Thunderbolts Film Review
Sep. 1st, 2025 08:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI finally got around to seeing Thunderbolts - the Marvel flick that was released earlier this summer. I waited until it streamed on Disney + this weekend. So, depending on one's point of view? I saw it for free.
I've mixed feelings about the movie. I liked it a great deal, but like most Marvel films and television series post Endgame, it has its issues.
Thunderbolts unfortunately works better if you've already seen (and remember) Ant Man & the Wasp (I vaguely remember it), The Falcon and the Winter Solider, and Black Widow. I'm not sure if you'd be hopelessly lost if you haven't seen them? But you might be a tad confused? It took me a moment or two to remember who the heck Ghost was, and one character (who dies early on) - I had no idea about. And I've seen those films, along with nearly everything else except Captain America: Brave New World - which might have been required as well? (Not certain - haven't seen it yet. But it might explain what the Winter Solider is up to in this film.)
That's the difficulty with the Marvel films post the stand-a-lones in the early 00s, you kind of have to see all the other ones to know what is going on in a lot of them. And not just the films, the television series on Disney + and of course the bits after the credits. It also probably helps if you are comics fan? Because there's a few easter eggs or bits and pieces in there that target Marvel Comics fans more than the general run of the mill movie goer - and that's a problem. It was a problem with Fantastic Four and Superman as well - so that, more than anything else might be one of the reasons these films aren't cleaning up at the box office. The pre-Civil War films, were less...comic booky and more geared towards the general movie-going audience (for both DC and Marvel). They also didn't throw the audience into the middle of the action.
They had directors and writers who steered away from the comics and went more mainstream with the plot arcs, villains, and dialogue. Now the writers seem to be fully embracing the comics audience, and I'm not sure that's a good idea? (Not that I necessarily mind, but most people aren't into superhero comic books?) The other reason is simply the times - most people have big screen television sets at home, with the ability to get films on demand for much cheaper than the theater price. I have a co-worker with a 75 inch screen, with surround sound, who down loads them from the internet, and watches them within two weeks of release. You need a hook - other than the movie - to get them into theaters. Either an event like Barbiehiemer. Or seeing it on IMAX with 3D surround sound, that can't be replicated at home. Not everyone wants to see a movie with strangers, chatting and texting in the background (which is the other problem).
Thunderbolts is among the more interesting Marvel and Superhero films in part because it is in many ways the antithesis of a superhero film. It's not like DC's Suicide Squad films which are basically a bad ass CIA director putting together a who's who of the worst and most insane villains to fix a problem that no one can fix. I thought it was going to be that? It's most definitely not. Thank god. Let's not go copying each other thank you very much. Whew.
Instead, it's about a bunch of antiheroes banding together because it's either that or die? And they kind of help people partly by chance and it seems like a good idea at the time, albeit clumsily - because you know, they are opportunistic anti-heroes. They aren't nearly as bad as DC's rogues line up. This is more of a group of misunderstood anti-heroes who fell in with the wrong crowd, not insane sociopaths. Marvel does a decent job via an intriguing flashback device of giving some of them complicated back stories and mental health issues.
The movie shines a light on mental illness as it applies to highly skilled and dangerous individuals. That's the focal point. Not a heist, not some external threat - the threat is more an internal one. And their powers, especially one of the characters, are metaphors for the dangers of untreated mental illness in our society at large - and how left untreated, it could threaten to devour us all, if the wrong folks get into positions of power or obtain power.
These seven-eight characters have to learn how to trust each other and themselves long enough to save the city and themselves and each other. And they don't trust themselves let alone anyone else.
This is an excellent idea for a super-hero flick. Innovative. And provides much opportunity for humor, banter and conflict. Only one problem? They have one too many characters, also the main antagonist - the ambiguous and highly amoral Valentina De Fontaine is played largely for laughs by Julia Louis-Dreyfuss. I'd have cast a more serious actress in the role? I liked Emily VanCamp from Falcon and the Winter Solider - better. I'd also have done away with Ghost - that character kept disappearing, and it was very hard to remember who she was.
Most of the focus of the flick is on Florence Pugh's Yelena, who is Black Widow's sister, the White Widow. And the main character arc is Yelena's, much like the film Black Widow, this is basically Yelena's movie. Bucky Barnes' Winter Solider has very little to do, and is mostly relegated to the background. We also see Bunk, Wendell Pierce, from the Wire pop up as a Congressman. Pierce has been having a busy year with Superhero flicks. He plays a congressman here, and the head of the Daily Planet in Superman.
He has a touch more to do here. This is an on-going problem with superhero flicks - too many characters. I don't know why they feel the need to litter the film with characters? It's only two hours? But they do. US Agent, luckily, we don't need a lot on - nor did we learn much more than we already knew. Red Guard? Same - got what we already knew in Black Widow.
The only characters who got much exploration here were Yelena, BOB (aka Sentry/the Void) and Valentina. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing? But I'd have liked a bit more of the Winter Solider and Ghost - who as I said before was relatively non-existent. We got more character bits from Hawkgirl in Superman than we got from Ghost in Thunderbolts.
I don't necessarily mind the movie being Yelena focused? But if they are going that route, they probably should have found a way to make all the characters enhance that focus, or shed light on them in a way that did - it would have felt a little less disjointed, I think?
What really worked for me in the movie was the theme, the focus on mental illness, the dilemma of the main superhero being that he was great as Sentry, but if you push him too far, you also got the void. Everyone basically gets sucked into his self-hating spiral of empty depression or the void of despair. He becomes the personification of his mental health issues - either manic glee or depressive despair. That's actually a interesting character to have hanging about - since every time he touches someone, they are suddenly pulled into a traumatic moment in their life - when they were filled with despair. And there's some interesting special effects highlighting it.
I also found the idea of this group of bickering misfits banding together as the New Avengers entertaining. They argue over their name - "Thunderbolts" - which is from Yelena's girl's soccer team when she was ten. Yelena doesn't want it. The others kind of do. Except they can't agree if it should be Shane's Tire's Thunderbolts, Thunderbolts or something else. (Reminded me of the joke in Superman regarding the Justice Gang.)
The team kind of fits well. Although Bucky's jump from junior congressman to co-team leader with Yelena felt a bit...rushed? They really needed more scenes with Bucky to smooth that over. It was a touch jarring. And his relationship with Valentina's aid kind of gets dropped, as does whatever he was doing with Pierce regarding Valentina.
One of my problems with the current spat of Marvel films is that there is a lot of plotting potholes partly due to an over-reliance on having seen and remembering prior film or television plot lines, and the writing kind of falls apart in places? The films are written a bit too much like comic book serials for their own good and if you want to do that? The writing needs to be tighter. I'd like it to be a touch tighter like it was with Endgame, which while far from perfect, was a bit tighter than anything since.
I know it sounds like I didn't enjoy the film. I did. I felt the beginning drug a little, but once all four main characters ended up facing off against each other - the film took off and kept rolling at a fast pace. Also, it was a nice twist that the films protagonists have to save the individual inadvertently causing all the problems, to save the world and themselves. They don't need to kill anyone, they have to save them instead. Nice twist that.
Overall a solid B effort from Marvel, better than the last few flicks I've seen, but that's not a high bar to navigate.
I've mixed feelings about the movie. I liked it a great deal, but like most Marvel films and television series post Endgame, it has its issues.
Thunderbolts unfortunately works better if you've already seen (and remember) Ant Man & the Wasp (I vaguely remember it), The Falcon and the Winter Solider, and Black Widow. I'm not sure if you'd be hopelessly lost if you haven't seen them? But you might be a tad confused? It took me a moment or two to remember who the heck Ghost was, and one character (who dies early on) - I had no idea about. And I've seen those films, along with nearly everything else except Captain America: Brave New World - which might have been required as well? (Not certain - haven't seen it yet. But it might explain what the Winter Solider is up to in this film.)
That's the difficulty with the Marvel films post the stand-a-lones in the early 00s, you kind of have to see all the other ones to know what is going on in a lot of them. And not just the films, the television series on Disney + and of course the bits after the credits. It also probably helps if you are comics fan? Because there's a few easter eggs or bits and pieces in there that target Marvel Comics fans more than the general run of the mill movie goer - and that's a problem. It was a problem with Fantastic Four and Superman as well - so that, more than anything else might be one of the reasons these films aren't cleaning up at the box office. The pre-Civil War films, were less...comic booky and more geared towards the general movie-going audience (for both DC and Marvel). They also didn't throw the audience into the middle of the action.
They had directors and writers who steered away from the comics and went more mainstream with the plot arcs, villains, and dialogue. Now the writers seem to be fully embracing the comics audience, and I'm not sure that's a good idea? (Not that I necessarily mind, but most people aren't into superhero comic books?) The other reason is simply the times - most people have big screen television sets at home, with the ability to get films on demand for much cheaper than the theater price. I have a co-worker with a 75 inch screen, with surround sound, who down loads them from the internet, and watches them within two weeks of release. You need a hook - other than the movie - to get them into theaters. Either an event like Barbiehiemer. Or seeing it on IMAX with 3D surround sound, that can't be replicated at home. Not everyone wants to see a movie with strangers, chatting and texting in the background (which is the other problem).
Thunderbolts is among the more interesting Marvel and Superhero films in part because it is in many ways the antithesis of a superhero film. It's not like DC's Suicide Squad films which are basically a bad ass CIA director putting together a who's who of the worst and most insane villains to fix a problem that no one can fix. I thought it was going to be that? It's most definitely not. Thank god. Let's not go copying each other thank you very much. Whew.
Instead, it's about a bunch of antiheroes banding together because it's either that or die? And they kind of help people partly by chance and it seems like a good idea at the time, albeit clumsily - because you know, they are opportunistic anti-heroes. They aren't nearly as bad as DC's rogues line up. This is more of a group of misunderstood anti-heroes who fell in with the wrong crowd, not insane sociopaths. Marvel does a decent job via an intriguing flashback device of giving some of them complicated back stories and mental health issues.
The movie shines a light on mental illness as it applies to highly skilled and dangerous individuals. That's the focal point. Not a heist, not some external threat - the threat is more an internal one. And their powers, especially one of the characters, are metaphors for the dangers of untreated mental illness in our society at large - and how left untreated, it could threaten to devour us all, if the wrong folks get into positions of power or obtain power.
These seven-eight characters have to learn how to trust each other and themselves long enough to save the city and themselves and each other. And they don't trust themselves let alone anyone else.
This is an excellent idea for a super-hero flick. Innovative. And provides much opportunity for humor, banter and conflict. Only one problem? They have one too many characters, also the main antagonist - the ambiguous and highly amoral Valentina De Fontaine is played largely for laughs by Julia Louis-Dreyfuss. I'd have cast a more serious actress in the role? I liked Emily VanCamp from Falcon and the Winter Solider - better. I'd also have done away with Ghost - that character kept disappearing, and it was very hard to remember who she was.
Most of the focus of the flick is on Florence Pugh's Yelena, who is Black Widow's sister, the White Widow. And the main character arc is Yelena's, much like the film Black Widow, this is basically Yelena's movie. Bucky Barnes' Winter Solider has very little to do, and is mostly relegated to the background. We also see Bunk, Wendell Pierce, from the Wire pop up as a Congressman. Pierce has been having a busy year with Superhero flicks. He plays a congressman here, and the head of the Daily Planet in Superman.
He has a touch more to do here. This is an on-going problem with superhero flicks - too many characters. I don't know why they feel the need to litter the film with characters? It's only two hours? But they do. US Agent, luckily, we don't need a lot on - nor did we learn much more than we already knew. Red Guard? Same - got what we already knew in Black Widow.
The only characters who got much exploration here were Yelena, BOB (aka Sentry/the Void) and Valentina. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing? But I'd have liked a bit more of the Winter Solider and Ghost - who as I said before was relatively non-existent. We got more character bits from Hawkgirl in Superman than we got from Ghost in Thunderbolts.
I don't necessarily mind the movie being Yelena focused? But if they are going that route, they probably should have found a way to make all the characters enhance that focus, or shed light on them in a way that did - it would have felt a little less disjointed, I think?
What really worked for me in the movie was the theme, the focus on mental illness, the dilemma of the main superhero being that he was great as Sentry, but if you push him too far, you also got the void. Everyone basically gets sucked into his self-hating spiral of empty depression or the void of despair. He becomes the personification of his mental health issues - either manic glee or depressive despair. That's actually a interesting character to have hanging about - since every time he touches someone, they are suddenly pulled into a traumatic moment in their life - when they were filled with despair. And there's some interesting special effects highlighting it.
I also found the idea of this group of bickering misfits banding together as the New Avengers entertaining. They argue over their name - "Thunderbolts" - which is from Yelena's girl's soccer team when she was ten. Yelena doesn't want it. The others kind of do. Except they can't agree if it should be Shane's Tire's Thunderbolts, Thunderbolts or something else. (Reminded me of the joke in Superman regarding the Justice Gang.)
The team kind of fits well. Although Bucky's jump from junior congressman to co-team leader with Yelena felt a bit...rushed? They really needed more scenes with Bucky to smooth that over. It was a touch jarring. And his relationship with Valentina's aid kind of gets dropped, as does whatever he was doing with Pierce regarding Valentina.
One of my problems with the current spat of Marvel films is that there is a lot of plotting potholes partly due to an over-reliance on having seen and remembering prior film or television plot lines, and the writing kind of falls apart in places? The films are written a bit too much like comic book serials for their own good and if you want to do that? The writing needs to be tighter. I'd like it to be a touch tighter like it was with Endgame, which while far from perfect, was a bit tighter than anything since.
I know it sounds like I didn't enjoy the film. I did. I felt the beginning drug a little, but once all four main characters ended up facing off against each other - the film took off and kept rolling at a fast pace. Also, it was a nice twist that the films protagonists have to save the individual inadvertently causing all the problems, to save the world and themselves. They don't need to kill anyone, they have to save them instead. Nice twist that.
Overall a solid B effort from Marvel, better than the last few flicks I've seen, but that's not a high bar to navigate.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 07:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 02:11 pm (UTC)Black Widow came out during the pandemic - in 2021. Ant Man and the Wasp was in 2018. Falcon and the Winter Solider was also in 2021. So that's what over four years ago for two of them, and eight years for Ant Man and the Wasp. Which explains why I didn't remember anything about Ghost, except she was an ambiguous antagonist in that film.
The mistake - was the writers didn't seem to think they needed to do any exposition to introduce any of the characters - they assumed that the audience automatically knew them all already. Except you always have to do exposition. I felt like I was coming into the film in the middle and had missed a lot of prior episodes? And I had no idea what had happened previously. I didn't know why the Winter Solider was a congressman (I'm guessing that was in Brave New World?).
Superman also took theater-goers into the middle of a story - but I knew what had happened, it was explained and in an entertaining fashion. Fantastic Four did the same thing - but I knew what had previously happened. Here? I was confused.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 12:37 pm (UTC)For me, the film succeeded because it gave the lead to Florence Pugh. The rest of the characters, even Bucky, were just background. She's the best actor of the bunch, so it made sense to give her the lead, but also I was familiar with her character from Black Widow and Hawkeye. I gave it a B thanks to her.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 01:48 pm (UTC)It was basically Florence Pugh's film. And it took me a minute to figure out who Ghost was, and I saw Ant Man and the Wasp. (I think it was that film, it might have been Ant Man). And honestly, I didn't care about Ghost either.
It was a team movie - but the writers clearly only cared about one character, Yelena. And Sentry was basically just a metaphor for Yelena's mental state. We didn't delve into any of the others. And the film for the most part was completely in Yelena and Valentina's point of view. We really didn't see the perspectives of the others, with the possible exception of Sentry, Valentina, and US Agent.
Superman did a better job of jumping between character perspectives - and that wasn't a team movie. It can be done. James Gunn was able to do it with Suicide Squad and Guardians of the Galaxy. And the Russo Brothers could do it with Endgame, Civil War, and Infinity War. Whedon managed it with the Avengers. But it is admittedly difficult, and the writers and director didn't handle it well.
Jake Schreier was the director. The film's writing team includes Eric Pearson, Lee Sung Jin (the creator of Beef), and Joanna Calo. Pearson wrote Fantastic Four, Black Widow, and this film with a few others. But it's his brain child. I honestly think Fantastic Four worked better. I'll give Pearson credit in one respect, all his films center on the female characters, with the male characters being in a more supporting capacity. Which is an interesting pattern in his films. It's also a key difference between Pearson and other writers in the genre.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-02 10:53 pm (UTC)