Captain Marvel - Review...

[shadowkat]

1. Saw Captain Marvel today with movie buddy (aka cjlasky). He wanted to see US - I told him that I don't see horror films on the big screen and wanted to see Captain Marvel. US is the sort of movie that will give me nightmares. The trailer is enough to give me nightmares. (I also spoil myself for horror movies. I was discussing this with a co-worker -- who agreed. She asked if I looked up the synopsis first and read the plot before seeing it. Yep. She does the same thing.)

Anyhow, Captain Marvel -- I hate to say this, but, the audience made the movie a lot more fun. It was very interactive. Applauded. And it knew there would be stuff after the credits. A couple of people didn't. But most of the audience did -- we saw it at the Court Street 12 plex, which caters to a more diverse crowd than the Cobble Hill Art House -- which tends to be upper middle class white, Court 12 is a lot more diverse. (One of the reasons I prefer it, the other is leg room.) What blows my mind is now the movie theaters have reserved seating -- like live theater. You have to pick a seat on an electronic chart before getting there and you get that seat. Most people buy ahead of time on a Movie Theater App on their phones. This annoys me and makes no sense. Number one, it's not exactly easy to find the seats. And it doesn't add anything. Movies are supposed to be spontaneous, you just decide to go. You don't buy tickets ahead of time. Also what if you want to get tickets separately. And end up getting seats not together -- where's the fun in that?

But all whinging aside, I enjoyed the flick, well for the most part. It's a whole lot of fun. And the characters are likable.

Unfortunately, Carol Danvers was the least interesting character in it -- which isn't Brie Larson's fault. The writer's just didn't do a great job of developing her character -- and focused too much on theme, plot and making her an icon. (Although I did like her flying and the special effects, I wish they'd developed her more.) This is a trend I've been seeing in female-centric superhero films. I don't know why they can't do a female super-hero flick the same way they do the male super-hero flick. Why does it have to be about "female empowerment" and icons? Why can't they do a film like Batman or Superman or Spiderman or Iron Man but with a woman in the lead?

As an aside, this reminds me of a speech my boss gave about a female VP at the Railroad who was retiring. And how he had sent her bio to all the women in the group to help "empower" us. And I thought -- I'm sorry, I know you see this as empowering, but I find it depressing. We have one female VP. We had one female head of the Railroad, who got pushed into resignation and replaced by one man after another, and 98% of the management is male. We had one female head of procurement, when she left, there are no women in direct line for her position. That's depressing. It's depressing when you have had over 100 superhero films and only two have had female leads, and without exception in both films, the male sidekick was more developed and more interesting than the female lead. She was upstaged by her male co-stars.
Although at least this round the male co-star was Samuel L Jackson, and he was comic relief, and not a romantic love interest. But I'd have preferred it if Maria Rambeau (Lashana Lynch) had that role. Jackson didn't help develop Danvers character much, while she did develop his -- the movie reads more as an origin tale of Nick Fury and the Avengers, than it really does of Danvers.

What the film does right is - it doesn't give into the temptation to have a love interest or to make Jude Law's character the love interest. It also focuses heavily on the friendships and camaraderi between Maria, Nick and Carol. Annette Being is also fun in the role of Carol's mentor. I really liked the relationship and deep friendship between Maria and Carol -- that's the love story in the film, if there is one.

There's a mislead about Carol being Kree or half-Kree, when in truth she's not Kree at all and had somehow become Kree through a blood transfusion. Also, a mislead regarding who the real villains of the film are. It's not Ben Mendalshon's Skrull Leader. Actually the twist is a bit jarring, because the Skrulls go from entertainingly moustache twirling villains, to...well, not at all, in a blink of an eye.

I liked the twist. But I think it would have worked better if they'd downplayed the Skrull villainy in the beginning a bit more. Also, there's far too much exposition and back-story plot that requires unpacking.

The narrative is told in an interesting manner -- but it is jarring and hard to follow and causes pacing issues, also the audience struggles to connect with Danvers. Instead of starting on Earth, with Carol struggling with flashbacks of becoming a Kree warrior. We start on Halo, Kree's homeworld, and Carol struggling with flashbacks of being a pilot on Earth -- memories that make no sense to her.
She has an odd relationship with Jude Law's character, her superior, who is also her mentor. They have chemistry, but it appears to be more on his end than hers. (Jude Law can generate chemistry with a door.) But she doesn't seem close to anyone and a bit lost. They go on a mission to pick up an agent -- and things go awry. Basically Carol gets grabbed.

Most of the film is a slow reveal of Carol's powers and her discovery of her powers, while being caught between the Kree and Skrull fight for a device that would make it possible for the Skrull to return home. The device in question is the Tesserect, which Loki steals from Fury in the first Avengers film. Only to give it to Thanos in the last Avenger's film.

The other section is back story on Fury and how starts the Avengers and takes Shield in a different direction. Including how Fury lost his eye...which is clever and completely unexpected.

And the scene stealer is a domestic ginger cat named goose. Who spends most of its time with Jackson, because Larson is allergic to cats. She has two brief interactions with the cat.

Maria Rambeau is largely wasted, although I love their relationship -- I wanted much more. Perhaps we'll get it in the Avengers Endgame or the sequel to Captain Marvel.

It's very much an origin tale and they are original in a few ways, no emphasis on childhood, or parents, mainly on her friendships, pilot background, and time with the Kree. Heavy emphasis on science-fiction much like Black Panther, and powers from an alien device.

The 1990s retro adds humor to the mix and there are some rather amusing tid-bits. It's subtle humor, which works better for me, actually. There's one amusing bit where they wait forever for something to download from a flashdrive.

Overall? It's not the best of the films to date. And they really need to up their game with the female super-hero films. Provide more depth. Danvers deserved a film that had the same amount of emotional pull as say Iron Man or Captain America.
Less posing more emotional arc. And it's not there. I don't know why. In some respects, Wonder Woman was the better film -- because it had more of an emotional center. While Captain Marvel was by far the more diverse and politically palatable one.



2. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - Crimes of Grindemore has finally found its way to On Demand, along with Green Book. Also I discovered they have all the Marvel films available, except for Into the Spiderverse.

Comments

[mefisto]

I thought the movie was clever and entertaining, but it didn't grab me. It was kind of light and fluffy.

I think part of the problem may be Brie Larson. IMO she's … ok as an actress. I think her face lacks the expressiveness of really good actors. It may be unkind, but reminds me of Summer Glau, who suffers from the same issue.

[shadowkat]

but it didn't grab me. It was kind of light and fluffy.

Yeah, cjl and I had the same reaction to it. As I told him, I want a Black Widow film. We need a Really good superhero female film -- we haven't really gotten one yet -- the closest has been Black Panther, but the lead wasn't female in it. (It's another example of where the supporting cast was a lot better than the lead, although I liked the lead in it a great deal.)

I think part of the problem may be Brie Larson. IMO she's … ok as an actress. I think her face lacks the expressiveness of really good actors.

Hmmm...I don't know -- have you seen The Room? Although that film didn't exactly require a lot of expression. So, you may have a point. (Ponders).

She's not as expressive as Lynch who played Maria, her best friend, and got across volumes with just her eyes. I mean Lynch has almost no dialogue and manages to get across shock and awe and pain with just a look. OR Jackson, Law, Mendalson (Tolos, and under lots of makeup), and Being who did the same. She was surrounded by more expressive actors. Heck the cat was more expressive.

It's admittedly not always required to be expressive. The Room didn't require it -- actually it was important not to be. Nor did a lot of Summer Glau's roles.

It helps if you have big eyes of course, if they are hidden, it's hard to see the emotion.

Hmmm.. I agree, now that I think about it. Here we have a character in which other characters are constantly telling her she's too emotional or shows her emotions too much. Yet, she doesn't appear to show her emotions at all, and is rather stoic, while the people around her are showing them. I mean, you know there's a problem when even the "cat" is more emotive than the heroine. LOL!

Also, it did make her scenes with Jude Law somewhat jarring -- because..

Jude Law (Can't remember the character's name): You're too emotional stop showing your emotions.
Carol (whomp, hit, parry, photon blast)
ME: Eh, actually, Jude, you're more emotive -- I can tell you love and admire this gal and are struggling with it, while Carol seems to be confused and a bit angry, and that's it.

So, yeah. The problem here is the supporting cast is slightly stronger than the lead. Larson works very well in a role where her emotions need to be more contained, like most of David Boreanze's roles actually or Summer Glau's. Not so good, when they don't.

[mefisto]

Yeah, big eyes are a huge advantage for an actor. And yeah, Lynch was really good partly for that reason. That's a good point about the other characters being much more emotional in contrast to her trying to repress. The whole "emotions" bit reminded me of the dialogue between Buffy and Kendra in WML: "That's anger you're feeling. Use it." Also, of course, the flashback to her as a baseball player getting back in the batter's box seemed like it came straight from Chosen.

[shadowkat]

Exactly.

And...

That was the problem -- it relied on overdone tropes of iconic female empowerment. I rolled my eyes at the baseball moment. It's lazy writing.

In furtherance to my response to CJL below, I don't know how much of this is the actress and how much is direction and editing. Film isn't like theater -- the actor is sort of at the mercy of the film-editors, directors, etc. Larson could have put in an amazing emotive performance and they cut it in favor of one that worked better with lighting.

Did you know Buffy often had up to 30-40 takes? Angel was limited to 22 per scene? I've seen the raw footage -- they did so many takes, the actors at a certain point were just pushing themselves through the lines. Stanley Kubrick did 54-55 takes per scene -- actors hated working with Kubrick.

[mefisto]

I agree with cjl and you. I've never seen Larson in any other movie, so I can't tell if it's her or the director. It's interesting, though, that her appearance in the Endgame trailer depends on her failing to react to the appearance of Thor's hammer, which should have elicited shock or surprise. Again, hard to tell whose choice that is (probably the director in that case).

I remember Marsters talking about how many takes they did. I couldn't have put a number on it. Maybe AtS was a weaker show because they had so few takes. :) (Running away and hiding now)

[shadowkat]

Well, not unless she knows about Thor and his hammer. No reason why she should.
(I didn't catch that bit.)

I've watched The Room, and she was very good in that. Even won awards. A lot of this is direction and well film, which isn't really an actors medium. As Marsters put it -- you are basically celery in film.

Maybe AtS was a weaker show because they had so few takes. :) (Running away and hiding now)

Nah. It was the writing team. Not many women writers. Male-centric series. And followed standard tropes...without being subversive or taking risks. They did try to go dark and get subversive in places -- but the network nixed it. The series had some of the same problems as early Buffy -- set up as Monster of the Week.

It really wasn't until maybe the fourth and fifth seasons that it started playing more with the genre it was in and doing experimental stuff. But a good portion of the audience hates experimentation or subversive writing, they want politically correct formula dammit.

Who Is Carol Danvers?

[cjlasky7]

That's supposed to be the main question of the movie. Everything else--the Kree/Skrull conflict, Fury and SHIELD, the tesseract--should be secondary. But the movie doesn't play out that way. Each of the elements listed above carry the movie along at various points, and it's Carol's quest for identity that seems secondary.

Is this the fault of the writers or was Larson just not up to it? I was waiting for big, emotional reactions to events along the way--Carol stepping back into that Air Force bar, seeing Maria again, listening to that black box recording. I wanted a huge, cathartic "Yes, I remember it all! I know who I am!" moment when she faces down the Supreme Intelligence and finally owns her power. But... I never got it.

That's not to say most of the movie wasn't enjoyable. It was. I thought Mendehlson was especially entertaining, and Jude Law (as Yon-Rogg) was a total dick--and damn good at it. Carol blasting him across the desert was very satisfying.

Good movie, but could have been a great one. Let's see how Larson handles the character in subsequent appearances.

Re: Who Is Carol Danvers?

[shadowkat]

Yeah, I agree. It's a toss-up as to how much of this was the writing/directing and how much was Larson. In film, so much of what is on the screen is direction - and editing. Larson could have provided a very emotive take -- but it was cut out at the editing stage.

We have no idea how many takes she did or how they directed her to react. Or how hands on they were.

And the movie was enjoyable, the weak link was Carol herself, we just never got enough of Carol to really connect to the character.

Let's see what happens in future appearances.

[cjlasky7]

I'm not going to panic here. Larson could very well settle into the role with the Russos directing her in Endgame, and we'll have nothing to worry about.

I didn't really "get" Hemsworth as Thor until Ragnarok, and Cumberbatch's Stephen Strange didn't level up to a top-tier MCU character until Infinity War. ('Kat, you saw the look in my eyes when Strange battled Thanos at the end. It was like a childhood dream coming true.)

So, give the Oscar winning actress some time. She'll get this.

[shadowkat]

The more I think about it? I don't think it's the actress' fault, I think it was the script and the direction. They hired newbie directors and screen-writers, who hadn't done a huge action oriented film before this. Also there were two directors and three screen-writers.

Marsters once said in film and on television, the actor is basically celery, they aren't the chef, they aren't a cook, they are just one of many ingredients in a meal.

And I saw "The Room" -- she was emotive and good in that. Really good. Won awards and deservedly so. No, this is directorial problem. The same was true with the first two Thor films and Doctor Strange - pacing issues and the actors looked bored at various points. That's not the actors fault so much as direction and editing. Keep in mind they are acting against special effects and doing multiple takes.
And often film-editors and directors will go with the take that likes the lighting best.

I'm waiting for Endgame. Also I liked and enjoyed the film.
Don't regret seeing it. Was it on the same level as Black Panther - no. But we also didn't have the same caliber of director behind the helm. In film -- it's all about the director.

[cjlasky7]

I guess I was slightly disappointed that the movie never hit that "next level." Maybe on rewatch, I'll appreciate it for what it is--a solid, science-fiction action/adventure flick.

(This movie gave my family enough "flerken" jokes to last my cat's natural lifetime. For that, I will always be grateful.)

[shadowkat]

This movie gave my family enough "flerken" jokes to last my cat's natural lifetime. For that, I will always be grateful.)

LOL! You and the rest of the movie going public that happens to own cats, apparently. Particularly those with fat ginger cats.

I guess I was slightly disappointed that the movie never hit that "next level." Maybe on rewatch, I'll appreciate it for what it is--a solid, science-fiction action/adventure flick.

I went in with low-expectations. The critical reviews were luke-warm at best, as were many of the reviews on DW.

So, I knew from the reviews -- it would be great on the politically progressive front and fast-action sequences, but lacking in overall character development. (Although to be fair, most action adventure sci-fi movies do..) Also...it had two directors and three screen-writers -- this never bodes well for a movie. Considering that? It was actually pretty good. Also if you compare it to a lot of the DC flicks (ie. Superman and Justice League), it's very good. I'd put it and Wonder Woman on the same level, in some respects WW was better, and in other respects CM was better...

[yourlibrarian]

We have two multiplexes in town but only one does reserved seating. I'm with you on that -- if most of the theater showings I was going to were packed then I could see the value in ensuring I would not only have a seat but one that I would accept seeing a movie from. (Honestly, I think it's a rare movie theater where you don't have a decent view from every seat but it is definitely better to see an IMAX film from a centerish seat).

And yes, especially when done as a group I find it an annoyance. At Christmas there were 5 of us going to the movie, one couple and then a group of 3. We ended up having to pay more for advanced tickets because of the seating. It had to be done by one person since otherwise we might have been seated in different places. Had it just been open seating each of us could have bought our own at the box office while waiting for others to show up. As it turned out there were maybe a dozen people besides us in this theater meaning we could have sat pretty much anywhere. Similarly I have only once been in anything near a full theater in the last three years, despite seeing movies every 3 months or so.

I also despise the app-centered purchase of everything. I mean, sure, if it makes it easier for someone, have at it. But I don't want to be forced into adding apps to my phone because we know it's almost all spying on you.

And the scene stealer is a domestic ginger cat named goose. Who spends most of its time with Jackson, because Larson is allergic to cats. She has two brief interactions with the cat.

Interesting to know. It did make more sense to me that it would have been Carol interacting with it than Fury, both in terms of character development and Fury's past representation. That certainly doesn't help.

Maria Rambeau is largely wasted, although I love their relationship -- I wanted much more. Perhaps we'll get it in the Avengers Endgame or the sequel to Captain Marvel.

Hopefully in a sequel yes, I can't imagine there will be any in Endgame given what a packed movie it is.

[shadowkat]

I also despise the app-centered purchase of everything. I mean, sure, if it makes it easier for someone, have at it. But I don't want to be forced into adding apps to my phone because we know it's almost all spying on you.

Exactly. What if my phone isn't fully charged or I don't have it -- do I lose my ticket? Or what if I choose to buy a cheaper phone that doesn't allow apps? Then what?

Also, the theater is tracking your tastes and sending you data, ads, etc, and using your money to pay for that tracking. It's unlimited data plan that's paying for it. I can see doing it if you see movies all the time, but if you don't?
Waste.

Also it's yet another reason not to go to the movie theater and just watch movies on demand. I used to love going to movies, now...cell phones have ruined movies for me.

[ETA: one other thing that just occurred to me -- my phone sends apps to the cloud when it gets too full. I'm constantly waiting for apps to download. So what if I buy tickets, then the phone sends it to the cloud and I can't access them when I go to the movie theater? Ugh. This dependency on tech will be the death of us all.]

It did make more sense to me that it would have been Carol interacting with it than Fury, both in terms of character development and Fury's past representation. That certainly doesn't help.

Weirdly in the movie it does work. Because I was thinking the same thing prior to seeing the movie and, in the comics -- the cat is Carol's and is called Chewie. Here, it's Marv-Vel's cat, and Carol gets along very well with it, but she's not attached to it -- so much as it attaches itself to her and then to Fury. (It's actually a Flerken, which is a dangerous creature that eats people disguised as a domestic housecat.)

I read that the writers shifted the cat to Fury, when it was discovered that Brie had a serious allergy to cats. (Actually, a lot of people do. If you have allergies at all -- you are probably allergic to cats, it's the dander.)

Carol isn't developed well here -- we get a good outline, and more than most, but nowhere near the character development we got in Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Spiderman, and Black Panther. I found that to be disappointing. Marvel/Disney need to step up their game in regards to the female centric super-hero flicks.

We'll probably have to wait until the sequel to get more -- because you're right, Endgame is going to be packed as it is.

[yourlibrarian]

[ETA: one other thing that just occurred to me -- my phone sends apps to the cloud when it gets too full. I'm constantly waiting for apps to download. So what if I buy tickets, then the phone sends it to the cloud and I can't access them when I go to the movie theater? Ugh. This dependency on tech will be the death of us all.]

Wow, I had no idea this happened on phones (why bother with extra storage then?) That makes the junk bundling that phone manufacturers do even more infuriating since they make them impossible to remove and yet they're taking up phone storage.

[shadowkat]

It may not happen on all phones...but it definitely has been happening on mine of late. Suddenly for no reason the app isn't available and I have to wait for it download again. Highly annoying.

Also so much storage space is taken up by photos, until the phone began to automatically put them on the cloud as well. We also have stuff I don't use -- like email (I find it hard to read email on my phone), Kindle (ditto), television (ditto) and Facetime (ugh). I don't like video chatting -- looking at myself when I'm chatting to someone is distracting. I don't tend to like looking at myself normally...why would I want to do it when I'm talking to someone else? Wouldn't you want to look at the person you are chatting to?

[yourlibrarian]

I'm afraid I've never used Face Time (or Skype with a webcam as I don't have one) but that does seem really odd. Isn't it possible to change the camera direction like one does on a phone camera? I assume it has a picture in picture?

I always download my photos to my desktop, my phone isn't cloud connected. In case of phone loss I don't want a lot of images on it and I prefer to use the memory for music and audio

[shadowkat]

I've used Skype -- and yes, it does that. The Mac's come with a built-in camera. It's not a web cam. When you're talking your face comes up. I've tried to kill it and see someone else's -- only thing that works, or so I've found is to turn off the image and just keep audio.

Eh, I tried to download, but for some reason they stay on my frigging phone. I download to the cloud via the desktop too. I have a smartphone -- it's cloud connected automatically. Actually my work place desktop is cloud connected now as well. Everything is cloud.

I rarely use the phone for music -- have an ipod that I use which can hold more songs. Also an Apple Music Account which stores the music on the cloud. (Like I said, everything seems to be stored on the cloud.)

[dlgood]

I enjoyed this movie fine. I was never a big comic book kid, so I never knew this character.

I have no deep thoughts about it. I had fun watching it.