Avengers: Endgame (2019) REVIEW

Don't worry, this is a spoiler-free review. I'm only going to directly talk about things that have either been announced before the film's release or were seen in trailers. When I don't, it will be in vague terms, and I'll try to not even allude to anything spoiler-y. Due to the (blissful) vagueness of this film's marketing, it may be hard to write about, but I'll give it a go. Honestly, you still might be able to infer things from how I write about them, so maybe don't read it at all if you haven't seen it. Continue at your own risk. I'm undecided if I want to do a longer, spoiler-heavy breakdown in the style of my 'Road to Endgame' posts for this. There's certainly scenes I'd like to speak about in more depth, but I also don't want to risk spoiling this film for anybody that hasn't seen it and scrolls down my page. Maybe I'll do it after the Blu-Ray comes out, so that I can rewatch it and have access to high quality stills from the movie. Anyway, let's get on with the review.

In 1985, riding high off the critical and commercial success of Back to the Future, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, the two men who conceived of that film, began work on a sequel. As Zemeckis (colloquially referred to as Bob Z to Gale's Bob G) was deep in the production of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Gale was left to craft the screenplay. With a working title of Paradox, it was over two hundred pages long and therefore would have clocked in at over three hours. It told a sprawling story of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, one that transitioned from the present to the future, back again, to the Fifties, to the Wild West and then back to the present. Confronted with the commercial unreliability of a three hour movie, the Bobs cut the screenplay into two halves, to become Back to the Future Part II and Part III as we know them today.

In some ways, Avengers: Endgame feels like a rebirth of that original Paradox script. Three hours long, it is a sprawling epic. Making the film three hours long was perhaps the biggest risk that the Russo Brothers took in the creation of this final chapter in the Infinity Saga. Three hour movies are no more commercially viable than they were in the Eighties, especially for PG-13 blockbusters with a lot of families making up the audience. Even removing the commercial factor, Marvel Cinematic Universe movies are often paced at breakneck speeds, which might have been a bit exhausting over three hours. But you couldn't slow it down too much, or you'll risk alienating your casual audiences. Like Thanos, the screenplay had to strike a balance for it to be even close to good.

Something I really appreciated with this film was the first act. Marvel movies never slow down, but this one took its time at the start, dealing with the fallout of the ending of last year's Infinity War, packing in a lot of character stuff, rather than frontloading the film with action as most Marvel scripts would. There are only a couple of action scenes in the first hour or so, and they're all brief and brutal, packing much more of a punch than your usual bloated, CG-heavy action sequence. A chilling opening scene gives the film momentum, as does the character's desperation to reverse the ending of the previous film despite the odds being monumentally stacked against them. Rather than stopping and starting like a lot of the other movies in this series, Endgame chooses one slow (but escalating) pace for its first act, and it works really well.

The second act is where most of the plot happens, but it is also home to fan service. Lots of it. This bit is about 70% fan service. Nine films out of ten, that'd bother me. It certainly bothered me in movies like Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. But it doesn't here, because a) the plot takes turns that allow this sort of thing, and b) after eleven years and over twenty films, they've earned some self-indulgence. There were a couple of bits that felt a bit much, but overall it didn't distract from my viewing experience, though I imagine it would be confusing for someone who hasn't seen all the movies. I've seen all of them, most more than once, and have written thousands of words about the series for this blog, and I was struggling to keep up at times.

The third act is home to what is probably the most epic battle put to the silver screen in about fifteen years. The visual effects are pretty amazing and it's much easier to follow than the poorly edited, chaotic Battle of Wakanda from Infinity War. This final setpiece is undoubtedly the highlight of the film, and is a worthy marking for the end of this Saga. I wrote at length recently about how the best thing these movies ever did was replacing the realistic melee of the first few films with the over-the-top, comic book battles of Thor: Ragnarok, and the fruits of that transition are never more on show than here. I can't stress this enough: see this film on the biggest screen possible, just for this battle.

Thanks to having less characters to juggle, Endgame performs the balancing act much better than Infinity War, giving each one something to do. Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye) probably gets the best deal as he gets to portray a much rawer, darker Hawkeye. His motivations are sound and the reinvention of his character makes him much more interesting than the Clint Barton of the previous films. Robert Downey Jr. is also a highlight, and Iron Man is very much the emotional crux of the movie. Captain America fans will not leave the cinema disappointed, as Chris Evans gets some of the most emotionally resonant scenes in the film.

If there's one character that does get the short end of the stick in this equation, its Chris Hemsworth's Thor. Without spoiling anything, his character has taken a dramatic turn off-screen. In theory, this is a great, realistic idea, but the film plays it as a comedic element, ruining a character that definitely should have been taken seriously in this film.

The other major problem with the film is that tonally it's a bit all over the place. The first act is very sombre, but the film suddenly takes a comedic turn that feels very jarring. It helps that, unlike Shazam!, the bits that are meant to be funny actually are, but the tonal whiplash still hampers the film, and it's an irritating imperfection in an otherwise fairly consistent film.

There's a lot of things that could be nitpicked with this movie, all of which are spoiler-heavy. Many scenes kick holes in the side of the plot, and a major worldbuilding element is explained in an overly convoluted way that honestly defies logic. I don't really like to nitpick comic book movies, because at their core, most of them don't make as much sense as you might remember, but there were a couple of things that felt like they were done without thinking. I could excuse some of this sort of stuff in Infinity War, because the two movies were shot back-to-back and they had less time to spend on the post-production of that film, but Endgame has been wrapped for about two years. Come on, Russos, you can do better than that. Also, the actors still can't decide on how to pronounce Thanos's name.

This was a hard spoiler-free review to write, because most of the stuff I liked are spoilers. I'm about to reveal my rating for the film, and you might think that it seems high compared to the review you just read, but that's because a lot of the stuff I legitimately loved about this movie I can't talk about here. All I can say is that Avengers: Endgame is a well-made and structured victory lap for Marvel Studios, with thrilling action setpieces and good character work. The movie falls down a bit in tone and the treatment of a major character, and you could nitpick the hell out of it's plot, but at the end of the day, from the final battle to the ending to the credits, this is the perfect note to end on the MCU as we know it.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Road to Endgame: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Avengers: Infinity War could have easily flown off a cliff. It has to balance what seems like dozens of characters, many with their own plotlines and arcs, and establish a villain from scratch, who they've teased and built anticipation for for over half a decade. Like Captain America: Civil War, it's surprising that the film not only just works, it works pretty well. This is my third time watching Infinity War, and I feel pretty much the same about it as I did on my last watch, the first time that that's happened in this watchthrough.

Where do I even begin? The prime reason that this doesn't crumble under its own weight is because the screenwriters are smart enough to know that, for a movie with so many characters, the only way to make it work is make it unbalanced. Whereas Age of Ultron tried to give each of its characters an arc, Infinity War prioritises characters effectively. Obviously, as a 'stone-keeper', Doctor Strange is more important than, say, Black Panther to the narrative, and the screenplay embraces this hierarchy. It doesn't try to hand out equal screentime to each character, and that's why it works. By focusing on a select few (Iron Man, Thor, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Strange, Gamora and, of course, Thanos), the film inherits a structure and a pacing that drives it throughout. This is a movie with a lot of exposition, brave since that is historically not Marvel's strongest suit. While some of it definitely feels heavy-handed, it doesn't slow down the narrative too much.

Infinity War's standout moment.

It's hard to tell which character to start with, but I definitely noticed a common thread on this viewing. Throughout the film, characters act on impulsive emotion rather than logic. Spider-Man (thanks to the solo film in the interim, Tom Holland feels much more at home here than he did in Civil War) tags along into space, Drax gives up the element of surprise on Knowhere, we learn that Loki stole the Tesseract and Nebula tried to kill Thanos, Thor goes for the chest to hurt rather than kill, and, most infamously, Star-Lord gives up their advantage on Titan. There are only two notable times where a character ignores their emotion to fulfil a goal. First, when Thanos kills Gamora on Vormir (in a beautifully scored, emotional scene, albeit one with some very poor dialogue), and then when Wanda kills Vision (the most emotionally impactful scene of the movie for me, and probably my favourite overall). I don't know if this thread was intentional, but it certainly recurs enough times for it to be.

Thanos: a mixed bag, but definitely
the film's strongest character.

The strongest character in the film is probably Josh Brolin's Thanos. He was the only character the film needed to establish from scratch and he works surprisingly well. I do think his motivations are pretty much ignored. I understand how he wants to wipe out half of the universe, and I understand how he justifies it, but I don't understand why. It's never explained why he himself is willing to sacrifice so much for this goal. However, I think everything we do see on screen from him is great, from his introduction as a towering silhouette on the Asgardian ship to the half-smile at the end as he 'watches the sun rise on a grateful universe'. The scene on Vormir, on Gamora's home planet and on his ship really help to flesh out his character. It's a shame that the film never really explains why he zeroed in on this small girl in the midst of all the chaos, but it's one of the film's strongest relationships. Thanos is really well-acted by Brolin and it's amazing how you feel sorry for him after he kills Gamora, and how much raw emotion can be shown on a purple CGI face. His actions in this film do open up a myriad of plot holes from previous films, though. Why did Thanos wait so long to start collecting the Stones? Why did he entrust one of them to Loki? If the Infinity Gauntlet was created specifically for him, and is more-or-less one-of-a-kind, why does Asgard has a replica on display, with all the Stones present, even though that hadn't been achieved yet? I could go on.

You'd think a servant of
Thanos would be able to
pronounce his name
correctly.

While we're on the subject of the Mad Titan, allow me to indulge in a nitpick. Does it bother anyone else that 'Thanos' is pronounced in several different ways throughout the film? Zoe Saldana, Mark Ruffalo, Bradley Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch and more all pronounce it in what I think is the correct way: 'Than - ose'. Meanwhile, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Vaughn-Lawlor and others pronounce it 'Than - oss'. In perhaps the weirdest one, the guy Marvel got in to replace Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull pronounces it 'Thay - noss'. If this shows anything, I think it's probably an indication of a lot of the creative team being present in the later stages of production to lock stupid stuff like this down. Infinity War and Endgame were shot back-to-back and I can imagine that the Russo Brothers and others probably weren't around in the post-production process.

Meanwhile, the relationship between Wanda and Vision, though it kind of comes out of nowhere and is established hamfistedly, feels very genuine and the moral dilemma on Wanda's part forms half of the emotional crux of the film, the other half being Gamora, in what is probably Saldana's best performance as the character. She's given some bad dialogue but she definitely elevates the material, particularly when matched with the sad Thanos. I really liked the scene on Knowhere, where Gamora, having seemingly killed her adoptive father, breaks down in tears, only for it to turn out to be just a cruel trick.

Thor has lost everything.

Another strong performance is Hemsworth as Thor. With the murders of Loki and Idris Elba's (who was always wasted in these movies) Heimdall, the escape of Hulk and Valkyrie and Korg being nowhere to be seen, he has lost all of his allies and is, for the first time in the series, truly alone. The screenplay acknowledges how much the MCU has put the character through the wringer, and finally allows him a moment to dwell on his losses, on Rocket's ship. In a manner true to the character, he feigns aloofness, but his sadness is palpable. I enjoyed seeing him find a new family in the form of Rocket and Groot, and the three have great chemistry with each other. Maybe Thor should join the team in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, perhaps in Gamora's place. His ultimate failure to kill Thanos will certainly shape his journey in Endgame.

Tony Stark's development is complete.

Tony's journey is continued from the previous films. Over the course of the MCU, Iron Man is perhaps the only character to have a consistent character arc that runs from his first appearance to his latest, other than Captain America. The two lines from The Avengers, when, first, Captain America asks Tony whether he'd lay down his life, and then, when he asks him if he's ever lost a soldier before, both come back here. In his one-on-one battle with Thanos, Tony demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice himself that the Iron Man of the start of the MCU didn't have. While he knew there was probably a way out of the wormhole in The Avengers, the fight against Thanos was almost certainly a suicide mission. To add to this, he finally loses a soldier when Spider-Man, his protege,  is killed.

Welcome to the new age of
Steve Rogers.

Meanwhile, Steve completes his arc when he becomes Nomad, symbolically stripping his uniform of the stars and stripes, and the red, white and blue. He also grows his hair longer and darker, removing any last impression of the blonde, idealistic perfect American of The First Avenger. This is a man who has completely lost faith in government and authority. Even his iconic shield his replaced with wide, sharp forearm shields that also double as blades; practical rather than stylish.

Like all of the films I've watched for this series of posts, apart from Thor: Ragnarok, this film has some serious first act issues. Like the others, it makes building momentum feel like an uphill battle. It is easier to attribute the cause of this one; the volumes of characters can't all show up in one scene, so they have to be integrated into the narrative in small groups. This results in the film's narrative stopping and starting as new characters are established, interrupting the film's pacing. Just like Civil War, I don't think the movie really picks up until Spidey comes in.

I don't have much negative to say about this, honestly. While it's not as remarkable as some of the other films I've reviewed over the past few days, it's certainly entertaining, the character interactions are satisfying, and a few of the protagonists are fleshed out in such a detailed way that could only be done over twenty films. Pretty good.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Road to Endgame: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

I don't know about you, but when Thor: Ragnarok was announced way back when, I was far from hyped. The first two Thor movies were bland, small-scale fantasy movies and the titular character was absolutely nobody's favourite Avenger.

The man, the myth, the legend.

Of course, Ragnarok had one man that none of the other MCU films had: Taika Waititi (right). Director of quirky, independent New Zealand comedies such as Boy, Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Eagle vs Shark, it was probably his 2014 vampire mockumentary (and his best film, in my opinion) What We Do in the Shadows, which he co-directed and starred in with Jemaine Clement, which caught Marvel Studios' eye and showed he had an aptitude for fantasy material. It even contained a joke based around a Marvel character, Blade, as did Boy, wherein a character likens himself to the Hulk. Marvel had so much trust in him, in fact, that they allowed him to have a large amount of creative involvement, resulting in Ragnarok feeling more like a Waititi film than any other Marvel movie.

It's no surprise, in hindsight, that this film is great. See, this is what happens when you a) hire an accomplished writer/director, and b) just let him do his/her thing. Nothing is accomplished by helicopter parenting these movies.

The best stylistic choice in Ragnarok was leaving the semi-realism of Earth-based MCU behind, along with the Lord of the Rings-esque fantasy of the first two Thors, and embracing the weird and wonderful nature of comic book science fiction, with a bit of Star Wars and Flash Gordon thrown in for good nature. I, for one, miss the days when sci-fi was about adventure and fun. The greatest sci-fi film of recent years is, arguably, Blade Runner 2049 (released in the same year as Ragnarok), and while that film is an absolute masterpiece, it'd be nice to have more movies in the vein of the original Star Wars and the things that inspired it.

The Grandmaster: one of
the many roles Jeff Goldblum
was born to play.

Ragnarok definitely scratches this itch. The worldbuilding is fantastic and the action set-pieces are effortlessly creative. The scenes on the gladiator planet Sakaar are where this movie really shines. Here we are introduced to a plethora of distinctive, hilarious supporting characters, including the Grandmaster, played with understated egoism by Jeff Goldblum (who hasn't had a role as perfect for him in years), my personal favourite Korg, a humanoid pile of blue rocks voiced by Waititi himself, and Valkyrie, a former Asgardian warrior played by Tessa Thompson.Valkyrie in particular is a nice change of pace from the uber-perfect female MCU characters as a depressed, hard-drinking ex-defender of Asgard. I had a memory of Ragnarok being the movie that ruined Mark Ruffalo's Hulk, but no, his character arc in here feels like a natural progression from Age of Ultron (it used to bother me that one of SHIELD's quinjets was able to fly from Earth to Sakaar, but in Captain Marvel earlier this year, we saw that a Skrull modified one of them to fly into space, so it's not too much of a stretch to say that the organisation later standardised that technology). Banner still hates the idea of turning into Hulk and losing control, and this prospect is made even scarier by the fact that he might not be able to regain control if it happens again. That's why him jumping out of the Commodore on Asgard at the end is such a sacrifice. Yes, it's played for laughs, but Banner could be killing the human side of himself to save the Asgardians. It's a shame that none of the other characters acknowledge this.

Thor 2.0

Ragnarok is perhaps most notable for its revamps of already established MCU characters. It takes Loki and turns him from uninteresting antagonist to kind of a buddy cop for Thor. Tom Hiddleston plays brilliantly off Chris Hemsworth here. The most famous revamp is obviously Thor himself, whose dusty faux-Shakespearean personality is scrapped off-screen for a more jokey, somewhat clueless yet amiable persona. I would like to say that this is a very lazy way to do character development, to completely change a person's personality between movies, but it's hard to complain about because Thor 2.0 is so much better than Thor 1.0. He's immensely likeable and is a much more compelling protagonist. He's also a much better character, as the 'perfect man' of the original Thor (who was basically the most powerful Avenger) is taken down a few notches. He's much more believable and interesting without his overpowered, magical hammer Mjolnir (took me ages to learn how to spell and pronounce that). The changes to his character are also visualised with the cutting of his long hair and, in the finale, the loss of his eye. Thor is finally a character that we can look forward to seeing in the MCU.

That's without mentioning the screenplay. Swapping out screenwriters with venerable comic book writers (who have a better handle on the material), the script is fast-paced, funny and at times touching. The first-act problems that have plagued the other three films I've rewatched for this series are nowhere to be found here; Thor: Ragnarok hits the ground running and barely ever lets up. The visual effects are on top form. This is probably the MCU movie with the best CGI, and as a result, each frame is brimming with colour and unrestricted creativity. There are also a couple of standout VFX sequences, such as the silhouetted scene where the dragon chases Thor, and the flashback battle between Hela and the Valkyries. These moments look more like epic storybook pages or concept art than something out of a film. They blew my mind.

I can't even quantify how great this movie looks from a VFX standpoint.

If the movie has a weak link, it's Asgard. Though the final battle is a lot of fun, whenever the film cuts from Sakaar to Asgard there is a big loss in energy and momentum, because compared to the hyper science fiction of the former scenes, Asgard seems boring by comparison. Hela is also not a very good villain at all. I appreciate that there were motivations established for her character, but she gets all the worst lines, so much so that she feels out of a different movie. Her horns, though they make for a distinctive silhouette and shadow, are very distracting in dialogue scenes, and, in a movie with great special effects, the CGI model for her in fight scenes is painfully obvious. It's also far from Cate Blanchett's best performance (I should know, I come from the same country as her). Karl Urban's Skurge, despite a very funny first scene, also has little more to do than stand there and gape at whatever Hela's up to.

Still, Thor: Ragnarok was a very welcome change of pace from the other three movies that I've watched, which didn't have much style to them. It has a swagger about it, and a sense of humour that no other MCU film could hope to match. Paired with stunning visuals and an engaging story, this is by far the best movie I've watched in this sort-of marathon thus far.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

The Road to Endgame: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

This post will be shorter than the other 'Road to Endgame' ones because it's Good Friday and I want to squeeze in my rewatch for Thor: Ragnarok before the lunch that I have for it. The posts should be back to normal size by the next one.

Captain America: Civil War was saddled (unfairly, I think) with a lot of stuff to do. As well as continue the Captain America trilogy in a satisfying way, it also had to juggle a subplot for Iron Man, introduce Black Panther and Spider-Man, and have Ant-Man meet the rest of the Avengers. It was the same obstacle facing Age of Ultron, and you could be forgiven for thinking Civil War would also crumble under its own weight. The fact that this movie was able to kind of pull it off astounds me.

The airport battle: unnecessary.

Don't get me wrong, this film is very excessive. There's no real need for Tom Holland's Spidey or Paul Rudd's Ant-Man in this narrative, and I think the film would have been better off without them. This would give the film a much more focused narrative. I also think you could probably take out the airport fight (where a lot of the excess plotlines converge) and make the movie better overall. That fight feels more like more of a diversion than actually in service of plot or character. It's too long and I also think it takes away from some of the impact of Tony and Steve's climactic battle when we've just watched them punching each other for half an hour. But I have a hard time complaining about any of this excess, and the reason is that I really, really like all of this stuff. I still reserve my complaints about the airport scene, but I think it definitely gives the movie a bit of a jump-start in the energy department. Like both of the movies I've watched before this, I think it struggles to build up momentum in the first act. Tom Holland is perhaps the best Spider-Man we've had on-screen, and Rudd has some pretty good chemistry with the rest of the Avengers.

I think this film was the first MCU film to really learn and evolve from its mistakes. Unlike the one-dimensional Loki or the decidedly  non-intimidating Ultron, Zemo (Daniel Bruhl) is a pretty great villain, in my opinion, and I think it's a shame that he doesn't get talked about much these days. He is sympathetic and the fact that he wins via his mind rather than his fists makes him a welcome departure from most Marvel villains. Civil War also dodges the classic Marvel problem of a boring, CGI heavy third act, because in this movie the third act battle is between Tony and Steve, and it has real emotional weight. The film also improves on the MCU's hand-to-hand fighting scenes. They're still poorly edited, but they're framed so that you are actually able to see what's going on.

Tony Stark: much more vulnerable.

Speaking of Tony, this is probably Robert Downey Jr.'s best performance so far. Whether it's a comedic one or an emotional one, he shines in every scene he's in. He plays the character as much more vulnerable than we've previously seen, to great effect.  Chadwick Boseman also makes a strong first impression as the Black Panther, and Elizabeth Olsen is much better as Scarlet Witch than she was in Age of Ultron, and her character is much better written overall. Anthony Mackie's Falcon and Don Cheadle's War Machine are a little irritating at points but I think Mackie plays off Sebastian Stan's Bucky really well (which makes me more hopeful for the upcoming TV series that will pair them together) and I really like the place they took War Machine in kind of paralysing him, which serves to a) give the movie higher stakes, and b) humanises him beyond just being Tony's sidekick. Stan is really good as he gets to play a Bucky sort-of halfway between the coldness of the Winter Soldier and the warmth of The First Avenger's Bucky. Oddly, for a Cap film, it doesn't feel like Chris Evans doesn't have that much to do in this film. He kind of gets lost in the mix, but he remains the emotional crux of the film.

I think the first act pacing problems mostly stem from the screenwriters misjudging which scene to put as their opening scene. I like the 1991 scene and how it comes back later, but it doesn't give the film much energy going in. If the film had started with the Lagos fight, I think it would have been easier to build up momentum. The 1991 scene is reiterated when Steve and Falcon are interrogating Bucky, anyway. The score is a little hit-or-miss but I like the use of traditional African music for Black Panther and I really like the music over the final fight, which increases its impact.

I don't think Civil War is the best written or the best paced or even the funniest movie of the three I've rewatched so far for this blog, but it's definitely the one with the most heart. The third act has more impact on a viewer that's been with the movies for a while than any other Marvel movie could hope to have. It's a toss-up between this and the first Avengers, but this might be the best film in this watchthrough so far.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

The Road to Endgame: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Avengers: Age of Ultron is by far the biggest and most varied mixed bag in the MCU. This is the result of a lot of studio interference, so much so that Joss Whedon vowed never to work with Marvel Studios again, and hasn't even directed a movie since, unless you count that time when he finished off Justice League for Zack Snyder.

This film is definitely a flashpoint for the MCU, both on-screen and off. Revisiting these first two movies has really made me appreciate the simplicity of Phases One and Two, back when there were only six main characters to follow. It allowed much deeper understanding of each and, to this day, the original six still feel like the most fully formed and fleshed-out characters in the MCU, in my opinion. This film marks the transition from the original six to a whole horde of new characters, as it introduces Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Quicksilver, and sets the stage for characters like Black Panther.

Off-screen, it also marked a dramatic change in how Marvel treats their directors. Following the very public fallout with Whedon and the firing of Edgar Wright from Ant-Man, Marvel began allowing directors more creative freedom on certain movies. It remains very interfering on its bigger movies, but has allowed directors like Taika Waititi and Ryan Coogler to basically do whatever they want on Thor: Ragnarok and Black Panther, respectively.
For better or for worse, Age of Ultron changed the MCU. But is it any good?

The romance between Hulk and Black
Widow: probably the best thing about
this movie.

So I guess he isn't the worst
Avenger after all.

Yes and no. Starting with positives, Mark Ruffalo and Joss Whedon continue their great characterisation of the Hulk, Whedon proving once again that he understands the character better than any other Marvel writer. In this instalment, he embarks on a very genuine relationship with Natasha Romanoff, who is another one of the best things about this film. In the first Avengers (plus Iron Man 2 and The Winter Soldier), she's kind of a nothing character, your stereotypical female super-spy that you've seen a million times in James Bond movies. In this film, Whedon really fleshes her out into a believable and much more genuine character. Another Avenger who finally gets his time to shine is Jeremy Renner's Clint Barton, who gets a subplot that significantly deepens his character and makes him a lot more likeable than the bland character from the first film. He's given a family and therefore people to interact with who aren't gods or monsters. This humanises him, and I like how the film addresses the fact that he is basically the least powerful Avenger. I also think that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are good characters, in theory.

But for all the strong character work on display, the film falls flat on a number of other qualities. Where do I even start?

Joss Whedon has a tendency to overload his screenplays with quips and jokes. For an example of a Whedon-scripted film that definitely could have done without this annoyance, see 1997's Alien: Resurrection. However, in the first Avengers, Whedon was able to suppress this urge, letting the story shape the tone and dialogue, to great effect. He appears to have lost that self-control here. If you were to summarise the story on paper, it would be obvious that this film is much darker than its predecessor. However, when you actually watch it, it seems lighter than the first film because every second line is a punchline. It constantly ruins the tone and tension, and many of them are hit-or-miss, though there are a couple of hilarious lines ('But Jane's better.'). It pretty much never lets up.

Ultron: Wasted potential.

A major casualty of this is James Spader's Ultron, who could have easily been one of the most menacing characters in the MCU, a far cry from the somewhat non-formidable Loki of the first film. He certainly has a great design and is one of the most believable CGI characters the MCU has to offer. However, he spends most of the movie joking around and making one-liners. These severely undermine the intimidation of his character and, most damningly, just make him annoying. I should want to kill the antagonist because he poses a threat to the heroes, not because I just can't stand him. Genuinely cool and scary moments, like when he removes Klaue's (Andy Serkis) arm with one hand, are quickly ruined by him coming up with a quip. I know Ultron is meant to have a lot of Tony Stark's personality and that's why he's so talkative, but this villain is not intimidating at all. It's also pushing the limits of believably that this lead Ultron robot  would pose any significant threat to heavy-hitters like Thor or the Hulk.

If I'm going to touch on a nitpick before I get to my next major criticism: Age of Ultron? Really? This movie takes place over a week, at the most. Plus, I've read the comic book miniseries of the same name and it has literally nothing to do with the plot of this film, other than the titular character.

The Maximoff twins: to say their arc is
confusing is putting it lightly.

The movie also tries to cram way too much in; comparing this film's sprawling, unfocused narrative to the sharp, lean plot of the first is the reason why I miss the simplicity of the MCU's earlier films. In the first film, the script chooses to give character arcs to only a few of the protagonists (Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk), because trying to do the same for all six would have seriously been a detriment the film's pacing (and that movie's pacing wasn't fantastic to begin with). This film tries to give a character arc to each of its characters, and there are more this time. Some of them work, as I've already said, but the rest are mostly bad. Thor had most of his subplot cut out of the final cut, so if he did have any sort of character growth, it can't be seen here. Tony and Steve's subplot basically only exists to serve Captain America: Civil War, and feels unnecessary because that film retreads most of this ground, anyway. The Maximoff twins' growth is confusing at best, as they go from wanting to kill Tony to fighting alongside him in the space of a couple of minutes. Plus, I don't think either of their performances were very good. The whole conflict leading to Vision's 'birth' is basically pointless and adds nothing to the movie, other than some semi-interesting moral dispute.

A lot of these character moments are set up in a series of hit-or-miss dream sequences caused by Scarlet Witch. Romanoff's scene is a welcome addition of backstory for her character, and Thor's at least serves some clumsy purpose, but the rest tell us nothing that we don't already know and are (intentionally) edited in a very hard-to-follow way.

Moving away from character stuff, the movie is stylistically a lot less interesting than its predecessor. Remember when I was talking about all the interesting shots and camera movements I found in The Avengers on rewatch? Yeah, none of those are here, and we're left with a movie that does not take any risks with its shot types, though it is better lit than the first, and the colour grading is an improvement. The only visual part of this film that I thought was interesting was when the Hulk goes on his rampage through Africa and we see some of the carnage through the POV of a soldier inside a car. I couldn't find a good quality image of this but you know what I'm talking about.

Ultimately, the movie's still fun and engaging and there are several fun action scenes, including the Hulkbuster and truck chase sequences, but it falls flat on many levels of pacing, character arcs and plot. It is a breezy 140 minutes, though.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐

The Road to Endgame: The Avengers (2012)

Are you busy? Pushed for time? Did you promise yourself that you would marathon the twenty-one MCU movies before next week's Avengers: Endgame but put it off for too long?

Kevin Feige: likes the word
'Saga'.

Well, I did. I was originally going to do the full marathon, but time got ahead of me. Plus, not all of the movies are readily available to me. Stan Australia has a lot but not all of them, and the ones that aren't on there are fairly expensive on Blu-Ray. So I kept putting it off, only to come to this week and realise that the sort-of climactic twenty-second chapter in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the last in the so-called Infinity Saga, named by Kevin Feige, despite the fact that many of the films within this 'Saga' don't have anything to do with the Infinity Stones, or they do but in a very minor or retrospective way.

So I asked the question: what's the quickest way to recap on the MCU and still get all the major story beats that directly lead into Endgame? I came up with a short watchthrough of five films, in this order:

1. The Avengers (2012)
2. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
3. Captain America: Civil War (2016)
4. Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
5. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

You could argue for Captain America: The Winter Soldier's inclusion but I doubt its events will directly impact Endgame. It does push forward Steve's character development but you get the CliffsNotes version of that in the first three movies on this list. I wouldn't have included Ragnarok a few weeks ago but now that it is confirmed that Valkyrie will be making an appearance in Endgame, it seems more essential. Plus, it also gives a lot more context for Infinity War. 

In this 'Road to Endgame' series of blog posts, I'll be reviewing each film on this list, talking about how they further the MCU, tie into Endgame and their merits as standalone features. Full spoilers ahead, and for every one of these posts.

Okay, I really liked The Avengers when I rewatched it today. I've often dismissed it in the past (in my last ranking of the Universe it ranked at just #10, where many people would put it a lot higher). Compared to the cosmic adventures and thrilling character conflict that followed, it also seemed kind of small-scale and I've never really felt the need to rewatch it since I last watched it in 2015. Plus, I had this memory of it being shot and lit like a TV show (with Whedon's past in television and the aspect ratio contributing to this). 

No longer mint condition. Too soon?

But no, I was completely wrong. There are so many great things about this movie. For one, it doesn't look like a TV show. The opening scene is definitely lit somewhat poorly (along with some other bits, the fight in the woods comes to mind), but Whedon employs different and interesting shot types that help to make the film much more visually stimulating than your usual MCU joint. One of my favourite shots was definitely this shot (see left), with the trading cards on the glass table framed from below with Steve in the background. Another standout was in the scene when the Avengers are arguing and the camera pans, coming to rest on an upside-down shot of Loki's sceptre, emphasising the god's influence and also adds to the general feeling of unease in the scene. 

Speaking of the Avengers, I think their characters are very well defined and play off each other satisfyingly, and many of them have distinct character arcs. It's passed off as a joke, but Tony's recital of his SHIELD personality profile ('doesn't work well with others') perfectly sets up his arc. In the first two Iron Man films, with the exception being the end of 2, Tony is a lone wolf. He takes on the terrorists by himself, he takes on Obadiah Stane by himself, and he attempts to take on Whiplash and Sam Rockwell (I can't remember the character's name) by himself. No, he doesn't work well with others, and we see this in the argument on the helicarrier. He's very quick to argue and lash out at his teammates. 

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of video essayists on YouTube crop up with videos on Steve Rogers character arc across the MCU, which is his disenchantment with the U.S. government and America as a whole. It begins with him being a firm patriot in The First Avenger and ends with him leaving the stars-and-stripes behind at the end of Civil War. You can see the beginning of this arc here, when he realises that SHIELD, a government institution, is secretly harbouring weapons of mass destruction. I think Cap is overall very well-characterised in this film. For one thing, he has the speech pattern of a 1940s soldier. Not as a joke, like with Thor's faux-Shakespearean speech, but to emphasise his anachronistic persona. 

The best Hulk ever.

As for other Avengers written well, the big standout is Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. The only actor playing an Avenger to not have previously starred in an MCU film (though Hawkeye only had about thirty seconds of screentime in Thor), he had to establish his own take on the character from scratch. The Hulk in this movie is the best ever seen on film. And I mean this movie specifically. I'm not the biggest fan of where Ruffalo's Hulk was taken after this film, but he's so good in this. As Banner, he feels extremely volatile and it's very tense to watch the other characters dance around him, especially when Tony's being an irresponsible dickhead. When he does finally Hulk out (kudos for building up to it), the treatment of the monster as almost a horror movie villain rather than a hero is very effective. I think the finale kind of squanders this, though, when the Hulk suddenly becomes friendly and agreeable.

I think the movie has some pacing issues. The first act definitely drags it's feet a little as it has to establish five separate characters, and each of these scenes follows the same formula:

1. Avenger goes about their business.

2. SHIELD agent shows up.

3. Avenger refuses to go with them.

4. Avenger goes with them.

It's very repetitive. However, once Loki infiltrates an upper-class party (in a violent scene hilariously set to classical music, with Tom Hiddleston's casualness making it ten times better), the movie really takes off and its very exciting from then on.

The second act is the strongest and I enjoyed the back-and-forth between the characters. Loki is also the most intimidating here. 

When you realise that your main villain
is just an underling and really has no
relevance to the story or motivations
of his own.

Ah, yes, Loki. I don't think he's very strong here. Tom Hiddleston's performance makes him very watchable, but the establishment early on of him as just an underling to Thanos takes the action out of his hands in a way that makes him seem less intimidating as a villain in his own right. He also tends to be the butt of undermining jokes and never seems to really know what he's doing, except for in the helicarrier scenes. 

I'd remembered the Battle of New York as unnecessarily long, and while it is just several minutes of rubbery CGI,  it's still a very exciting and entertaining sequence. Even after all these years, it's still exhilarating to see all the heroes fight together at the end. It also gave us one of my favourite moments in the MCU, when Tony takes the nuclear warhead and flies into space. It's the perfect culmination of his character arc in the film and was the genesis for one of my favourite MCU films, Iron Man 3. 

As for the fight scenes that are not against CGI characters, they are crafted in the usual Marvel way, meaning they are mainly shot in close-ups and no shot lasts for longer than half a second. As in all movies when this technique is utilised, it looks like crap and you can't tell what's going on. I really don't understand why Marvel Studios does this. They have the money and the resources to create good CGI and provide good choreography, so why do they try to hide the fight scenes' flaws that could be non-existent?

The Avengers definitely surprised me. In fact, this is probably the most I've ever liked it. It had really good character development, was fairly exciting and was well-acted. A lot of the flaws I remembered were actually non-existent and it was overall a great time in my lounge-room.

 Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Good Will Hunting (1997) REVIEW (Filling the Blanks)

Welcome to Filling the Blanks, a new segment where I fill in huge gaps in my filmic knowledge. The criteria for a 'Filling the Blanks' film is that it has to be considered a classic or an outstanding example of cinema at its peak, or it has been significant in some way, either culturally or in pushing forward the art of filmmaking with unorthodox or revolutionary techniques. It should also be at least one year old. Without further ado...


BEFORE:


I honestly haven't had many run-ins with Good Will Hunting in my daily life. I know why it's called that; the main character is named Will Hunting. And I know that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck developed the script while Affleck was crashing on Damon's couch. I know that they won Best Original Screenplay and Robin Williams won Best Supporting Actor. I know the whole story about their clashes with Harvey Weinstein and all that. But as far as the actual film goes, not so much.

AFTER:

Good Will Hunting could have easily come off as cheesy. It has very warm colour-grading, all of the characters have well-defined arcs and it hinges on learning important life lessons. I think what saves it from that is the edge that Affleck and Damon gave their screenplay. Though Williams' Sean is often poetic, he is also to-the-point and sometimes volatile. This gives the film a bit more realism and I think elevates it.

My main thought coming out of this was, 'why the hell didn't Damon and Affleck write together again?' Not only do they only have a few more writing credits between them, they never worked together in that aspect again, despite the fact that Hunting's screenplay is pretty great and easily deserving of the Best Original Screenplay Oscar. It's actually astonishing how good it is for a debut. It's almost the star of the show, with its naturalistic dialogue and stichomythia. It explores big ideas without feeling pretentious and it's surprisingly funny at points.

But that honour goes to Williams. His performance is not only the best of his that I've seen, it's one of the best I've ever seen, full stop. He channels his strength, how expressive his face is, to communicate a wide range of complex emotions. He's very wistful and poetic, and easily my favourite scene was his love monologue:


His character is one of the most well-rounded in the film, second only to the titular character

Damon is also surprisingly really good. I thought he'd seem a lot weaker next to Williams but he more than holds his own. I also enjoyed Affleck's performance, as well as Stellan Skarsgard's. His character is perhaps a window into the two screenwriters' own frustrations at Weinstein constantly delaying work on the film.

I have some nitpicks, but they're so minor that they don't feel worth mentioning. If there was one major problem that I had with it, some of the editing felt a bit off. The editor was definitely going for something stylistically, I'm just not sure what it is. I don't really strike this against the film because if I was to read up on it a little more I'd probably be okay with it. Just take this criticism as a kind of 'watch this space.'

Overall, this was a masterfully written and acted film and will definitely become one of my favourites.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

The Highwaymen (2019) REVIEW

John Lee Hancock did not, on the surface, seem a great pick to direct The Highwaymen. Of his previous three films, two were cheerful, unsubtle biopics (The Blind Side, Saving Mr. Banks). 2016's The Founder did have a bit of an edge, but it shot itself in the foot with its passive approach to the flaws of its protagonist. The Highwaymen, however, needed a subtler approach to its themes and a willingness to take a side on the subject matter. I began to doubt his ability to pull this mature film off even more with Netflix's bare minimum marketing and the less than ecstatic reviews circulating.

Imagine my surprise, then, when The Highwaymen turned out to be a very high quality piece of film. The best film of Hancock's I've seen, it follows the true story of two grizzled former Texas rangers (Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson) as they hunt down Bonnie and Clyde.

The most common criticism of the film that I've seen is that it's boring. I didn't find that. While I'll admit it's a little long, I found the story and characters engaging the whole way through and it was helped along by some very nice cinematography and use of colour.

Of our two leading men, I think Costner gave the stronger performance, which is good seeing as he's the leading man. Harrelson's character is written as more humorous and, while not every one-liner is well-delivered, he is a much better fit for that character than for Costner's, and vice versa. Kathy Bates (a Hancock veteran) also co-stars as the governor, in a role that's written a little too hammily but she manages to pull off.

The film never shows the faces of Bonnie and Clyde, preferring to keep them either obscured, out-of-focus, or hidden in quick cuts. Hancock would not shut up about this in interviews so I thought it was going to come off as gimmick-y and pretentious but it's actually really effective. It builds a sense of mystery and sinister intent around the characters. I guess you could map Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway onto them if you want but these are new, more realistic versions of Bonnie and Clyde, the likes of which we've never seen on film before.

Most of the film is dialogue-driven but it does mount a couple of impressive action scenes, the best of which involves a blind car chase, where the fast cuts intentionally confuse you so that you are as disoriented as the characters. The violence is also tastefully done. It doesn't glamorise any killings, even those of no-name characters.

Like another 2019 Netflix film, Triple Frontier, its lead characters agonise over the morality of killing, even for a good cause. Costner's is determined, set on ending the violence anyway possible, while Harrelson's believes in a moral line that separates the two rangers from the two killers. Like in that film, the themes are somewhat unevenly touched upon, mainly because the film is also trying to balance a commentary on the popularity of Clyde and co. with the middle and lower classes at the time. Tonally, its attempts to mix in some humour also feel misplaced within the film.

The editing was very hit-or-miss. There were some good scenes, but overall it felt a little jumpy at times, if that makes sense.

Still, for me, at least, I think The Highwaymen will end up as one of the biggest positive surprises of the year.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Shazam! (2019) REVIEW

Although they're trying to push their DC brand into standalone, more experimental projects such as Joker, Warner Bros. is still trying to resurrect its DC Extended Universe and replicate some of Marvel Studios' success. This has resulted in every single film post-Batman v Superman being a 'course correction' of some sort, with very few actually being successful.  Shazam! is the latest product of this seemingly fruitless quest, and it doesn't seem to be the magic word.

If there's one thing that consistently successful about Shazam!, it's the element of discovery in relation to the titular character's powers. In particular, a second-act montage set to Queen's 'Don't Stop Me Now' is, for me at least, the highlight of the film. It's fun to see a superhero on the big screen that takes joy in realising his potential, rather than seeing it as a curse or a burden.

The heart of the film is undoubtedly Jack Dylan Grazer's Freddy, Billy Batson's disabled foster brother. For the most part, he's the best written, most developed character in the film, and he keeps the movie's themes chugging along. Unfortunately, the third act chooses to do away with his character's potential.

The biggest problem with this film is it's woefully uneven tone. A serious, overlong prologue leads into a fun scene which leads back into a serious scene. There's no real tonal connective tissue between the two sides of the film and it throws you between the different sides of the tonal spectrum with no care for the audience's whiplash. It's inability to decide on a single tone means that its voice feels muddled and off. Its a movie with no real flavour because it's trying to be so many things at once.

The other major problem is that the story just isn't all that interesting. The first act takes way too long to get going. It feels like it takes thirty minutes to establish characters that a more experienced screenwriter could have established in thirty seconds.

The second act shows definite signs of improvement once Zachary Levi comes in. Unfortunately, Billy seems to have a remarkably different personality in his adult persona, leaving me a bit confused as to what his character traits actually are. Thankfully, Levi's bright performance and his chemistry with Grazer makes the film glide over what could've potentially been a very rough patch. However, the film seems to keep walking over the same ground in this part, mainly in relation to Batson's character flaws.

Something I've not yet touched on is Mark Strong's Dr. Sivana, the antagonist of the piece. The reason for this is that there isn't really that much to him. The screenplay tries to establish backstory and motivations for him but they come off as weak and overly simplistic. Even if they were believable they are simply too force-fed to us for the audience to actually care. I tend to like Strong in other things (notably Kingsman) but he's very bland here.

This all leads to a bloated, uninteresting third act. I appreciate that the film has the self-awareness to point out the fact that its climax has about the emotional weight of a kid smashing his action figures together. It also feels completely devoid of stakes and some of the CGI is... questionable. Plus, without spoiling anything, they brought in an element from the Shazam! comic books that just does not translate to film.

It's also a shame that, for a movie that boasts some impressive lead teen performances, it's a shame that the other annoying child actors don't hold up their end. They're not in it all that much but it definitely bothered me.

Several of the jokes were funny at first but went on too long, or, worse, weren't funny to start with. Some of the lines that the screenwriters saddle all the actors and actresses with are awful. This is probably what happens when you give a blockbuster to the guy who's most high-profile credit is Shrek Forever After. I found Shazam! fun rather than funny, and even that was very uneven.

I feel like this was meant to be released at Christmas 2018 and Aquaman was meant to be released now, but it was pushed back because it wasn't really finished. I'm glad they let it simmer a little bit, but the final product definitely needed a couple more months, and the screenplay a few more drafts.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐

Us (2019) REVIEW

Us is the second horror film from writer/director Jordan Peele, following his 2017 debut hit Get Out, which also used the genre to explore social issues in America in an entertaining way. Peele was originally a comedian, the second half of the duo Key & Peele. His background helps him to blend in comedy between scares in a way that horror films often fail to do (last year’s reboot of Halloween often destroyed its tension with misplaced jokes). This ability is even more on display in Us, and feels more natural than in Get Out. While the latter film took a scary satirical look at race in America, this one leaves it’s subtext more up to interpretation. It’s themes can be mapped onto issues such as Trump’s immigration policies and is worth reading into. That being said, exploring important issues doesn’t necessarily make a good movie, and Peele was under a lot of pressure to deliver another great experience as he did in 2017.

Fortunately, he definitely did. Us is every bit as well-acted and directed as Get Out. The cinematography is far beyond your average horror film and the sound design is fairly amazing. Readers who frequent horror movies will be used to the ‘gah!’ sound effect that usually accompanies sudden jumpscares in post-2000 films. Luckily, this is almost entirely absent, as Peele prefers to use the actual diegetic noise (the breaking of glass etc.) to make viewers jump.

While Get Out was definitely a strange film, Us shows that Peele is not willing to make a straightforward horror movie just yet. Us’ script is even more bizarre, unique and original. This is complemented by the original score, composed by Michael Abels, who also did Get Out, which is just as countercultural as the film. New, more sinister-sounding covers of existing songs are also put in to add to the tension. All of the performances are great, especially those actors and actresses who had to play two characters, with different voices and movements. Usually child/teen actors are horrible in movies but these ones were all pretty good (apart from two minor characters).

However, for all Us succeeds in those elements, it’s final few minutes let it down. Without spoiling anything, they involve a twist that is painfully obvious if you’re paying attention. I predicted it pretty much in the first scene and I don’t usually predict plot twists. That’s really my only major complaint. Some of the scenes went on a little too long or were a little too short, by they hardly detracted from my experience.

Us is tense, funny and thought-provoking, and I highly recommend it, even if horror is typically not your thing.

Score: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Trailer Round-Up #1 (March 2019)

Welcome to Trailer Round-Up, where I take you through all the latest film trailers (or at least, all the ones that interest me) released this month and review them in no particular order. Let's dive in!

Hellboy (2019) Trailer #2



I was in the minority in liking the first trailer for Neil Marshall's reboot of the Hellboy franchise, starring David Harbour (Stranger Things). I thought it had a fun tone complemented by a bit of ultraviolence. Many, however, criticised it for being 'too fun' (really?), and that is almost certainly where this trailer sprung from. It still has a few jokes but the humour is definitely toned down. It also cements the film's rating as MA for anyone who was unsure given the f-bombs and even more bloody violence. Yeah, I didn't like it. I hope the finished film is closer in tone to the first trailer in this, because taking away the humour just leaves you with a generic horror/fantasy movie. Additionally, David Harbour seems to be a bit of a problem. I know he can act, we all saw that on Stranger Things, but he seems kind of stiff here. I'd blame some of that on the writing (that last joke goes on for way too long), but still...

Midsommar Teaser Trailer



Midsommar is the second film from writer/director Ari Aster, who brought us Hereditary last year (which I still haven't seen). It's another horror movie, and this one's pretty notable for looking like it's going to be set in all daylight, as opposed to the shadows we're used to from the genre. This trailer's pretty great. It gives you just enough information to get excited, but tells you very little about the plot. I'm also intrigued by the fact that the bars on the top and bottom of the screen (in the widescreen aspect ratio) are white rather than black. It made the trailer look a bit like a Karsten Runquist video, but I'm interested to see if it's just a marketing thing or if it's actually going to be in the finished film. Although if the film is actually projected properly at the cinema than we won't see them anyway.

Brightburn Trailer #2



I wasn't exactly impressed by the first Brightburn trailer and I can say the same for the second. From the cinematography that seems copy-and-pasted from Zack Snyder's Man of Steel to the forced jumpscares, it just looks bad. It did give me a bit of unintentional comedy though, with this bit at 0:33 through to 0:43. Do kids really still stand in a circle and push the weird kid around? What's the coach doing in all this? 'He's a creep!'? It's hilarious.

Dark Phoenix Trailer #2



Yeah, this one wasn't great, either. The marketing team for this movie seems to be determined to spoil it, maybe because they were about to be laid off. Spoiling the death of Mystique seems strange, especially since it's not like that's the premise of the movie. Even apart from that, Magneto and Professor X seem to be doing the same storyline that they do in literally every X-Men film. That being said, James McAvoy seems to be doing great, as always. I wish he'd gotten an Oscar nomination (or even a win maybe?) for Split, and I hope he gets one for Glass. It'll never happen, but he's a great actor. What was I talking about again?

Toy Story 4 Trailer #1



Look, I know I'm not alone in wishing that Pixar would just go back to making original films rather than sequels. Sequels aren't inherently a bad thing, but if all you're going to do with a sequel is just rehash the same story, there's really no point. Toy Story 2 still holds the crown of being the best of Pixar's sequels. It's original, it explores new themes and introduces new characters, and it's just generally really good: everything a sequel should be. Toy Story 3 (in my unpopular opinion) squandered this progress. It's not a bad movie by any means, but it's literally the same story as 2. Observe:
1. The toys go to a new location.
2. They meet some new toys, one or more of which are disillusioned with their roles because they were abandoned by their child.
3. This is seen in a flashback.
4. One or more of our protagonists is tempted into the new toy's way of life and to leave Andy/Bonnie.
5. The leader of the new toys reveals a sinister side, meaning that the protagonists must escape them (perhaps in an action scene involving a conveyor belt).
6. They live happily ever after.
It's the same story. Now look at 4. It's the same story again! Every time they revisit these characters (for reasons apparent to them only, probably involving money), they just take the same script and swap the characters around. Woody was tempted to the 'dark side' in 2, and Buzz was in 3, so now it's Woody's turn again. What is this? Do people not notice this?
That being said I do like the visual humour in the thumbnail for this trailer. Notice how Forky (a spork), is looking confusedly between a fork and a spoon. I'm assuming this a gender identity joke and it's fairly funny once you notice it.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco Trailer #1



The Last Black Man in San Francisco was a Sundance 2019 film, and, if I'm not mistaken, one of A24's only (if not the only) acquisitions from that festival. The trailer looked pretty good. It didn't look groundbreaking but it could be pretty charming. The reviews out of Sundance were pretty good; I know because this trailer absolutely bashes you over the head with them. A24 is choosing to release this in the American summer, a tad strange given that it's too early to really be in the awards race (that being said, the past couple of years have given us Get Out and Black Panther, both February releases that went on to win Oscars in major categories). Plus, releasing it in the summer amidst heavy hitters like the three films I'm about to talk about seems counter-intuitive in terms of making money back on your investment. The film probably wasn't too expensive to make but they're setting it up to flop.

John Wick: Chapter Three - Parabellum Trailer #2



This was a good trailer. I've really liked the use of classical music in the trailers for Chapter Three. It helps set it apart from all the other action movies on the market. This looks like it'll be a good cap for a trilogy that's managed to remain fairly consistent in tone throughout. The fight scenes still look really well-choreographed and it looks well-shot, as with the other two films set in Wick's world.
Plus, Keanu Reeves.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Teaser Trailer




The latest film from Quentin Tarantino looks great. This was everything a teaser trailer should be; it's fast, has a good energy, maintains a tone, and, above all, tells you absolutely nothing. It looks like this'll be an homage to the city of Los Angeles and the good ol' days of Hollywood. DiCaprio looks great, Pitt looks great, Mike Moh's impression of Bruce Lee is spot-on (and his placement in the story is more accurate than you might think. Lee was indeed hanging around Hollywood at that point, doing the fight choreography for one Sharon Tate. When she was murdered, Roman Polanski actually suspected him.). The film just looks like a really fun ride.

Avengers: Endgame Trailer #2



The biggest trailer of this month is probably advertising the biggest film of 2019. This was a pretty good trailer, too. I'm glad to see the Russo Brothers utilising colour a bit more this time. Their previous efforts for Marvel Studios have left me a little underwhelmed on the visual front (particularly that airport fight scene in Civil War). I really liked the music in this trailer, and I liked how it built to the crescendo of Tony being back with the team. It is a slight shame that they spoiled that he does in fact get back from space, especially given how wonderfully tight-lipped the marketing for this film has been, but I guess it's no big surprise. I just want to get a couple of predictions out of the way so that I can be all 'I told you so' if I'm right.
- The film will not have a main antagonist in the traditional sense.
- Thanos will either be defeated in the first act or be so cocky in the irreversible nature of his actions that he'll give the Gauntlet to the Avengers.
- Time travel stuff...
- A la Back to the Future: Part II, the Avengers will accidentally mess something up in the past and be confronted with a dystopian alternate present.


Those were the trailers that came out this month. What was your favourite? Mine was probably Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, although I really enjoyed the trailers for Endgame and John Wick 3, and was intrigued by Midsommar. Last Black Man... looked alright, and the rest I could do without.

Thanks for reading.