Superhero films - 2017
| Justice League | Thor: Ragnarok | Spider-Man: Homecoming |
| Wonder Woman | Power Rangers | Logan |
____________________
 |
Justice league, the long-anticipated 5th film in DC Comics' Extended Universe, helmed by Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon, opened in the U.S.A. November 17, 2017, bringing together DC's heavy hitter characters, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, while introducing fresh new takes on other fan favorites - Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. Almost reflexively, the film has been panned by critics, while fans have both applauded and razzed the film as if it's not cool not to beat up on a DCEU movie. Are the critics right? Is the criticism fair?
Our story: Bruce Wayne / Batman (Ben Affleck) has been investigating information that Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) had compiled regarding alien visitors who had been searching the Earth for a trio of mysterious boxes. Diana Prince / Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) has been acting as a crime-fighter, but has been avoiding being in the public eye. The death of Clark Kent / Superman (Henry Cavill), during the events of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, had the dual effect of removing Earth's most powerful protector and also triggering a feeling of despair in the world. These effects trigger the coming of Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), a demonic warrior from the planet Apokolips, who arrives with his army of insect-like humanoid "parademons" in search of the boxes. His intention is to unite the three boxes and user their transformative powers to re-shape the Earth into another Apokolips. The Amazons alert Wonder Woman of the threat and she makes contact with Batman. Together, they make plans to prevent Steppenwolf from obtaining the boxes and to make contact with other individuals with abilities that would help them combat the threat - Arthur Curry / Aquaman (Jason Mamoa), Barry Allen / Flash (Ezra Miller), and Victor Stone / Cyborg (Ray Fisher). Alliances are gradually formed as Steppenwolf searches for the boxes. Our cast of characters learn to work together and we get to see some very interesting confrontations.
So, how was it?
As comic stories are told and altered over the years and in different media, characters are commonly re-imagined. Just think of all the different ways Batman has been depicted since the character was introduced in 1939. So, not everyone may be happy with the DCEU's interpretations of the six members of the League in this film. For my own part, I thought they did a marvelous job of providing unbelievable characters who were completely believable as people.
Affleck does well as a weary Batman, who seems a bit out of his depth going from busting muggers to fighting alien monsters. But in Superman's absence, which he feels responsible for, he feels driven to fill the void he created. Gadot continues her stellar portrayal of Wonder Woman after her very well-received solo film from this summer. Her character is an interesting counter to Batman's, since he has continued to fight with his limited powers, while Diana has the power of a demigod but has mostly hidden from the world. Cavill gives a better performance of the man of steel in this film than in Batman v. Superman. Wayne's comment, that Clark - the alien - is more "human" than he is tells the story. The most powerful member of their group is just a guy who grew up in Kansas and simply wants to do the right thing.
And then there are the newcomers. Mamoa's Aquaman, the half-Atlantean / half-human outcast, who just happens to be the rightful heir to the throne of Atlantis, does a decent job of playing the role as half-wildman, half-king. He is like a cross between King Arthur and a Hell's Angel, but under water. Fisher is good as the gifted scholar-athlete who an accident turns into a cyborg. Our story finds him still dealing with what he perceives as a loss of his humanity and his metamorphosis is still incomplete. Miller provides most of the comic relief of this film. His version of the Flash is of a geeky teen-ager new to this whole notion of super-heroing. Just as Thor: Ragnarok's Valkyrie seemed like Marvel's response to Wonder Woman, Flash seemed a bit like DC's answer to Spiderman. Amy Adams, Jeremy Irons, Diane Lane, and J.K. Simmons as Lois Lane, Alfred, Martha Kent, and Commissioner Gordon, respectively, are all excellent in spite of their small roles.
Justice League's strength is primarily in the characterizations of its heroes and, frankly, this is what fans of the characters will care about the most. The action scenes are also very good, particularly the confrontation between Superman and the rest of the League. But most of the criticisms of this film are in regard to the plot and the villain and I have to agree.
While heroes drive story, villains tend to drive the plot. The characters and motivations of the primary antagonist, Steppenwolf, are not clearly defined. Why does he seek to conquer Earth so badly? Similarly, the capabilities of the "Mother Boxes" are vaguely defined. What can they do exactly? Why is the combination of three boxes so important? Each individual box seemed pretty potent, though he never uses them. What was the trying to change Earth into and why?
Also, regarding Superman's resurrection, the story seems to make a huge leap of logic as to how this is accomplished. Just as with the villain's motivations and plans, I felt that some crucial scenes were missing from the finished film. Did we lose these to keep the film down to two hours? The longer cut of Batman v. Superman is superior to the theatrical cut. I hope a similar longer version of Justice League will come to us later on as well.
I have to echo what many fans are saying - the protagonist characterization and action scenes are strong and the villain and the plot are weak. But the poor critical response is, in my opinion, unfair. The critics seem in the habit of dumping on the DC movies, while sometimes perhaps giving the Marvel movies too much of a pass. Frankly, I think there is plenty of room in the world for both. I would hate to lose these characters to overly picky critics and fanboy snobbery.
So, I recommend this movie. This really has been a particularly good year for superhero movies and this one deserves it place among them.
-JC
____________________
 |
Thor: Ragnarok is out, the third film in the Thor film series. Most people seem pretty happy with it, so I'm not calling it the third of a trilogy. There may very well be more Thor films since money will drive film production more than stories ever will. And the way the film end, it seems there is much more story to tell.
Not everyone will be happy with the changes that this film makes to Thor as a character, however. I've been a fan of the Thor comic book fan since the 60's. In 50 years of comic lore, even Marvel hasn't altered the characters as much as this story does in just two hours. While I agree that Thor: Ragnarok, as directed by Taika Waititi, is fun, I'm not sure I'm completely onboard with this degree of change. As I left the theater I was thinking to myself that it could just as easily have been called "Deconstructing Thor."
In many ways, Thor: Ragnarok felt like a conversion of Thor's character from one of myth to one more aligned with the characters and "universe-view" of Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). On one hand, I can see why the Marvel/Disney industrial complex would want this. Guardians has been vastly successful and it appears that the intention now is to use Thor as a bridge between the Earthbound more serious Avengers and the more un-Earthly and less serious beings such as the Guardians. Doctor Strange would be part of that bridge to the "strange" as well.
Our story - In the time since Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been spending his time investigating the visions he'd had about Asgard's fall and taking steps to prevent it. He discovers that Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is no longer in Asgard and with the chaos-producing Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in tow goes to Earth in search of him. They are re-united with Odin with the assistance of Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and become aware of the threat of Hela (Cate Blanchett), the goddess of death, who intends to conquer Asgard and then the rest of the universe. Battles and mis-adventures immediately follow.
I'm going to talk about my likes and dislikes, but won't be able to without extensive spoilers. So, if you want to go into the movie fresh without knowing these things ahead of time, stop reading now...
I will simply say I'm either outright unhappy with or simply uncomfortable with the plethora of changes made. No more Mjolnir. The hammer has nearly defined the character of Thor up to this. Did Hemsworth just get tired of carrying the prop hammer? (and longer hair?) But it's gone. The recent comic book storyline as well as the plot from the first film, strongly implies that the hammer is the talisman for the power of Thor, the god of thunder. Now? Forget all that.
Forget about the Warriors Three too. Our nearly invincible villainess Hela spends about five seconds killing Fandral (Zachary Levi) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) before they can utter a line. Hogun (Tadanobu Asano), at least gets to speak and fight before being dispatched. These characters are rather callously discarded in this story's choices regarding who shall survive in Asgard's future. No more Odin either. The powerful, majestic character is shoehorned into the early part of the film just long enough to fade away like an old Jedi master. Loki's quiet takeover of Asgard is all-to-casually undone by Thor and it is never explained how Loki was able to so easily usurp the all-powerful Odin's place and stick him in a New York retirement home. All we get is Thor and Loki getting a brief farewell scene with Odin in very plain earthly garb on a cliff in Norway where he says he is going to be with Frigga (his wife, killed in Thor: The Dark World (2013)) and, by the way, you have an evil older sister I never mentioned and my existence was the only thing holding her at bay.
Asgard? Forget about that too. It will be obliterated in the film's climactic final act.
As a fan of the original character of Thor, I felt that this degree of change, especially done so casually or even while cracking a joke, shows disrespect for the source material and its fans as well. Usually when this is done, though it may be popular at the time, it may not age well.
The idea that I did take to, was the notion that Thor's power was never really in the hammer. All that power was intrinsic to him and the hammer was just a tool he focused it through. As Odin so aptly puts it "are you the god of hammers?" No. He is the Norse deity of thunder and lightning. It was nice to see him wielding this power and actually more visually impressive. However, given the years of Thor's existence, did he really never catch onto this until now? I know they have always liked to portray him as dim, but really? (Though it reminds me of the moment in Spaceballs (1987) when Yogurt tells Lonestar that the schwartz wasn't in the ring, but "The schwartz is in you!")
The addition of the Valkyrie character (Tessa Thompson) was fine and she added to the film. I had a feeling her inclusion was a bit of "Wonder Woman - envy" to bring in a strong female character. (Where the heck was Sif?!) The inclusion of the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) was entertaining as well.
My take on Thor: Ragnarok is that the MCU writers wished to have a member of the Avengers that would interface nicely as a bridge between them and the Guardians and any other otherworldly figures the Avengers might face. However, this could have been done with some other character, such as Captain Marvel, an outer-space-oriented character whose story we haven't seen as yet. In making this choice, we have essentially lost the classic character of Thor. Did the MCU producers decide that the "Lord of the Rings" - type settings and people of Asgard were incompatible with the universe they had envisioned? Was Thor: The Dark World such a disappointment that the MCU decided the only way to make good Thor stories was to tear him completely down and rebuild? They must have thought so. And since the film has been so successful, they will feel justified in this belief. Frankly, I prefer the concept of an unlimited universe, with room for anything and everything.
So, I will miss the Thor of old. I will miss the grandeur of Asgard, its wise ruler, and noble defenders. I will miss the idea that the concepts of "worthiness" and other noble traits could be considered palpable forces. I doubt I'm the only one, though we may be in the minority.
I will be curious to see how they MCU goes forward with Thor. This is entirely new territory for the Asgardian. Hopefully we will get to see a new Asgard. For all we know, if he had a moment with the Infinity Gauntlet, the realm eternal might not be gone for that long at all. But that would be another story.
-JC
____________________
 |
So, Spider-Man has another movie. Spider-Man: Homecoming would be the sixth Spider-Man movie since 2002, unless we were to count his appearance in Captain America: Civil War. If we did, then Tom Holland would have already tied Andrew Garfield for appearances as Spider-Man in the movies. Wow.
What is the secret of Spider-Man's appeal? We touched on this a bit back in 2012 when the last reboot (The Amazing Spider-Man) came out. Spider-Man is an interesting combination of elements. He's powerful, but not indestructible. He's a teen-ager, but he's nobody's sidekick. He may be clever, but he's definitely not wise. He is visually interesting to watch and relatable by young people. For the still young-enough-to-pretend-crowd, a kid can much more easily identify with Spider-Man than he can with Iron Man or Captain America. While that is a significant part of the movie-going market, some of us are a bit old for this and have seen it a few too many times.
The Backstory: In the wake of "The Incident" (the battle of New York City between the Avengers and the Chitauri invaders) Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) is the primary salvage contractor hired by the city to clear up the devastation. However, the new federal Department of Damage Control, under the supervision of Tony Stark / Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) assumes jurisdiction and dismisses Toomes after he had already made a substantial investment in order to do the work. Facing financial ruin, Toomes and his crew decide to keep the alien technology they have already recovered and put it to whatever use they can.
The Story: Peter Parker / Spider-Man (Tom Holland) is a sophomore in high school, living with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), and dealing with the usual issues teens have - classes, grades, extracurriculars, and, of course, social standing and dating. But Peter's overarching goal is to impress Tony Stark enough to become a full-fledged Avenger. When school ends each day, he is quickly into costume (Stark-provided) and looking for good deeds to do and wrongs to right to earn his place with the big guys. After spending a while finding little to do except apprehend small-time thieves, Peter stumbles across a robbery where the perpetrators are packing high-tech and highly destructive firepower. This eventually leads him to his series of confrontations with Toomes, now the Vulture, with a mechanical, winged flight suit and his men, who are also packing advanced hybrid earth-alien weaponry. These confrontations are interspersed with Peter's high school dramas of not letting down his friends and getting close to a girl he likes.
The Good: Tom Holland is a likeable Spider-Man and as many have commented, he may give the best combination so far of someone who is both believable as the chatty superhero Spider-Man and also as the nerdy Peter Parker. The storytellers also do a decent job of coming up with a story of a young man chasing after something and then realizing it may not actually be the best choice for him. Peter actually grows as a character here. Also, Michael Keaton is a welcome addition to the list of Marvel villains who actually have some dimension to them. He is not just some moustache-twirling bad guy. You can understand how he felt cheated by people and that he felt his actions afterwards were justified to support himself, his employees, and his family. He came off as a guy who was tough about getting what he thought he deserved, but didn't do harm without a reason. These shades of gray as opposed to pure black and white make for more believable characters.
The Not-So-Good: In trying to understand what the film-makers were shooting for, I felt they wanted Spider-Man to come off as a bit of a cross between Tobey McGuire's version and Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller. Perhaps there was just a bit too much humor in this and I got a little tired of how many scenes involved Peter trying to snare things with his webbing and getting drug around by it instead. Also, the threat of the tech left behind by the Chitauri has been visited a few too many times between this story, the Netflix Luke Cage series, and, I assume, the Agents of SHIELD tv show. It seems at times we've done each other more damage with the things they left behind than they did with their attack. Perhaps instead of attacking at all they should have just given us a bunch of their weaponry and left for a few years. By then, surely we'd have all killed each other off.
Many have praised the film for having a more age-appropriate actor playing Spider-Man, but I'm not sure how well that praise matches the facts. Tobey McGuire was 26 in his first Spider-Man film and Andrew Garfield was 27 - each playing a character in high school. Tom Holland is younger yes, but he was still a 20-year-old playing a 15-year-old. Laura Harrier, who plays his senior girl crush, Liz, was actually 26. Another thing to consider - Holland is 5'6" at 20 years old. So, very likely this incarnation of the web-slinger won't be getting any taller.
It also seemed that the fight/action scenes were a bit anticlimactic. Director Jon Watts only has a few films on his resume and they are both low-budget indies. Apparently Marvel decided to have him learn to do big set pieces on the job.
Spider-Man: Homecoming is an entertaining enough take on the character, but it doesn't really offer anything new other than his role within an expanded Marvel Universe. I think it will mostly be popular with younger fans. When The Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012 (yes, just five years ago), Andrew Garfield's take on the character was warmly received, but that portrayal hasn't aged well. Over the years, Tom Holland's Spider-Man may come to be viewed as the "Andy Hardy" version of the character. I hope that if he gets another chance at the role, that they can mature the character a bit. His actions seemed more like those of a 12-year-old than a 15-year-old. But maybe spiders don't age the same way we do?
-JC
____________________
 |
It's been said for several years now that superhero movies with a female lead just won't sell. But now we seem to have a game changer. Wonder Woman is a hit with critics and audiences alike and is now our top contender for best superhero film of 2017.
Fans are familiar with the classic comics origin of Wonder Woman as created by William Moulton Marston and first appearing in print in 1941. Upon learning of the second World War, an Amazon had been sent as their representative to help America against the Axis powers. The Amazon who was chosen to go competed to determine the best warrior among them. Princess Diana was the victor. In Zack Snyder's re-imagining of the character, a few things have been altered. The Amazons still learn of a world war due to the arrival of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) as he flees the German military. However, the time period has been changed to WW I. When Trevor explains the state of the world and "the war to end all wars" in progress, Princess Diana (Gal Gadot) is convinced that such a conflict means that the God of War, Ares, has returned and that it is the duty of the Amazons to intervene. However, her mother, Queen Hippolyta, refuses to become involved. Diana disobeys her mother's wishes and returns with Trevor to London. There, he assembles a team of companions and the group travels to the Western Front in Belgium - Trevor, to destroy chemical weapons the Germans are planning to use, and Diana, to locate and destroy Ares which she thinks will end the war.
First of all, this is a beautifully shot film. Diana's island home of Themyscira is simply gorgeous. It lives up to its other name of Paradise Island. But the sights of 1918 London and embattled Belgium are well-represented also. Director Patty Jenkins and cinematographer Matthew Jensen do a marvelous job of transporting us into convincing versions of these differing worlds.
The action scenes in Wonder Woman are also excellent - from the battle on the beach in Themyscira, to Wonder Woman's first assault on the Germans at the front, to the big final conflict. Any doubts about Gadot's ability to display the physicality required for Wonder Woman can be laid to rest. Rupert Gregson-Williams' score helps to set the mood for scenes whether dramatic, exciting, or touching.
Gadot and Pine, in the primary roles, play their parts well and have pretty decent chemistry together.
All in all, Wonder Woman is an exciting film that offers us characters we can care about. It examines the mature understanding that the battle between good and evil is waged in every human heart every day. And unlike some of DC's dark and humorless fare, this film is aware enough of itself to include some lighthearted moments as well. I look forward to seeing more of this Wonder Woman in the future.
-JC
____________________
 |
Power Rangers (2017) is exactly the movie you’d expect it to be and not much else. It’s a perfectly mediocre-to-slightly-disappointing, high budget update of the familiar 90s television series premise: five teenagers (with attitude) are called upon to save the world with the help of rainbow colored armor, dinosaur robots, and a talking blue face inside of a wall. While the premise is just as cheesy as it was in the 90s, the cheese is slightly more magnified in this version due to the movie’s muddled tone. “Serious” is not the right word. “Grounded” is probably closer.
Unfortunately, if you’re going for a more grounded version of the story, the characters’ emotional growth could have been slightly more nuanced and someone should have told Elizabeth Banks what kind of movie this was supposed to be. That being said, I think Elizabeth Banks does a fantastic job hamming it up as Rita Repulsa and it’s clear she is having the most fun out of anyone on set. And, while her performance is closer to the tone of the original series, it doesn’t quite mesh with the universe created around her. It also makes me wonder if there is a campier, slightly more self-aware version of this movie that would have worked better. What we get instead is a very middle-of-the-road movie that probably won’t be remembered as anything terrible or terribly special.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the movie was the action (or lack thereof). The Power Rangers don’t suit up until the third act of the movie and we don’t really get to see them fight for very long. After an underwhelming fight with Putties that lasts less than 30 seconds, the Rangers retreat into their Zords for a final battle that is so anticlimactic, you almost wish the movie were longer (or perhaps that the filmmakers had spent less time trying to get our characters to relate to one another as detention-bound misfits and more time bringing them together as brothers – and sisters – in arms).
Ultimately, this movie feels very much like The Breakfast Club with less heart, Transformers with less robot fighting, and Power Rangers with less fun. It’s not a bad movie, per se, and it’s possible that younger moviegoers, unfamiliar with the original series, will be entertained by it. But even if that’s true, I doubt Power Rangers represents anything close to the rebirth of the merchandising juggernaut of the 90s that it was probably intended to be.
-Michael Trainor
____________________
 |
Hugh Jackman returns for his ninth and last time as the popular mutant X-Man, Wolverine. As popular as Wolverine was in the comics before, Jackman's portrayal has been so successful that it elevated the character's role in the comics as well. Logan was directed and co-written by James Mangold, who directed Jackman in The Wolverine (2013) as well as the romantic-fantasy Kate and Leopold (2001).
Our story is set in the not-so-distant 2029. Nature has apparently stopped making mutants and a visibly aged Wolverine, or Logan, the name he usually goes by, is getting by in the world by working as a limo driver. Logan's ability to recover from any injury and his practical immortality is failing him due to the very adamantium in his body that made him nearly indestructible. With the assistance of the mutant Caliban (Stephen Merchant), Logan is caring for an aged Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart). Xavier, or Professor X, the patriarch of the X-Men and the school for mutants, is suffering from a form of dementia. Unfortunately, since he is still the most powerful telepath on Earth, if he fails to take his medication he can have seizures with painful, paralyzing effects on the people around him. So, Logan and Caliban tend to him in seclusion.
Logan is contacted by Gabriela (Elizabeth Rodriguez), a nurse who is harboring a mutant child, Laura (Dafne Keen), who has abilities similar to Logan's. He is also contacted by Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), a security operative for a genetic research firm who is searching for the two. Eventually, Logan and Xavier decide to take Laura to a supposed place of safety for mutants in North Dakota - "Eden" - with Pierce and company in pursuit.
The greatest assets in this production, in my opinion, are the masterful performances of Jackman and Stewart in the roles they originated in X-Men (2000) and have come to embody so well over these past 17 years. The scenes they share are some of the film's best moments as these iconic characters - so different, yet bound together - play their roles as apparently the last of their generation and seem much more "human" with the fading of their powers and sensibilities.
Though not everyone may agree, it seems appropriate that Logan is rated R. As the character has stated in the past, "I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice." Much of the R rating is due to crude language (much coming from a demented Charles), but the film doesn't shy away from demonstrating what a brawler with three sharp, unbreakable blades coming from his hands is likely to do with them. Body parts are chopped off and skewered. The blood flows. This is what the Wolverine does, and no, it's not nice at all.
While Logan is definitely an action-superhero film, it is also an intelligent drama and something of a character study for the Logan character. He has occasion to ponder what he is, what the world is, and his role in it all. Can a violent film be thoughtful? This one seems to be.
The X-Men series isn't so much about people who choose to be heroes. It's about people with uncanny abilities who are placed in positions of having to use them to survive. But, win or lose, violent conflict usually incurs a price to be paid. His life has made Logan painfully aware of this. He has earned the fitting ending this story gives him.
If you are a fan of the X-Men or Wolverine, this film is a must-see. Even if you are not, it's a quality, dramatic adventure about family and character.
-JC