![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Captain Marvel - Review...
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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)
no subject
(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.