Superhero films - 2016
| Doctor Strange | Suicide Squad | X-Men:Apocalypse |
| Captain America: Civil War | Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice | Deadpool |
____________________
 |
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Brilliant, but arrogant man is seriously injured while being brilliant and arrogant. In attempting to save himself, he develops powers that make him of unique value to mankind and in answering this call, he is redeemed. But, Stephen Strange and Tony Stark would be really tedious to carpool with.
Doctor Strange is the 14th film from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is part of its so-called “Phase Three” as the stories and extended characters continue to branch out. The film was directed by Scott Derrickson (The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008), Sinister (2012)), who also co-wrote the script with C. Robert Cargill.
Our story: Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), a gifted and successful surgeon, sustains injuries to his hands that disable him from continuing his work. Desperate for a cure, Strange travels to a city in Asia. He is taken on as a student in the mystic arts by the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). As he learns magic, he also learns of the supernatural dangers that threaten the world and becomes embroiled in the struggle.
Doctor Strange is an entertaining film with quality performers – Cumberbatch, Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, and Mads Mikkelson. The visual effects range from the otherworldly to the mind-bending, probably surpassing those of any other film to date. The plot seems a bit rushed and simplistic, but the characterizations and occasional humor help keep the audience engaged.
The tone of the film is interesting. While Strange’s origin story has features in common with Iron Man’s, there seems to be more of an effort to “Disney” it up. Some of the hard edge seems to have been sacrificed in favor of more humor and fantastic special effects. Imagine something between Iron Man and Ant Man.
I don’t recall Strange being quite this much of a self-centered ego-maniac in the comics. But in those, perhaps the Ancient One had more time to humble that out of him. Perhaps Cumberbatch prepared for the role by watching the Iron Man movies and old episodes of House. There were times when his affected “American” accent was a bit grating.
By the way, did anyone else note all the Sherlock Holmes links? Cumberbatch’s Strange is very similar to Downey’s Stark. Both actors have starred recently as incarnations of Holmes in film/TV. Strange’s love interest, Dr. Christine Palmer, is played by Rachel McAdams, who played Irene Adler, the love interest for Downey’s version of Holmes. Small Holmesian world.
All in all, Doctor Strange isn’t the best entry in the MCU, but neither is it the least. It competently provided the necessary introduction of Strange and the mystic world that the MCU needed. It will be interesting to see how the character inevitably figures into films yet to come.
- JC
____________________
 |
When I heard the news that DC was making a Suicide Squad movie, I have to admit I thought it was a dumb idea. Their new take on Superman, Man of Steel (2013), hadn’t exactly received the warmest of welcomes. And while Suicide Squad was still filming, the very high-profile Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) was being ravaged by critics and fans alike. The DC Extended Universe still hadn’t released 2017’s Wonder Woman and Justice League. Why would anyone be interested in a movie about a bunch of second-string super-villains? And why now as their third film?
Surprisingly, Suicide Squad had actually been in development since 2009, shortly after Man of Steel was green lit in 2008. It had been envisioned as a “Dirty Dozen with super-villains.” So, yes. Suicide Squad was planned long before, Warner Bros. even started planning a meeting between Superman and Batman, much less the Justice League. In 2014, David Ayers (Training Day (2001), End of Watch (2012), Fury (2014)) was brought in to write and direct.
The story: In response to the rise of metahuman threats and the loss of Superman, government official Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) decides to recruit dangerous individuals, with either special skills or abilities, who are conveniently accessible to her from the prison system. She plans to assemble them into a team called “Task Force X” with the plan to exploit their gifts. Waller’s first acquisition is a witch called the Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), who is inhabiting the body of an archaeologist. However, this powerful being escapes and begins wreaking havoc. Waller is forced to accelerate her plans and quickly assembles the rest of the group to stop her – the assassin Deadshot (Will Smith), unpredictably dangerous Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), thief Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtenay), monstrous Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), pyrokinetic El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), and climber Slipknot (Adam Beach), all under the command of special forces officer Rick Flag (Joel Kinnamon), accompanied by his martial-artist/swordswoman bodyguard Katana (Karen Fukuhara). Waller offers the criminals double incentives: first, time off their prison sentences for their help, and second, explosive charges planted in their necks to maintain their obedience.
So, how was it? It seems critics have decided to mostly jump on the anti-DC bandwagon about this film, complaining about the plot and the undeveloped characters. Frankly, I don’t believe all of the criticism has been fair. When a film has this many characters to introduce to us, it’s likely that the fleshing out of all those characters many suffer. This was likely compounded by the fact that the bulk of the back-story exposition and character development was heavily skewed to the biggest stars – Smith’s Deadshot and Robbie’s Harley, which also brought in her origin as the girlfriend of the Joker (Jared Leto) and all of his attempts throughout the story to retrieve her.
But even though the other characters were somewhat short-shrifted, Hernandez is touching as the emotionally scarred El Diablo and Courtenay is entertaining as the irreverent Boomerang. Meanwhile, Davis as Waller and Delevingne as Enchantress, are both chilling characters, each in their own distinctive way.
Don’t believe all the bad press. There is a good blend of action, humor, and heart in this film. On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie has 26% critical approval, but 70% audience approval. I’d side with the audience on this one.
- JC
____________________
 |
This summer brings us yet another entry in the X-Men film series. X-Men: Apocalypse is the 9th film of a franchise which has turned out to be, perhaps, Marvel's most enduring. Yes, in a shorter period, the Avengers-centric Marvel Cinematic Universe has made more films and more money, but the X-Men blazed a lot of the trail in the public psyche for the whole idea of superhumans being taken somewhat seriously. But for the success of X-Men in 2000, one has to wonder if Spiderman (2002) would have been made. But for the success of the X-Men and Spiderman films would DC have bothered coming back from the dismal Batman and Robin (1997) to make Batman Begins (2005)? I would argue that the X-Men have set the stage for much more than just their own world.
This film is set in 1983. It is ten years after the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past and Magneto (Michael Fassbender)'s attempt to murder the president which was thwarted, very publicly, by Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). Magneto has disappeared into anonymity. Mystique, or Raven, as her friends Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) and Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult) knew her, is wandering the world looking for mutants who are being exploited and liberating them. Xavier and McCoy have re-opened Xavier's School for the Gifted and are nurturing a large number of young mutants, including Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) and Scott Summers/Cyclops (Tye Sheridan).
Coincidentally, at this time, the ancient mutant, En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac), awakens in Egypt, where he has laid buried for thousands of years. While it was shown in a prologue how the egyptians had entombed him in 3600 BC, no explanation is seemingly offered for his awakening now. But conveniently, Xavier's former romantic interest, CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) is on hand at Nur's awakening and becomes aware of his legend. Nur begins recruiting followers - mutants - so he can resume his domination of a world where the strong rule over the weak. Our mutant heroes - the old guard and the new - rise to stop him.
All in all, I enjoyed this film. The characterization of Xavier, Magneto, Mystique, and Beast were all interesting and mostly genuine - how they had moved on with their lives and also how the actors seemed to have matured into their roles. I also enjoyed the new, youthful versions of Scott, Jean, Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Ororo/Storm (Alexandra Shipp). This film also gives us the return of Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver (Evan Peters), the speedster son of Magneto who had a memorable part in Days of Future Past, who may have actually one-upped himself in this film.
Quibbles? Yes, there were some. Our ancient villain doesn't really have much of a backstory and other than an apparent belief that he should rule because he is stronger than everyone else, there seems to be little explanation for his actions. I was also a bit incredulous that nearly no matter what was thrown at him, he would just have a glowy-eyed moment and then he would be winning again. Oscar Isaac (The Force Awakens, Ex Machina) was a bit wasted in this role. I wondered why Mystique decided to spend so much of the story as a very blonde version of herself. I had to keep reminding myself that these still very young-looking actors were supposed to be 21 years older than they were in X-Men: First Class (2011). And, I know I have complained about this in prior X-Men reviews - it's way past time to recast Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).
It was nice to see our mutant heroes again as they all struggle to find their places in the world. In another couple of years the story will probably leap to the 90's and they will all still pretty much look the same. (The comics always did have trouble with accounting for the passage of decades. This is almost like following a tradition.) As long as the stories and the characters stay interesting, it's best not to dwell too much on little things like logic.
-JC
____________________
 |
As Marvel was unveiling their plans for future films in October of 2014, they announced that the third Captain America movie would be titled Captain America: Civil War. There had been some controversy over where the next film would go. The most iconic stories had seemingly been done – Cap vs. the Red Skull during WW II, the Winter Soldier story, and, of course, his inclusion and leadership within the Avengers. There had been whispers of the third film being Cap against the “Serpent Society.” But this was just a ruse. The use of “Civil War” had apparently been planned for some time.
As comics fans knew, “Civil War” had been a multi-issue Marvel Comics event back in 2006-2007. In that story, because of a disaster caused by some inexperienced and reckless superheroes (not the Avengers), the U.S. government imposed the Superhero Registration Act. It required all costumed vigilantes to register their identities with the government and submit to governmental authority. The Act had been predicted by Tony Stark and Reed Richards (of the Fantastic Four), so of course they were onboard. In the comics, SHIELD was around and they took enforcement of the Act very seriously. Soon, Captain America, who never liked jack-booted bullies, was resisting and the Civil War was on.
In the film, Captain America: Civil War, we are in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), not the comics’ one, so mercifully the scope of the characters was greatly reduced and focused largely upon the ideological and personal struggle between these two men: Steve Rogers/Captain America and Tony stark/Iron Man. The choice of these two is interesting. Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man essentially launched the MCU, but over the years it has been Chris Evans’ Captain America that has become more prominent. Stories about a self-obsessed guy who thinks he is smarter than everyone else – even if he decides to try being a good guy – make him kind of hard to like. But a more limited and vulnerable hero, who is always trying to do the right thing, no matter the cost or the odds, will grow on you. There really are things to admire about truth, justice, courage, loyalty, self-sacrifice and all those other old-fashioned notions. And while the Iron Man movies stumbled, Cap’s improved.
The story:
A year after the events in Avengers: Age of Ultron, Cap, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), and the Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) are attempting to stop the theft of a biological weapon from a lab in Nigeria. Captured, the leader sets off a bomb. Scarlett Witch, attempting to levitate the bomb skyward where it will detonate harmlessly is unable to raise it quickly enough. It explodes alongside a building, killing several people inside.
In response to this collateral damage and that from other battles involving Avengers, the United Nations responds with the demand that the Avengers accept international oversight or cease their activities. Tony Stark sees this as necessary and inevitable. Steve Rogers sees this as them abdicating their own judgment as to what they should and should not do to a political organization which could be influenced by agendas they might not agree with. After having seen SHIELD infiltrated and nearly taken over by Hydra, his reservations are understandable. And while all of this well-intended debate is going on, an unknown enemy is plotting revenge against the Avengers, using Steve’s friend Bucky/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) as a pawn.
So, how was it?
Civil War, like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, is the work of directors Anthony and Joe Russo and screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. As before, they have crafted a well-plotted story with strong moral and emotional elements. It includes numerous amazing action sequences and is lightened with banter between characters we have had some time to get to know. In short – it was really pretty good.
It’s also worth noting that for a story that features so many characters, all of them stood out nicely. Natasha (Johansson) as an Avenger with divided loyalties hoping everything will somehow work out so they can keep working together, the Vision (Paul Bettany) as the dispassionate android who is feeling conflicted and isn’t sure of how to respond, T’Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) as a definite force to be reckoned with who comes from outside of the thus far established MCU, and fledgling heroes Antman (Paul Rudd) and Spiderman (Tom Holland) who are brought in for the biggest multi-superhero melee ever seen onscreen. It was also nice having Jeremy Renner return as Hawkeye again. He is the closest thing to a normal guy in this whole bunch.
Quibbles?
Not many . . . After 2 ½ hours and five extended action scenes (a couple of which probably could have been shortened) the viewer could leave the theater feeling exhausted, but it’s all good stuff. I’m personally feeling a little tired of the Winter Soldier character, but he was integral to the story. Zemo (Daniel Bruhl)’s evil plot depended on him going to great lengths to reveal an occurrence that it was never explained how he could have known anything about.
Should the film have been called Avengers: Civil War? Probably not, with Thor and the Hulk absent. Captain America / Iron Man: Civil War? Nope. Cap was the main character and Tony was really his antagonist. Besides, it would have been a ridiculously long title…
Looking back, we are seeing that the Captain America films just keep getting better. The writers and directors deserve most of the credit, but I praise the convincing portrayals by the performers as well. Chris Evans particularly gets high marks for making a character as hard to believably depict as Captain America someone human that audiences can get behind. The Avengers: Infinity War films will be written and directed by this same team. I hope they can maintain this standard of quality storytelling.
-JC
____________________
 |
So much waiting . . . Was it worth it? Man of Steel, the Superman reboot, was released in 2013. The word that the sequel would feature Superman up against Batman was let out later that same year. Since then, that story choice and the casting and the teaser trailers have managed to keep the prospect of the film to come in the headlines all this time. So . . . was it worth it?
In some ways, yes. In others, not so much.
It’s too bad when a story suffers under the weight of too many expectations, both those of fans and those of greedy film producers. An enormous burden was put on this film to produce a similarly enormous response in fans and box-office. What was initially to have been "Man of Steel 2," became "Superman meets Batman," and then, the jump start to "Justice League." But for the success Marvel had seen with the Avengers franchise, might it have gone this way? I seriously doubt it. So, director Zack Snyder was tasked with pulling off something like what Joss Whedon had done with The Avengers. They gave him full access to DC Comics' rich reservoir of source material, so no problem, right?
Our story: One and a half years after the appearance of Superman (Henry Cavill) and his battle with the rogue Kryptonians, many see him as a savior. However, just as many see him as a threat. This perceived threat is taken very seriously by two powerful men: billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), secretly Batman, the masked crime fighter of Gotham City, and the brilliant, though unstable, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Each chooses to take steps to neutralize our new hero from another world with both confrontations coming to a head in the film's eventual climax.
While all of this is going on, Wayne/Batman runs into a mysterious woman, Diana Prince (Diana Prince), who turns out to be Wonder Woman. (We see that Superman wasn't the only individual to have found his way onto Luthor's radar.)
The good: Unlike all those who stubbornly maintain that only Christopher Reeve can play Superman, I'm perfectly OK with Henry Cavill's portrayal. As a line in the film states, "what if he's just a guy with powers trying to do some good?" I appreciate his earnestness and those old-fashioned rural values about truth, justice, and trying to do the right thing. The Superman from 1978 was a superhero fantasy, while Man of Steel is a superhero science-fiction, action-adventure. And unlike Reeve's Superman, you have the feeling that even without his powers, this Clark Kent wouldn't be a pushover.
Ben Affleck does well as Batman. He's not phenomenal; he's not better than Christian Bale's Dark Knight. He is a Batman more like the comics version and to bring the DC comics universe to film, he is what is needed for that franchise. Gal Gadot was fine as Wonder Woman. Those of us concerned that she would not be able to display the physicality for the role need not have worried. Amy Adams is still good as a Lois Lane with guts, brains, and emotional depth. Jeremy Irons stands out as Wayne's associate, Alfred.
As for the effects, the fight scenes are outstanding and this is where director Zack Snyder seemed intent on giving us our money's worth. The Superman-Batman confrontation is extended, in multiple stages, and is downright brutal. It is the best in the film because it is largely the point of the movie. The runners-up are a very well-choreographed Batman versus armed thugs rescue scene and, of course, the big throw down with Doomsday where Wonder Woman joins the fray.
What didn't work so well?
Why is everything so damned dark?! The lack of humor, the grim world view, humans mostly as hateful or fearful victims, and the literally dark color palette of the film make it sit heavy on the viewer. Is it possible we are taking ourselves a little too seriously?
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice makes the classic mistake that we usually see in the third film in a trilogy - rather than focusing on telling the central story well, they try to tell several concurrently. Instead of focusing on Superman/Clark and Batman/Bruce and how they are different and how they are alike, Snyder tried to make one film which had elements of comics stories "The Dark Knight Returns," "Superman-Doomsday," and "Superman-Batman-Wonder Woman Trinity." They sacrificed the opportunity to do a good job with a story worth telling to throw us everything, including the kitchen sink.
And finally, Batman was really pretty unlikeable in this film. Allusions are made to a dark past full of loss - his parents, a partner. But unlike Bale's Batman, who was introspective and sometimes dealt with self-doubt, Affleck's Batman is driven and doesn't seem interested in listening to anyone. In all of Batman's fight scenes, this film shows him more violent than he ever has been seen on film. It's as if this really was "Man of Steel 2," Superman was pitted against two villains, and Batman was one of them.
This film's place in superhero film history is secure. Batman fought Superman on the big screen and it was a fight that did keep the viewer's eyes glued to the screen. Did Snyder go overly dark and violent? Probably. Did the producers overburden the film by cramming Justice League foreshadowing into it? I think so. Some other reviewers have described this film as "a beautiful mess." It's worth seeing on the big screen for the sheer spectacle of it. But leave your critical sensibilities outside. You'll enjoy yourself more.
-JC
____________________
 |
From the outset, let me say I was never a Deadpool fan. I never understood the appeal of a guy in a gawdy outfit who kills people for money and makes juvenile jokes while he's at it. He doesn't have much of a personal code and doesn't really stand for anything. Now, there are definitely people who find this attractive. I'm just not one of them.
So . . . I didn't have great expectations for a Deadpool film. I figured it's development was pushed through by a fringe group of Deadpool fans and probably Ryan Reynolds himself. And then - surprise - the early reviews were almost entirely positive. Deadpool rakes in tons of money in its opening weekend, smashing box office records for R-rated films. It is the runaway hit of early 2016. Well nuts. I guess I have to check it out.
The plot, in short: We are introduced to Wade Wilson, a former military guy, who has taken to hiring himself out as muscle. He has a small social group of guys doing the same kind of work, including his friend Weasel (nicely played by T. J. Miller), the bartender at their hangout. It's here that Wade meets Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) and they begin their relationship. But bad luck comes calling and Wade discovers he has terminal cancer in spades. Our wisecracking merc might have been content to just let himself die before, but now, with more to lose, he agrees to a shady-sounding pitch from a guy who claims he can cure him and also give him extraordinary abilities. The procedure essentially works, but gives Wade a freakish appearance, thus setting him on a path seeking revenge and reparations from his sadistic "benefactors."
As wise-cracking killer movies go, it was fairly fun. Ryan Reynolds, as Wade Wilson / Deadpool, is suited to the role. He does a convincing job of portraying a character who is at once capable of being intimidating, but can also break into a patter which is funny though bordering on annoying. The romance beween Wade and Vanessa is useful to the story, since it serves to humanize a mostly unsympathetic character. Baccarin is a good choice for Vanessa, since given her background of appearing in shows like Firefly, Stargate, and Gotham, she is something of a comic-nerd dreamgirl. Between her acting skills and her ravishing looks, she is engaging in her role as "escort" turned devoted, mercenary's girlfriend.
The plot of Deadpool isn't particularly complex. In fact, it brought to mind old superhero TV movie adaptations in its simplicity. What sets this film apart is the characters: Deadpool, the wiseacre hero; Vanessa, the gorgeous, true-blue girlfriend; Ajax (Ed Skrein), the too-bad-to-be-true villain; Colossus, the too-good-to-be-true good guy; Brianna Hildebrand as sullen teen superhero Negasonic Teenage Warhead (I love that name because it's preposterously over the top and is taken from a Monster Magnet song from 1995 ("Wow. We really have run out of names.")); Gina Carano as Angel Dust, a super-powered bombshell who can go toe-to-toe with a guy made of steel; and, speaking of bombshells, Leslie Uggams, a siren from the 60's, as Blind Al, Deadpool's room-mate after his transformation. The characters in Deadpool are pretty much defined by their dialog, so screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Warnick deserve a lot of credit, as does director Tim Miller, for drawing such good performances from his ensemble of actors.
Deadpool also shines in its action scenes. The fight on the freeway scene near the beginning of the film is particularly good. Miller strikes a good balance between his action scenes and character dialog scenes, not something every film can say.
So, Deadpool isn't Shakespeare, but it wasn't meant to be. My quibbles would be the simple plot, the fact that some of the jokes were "groaners" (but balanced by some real belly laughs), and the main villain always seemed more like a henchman to me rather than the guy in charge. But, if you're looking for an irreverently funny, R-rated superhero comedy, you've come to the right place. And since Hollywood is all about giving people what they want, Deadpool's success guarantees we will be seeing more of the same in the years to come.
-JC