My Thoughts on Captain America: Civil War

Released after Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, I was equally excited to see what the latest instalment of the Captain America franchise had to offer. Anthony Russo and Joe Russo have certainly proved themselves capable of directing a mega-franchise. In fact Captain America: The Winter Soldier is my favourite film from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the idea of turning one of the most significant comic book events into a 2 hour film was always going to be a challenge. And the end result is something that’s entertaining but also deeply flawed. 

Firstly, the action set pieces are pretty special. The chase scene between Bucky, Cap and Black Panther both shows the Russo brother's eye for filming action, but it also proved to be a well-conceived way of introducing the character of Black Panther. Of course, the airport scene is the clear highlight of the entire film, again suitably introducing the latest Spiderman into the mix. Overall from a typical blockbuster standpoint, it was an action-driven one that looks and sounds good.

However my main problem with Civil War boils down to the writing. Liberties were taken to transfer the renowned comic series Civil War onto the screen, and it evidently proved too grand and complex a challenge. The film attempts to simultaneously highlight and showcase the division within the Avengers, emphasise the changing attitudes towards them, introduce the likes of Spiderman and Black Panther, and pave the way for the Infinity War storyline. And the film never really succeeds at explaining any of those narrative elements. Instead we're given a series of absurd coincidences, woeful justifications and a questionable level of hypocrisy.

But the more worrying problem is that when you step back and look at the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, the only narrative tread that is connecting it all together is through the arrival of Thanos. Civil War attempts to use the aftermath of Sokovia, New York and Washington (with some laughable death tolls) to justify the film’s conflict; the UN enforcing a registration act on the Avengers. There’s no global tension or resentment towards the Avengers. Instead you have frustrated government officials and passing comments from news stations, but there isn’t an atmosphere of anger towards superhero kind which feels decidedly necessary to the entire story. 

In my opinion, Marvel really needs to actually do something significant with the overall narrative of it’s universe, something with genuine consequences. In fact Marvel did this with the collapse of S.H.I.E.L.D and the rise of Hydra during the events of Winter Soldier, but never really built anything decent from it. Civil War has similar opportunities to instigate real repercussions, but the film plays it far too safe. The death of James Rhodes (Warmachine) would have added some emotional weight to the conflict. Meanwhile the entire premise of a divide and conflict between Captain America and Iron Man is subsequently made redundant through an email between the two at the end. It's all too safe. 

In the battle between the superhero blockbusters, Civil War proved to be the better overall package when compared with Batman Vs Superman. But after watching it, I still think that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is my favourite of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Civil War had the action set-pieces, the characters and the visuals, but I don’t have a urge to watch the film again and continue to ask “Why is there a Civil War in the first place?”. 

My Thoughts on Doctor Strange

Doctor Strange was just released in Japan, three months after its US release. However it’s the first Marvel film of the last couple of years that I haven’t rushed to the cinema to watch. In fact, I didn’t necessarily want to see it in the first place because of my lack of interest in the character. 

Until now Marvel had avoided the concept of magic in its cinematic universe. Scarlet Witch’s lack of “chaos magic” being a clear example. Instead Doctor Strange immediately showcases the unique approach to sorcery and wizardry during the opening scenes as The Ancient One battles Kaecilius and his forces. Put simply, the film looks and sounds fantastic. Strange’s introduction into the astral plane and dimensional shifts is a dazzling acid trip of colours, shapes and animations. The dizzying New York fight sequence between Strange, Mordo and Kaecilius is almost too hectic. I actually found myself briefly looking away from the screen in order to refocus. It’s an impressive set of action sequences that contrasts well with the franchise’s typical use of explosions and fistfights. My only issue is that while the environments and the effects are spectacular, the character models dancing around these kaleidoscopic set-pieces aren’t as polished. 

Story-wise, for the Marvel Universe to include Doctor Strange it was definitely justified in creating an origin film for such a unique character. We see Strange’s progression and transformation from the arrogant neurosurgeon to “Master of the Mystic Arts”. In fact the film wastes little time in showing Strange’s growth as an individual. One minute he’s struggling to use his hands, the next he’s surpassing his mentors and teachers. The film also does a good job at hinting at the grander scale and scope of Strange’s world. A multitude of dimensions, time manipulation, and the global nature of the Sanctums create a character, property and the basis for a plethora of interesting opportunities and situations in the future. 

But for all the film tries to differentiate itself from it’s Marvel counterparts, it still follows the typical narrative progression of any traditional superhero film. And with that comes a lot of the same, reoccurring problems. The most disappointing being the villain. Marvel yet again squanders the opportunity to present a villain of note. Mads Mikkelsen is one of my favourite actors and very capable of playing captivating foes. The problem lies in creating a balance between developing the protagonist and the antagonist, which the very nature of an “origin story” restricts. The story’s focus is purely on Strange, and Mikkelsen’s motivations and character are thus largely relegated to exposition and incoherent babble. In fact by the end of the film, his character withers away in the background in order to introduce the real villain Dormammu, who is equally trivialised in the last 10 minutes. With a wealth of villains in it’s universe, its frustrating and worrying that Marvel can’t seem to forge a character with any lingering danger or presence. 

In regards to the titular character, Benedict Cumberbatch certainly looks the part and he can wave his arms in a convincing manner. At times while the script falters and so too does his accent, his charisma proves just enough to create an engaging character. But I’m still not convinced that he is an actor worthy of his popularity or high esteem.  Meanwhile, Tilda Swinton and Chiwetel Ejiofor are great in their supporting roles, but Rachel McAdams is left by the wayside to question her own function in the film.

For me, Dr Strange wasn’t the evolutionary step in the Marvel franchise many critics have deemed it to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an enjoyable film with fantastic visuals. But it lacks a certain narrative charm or individualism that feels necessary with the character and the property. If Strange is indeed part of the next Avengers instalment, then I’ll be interested to see how they frame him with the likes of Hawkeye and Captain America. With a character so omnipotent, it seems pretty laughable to have him levitating next to a purple-dressed archer.

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

I collect the figures, read the comics and watch the films, but the “superhero” film genre is becoming increasingly saturated with the same thing over and over again. You just have to look at Marvel and DC’s release schedules for the next couple of years, and it’s clear that Hollywood and modern cinema in general, are being suffocated by these multi-million dollar franchises. After waiting an eternity for its release over here in Japan, Avengers: Age of Ultron was one of my most anticipated films of this year. Yet for all its bells and whistles, the film feels like a significant step back in Marvel’s recently stellar form. And it can all be simply attributed to one thing; crap writing. 

Tony Stark’s overzealous need to protect humanity from the unknown is rewarded with a sentient A.I. program named Ultron, who unfortunately plans to eradicate the human race. Tensions arise, the team’s chemistry is tested and destruction ensues as the Avengers come to the rescue..?. At the story’s heart, and even in the title, is the introduction of the villainous Ultron. Yet as a continuation of Marvel’s inability to create genuinely threatening antagonists, the physically imposing Ultron fails to really bring anything of stature or note. I can’t fault James Spader’s vocal performance, but this iconic character’s transformation to the screen is bitterly disappointing. The needless, smug remarks and Stark mannerisms belittle the initial menace and threat that’s effectively established with the character in the first act. It’s therefore frustrating that one of the quintessential figures of the Avengers lore is reduced to a tedious and vapid figure with an “evil plan” that’s ridiculous beyond belief. 

This labelled “Age” of Ultron similarly finds little justification through the course of the film. It’s ultimately a weekend of mild nuisance for the Avengers, where each member has minor obstacles they have to overcome as a team. The foundations are there for a film of impressive scale and dramatic weight, but it’s constricted by a lack of drive and ambition from the writing. These inconsistencies and problems ultimately infect the majority of the film. Natasha Romanoff and Bruce Banner’s forced romance falls flat on its face to an uncomfortable degree. Their relationship feels tacked on rather than of genuine affection, which in hindsight had seemingly appeared out of nowhere. It’s an amateurish technique of forcing emotional gravitas to the ensuing events and it shows. 

One issue that has been a constant problem with the Marvel films of late is the underlying desire to further develop its overall “Universe”. Age of Ultron spends a tiresome amount of screen time on setting up Captain America: Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok and Avengers: The Infinity Wars. Previously, hidden secrets, minor details and easter eggs offered fans glimpses and signs of the bigger composition of the Marvel totality. But with the vast nature and multiplicity of the franchise, it seems that casually inserting mini trailers/ teasers for upcoming films has become the norm. It’s genius marketing, but distracts from the film at hand. Yet even when the decision is made to include these elements, they’re either forgotten about or trivialised. Take Captain America: The Winter Soldier for example. The final moment of that film is the dismantling of S.H.I.E.L.D at the hands of Hydra. It’s a significant event that see’s Nick Fury disappear off the grid, S.H.I.E.L.D’s secrets being leaked to the public, and Captain America, Black Widow and Falcon going their separate ways. But in Age of Ultron a couple of lines of dialogue are deemed sufficient to resolve these major narrative ramifications. It’s an intriguing angle that could have been used to create uncertainty over the Avengers’ public perception, but alas it’s completely wasted. 

But for all my problems with Age of Ultron, it was still entertaining to watch. Even with the massive drawback of an unintelligent script and story, the entire cast do a relatively good job. The chemistry between the team members is on display, and it’s one that remains engaging and charming to witness. While Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen’s accents are as inconsistent as the screenplay, they manage to justify their recruitment into the Avengers. I actually really enjoyed Scarlet Witch’s mind games with the rest of the team. Exploring the inner psyches and torments of our heroes, added more weight to each decision and reaction. Heroes with fragility or past trauma are always a lot more interesting than the immortal beings they’re usually whittled down to. Meanwhile the action set pieces are handled well and certainly look the part. The film hits the action beats that a blockbuster should, and the spectacle is, for the most part, satisfying.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is an acceptable sequel, but loses the intellect, charm and cohesion that propelled the superhero team to popular stardom back in 2012. At the time, Avengers Assemble was a surprisingly enjoyable blockbuster that felt sincere and fitting to its origins and the source material. Meanwhile last year’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier brought a sophisticated and thematically, engrossing story of conspiracy and espionage that offered a different perspective to the franchise’s characters and the genre itself. Guardians of the Galaxy took many by surprise with it’s gung-ho attitude and strong sense of humour throughout. This ability to infuse a unique element or personality has become an important factor in defining these individual films. Age of Ultron is an “Avengers” film, and by that stipulation it should be one of grandeur and lasting consequence. Yet while the aesthetics and performances are handled well, the sub-par writing leaves a film of missed opportunities and squandered ambition.

6/10 

Noteworthy Films of 2014: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

While Captain America: The First Avenger was a rather mediocre affair, it’s sequel highlighted a very different approach to the character, the genre and Marvel Studio’s overall direction. Look back throughout the history of “superhero” cinema and it’s clear that the origin story and the standard “arrival of a new threat” approach has been done to death. However Winter Soldier evoked memories of 1970’s espionage thrillers such as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Conversation, maintaining a strong balance between action and an engaging plot. Suspicion, conspiracy and ulterior motives provided a narrative that felt refreshing and relevant both to the character and the nature of S.H.I.E.L.D. The rise of Hydra and fall of S.H.I.E.L.D has indefinitely left a creative platform for Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War to build on, which should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Captain America is quickly becoming my favourite superhero character alongside Black Widow, and this has been helped by Chris Evans. He lives for the role, and it’s clear that he has melded perfectly with the character, providing a touch of charm and genuine charisma to the role. Meanwhile Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow and Anthony Mackie’s surprisingly enjoyable Falcon offered a strong supporting cast, so too did Robert Redford as the film’s main antagonist. Marvel Studio’s first menacing villain makes his appearance, the Winter Soldier, and even though he’s only a small part of the bigger picture, he still proved an impressive and formidable adversary with some impressive set-pieces and brawls. 

Winter Soldier is my favourite film from the Marvel, blending intense action with an engrossing plot that feels relevant to the character and the franchise. Though the burdensome prospect of a yearly barrage of superheroes over the next 5 years is worrying, I still have hope for Captain America’s own cinematic progression.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: A Predictable Letdown

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D launched on Channel 4 back in September. After the show’s pilot managed to acquire an opening figure of 3.1 million viewers, recent statistics had seen its audience halve after only 3 episodes. But is this a surprise?  

Marvel’s The Avengers or Avengers Assemble smashed the box-office back in 2012 and brought back some solidarity to the Marvel Universe’s rather hit and miss “filmography”. Proving both to be a financial success and an enjoyable film, Joss Whedon managed to carve out the team dynamic, whilst also developing them as individuals. Its success has seen a substantial growth in Marvel’s audience and expectation both towards the comic book culture and their new cinematic endeavours. 

The fact that they had decided to continue the franchise via a TV series had always puzzled me. I guess why stop at films and comic books when television has found its modern calling and major audience. But to make a series about S.H.I.E.L.D is one that has the potential to go into different paths, to expand Marvel’s Universe and continue to construct the Avengers mythos. From a comic book perceptive, S.H.I.E.L.D has always been an interesting organisation. While I can’t declare myself as a comic expert, Nick Fury, Captain America, Black Widow and Hawkeye’s narratives have all hinted or explained a varied picture of S.H.I.E.L.D. What are it’s true intensions? Secrets? Who’s genuinely in charge? What are it’s diplomatic and “worldly” limits? There’s an X-Files or Torchwood quality that the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D could have utilised. Whether it would be to unfold its ulterior motives or simply introduce new superheroes, there is already a wealth of television that has similar traits and narrative structures to be inspired by. But after watching every episode so far, the series has failed to really employ it’s material and resources into any genuine quality. 

One area that has remained a persistent blight on the Marvel Universe is Agent Phil Coulson. While many have heralded him with cult status, I don’t quite understand it. If it’s his charming personality, I’m not seeing it. Is it because he’s funny? To me his character always ruined the tone that a particular scene was attempting to portray. His dry smile and monotone deliver may fulfil the shallow notions of a “secret-agent”, but in all honesty there isn’t anything remotely interesting about him that justifies his popularity.  And when a lead character has initially left a sour impression, there isn’t much hope for 6/7 episodes of him.

This problem doesn’t stop at Coulson. Simply put, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is void of any absorbing characters. Whether it be the cliched, Scottish tech guy, or the stern, tough dude there’s a blasé attitude to the show’s idea of a “team”. If you’ve read any of my reviews then you will have noticed my emphasis on creating interesting, engaging and realistic characters. Both a film and especially a TV series rely on creating a thread between the audience and those personalities on the screen. In terms of a TV series, the dynamic remains largely the same but over a differing timescale. For example; Heroes accomplished this challenge perfectly. It carefully crafted a varied and interesting bunch of 12 leads and threw them into a set of new situations and exposed them to certain circumstances. It understood the limits of it’s budget and it’s overall scale/ capacity. Yet it had the necessary narrative elements to encourage persistent character development. S.H.I.E.L.D has neither the engaging, intense plot or the sheer presence in its performances to achieve those sorts of results. In a very blunt statement, if that crucial connection between the audience and the team isn’t developing within 2/3 episodes, then you’re going to struggle to maintain interest. 

Another gripe revolves around the show’s tone. Marvel had managed to regain an essence of seriousness back into its franchise, while maintaining an undercurrent of humour. Yet Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D suffers from a conflicted disposition. Marketed as a sophisticated and “exhilarating” look into the secret organisation, it’s been nothing but lame one-liners, cheesy dialogue and a haze of monotony. There are moments when the show achieves some of its intended serious notes, whether that be an action sequence or an intense negotiation. But there’s an incessant need for some smug remarks to soil those brief glimmers of something good. 

This lack of balance unfortunately affects each episodes’ stories. With only Coulson’s “hazy past” after his death in The Avengers acting as the bridge through the series, the thought would be that they would have the manoeuvring space to flesh out individual plots.  A great example is The X-Files, more precisely its one-off cases. While it constantly got sidetracked by the whole Mulder’s sister/ Scully abduction narrative, the series had a great understanding of writing unique and intense stories that both focused on the main duo and the bizarre events that transpired. S.H.I.E.L.D attempts to mimic this, but in a rather superficial capacity. Episodes feel redundant and the lack of creativity is bewildering under the circumstances. I can understand the budgetary pain of cameos or introducing some of Marvel’s other characters, but everything is far too narrowed and centred on the “Battle of New York”. Logically it’s an understandable concept, but S.H.I.E.L.D shouldn’t simply be portrayed as just a “clean up team”. 

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D had definite potential, without a doubt. But the manner in which creator Joss Whedon and the various TV Studios have taken has been rather questionable and disappointing. With a wealth of material, characters and story-lines available from S.H.I.E.L.D’s comic book roots, it’s a shame that some of that creativity couldn’t have transferred into a fully-fledged TV series. Yes the visuals are impressive and the production design is stellar, but those can’t measure up to the superficial nature of the show. Terrible characters, and tired, uninteresting stories bring a barrage of questions over its intended purpose, outside financial gain. There’s nothing here that screams second season and on the basis of viewing statistics, I’m struggling to see the benefits of another. 

Second Thoughts: Iron Man 3 (Spoilers)

Rants and frustration galore as Jack and Nick tear into Iron Man 3. Why didn't it blow them away? 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Have a listen to the original review: http://lights-camera-critic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/respawningcouch-podcast-audio-review_30.html

Iron Man 3 Review

Back in 2008, Marvel Studios restored some pride and integrity back into the “Marvel superhero” genre with Jon Favreau’s Iron Man. Favreau’s feature showed that a great combination of engaging writing and characters, with exhilarating set-pieces and action, could create a highly successful and highly regarded blockbuster. 5 years later, Shane Black’s addition to the Iron Man franchise has to rectify the issues instigated by Iron Man 2 and manage to complement last year’s impressive The Avengers. 

After his near-death experience during events of The Avengers, Tony Stark is suffering from the mental anguish and subsequent anxiety attacks as his relationship with Pepper and his persona as the “Iron Man” is put under the test. Meanwhile the terrorist leader known as The Mandarin, is organising the destruction of the US through a series of bombings using Aldrich Killian’s unstable “Extremis” serum. 

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 3 suffers from fundamental problems in its writing, especially in its mishandling of characters. In hindsight it’s a real shame as Black and Drew Pearce have clearly tried to set a darker tone that attempts to balance the entertaining action with “human” drama. Rebecca Hall’s Maya Jansen, is a perfect example of the film’s unfortunate lapses in character development. Immediately introduced in the film’s opening, she’s given a context to the “Extremis” formula, the foundations of a charming personality and a “minor” romance with Tony Stark. She’s then completely forgotten about, managing to reappear midway through the second act for absolutely no reason or explanation, to then be rendered completely pointless. Similarly Don Cheadle only proves to serve as Tony or the President’s lackey for the majority of his scenes. Thus the fan-hype surrounding the Iron Patriot is defused into yet another suit with a paint-job that’s utterly redundant. 

Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin is a genuinely interesting character whose threatening menace is shown through his flamboyant appearance, ruthless actions and “unique” accent. Kingsley really relishes the freedom offered by the role and thrives with it. Yet some horrendous writing during the third act undoes everything he’s crafted and built into the character, merely reducing him into an insulting mess of insignificance. Even the lead protagonist doesn’t survive the rather problematic nature of the film’s script. Tony Stark’s “debilitating” mental anguish is conveniently solved by the philosophical reasoning of a child, rather than using this narrative element as a persistent source of tension and threat to the character, which would have been far more interesting.  Add the tiresome use of cheap pratfalls and slapstick humour, and the screenplay is a bit of a shambles that doesn’t have the intrigue or consistency of the first Iron Man. 

However even with the gaping flaws surrounding the characters and their intentions, the excellent cast manages to overcome some of the issues. Robert Downey Jr offers his same charismatic and enjoyable performance that flourishes under the name of Tony Stark. His romantic relationship with Pepper is far more prominent than in the previous instalments, and still maintains the charm and chemistry. Paltrow’s performance is an impressive one that shows the strengths and faults of her character’s bond with Tony. However I still feel that the couple faired better in The Avengers, even with their limited screen-time, and managed to form a cohesive and poignant relationship without the need for the “damsel in distress” methodology that unfortunately overpowers Iron Man 3’s last act. Supporting cast wise, the likes of Guy Pearce and James Badge Dale offer some intense and sinister moments even when their characters are deflated by the script in humorous ways. 

So what does Iron Man 3 do right? Simply put, its action and visuals. With a great mixture of small-scale brawls and large explosive fights, Black persists in the intensity and energy we’ve come to expect from the series and from Marvel’s blockbusters. The final fight is a fan’s wet dream as 30 Iron Men face off against the Extremis test subjects in a frantic “Battle Royale”. Even with some minor blips in the visual effects Iron Man 3 looks fantastic. From the snow-covered communities of Tennessee to Tony's accommodation in Malibu, the film has a stunning contrast of colours, tones and designs that really bring the look together. The sense of weight and speed to each confrontation is gloriously mapped onto the character models and the amount of detail on Tony’s battle-damaged armour is astonishing. By the end, watching him jumping between different suits is an exhilarating flux of fluid animation and meticulous arrangement. 

Iron Man 3, like its predecessors, has the scale and action befitting a superhero film. And while that and Robert Downey Jr. may be the sole reasons for people to flood their local cinemas, Black and Pearce have attempted to add something darker and human. Yet even with its intense set-pieces and impressive visual effects, the film can’t escape the problematic nature of its writing. Whether its the ill-structured narrative or the throw-away attitude to its characters, Iron Man 3 left a disappointing end to an initially promising trilogy. 

6/10 

Audio Review: http://lights-camera-critic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/respawningcouch-podcast-audio-review_30.html

RespawningCouch Podcast: Audio Review: Iron Man 3

This week I review the highly anticipated sequel in the Iron Man franchise. Does Shane Black manage to bring back the charm and enjoyable impact of the first? 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Thor Review

Thor 

The character of Thor always seemed a bit of a laughable concept for a superhero. In a historical sense Thor was part of Norse mythology. He was a god that wielded a hammer and controlled thunder and lightning. Thus, an ‘almighty being’ as a superhero always seemed a cheap effort by Marvel, who are usually more ‘creative’. However with Marvel putting heavy focus on the creation of The Avengers franchise with Captain America, and the recent Iron Man 2, Thor was inevitably going to gain his own blockbuster film. From the start I was very apprehensive towards the idea, and with Kenneth Branagh directing, he would inevitably inject a ‘Shakespearian’ twist or influence into the production. The trailers furthered my sceptical perception towards the film with bad-looking CGI and terrible dialogue. However the casting looked promising with the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard and Idris Elba.  And after the very positive reviews surfacing around the web, I gave in and went to see it with a sense of ‘open-mindedness’. The result was a ‘superhero’ film that failed to be ‘super’ or entertaining. It was dull, stupid but sufficiently watchable and had some noteworthy performances. 

The film begins with the waging war between Odin (Anthony Hopkins), the king of Asgard and the Frost Giants. However after centuries of peace, Odin’s son, Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) arrogance sees the threat of war reappear. He is thus banished to Earth and removed of his powers. After being ‘discovered’ by a group of scientists (Natalie Portman/ Stellan Skarsgard/ Kat Dennings), he must lean his lesson and defend Earth from a dark threat sent from his homeland. It’s a simple story that Branagh structures well and portrays  confidently. It’s free from the over-indulgent use of flashbacks, and includes some neat twists and turns that keep it somewhat interesting. 

The cast is full of fantastic names such as Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard and Tadanobu Asano. However, the problem is they aren’t fully developed and are fairly underused. For example, from my limited knowledge of the Thor universe, the Warrior Three (Fandral, Hogun, Volstagg) play a substantial role in the comics. In relation to the film, they merely appear on screen, say a few lines, a few jokes, fight....a bit and move along. There’s no energy, no spark and little personality. Instead Natalie Portman and her band of scientists are the main focus, and their story isn’t very interesting. A romantic relationship between Jane Foster (Portman) and Thor is inevitably constructed, yet fails to materialise, meaning her character is completely redundant. Chris Hemsworth, remembered mainly for his minor role in J.J. Abram’s Star Trek, plays the strong, blond haired protagonist. While he certainly looks the part, he fails to bring any character or anything likeable. While many will laugh at the hilarious shenanigans of Thor trying to adapt to Earth life, it felt very cliché and pointless. The standout performance is that of Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He packs so much charisma and energy into his performance that he overshadows everyone else. We see a character that is intelligent yet devilish, and this comes across in each scene Hiddleston is in. He does especially well with the terrible script that has been written, and this is a big problem with Thor. 

Understandably, everyone in Asgard talks like they’re royalty, which come through with Branagh’s ‘Shakespearian’ style. Yet the majority of the script seems to simply point out what has just happened, or the obvious. Speeches by the various characters are generic and cliché, and lack gusto or ‘uniqueness’.  This links into another major problem of the film; the lack of anything ‘epic’ or grand. The setting of a small New Mexico town, really limits the ability to expand and explore. We are shown the grandeur of Asgard and the Rainbow Bridge, but apart from those locations it sticks to the barren, sandy New Mexico. It all seems lacklustre and humorous when compared to the likes of other superheroes; Superman protects Metropolis, Batman has Gotham and Spiderman has New York City, while Thor has a small town in the middle of nowhere. There’s no ‘epic’ scale, substantial threat or significant consequence. Maybe this was intended to allow for a more character focused film, yet it fails to do this successfully as well. Even the final act fails to be explosive, energetic or amazing, which the majority of 'comic book' movies manage to do well. Another problem that has me worried for future Marvel’s films is the dominance of S.H.I.E.L.D. Like Iron Man 2, S.H.I.E.L.D plays a predominant role in Thor and it’s really beginning to ‘hurt’ the films. While Nick Fury’s organisation (Samuel L. Jackson) is essential to the formation of ‘The Avengers’, there are so many stupid moments with the agency. They seem to have no intelligence and act as ‘canon-fodder‘ for the enemies. This isn’t helped by the shear pain Clark Gregg, who plays Agent Phil Coulson, is to watch. His acting is terrible, and every time he’s on screen, he’s dull and lifeless, which may suit the ‘official’, no-nonsense character(?).

Overall Thor isn’t a terrible film, its just a boring one. As I stated, the character of Thor always seemed like a humorous attempt at a hero, and whilst Kenneth Branagh brings charm and ‘seriousness’ to the source material, it lacks in every department. Nothing stands out, the humour and dialogue is cringe-worthy, the action isn’t exciting or enjoyable and the acting is average. I pray Captain America doesn’t suffer similar problems. 

5/10 

X-Men: First Class Review

X-Men: First Class 

After my disappointment with Thor, X-Men: First Class was one that showed great promise from the various trailers, the choice of director and the cast. The X-Men film franchise recently took a ‘tumble’ with the terrible X-Men: Last Stand and the awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine, therefore it was in need of a reboot. Director Matthew Vaughn’s filmography has been relatively positive. His last film Kick-Ass showed off his talent and ability to deal with the ‘hero’ genre while creating a dark and gritty atmosphere. Therefore the thought of a ‘serious’ and raw X-Men film was pleasing to the ears. In terms of the cast, the likes of Michael Fassbender and the new talent of Jennifer Lawrence seemed relatively suitable and clever choices in regards to a youthful band of ‘mutants’. The result is a superhero film that entertains but lacks finesse, especially in its writing. 

Set in the 1960s, the film portrays young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) as he helps CIA agent Dr. Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) to stop Sebastian Shaw’s (Kevin Bacon) attempt to fuel Cold War tensions. Meanwhile, Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) seeks revenge on Shaw for killing his parents. The two join forces, with the help of other ‘mutants’ to take down the members of the Hellfire Club and prevent Nuclear War. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the ‘Red Scare’ setting never really comes through. While cars and technology and the archive footage of John F. Kennedy directly attempt to portray the era, you never fully experience it. If anything Watchmen did well, was its style and visual atmosphere that put you in various periods the film explored, from Noire to suburban culture. 

The story is one that introduces the more obscure characters of the series, which plays more to the fans. Cyclops, Rogue and Storm have been swapped for the likes of Havok, Banshee and Emma Frost. Vaughn does a respectable job of developing some these characters, yet doesn’t expand on the more important individuals. The character of Emma Frost features heavily in the Comic Book universe, and seems underused. Yet, the character of Raven Darkholme (Mystique) and especially Hank McCoy (Beast), are fully realised and are well portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult. Their energy and charm help to bring a sense of youthful charisma in amongst the seriousness of Fassbender and the soft quiverring of McAvoy. 

However, the primary focus of X-Men: First Class is the characters of Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, and the growing relationship between the two. Patrick Stewart successfully became the face of the Star Trek but also managed to portray a charming, and noble Professor X, in the last four films. Therefore it was always going to be hard for James McAvoy to establish himself in the role. McAvoy’s recent career has taken a bit of a dive with the likes of Gnomeo and Juliet and Wanted, and this transpires into his portrayal of the Professor. His plucky, youthful character as graduate from Oxford University is entertaining and shows a different personality to the usually stern and moral Professor. However, when he finally does form the ‘X-Men’, McAvoy’s performance sags to a point where his soft, mumbling dialogue is lacking in presence. 

Michael Fassbender steals the show, with his portrayal of the troubled Erik Lehnsherr/ Magneto. He comes across as a complete ‘bad-ass’ on a path of enraged revenge.  Magneto’s character has been one that always intrigued me, and Matthew Vaughn has taken the time to developed him well and carefully. We see his pain and anger as he kills, destroys and tortures. My only nit-pick with Fassbender’s performance is his accent. The character of Erik is German which Michael’s own nationality successfully portrays. Yet his overall accent seems to generally change from American to Irish which is a minor niggle. 

What failed with Thor was the lack of explosive set pieces as a ‘superhero’ film. But Vaughn provides great action throughout the film, that moves away from simply ‘force pushing’ enemies as we’ve seen in a lot these comic-book movies. There is a real power and brutality to the various character’s powers, whether its Magneto stabbing a dude with a knife, or Azazel (Nightcrawler’s Dad) teleporting and dropping a guy from the sky. While the CGI isn’t the greatest, it does well to ‘realistically’ show these enjoyable and destructive set pieces on screen. 

However, X-Men: First Class suffers from some problems. The major problem with the film is its script. It is just poorly written and cliché, and not in an intended fashion. Comic Books have always had a ‘campness’ to them: the colourful costumes or the cheesy dialogue. Thankfully, Vaughn’s X-Men steers clear of the questionable outfit choices of the comic book characters. Yet when a film tries to distinguish itself from the previous series, and is a ‘serious’ reboot of the franchise, it is hard to forgive it for a rather laughable attempt at great storytelling. From the ‘God help us all’ from the Generals about to be killed, to the contrived speeches of Professor X, it all feels like it has been stripped from the printed medium. The various members of the writing staff were also involved in Thor and again the dialogue was below-par in that film. It’s a bit of shame after the clever, funny writing of Kick -Ass that X-Men: First Class fails to gain the similar ‘mature’ tones in amongst the adolescent nature of a Marvel film. 

Overall X-Men: First Class is an entertaining film, yet never really amazes. There’s great action scenes and well organised and well balanced character development. It certainly was more enjoyable than Thor and has a very different but fresh take on the X-Men franchise. I’d argue that overall Vaughn’s take on the band of ‘mutants’ is better than any of the previous films. However the script flops and some of the major performance fail to top those of Bryan Singer’s pictures (X-Men and X2), in particular McAvoy’s. 

7/10

Note: There is a fantastic cameo that Vaughn manages perfectly with enough humour and sensibility. You will laugh!!!!...............No its not Stan Lee (Thank God)