Captain Marvel (2019 movie)

Captain Marvel is a fun watch, like most of the MCU movies before it. Not the best, not the worst, but well executed. Certainly not worthy of the hate coming from the more misogynistic corners of the Internet.

If you've seen any of the promotional material for the movie, you already know pretty much what Captain Marvel is about. Just in this trailer alone you see that there's a woman with military background who somehow gets superpowers and hooks up with Nick Fury (beloved from lots of previous MCU movies) in the 1990s to do some kind of superheroing. And that's what happens - you will not be surprised by anything important in this movie. No "Infinity War" style twists in this one.

I'm a DC comics nerd at the detail level, but for Marvel I'm more at the "general knowledge" nerd level. She was one of my favorite characters in the Marvel Heroes MMO action RPG (may it rest in peace). So I know who Captain Marvel is, and some general stuff about her origin, but not chapter and verse of every little detail. Between that general knowledge and promo material like the trailer, I found the movie to move somewhat slowly as it went through lots of setup about the character. Par for the course with an origin movie, so I was prepared, but still a little boring.

The good news is that even knowing what's coming, Captain Marvel is still entertaining. I liked Brie Larson's performance, they did a good job cutting 25 years off Samuel L. Jackson's look, and the supporting cast does a fine job. (Particularly Ben Mendelsohn as the Skrull leader.) I loved the costume they came up with for her, except that silly mohawk helmet thing, but I suppose you have to give something to the traditionalist comics people. Lots of special effects eye candy, especially near the end. Which is only what I've come to expect from the MCU.

You're not going to miss the big themes of this movie. A determined woman overcoming "a girl can't do that" prejudice: not only do we see tons of this from the main character, you've also got her best friend, honorary niece, and even one of the top enemy fighters pounding that theme home. The fact that the timeframe is 20 years ago: if Blockbuster and Radio Shack isn't enough, there's all kinds of music and culture references scattered about. People aren't what they may first seem - spoiler territory, but it's everywhere. I have no problem with any of it, but be warned, don't expect subtlety.

There was a lot of hate for this movie across the Internet before it even came out, and that continued through the opening weekend. I'm happy to say those idiots were wrong; a female lead is just fine for a superhero movie (not that anyone who's seen Wonder Woman is surprised by that). I kinda wish the creators had gone further - imagine if they'd swapped roles for Larson and Lashana Lynch (who plays her black best friend). I bet the movie would be just as good, and would have caused even more coronaries among the kind of morons who hate on movies for who they feature.

I'd put Captain Marvel firmly in the middle of the MCU movie universe...solid effort that's better than some and worse than others. For an origin movie, it's hard to complain. And I really look forward to seeing Carol Danvers kicking some serious tail in future films.

Avengers: Infinity War (spoilers)

Been keeping up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)? Hope so, since pretty much all of it shows up in Avengers: Infinity War.

Whatever themes in the MCU movies you may have liked, you'll probably find bits of it in Infinity War. Star-hopping shenanigans from Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor, time bending from Doctor Strange, alien invasions from the earlier Avengers films, Wakandan technology and home turf defense from Black Panther, and so on. If it feels like a bunch of different pieces stitched together, that's because it basically is.

The general arc of the plot is pretty easy to follow for the theoretical viewer who hadn't seen any other MCU films, as best I can tell. Big bad guy is gathering nasty weapons and killing people, try to stop him. But there's a lot of detail that would be missing. Most of that is in terms of character development - there's very little because all the time is being spent on jumping back and forth between all the different groups of heroes doing their separate things. In that way, Infinity War is more like a television series season finale than it is a stand-alone movie.

And like many good season finales, Infinity War ends on a cliff hanger. The heroes don't win, lots of people die, the bad guy is happily retired. Which is very different from the vast majority of MCU films, at least if you think of Infinity War as a stand-alone movie. But it's really part one, with a second part scheduled to come along in 2019. That will be the first episode of the next season, to continue the television series analogy, resolving that cliffhanger and setting things up for the next big storyline.

Like almost all big-budget films that I've seen in the last decade or so, I thought Infinity War was about 30-40 minutes too long. Plenty of character bits that were clearly there just to call back to the earlier movies could have been skipped. Stuff like Drax's "invisible" scene, or some of the Tony-Peter banter...not enough there to define the character relationships, just reminders of what we already know. And of course just about all the fight scenes are extended to show off more explosions and special effects. A bunch of that stuff could have been cut from the theatrical release and put into a director's cut, in my opinion. And was it really necessary to put the post-credits teaser scene (which sets up the Captain Marvel movie) at the very end of the credits?

Despite those annoyances, Infinity War is a fun ride, particularly if you've kept up with all the other MCU films over the last decade or so. It certainly did the job of setting up for the next Avengers film.

Thor: Ragnarok

It occurs to me that Marvel Studios has set a really high bar with their MCU movies. Thor: Ragnarok is a solid effort, well above average and miles better than anything that I'd have expected a decade or so ago. And yet I found myself disappointed.

(Warning: Spoilers below, on the off chance that anyone else is as late to the party as me.)

This is the third Thor movie, and the seventeenth in the MCU. All the usual things that I've come to expect from MCU movies are here: impressive effects, interesting characters, plenty of interpersonal drama, and a plot that holds together if you don't think too hard about it. There's plenty of appearances by other Thor-adjacent characters, most notably Loki and Odin from earlier films, and new introductions of their long-lost sister Hela and a new Valkyrie ally. The Hulk plays a big role as well, which is nice since he's been missing since Avengers: Age of Ultron. And there's a bit of Doctor Strange, following up from the teaser bit at the end of his movie.

So why the disappointment? First, my expectations were sky-high. Several people in my circle of friends raved about this movie, calling it the best to date in the MCU and possibly the best superhero movie of all time. Critics loved it, ratings were high, hardly a bad thing to be said about it anywhere. Thus, I was expecting incredible things. When I got only above-average, it felt disappointing, even though I know that's not really fair.

Second, the primary reason that I think Thor: Ragnarok falls short of excellent and thus below my expectations: the overdone, constant slapstick humor. The first few times it's funny: someone falls flat on their face, accidentally knocks themselves over, insults their opponent to his face, etc. But after you see it again and again, you start to expect something embarrassing, and then it's just tiresome. By the time Bruce Banner does a belly flop out of a spaceship near the end, it was so obvious what was coming that I was cringing. Clearly I'm in the minority on this, given how much everyone else seems to love the movie, but the humor aspects just felt excessive to me...and it's not funny when it's overdone.

There were a few other minor things that didn't click with me. Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster character annoyed me, largely because I felt that Goldblum's style clashed with the role of manipulative, heartless tyrant. The loss of Mjolnir (that's the hammer) felt almost trivial in how easily it happened. The mighty Thor begging Stan Lee not to cut his hair was pathetic. And there wasn't nearly enough of Fenris (the giant wolf).

Having said all that, Thor: Ragnarok is a fine movie. I'm glad that I've seen it, and likely will watch it again someday when I happen across it on a streaming service or something. Don't avoid it, just temper your expectations a bit going in.

Doctor Strange (2016)

I caught the latest Marvel superhero movie today, Doctor Strange, at the local AMC theater.

I was pretty surprised to be charged exactly $5.19 for my ticket. I'd heard that some theaters were doing flexible pricing these days, but this was the first time I'd seen it in action. The 11:30 AM Wednesday show (not in 3D) was apparently pretty low on the demand scale. As someone who almost never goes to a theater during peak hours, I approve heartily. I also approve of the recliner-style seating that this particular theater was equipped with, took full advantage of that.

Doctor Strange is an origin story, like most of the other MCU productions featuring a character for the first time. Like most comic book nerds, I knew the basic story already: egotistical surgeon gets into an accident, loses his ability to perform surgery, goes searching for help and finds a mystical world where he becomes a hero. The movie does a fine job going through that origin, even if it feels a bit rushed as Strange goes from inept neonate to battle-sorcerer.

The movie is almost entirely about developing Strange's character, and there's not a whole lot of room for others. The renegade-sorcerer villain is a single-minded, one-dimensional character intent on his path of destruction. The supporting cast of other doctors and magicians mostly just seem to emphasize one aspect of Strange's transition: his old love and professional lives, the mentors leading him into magical domains, the previous master falling to make room for him. I don't think this is a bad thing, since the whole idea is to tell Strange's origin, but it's worth mentioning.

There are a whole lot of special effects in this movie, and they sure seemed well-executed to me. All the MCU films have plenty of CGI muscle behind them, and this one is near the top of the list in sheer amount of visual effects. In several places the entire screen is full of shifting landscapes - even if you haven't seen the movie yet, you've probably seen it in all the commercials - while various characters bounce around, fighting each other and dodging the scenery. A bit overdone, perhaps, but it's certainly impressive.

As with most MCU films, this one has some small tie-ins to the larger universe. Avengers Tower shows up in the New York cityscape, there's mention of an Infinity Stone, and if you stay past the first bit of the closing credits a certain Avenger makes Strange's acquaintance. I'm looking forward to seeing Strange mixed in with the rest of the MCU.

Given the prevalence of sweeping special effects, I'm glad I saw Doctor Strange in the theater. I'm sure it'll look fine on a small screen too, but those kind of visuals have a bigger impact on the big screen. Especially for $5.19.

Captain America: Civil War

Marvel Studios films have been some of the best action movies released in the last decade. Captain America: Civil War fits right in.

I really dislike crowded theaters, so I didn't go to see this movie on opening weekend. By waiting until the first Monday showing, I got into a theater that was only about 1/3 full. Most of that population was a high school class, I assume seeing the movie as a reward of some kind. The teacher had to shush them a few times, but nothing too distracting. And the theater had a few rows of D-BOX seats, a few rows ahead of where I was sitting. I could feel the vibrations all the way back where I was. Can't imagine why you'd want to pay extra to sit in the actual seats, but I suppose there's always someone looking for extras in the movie experience.

Two and a half hours used to be a really long running time for a movie, but it seems pretty average these days. Captain America: Civil War doesn't feel artificially extended like some films, though. The story flows smoothly the entire way through. Nothing seemed totally out of place, disconnected, or felt like a last-minute addition. And it fits in nicely with the rest of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, with plenty of references to previous events.

That story involves a manipulative villain setting the heroes at one another's throats, as you'd expect from a movie with "civil war" in the title. The plot mechanics involving the mystery villain were well executed, neither revealed too quickly nor made too obscure. All that was really secondary to the personal conflicts between the various heroes, though. Primarily this takes the form of Iron Man versus Captain America, with other heroes lining up behind one or the other. It's not always easy to portray friends falling out, and I'm glad to say that all the actors involved pulled it off nicely here. Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow was particularly well done in my opinion, as she tries to walk the line between her friendship with Cap and agreement in principle with Iron Man.

Before things get intensely personal, conflict between the two sides is about oversight for the Avengers. The Iron Man position is that superpowers need to be kept in check, no matter how well-meaning the people using them. An international agreement through the United Nations is presented for the heroes to sign, binding them to obey UN direction on when and where they can get involved in world events. Captain America's side fears that such restrictions will put them in a position of being unable to intervene when they feel it's necessary, or worse used as enforcement for corrupt regimes. It's not always smart to put too much thought into the philosophical underpinnings of superhero movies, but in this case I think it holds up pretty well. The tension between using force where required and keeping that force in check is an issue in the real world, not just some larger-than-life super-conflict. I thought Captain America: Civil War did a good job of calling attention to that tension, and showed how each side has positive and negative points. The question isn't ever truly resolved, which is a good thing since you can't fully resolve it in the real world either.

Though I try not to know too much about any movie before seeing it for the first time, I'd already seen some important scenes from this one. All it takes is one trailer or commercial, so I knew ahead of time that we'd see Spiderman and a big showdown between Iron Man and Captain America/Winter Soldier. I understand that the marketing folks want to drum up as much interest as possible, but I wish they'd found a way to avoid showing important late-movie stuff in the pre-release promotional material. The aforementioned showdown is the last big scene, and based just on what you see in the film, you'd think the in-fighting was over and everyone was friendly again (despite still having some disagreements). It kind of spoils the surprise when you know they're going to end up fighting again because it was in all the commercials.

Speaking of commercials, I noticed a good amount of product placement. That's nothing unexpected in today's film world, of course, but it can still be a bit jarring at times. Mostly I just noticed things in passing, such as the (very) old-school Mac in Peter Parker's room, or the VW Bug that Cap drives at one point. But the Vivo logo on smartphones was a bit much, particularly at the top of Tony Stark's super-futuristic holo-tablet. On the other hand, seeing MSNBC on the news reports with Kate Snow anchoring fit in nicely and added a bit of a real-world feel.

A lot of any superhero movie is about action, and there was plenty in this one. I'm sure that I'd find some things to nit-pick after seeing it again, but on first viewing it sure seemed extremely well done. There's plenty of action set in areas all over the world, from an early incident in Nigeria to the final showdown in Siberia. The centerpiece is a big hero-on-hero fight involving every major player on both sides, and it did not disappoint. Every character had an opportunity to put their signature on the fight, from Ant-Man shrinking down to mess with Iron Man's suit to Spiderman talking incessantly through the action.

Even if you haven't seen the previous MCU films, Captain America: Civil War is well worth spending the time to see. If you have, it's even better. Action fans should like it, and superhero fans should love it.

Marvel's Agent Carter

For the last two years, ABC has run two Marvel universe shows in the same time slot. Agents of SHIELD runs in the fall and spring, and Agent Carter fills in the winter weeks. I've enjoyed the show, and would like to see it continue, though its future is in doubt.

Agent Carter takes place after the first Captain America movie, starting in 1946. The title character is the same Peggy Carter from the movie, now working in an American agency called the Strategic Scientific Reserve (SSR). There are quite a few tie-ins to the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), such as the appearances of Howard Stark and his butler Edwin Jarvis. A sample of Captain America's blood makes an appearance, and the "zero matter" used in season two has ties to the upcoming Doctor Strange movie as well as Agents of SHIELD.

Since Agent Carter takes place back in the 1940s, the setting is interesting in its own right. I'm not expert so I don't know exactly how historically accurate it all is, but nothing jumps out at me as being too far out of place. (Other than all the comic-book villains and super-weapons, of course.) The setting plays into the writing, in situations such as Carter's stay in a women's boarding house and an investigation into a Nazi-Soviet incident from the war.

A large part of the appeal of Agent Carter is the job done by Haley Atwell as Carter and James D'Arcy as Jarvis. They spend a lot of screen time together, as Carter is going about her investigations and Jarvis assists her. The strong agent towing along a rather timid butler setup works nicely, and the friendship that develops between them is portrayed extremely well.

One of the major themes in Agent Carter is the effort that Carter has to put into being treated equally to the male agents. She's constantly having to go around the system in order to pursue her case, and having to deal with co-workers who don't believe she can do the job. Of course, she also uses the tendency of opponents to underestimate a woman to her advantage. As the show moves along, other strong female characters are introduced, most notably two villains - Dottie Underwood in the first season, and Whitney Frost in season two. I think the writers have done a nice job keeping female characters in leading roles, while still working in the male-dominated 1940s setting.

The second season, which has just the finale left to go as I'm writing this, has a lighter feel than the first. There's still plenty of world-in-danger mystery and action, but also quite a few humorous moments and side jokes. The first season had that too, but it's more pronounced in the second. I enjoy both, though I think I prefer the slightly more serious tone of the first season.

The future of the show hasn't been officially determined yet, but the future is in doubt. Ratings have been down for season two, and Haley Atwell has been cast in another series. I think more Agent Carter would be fun, but regardless of what happens with the future, I've enjoyed the two seasons we have already.