stayed home, but that plot device is way over used.  At least she wasn’t all wilty and whiny.  She put up a good fight, tried escaping, and facilitated the escape of some others.

A good portion of the animals that were characters in the film were (probably) motion capture CGI.  I have to say that I wasn’t all that impressed with the apes.  The most recent two Planet of the Apes movies did a phenomenal job with their motion captures apes (chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, mostly), and they set the standard going forward.  I didn’t think that Tarzan did nearly as good a job at making their gorillas (or gorilla-like apes) lifelike.  It was a bit distracting at first, but got better once I got used to the style.

Given the fantastical nature of the story (a man raised by apes, communicating with just about any animal in the jungle, swinging around on vines, fighting things two to three times his mass or more, etc.), I went in prepared with a healthy amount of suspension of disbelief.  And there was a time or two when I wondered if the vine Tarzan was swinging on was attached to a track of some kind, to allow him to travel on it as far as he did.  But there was a bit at the climax that I couldn’t get over.

**ALERT!  SPOILER AHEAD!**

Near the end of the movie, the army of bad guys is camped next to a port town in the Congo, right on the ocean.  And Tarzan and company cause a stampede of wildebeests (gnus) to overrun the camp and city, foiling the bad guys’ plans.  But wildebeests are savanna animals!  They would have had to stampede for hundreds of miles and through thick jungle to get there!  It bugged me so much that I had to go to the online source of all truth and knowledge (Wikipedia) to be sure that I wasn’t bothered by that for no reason.  And I wasn’t.  So be warned that there was a bit that my giant sized capacity for suspension of disbelief couldn’t handle.

There were some other great characters besides Tarzan, by the way.  Samuel L. Jackson did a great job in his role.  The main bad guy, Leon Rom, was played very well by the guy who was the main bad guy in the last Bond flick, Spectre.  Jane was played by Margot Robbie.  Other than her hair color (which bothered me for some reason), I thought she did a good job as well.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film—almost despite myself.  Aside from the ridiculousness near the end, it was a story that I liked quite a lot.  If you’re looking for a movie with a good amount of action, beautiful scenery, and nice retelling of an old story, this one is well worth watching.

Independence Day Resurgence - Bigger and Badder, Not Really Better

It’s been out less than a week, but I’m still a little late in seeing Independence Day Resurgence (IDR).  I took the opportunity to check it out today.  I have seen two new sequels in two days.  Where Finding Dory was well worth my time, I’m not sure that I can say the same about IDR.

If you press me, I’ll admit that the original Independence Day wasn’t a great movie. The story wasn’t all that great (glaring plot holes and unbelievable weaknesses in the aliens’ technology), but I did enjoy it.  There were likeable characters (along with some annoying ones), creepy aliens, good explosions, and Will Smith.  IDR has creepy aliens, good explosions, and plot holes.

I think my biggest problem with IDR was that I didn’t care about or even like most of the characters.  There were some old hats back for more: some of the heroes from the first invasion along with a couple of kids that had grown up.  New characters were introduced, both old and young.  It was the rising generation that I had a hard time caring about.  The old guard was mostly fine:  Jeff Goldblum was great; Bill Pullman did a decent job; Judd Hirsch’s and Brent Spiner’s characters were at about the same level of oddness as they were in the original.  What was really missing was the charisma of Will Smith.  His character’s placeholder, one of the grown up kids, doesn’t have nearly as much presence, and the film suffered for it.

There were things that I did enjoy.  I liked the fusion of the earth and alien technologies.  I also liked that the story was a continuation of the original, with all of the good and bad consequences of the events in the first story.  I was also very glad that the aliens learned from their earlier defeat, so that they couldn’t be defeated in the same way.

I won’t go into detail about the gripes I had with the “science”.  Needless to say, it left a lot to be desired.  There are some situations where I can ignore or forgive ignoring physics.  This wasn’t one of them.  Normally the reason for my irritation is because the movie takes itself seriously.  It was different this time.  The bad science was used to further the story.  It was lazy.  There were plenty of thing that the writers could have done to achieve the same effects with a bit of effort.

This sequel fit the stereotype of sequels: it wasn’t as good as the first one.  Maybe I wouldn’t mind it so much if that stereotype hadn’t been bucked so much in the last few years.  The movie wasn’t unwatchable, but it left a lot to be desired.

Finding Dory - More than One Journey in the Ocean

This review is for a movie that’s been out for a couple of weeks, but I finally just got a chance to see it.  So if you’ve already seen Finding Dory, please feel free to give me your take.

As always with Pixar, they’re pretty much in a class by themselves.  When considering how good a Pixar movie is, it’s almost a given that it’ll be better than just about any other studio’s offerings—though Disney has really stepped up their game for movies released strictly under the Disney flag (Zootopia, Frozen, Big Hero 6, and Tangled all come to mind).  On the Pixar scale, there’s The Incredibles and Inside Out at the top end, and Cars 2 at the bottom end.  Finding Dory is one of the good ones.  It isn’t quite as good as Finding Nemo, but it’s not far behind.

Somehow, I went into the movie expecting a story similar to Finding Nemo: a journey across the ocean with adventure along the way.  When that’s not what happened, I was briefly disappointed, thinking that it would be a very short movie.  But I should have trusted in the folks at Pixar.  They have made a name for themselves by presenting very original, fun movies, even their sequels.  So I got over my disappointment and sat back to enjoy the ride.

Finding Dory brought back a lot of favorites from Finding Nemo, but wasn’t overcrowded or overwhelmed by them.  The pit that many sequels fall into is old favorites returning and becoming overdone and irritating.  With few exceptions, Pixar as a whole, including this movie, manages to avoid that.  We were also introduced to some fun new characters.  The best of them is the “septapus” (octopus with one missing arm) Hank.  There’s also a trio of sea lions that provide some good comedic moments.

One of Pixar’s strengths is the range of emotions that are evoked during their movies.  In Finding Dory, there’s laughter, but there’s also tenderness.  There’s anxiety for how things are going to turn out, and there’s also a sense of fun for the adventure that’s unfolding.  And, unlike most of the previews that were shown, the story is appealing for a wide range of ages.

As with all of the Pixar movies, the animation is fantastic.  It amazes me how artists can come up with so many different designs for the same species of fish to make the different characters distinct and recognizable.  Then there’s the level of detail in the environments.  Animation has come a long way since Toy Story.  It’s becoming hard to tell if things like streets and plants are filmed rather than animated.  All of the characters are still cartoonish, but even the textures, details, and movements are getting better and better.

Bottom line.  Whether you go to appreciate a fine piece of animation or a funny and touching story, Finding Dory will satisfy.  It is a worthy entry in the Pixar library.