Ever since I first saw “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” back in May 2016, I have been in a state of confusion of the series of events that led to the break-up of the Avengers within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The more I examine those events created by the film’s screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, the more I find the narrative confusing. So what exactly happened?
According to “CIVIL WAR”, the terrorist group that had infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D. and other government agencies and private corporations, HYDRA, had ordered the brainwashed amnesiac James Buchannan “Bucky” Barnes aka the Winter Soldier to murder one of the founders of S.H.I.E.L.D., Howard Stark, and his wife Maria Stark, back in December 1991. Apparently, Stark – who has never struck me as an expert in biological sciences – had finally created his own version of the Super Soldier Serum. And HYDRA wanted to use the serum to continue their own program involving super soldiers.
Nearly 25 years later, Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross had presented the Avengers with the document known as the Sokovia Accords. The Accords was created to regulate the activities of enhanced individuals – especially those who work for either government agencies such as S.H.I.E.L.D. or for private organizations such as the Avengers. Some of the Avengers like Howard’s son, Tony Stark aka Iron Man; James Rhodes aka War Machine; Natasha Romanoff aka the Black Widow and the android known as Vision; had agreed to sign the documents. Others like Steve Rogers aka Captain America; Sam Wilson aka the Falcon; and Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch refused to sign it. The Avengers had argued over the legality of the Accords, until Steve was distracted by the news that his old World War II flame and former S.H.I.E.L.D. director Peggy Carter had died.
Eventually, the Avengers were further distracted by the bombing of the Vienna International Centre, where United Nations members had gathered to sign the document. A major victim of the bombing turned out to be King T’Chaka, father of Prince T’Challa aka the Black Panther. A former Sokovian Armed Forcers officers named Helmut Zemo had planned the bombing and framed Barnes in order to further divide the Avengers in retaliation for the destruction of his home country and his family in “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON”. Due to his discovery of the HYDRA files uploaded on the Internet by Romanoff during the events of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER”, Zemo was able to discover that both Rogers and Barners had been old childhood friends and fought together during World War II. He also discovered that Barnes, who had been held in captive and brainwashed by HYDRA until the end of “THE WINTER SOLIDER”, had been the tool used by HYDRA to murder Howard and Maria Stark. Helmut used this knowledge to create more conflict between Rogers and Stark. But despite knowing what exactly happened during “CIVIL WAR”, I am not only confused by the film’s plot; I am confused over exactly what drove the Avengers apart.
First of all, could someone please explain how Steve Rogers and Tony Stark’s conflict over Bucky Barnes’ killing of Howard and Maria Stark was supposed to break up the Avengers? All of the Avengers? Yes, “THE WINTER SOLDIER” had revealed that both Rogers and Romanoff had learned that HYDRA was somehow responsible for the deaths of Stark’s parents. But Stark never confronted Romanoff for her knowledge of what happened to his parents. And neither she or Rogers knew that HYDRA had used Barnes to kill them. So how would a personal conflict between Rogers and Stark was supposed to have some impact upon the Avengers? Also . . . the Avengers had already parted over the Sokovia Accords early into “CIVIL WAR”. Why on earth would the Avengers split because two of its members had some disagreement over what happened in 1991? I have other questions.
Why did Helmut Zemo create such a contrived plan to expose what the brainwashed Bucky had done to the Starks? In the film, he had discovered a video tape featuring Barnes’ murder of the Starks on the road leading way from their New York manor. And what did Zemo do? He bombed the Sokovia Accords conference in Vienna and framed Barnes for the crime, knowing that Rogers would go out of his way to prevent his former friend from being gunned down with extreme prejudice, instead of merely arrested? After that . . . what? He impersonated a psychiatrist and helped the still brainwashed Barnes escape custody. Apparently, he knew that Barnes would eventually inform Rogers about HYDRA’s Winter Soldier program in Siberia and lead the latter to the organization’s base. How did Zemo know that Stark would end up at that Siberia base, as well? Stark would have never learned about Rogers and Barnes’ destination after their escape from the Battle at the Berlin airport if he had not convinced Sam Wilson, who had been arrested with the rest of Rogers’ team, to tell him. I doubt very much that Zemo would have anticipated this. Why did he not just send the damn tape featuring the Starks’ deaths to the Avengers headquarters or to Stark Enterprises, earlier in the story?
Speaking of that video tape . . . why on earth would HYDRA set up a camera to record Barnes’ murders of the Starks? Why would they record the murder in the first place? To see if his brainwashing worked after him being in hibernation for over 45 years? One would think that the Starks’ deaths were the evidence that the organization would need. And once HYDRA discovered that the brainwashing worked, why did it fail to destroy the tape? What was the point, especially when the HYDRA operatives within S.H.I.E.L.D. must have went out of their way to convey the story that Howard and Maria had died in an accident? It was stupid to hang on to that tape. If HYDRA did not set up the camera, what was it doing there on that road in the first place?
“CIVIL WAR” also revealed that both Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff had failed to reveal that HYDRA may have been responsible for the deaths of Stark’s parents. Steve’s reasoning for not revealing the truth to Stark did not make any sense to me. Why would Rogers think not telling Tony the truth would be a comfort? Considering his hatred of HYDRA, it would make more sense for Rogers to tell Tony . . . especially since they and the rest of the Avengers were hunting down Baron von Stucker and HYDRA’s headquarters at the time. Come to think of it, why did Natasha Romanoff failed to tell Tony that HYDRA was responsible for the Starks’ deaths? The issue of her knowledge of this incident was never brought up in the film. I am still wondering why Stark had never learned the truth about his parents’ fate before the events of “CIVIL WAR”.
Romanoff had released all of the S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA files on the Internet in “THE WINTER SOLDIER”? You mean to say that a tech-savy person like Stark never discovered the files? Especially since his father was one of the founders of S.H.I.E.L.D. Come to think of it, any employee of Stark Industries could have easily learned about the revelation of the files. Yet, no one did. Talk about contrived writing. Did the Avengers use those old S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA files downloaded by Romanoff to search for von Strucker and his HYDRA base before the events of “AGE OF ULTRON”? If so . . . why did they fail to find information about the Starks’ deaths? If not . . . why not? You mean to say that Romanoff’s upload of those S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA files were all about Zemo finding that damn tape and nothing else?
What am I trying to say here? The story arc of Helmut Zemo using the old HYDRA files on Bucky Barnes to break Steve Rogers and Tony Stark’s friendship and eventually the Avengers did not make . . . wait a minute. Did I just claim that Rogers and Stark had a friendship? Rogers and Stark . . . who could barely stand to socialize with each other? In the Marvel Cinematic Universe? You know what? This story arc seemed to have so many holes that I am beginning to believe it resembles Swiss cheese. What I find equally improbably is that so many films critics had not even bothered to question the plot when “CIVIL WAR” first hit the movie theaters back in May 2016.
After ten years and eighteen films, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) finally released “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR”. The movie represented the first half of a culmination of the previous films that either focused or touched upon the super-villain Thanos’ attempt to attain possession of a collection of powerful gems known as the Infinity Stones.
Although 2008’s “IRON MAN” signaled the beginning of the MCU franchise and the introduction of the latter’s collection of comic book heroes/heroines, supporting players and villains; I believe that the true beginning of this story arc involving Thanos and the Infinity Stones began in 2011 with two movies – “THOR” and “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER”. The former introduced the Tesseract, a cube that contained the Infinity Stone known as the Space Stone, in its post-credit scene. However, the Space Stone was more fully explored in the second 20111 movie, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER”. After 2011, most of the Infinity Stones were either introduced, explored or both in the MCU movies that followed. Only one stone made its introduction in “INFINITY WAR” – the Soul Stone.
Before I find myself wallowing into an essay about the Infinity Stones, let me continue with this review. “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR” began several minutes after 2017’s “THOR: RAGNAROK” left off. Thanos had caught up with the Asgardian refugee ship and with the help of his minions, inflict considerable damage upon the survivors and their new king, former Avenger Thor. Why? Apparently, before their flight from Asgard’s destruction, Thor’s adopted brother, Loki, had taken the Tesseract, which had been inside Asgard’s royal vault. After killing half of the Asgardian survivors (the other half had managed to escape), Asgard’s gatekeeper Heimdall, beating Thor and killing Loki; Thanos took the Space Stone and blew up the ship. It turned out that the Tesseract was the second Infinity Stone that Thanos managed to acquire. Before the events of this film, Thanos and his minions had attacked and destroyed half of Xandar homeworld before he managed to get his hands on the Power Stone, last seen in 2014’s “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY”. And before Heimdall was killed, he used Asgard’s Bifrost sword to transport a beaten Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk to warn the Avengers and Earth about Thanos’ campaign to collect the Infinity Stones. Meanwhile, the Guardians of Galaxy come across Thor’s body floating in space and rescue him. Thanks to Heimdall’s actions, along with the Guardians’ rescue of Thor; the movie’s main protagonists become aware of Thanos’ current campaign to hunt down the remaining Infinity Stones and set about preventing him from raining more destruction upon the universe.
What can I say about “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR”? When I first heard about the movie’s premise, I immediately felt that the only way this would work was if the narrative was set up in the same style as war films like “THE LONGEST DAY” or “A BRIDGE TOO FAR”. You know . . . blockbuster combat films about a particular battle or campaign that featured an all-star cast. Despite being a comic book movie, “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR” proved to be exactly just that. The movie’s narrative centered around most of the MCU’s protagonists trying to prevent Thanos from collecting all of the Infinity Stones and carrying out his plan to eradicate half of the universe’s population in order to prevent the decrease of essential resources. And more importantly, the screenplay written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely almost hit the right note when it tried to maintain a balancing act between the franchise’s numerous stars. And considering that this movie was all about Thanos’ efforts to utilize the stones in the first place, it seemed quite apparent that he proved to be the movie’s main character. And personally, I feel that was the right thing to do.
In fact, some of the film’s best scenes and story arc had a lot to do with Thanos . . . and especially his relationship with his adoptive daughters, Gamora and Nebula. Thanos’ relationship with the latter seemed just as straight-forward as she had described it in 2017’s “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2”. It seemed perfectly clear that Thanos did not give a rat’s ass about Nebula, especially since he seemed to display no remorse or hesitation to use her life as a bargaining chip for the location of the Soul Stone. Thanos’ relationship with Gamora, on the other hand, seemed to be a different and murkier kettle of fish. Some fans have debated on whether he truly loved Gamora. I believe he did, in his own warped way, as the following image depicted:
And the tears that Gamora had shed, when she thought she had killed him on Nowhere made it pretty obvious that she harbored feelings for him, as well. By the end of the movie, it seemed pretty obvious that Thanos loved his crusade to “save” the universe from overpopulation a lot more than Gamora . . . to the point that he was willing to sacrifice her life for possession of the Soul Stone. I have to give screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely credit for portraying Thanos as a very complex character. Do not get me wrong. I do not regard Thanos as the best MCU villain in the franchise so far. I simply found his different relationships with adoptive daughters Gamora and Nebula a lot more interesting than his goal with the Infinity Gauntlet.
The film featured other story arcs that I found interesting. I have mixed feelings about Thor’s story arc. On one hand, I managed to spot several plot holes in his narrative. On the other hand, it was a relief to see the new Asgardian king finally face the emotional consequences of the losses he had sustained in not only this film, but also “THOR: RAGNAROK”. Thanks to Gamora’s connection to Thanos, “INFINITY WAR” served the main protagonists very well. Audiences finally got to see Gamora and Peter Quill aka Star-Lord declare their love for one another. Rocket managed to form a new bond with Thor, of all people . . . and lose another close bond. “INFINITY WAR” also saw the development of the romance between Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch and Vision and how Thanos’ search for the Infinity Stones affected that relationship. The movie paid scant attention to the Sokovia Accords, which I did not find surprising. But two satisfying developments came from the brief mention of the agreement, when James “Rhodey” Rhodes aka War Machine expressed is deep regret for signing the Sokovia Accords, along with his refusal to obey Thaddeus Ross’ order for the arrests of Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, Sam Wilson and Wanda Maximoff. For me, it was Don Cheadle’s finest moment in the MCU franchise.
“INFINITY WAR” also featured some pretty interesting action sequences. I can count at least XX of them as among my favorites. One of them included a conflict on the streets of Manhattan in which the two sorcerers Dr. Stephen Strange and Wong, Tony Stark aka Iron Man and Peter Parker aka Spider-man battled against one of Thanos’ adopted children, Ebony Maw. The battle ended with Strange being kidnapped, due to his possession of the Time Stone. I thought it was well-handled. However, I find it odd that both Strange and Wong had difficulty with a being who was basically a telekinetic. Another battle I found interesting was Strange, Iron Man and Spider-man’s first meeting with Star-Lord, Drax and Mantis on Thanos’ homeworld, Titan. Although I found it enjoyable, I also found it odd, considering that of all the Guardians, Star-Lord did most of the work against the travelers from Earth . . . and succeeded. I do not know what to say about the battle that unfurled in Wakanda. On a visual level, I found it spectacular. And there were some good moments like Scarlet Witch’s encounter with Thanos; the arrival of Thor, Rocket and Groot; and the brief interaction between Rocket and James “Bucky” Buchanan during the battle. But overall . . . I simply cannot decide whether I loved it or simply tolerated it. Perhaps I loved some parts of it.
As for the movie’s visual effects . . . they were okay. There were a few spectacular scenes. I was especially impressed by Ebony Maw’s arrival in Manhattan, as shown in the following image:
And I really enjoyed Thor’s initial arrival on Wakanda, in which he killed a good number of Thanos’ forces:
But overall, I was not particularly dazzled by the film’s visual effects.
No movie is perfect. And I can honestly say that about “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR”. When I first learned that so many of the franchise’s past characters – especially the costumed heroes – would be featured in this film, my first reaction was wariness. After seeing the movie twice, I believe my initial wariness was justified on a certain level. I will re-phrase my original assessment of the movie – I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it enough to see it at the movie theaters twice. But, “INFINITY WAR” had its problems. And one of those problems proved to be the numerous protagonists that filled the narrative. But wait? Did I not earlier praise the MCU and the screenwriters for creating a narrative that was similar to all-star movie epics like “THE LONGEST DAY” and “A BRIDGE TOO FAR”. Yes, I did. But this narrative style still threatened to spiral out of control. There was no real balance in how McFeely and Markus treated the film’s characters. Not really. A good number of the characters – including major ones – were more or less treated as guest stars in this film.
Most of the characters who had rebelled against the Sokovia Accords – Captain America, Falcon, Black Widow, Winter Soldier, Ant-Man and Hawkeye – were not utilized very often. A major character like Captain America had finally been reduced to a guest star. Falcon, Black Widow and Winter Soldier barely had any lines. And both Ant-Man and Hawkeye were missing in this film. Only the Scarlet Witch seemed to have a larger role and that was due to her being the romantic interest of Vision, who had one of the Infinity Stones embedded into his forehead. I was also amazed how even Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Spider-man seemed to have disappeared and re-appear for a long stretches of time, following their departure from Earth aboard Ebony Maw’s ship. And why did the film’s screenplay not allow Wong to accompany them on the journey to Thanos’ homeworld, Titan. Hell, the inhabitants of Wakanda – Black Panther aka King T’Challa, Okoye, M’Baku and Princess Shuri – seemed to minor players in this film, considering that a major battle was fought within their country’s borders near the film’s finale. Both Samuel L. Jackson and Cobie Smulders managed to appear as former S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury and his assistant Maria Hill in the film’s only post-credit scene. In it, both had witnessed the impact of Thanos’ Infinity Stones snap in Manhattan, before disappearing themselves. And before they did, Fury managed to send a message to a new Avenger – Captain Marvel aka Carol Danvers. That was it? Jackson and Smulders were used as a publicity scene for the upcoming Captain Marvel film? God, what a waste!
I wonder if the reason why the focus on the characters struck me as so unbalance was due to them being scattered . . . all over the universe, really. The reason why movies like “THE LONGEST DAY” and “A BRIDGE TOO FAR” worked so well is that these films kept the focused on one particular setting – whether it were the beaches of Normandy, Frances and the surrounding countryside, or the stretch of road that encompassed three Dutch small cities. “INFINITY WAR” featured more settings than a James Bond movie and all of the major characters were scattered throughout those different locations on Earth and in space. Even a relative of mine found this rather convoluted.
There were other aspects of the film’s narrative that left me scratching my head. I do not know where to begin. Oh yes . . . the film opened with Thanos and his minions in control of Thor’s ship (formerly owned by the Grandmaster), most of the inhabitants dead, Heimdall wounded and a bruised Thor a prisoner of Thanos. And all I could ask was . . . where was Valkyrie, along with former gladiators Korg and Miek? Where did they go? Were they dead? How did Thor, who was the new ruler of the remaining Asgardians and the new Allfather lose so easily against Thanos? As the new Allfather, he should have given Thanos and the “kids” a lot of trouble. I mean . . . not even Thanos’ use of the Power Stone failed to kill Thor. Really? Why did the Hulk wait for Loki to introduce him like some damn circus act? I mean . . . the Hulk is not more powerful than Thor. He never really was, despite the MCU’s effort to pretend otherwise. Why did Loki tried to kill Thanos with a dagger? A dagger? This is the being who managed to cast a mind spell on someone as powerful as Odin. Why did he not consider this, instead of attacking Thanos with a dagger?
The next major scene featured Doctor Strange, Wong, Tony Stark and Peter Parker. Why was it so difficult for Doctor Strange and Wong to defeat Ebony Maw? The latter is an alien with a telekinetic ability. That was his ability . . . telekinesis. A psychic ability and nothing else. Strange and Wong were sorcerers. Which meant they had abilities beyond psychic ones. What happened? Why did they not use . . . magic? He was able to use magic to prevent Ebony Maw from getting his claws on the stone. Why not use magic to defeat Maw? Now that I think about it, Strange was also in possession of the Time Stone. Why did he not use it? And this was way before his ludicrous claim that there was only one out of 14 million chances in which to defeat Thanos. I call bullshit on this, for it seems nothing more than contrived nonsense to justify what happened later in the film. And why did Tony suggest that they continue traveling to Titan? To keep the battle for the Time Stone away from Earth? Ah, does this mean both Tony and Stephen had forgotten about the Mind Stone . . . which was with Vison . . . on Earth?
This movie was filled with characters making dumb decisions – from Gamora deciding to accompany Peter Quill, Drax and Mantis to Knowhere, knowing that Thanos was there and she knew the location of the Soul Stone; to Peter Quill losing his shit and ruining the plan to trap Thanos on Titan after learning about Gamora’s fate; to Steve suggesting they take Vision to Wakanda in order to remove the Mind Stone from the latter’s head and keep him alive; to T’Challa giving them permission to land in Wakanda; to Thor losing his shit during the Wakanda battle and striking Thanos in an area that was bound to allow the Titan to live just a bit longer. Most fans have been dumping most of the blame on Star-Lord. Some of them, including the Russo Brothers, have dumped most of the blame for what happened in the end on Thor. I blame Thanos. As far as I am concerned, he made the dumbest decision to wipe away half of the universe’s living beings for . . . what? To preserve the remaining living beings so that there were enough resources for everyone? This is a stupid plan. He could not think of anything else? Like providing more resources for the universe? Why did he set this plan in motion in the first place? Because he could not save his homeworld? Or what?
And there were other matters. Why did the empathic Mantis, who had managed to control the emotions of someone as powerful as Ego, failed to do so with Thanos? What was the point of including Secretary of Defense Thaddeus Ross in this story? To prove how useless and irrelevant the Sokovia Accords story arc truly was? When I learned that both Clint Barton and Scott Lang were under “house arrest” for violating the Accords in “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”, I merely rolled my eyes in disgust. By the way, who was financing Steve, Natasha, Sam and Wanda’s activities for the past two years? When did Wanda and Vision finally commenced upon their romance? You mean to say that after eighteen months or so (since the events of “SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING”), Tony and Pepper were still engaged? Where was Nakia? When did Gamora learn about the location of the Soul Stone? How did Johann Schmidt aka Red Skull survive 73 years after the Space Stone transported him to Vormir? Despite having the Dr. Erskine’s formula in his blood, he was never frozen in stasis like Steve and Bucky. Why on earth was it necessary for Thor to go to Nidavellir to create the Stormbreaker axe to be used on Thanos? Why? He should have been powerful enough to take on the Titan on his own in the first damn place. Had McFeely and Markus forgotten that Thor was the new Allfather?
The real problem I have with “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR” – aside from the plot holes – is that it is not that original to me. Not really. First of all, the idea of a villain plotting to to commit genocide for environmental reasons had played a major role in two recent movies – 2015’s “KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE” and the 2016 movie, “INFERNO”. In an Arrowverse crossover event from three years ago, super villain and immortal Vandal Savage managed to kill all of the costumed heroes who were featured in that story – with the exception of Barry Allen aka the Flash. Instead, he used time travel to go back and change the fates of his friends and colleagues. Hmmm . . . sound familiar? How about this? Nearly a decade ago, I had created a series of “Charmed” Alternate Universe stories in which the Charmed Ones befriended another family of witches. Needless to say, among my stories featured a powerful demon who managed to kill most of the main characters, including two of the Charmed Ones. It was very similar to what happened to many of the characters in the finale for “INFINITY WAR”. And guess what? The whole thing was resolved through the use of time travel – which I assume will be used in “AVENGERS 4”. So, how can I be impressed with how McFeely, Markus and the Russo brothers ended the story for “INFINITY WAR”, when both the Arrowverse producers and I did something similar? What I found even more annoying about the film’s ending is that most of Thanos’ victims proved to be those MCU heroes and protagonists first introduced after “THE AVENGERS”. Fury and Hill seemed to be the only pre-Phase II characters that were killed. And there were only a few post-Phase I characters like Rocket the Raccoon, Wong, Princess Shuri, Okoye and M’Baku, who survived. Personally, I found it ridiculous that Marvel could not take the chance to kill off one or two of the original Avengers members.
I wish I could comment on all of the film’s performances, but that would take forever. I will comment on those that caught my attention, both good and bad. I have already commented on Don Cheadle’s very satisfying performance. The movie featured solid performances from those who had – to be honest – provided more memorable ones in past movies, like Mark Ruffalo, Gwyneth Paltrow, Benedict Wong, Idris Elba, Scarlett Johansson, Anthony Mackie, Chadwick Boseman, Winston Duke, Danai Gurira, Dave Bautista, Benedict Wong, Benicio del Toro, Jacob Batalon, William Hurt, Vin Diesel and Pom Klementieff. Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch gave solid performances as well, but there were times when both actors seemed bent upon proving whose character was more irritating. Personally, I believe Letitia Wright won this contest in her portrayal of Wakanda’s Princess Shuri. Wright’s character came off as a bit overbearing in her effort to prove her technological knowledge against the likes of Bruce Banner. Tom Holland gave a charming performance as Peter Parker aka Spider-man, but I must admit that I found his last scene, in which Peter was disappearing after Thanos’ “snap”, a bit over-the-top.
Both Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany gave poignant performances as the pair of Avengers lovers Wanda Maximoff and Vision. Bradley Cooper gave a very funny voice performance as Rocket the Raccoon, especially in scenes in which the talking raccoon interacted with both Thor and Bucky Barnes. As for Sebastian Stan, I was more impressed by his last scene, as he conveyed Bucky’s fear and panic, while disintegrating, with one word – Steve’s name. Peter Dinklage gave a memorable performance as the gruff and sardonic Eitri, the giant dwarf (you have to see him to believe it) who created Thor’s Stormbreaker axe. Karen Gillian’s Nebula has come a long way since 2014’s “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY” and I enjoyed how the actress managed to maintain the character’s gruff exterior and at the same time, convey Nebula’s deep affection for her sister Gamora. And then there was Chris Pratt, who did an exceptional job of portraying the emotional gauntlet that Peter Quill aka Star-Lord had experienced in this film. I was especially impressed by his performance in that tender scene in which Peter and Gamora conveyed their love for one another.
For me, the film’s most valuable players proved to be Chris Hemsworth, Zoe Saldana and Josh Brolin. Like Pratt, Chris Hemsworth had the opportunity to convey Thor’s emotional turmoil that the latter had experienced in both this film and “RAGNAROK”. At the same time, Hemsworth was as charming as ever, while portraying Thor’s more familiar and enduring traits. Zoe Saldana gave one of her best performances as one of the Guardians, Gamora, who finds herself torn between her determination to foil Thanos’ plan to use the Infinity Stones and her lingering love and affection toward him. Frankly, I thought Saldana beautifully conveyed this emotional tightrope in one scene in which Gamora expressed her grief after believing she had killed her adoptive father. Although I found Thanos’ plans to cull the herd of the universe’s sentient beings rather stupid, I cannot say the same about Josh Brolin’s portrayal of the homicidal super villain. Brolin gave a superb performance as the Titan, who not only proved to be ruthless and canny, but also affectionate and loving . . . in a twisted way. Frankly, I think Brolin deserve a major acting award nomination or two for his performance. I found him more effectively scary and complex in this film than I did in “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY”.
It must seem pretty obvious that I do not have a high regard for “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR”. I do not believe that it is a terrible movie. In fact, it struck me as a pretty damn good movie. I thought the Russo Brothers, along with screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely and a first rate cast led by Josh Brolin created a memorable and entertaining film. But the movie seemed to be marred by a good deal of plot holes and questionable narrative decisions that have led me to wonder if this film might be overrated by so many movie critics and fans of the MCU. You know what? I believe it is. And yet . . . I would still recommend the movie for viewing.
I am going to be brutally honest. Ever since 2015 to 2016, I have harbored mixed feelings about the output from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The year 2015 produced one movie that I found entertaining, yet disappointing; and another film that I found entertaining and original, but not exactly mind blowing. But the years 2016 and 2017 proved to be very disappointing, as far as MCU movies were concerned. By the end of 2017, I thought the MCU had finally lost its mojo . . . until I saw “BLACK PANTHER”, early in the following year.
I realize many might find my comments something of a head scratcher. What exactly was wrong with the MCU films between 2015-2017? Well . . . I thought “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON” was entertaining, yet problematic. I enjoyed “ANT-MAN” very much, but I would never regard it as one of the franchise’s best. The movies, starting with 2016’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” and ending with 2017’s “THOR: RAGNAROK”, struck me as very disappointing and somewhat inferior. Despite the fact that the franchise was raking in millions – or billions – with these films, I personally believed it had reached an artistic abyss . . . until I saw “BLACK PANTHER”. Not only did I find the latter film entertaining, I also regard it as one of the better MCU films I have seen in the franchise’s ten-year history. With “BLACK PANTHER”, it seemed the MCU had not only climbed out of the abyss, but had reached (or nearly reached) a pinnacle.
“BLACK PANTHER” basically told the story about King T’Challa aka Black Panther adjusting to his role as the new sovereign of Wakanda, an isolated and fictional African nation that is the most technically advanced in the world, thanks to the vibranium metal within its borders. Wakanda has spent most of its existence pretending to be a poor, third-world nation in order to protect itself from the world – especially Western nations – and prevent them from learning about its rich source of vibranium. The narrative for “BLACK PANTHER” picked up at least a week after the events of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. T’Challa and his premier bodyguard and leader of the Dora Milaje regiment, Okoye; extract Nakia, T’Challa’s ex-lover and a Wakandan spy, from an undercover assignment in Nigeria. All three returned to Wakanda’s capital to participate in T’Challa coronation as the new king. During the ceremony, the leaders of Wakanda’s five tribes are each given the opportunity to challenge the temporarily de-powered (via a potion that expunges his super strength and speed) T’Challa’s role as the new king by ritual combat. One of the leaders, M’Baku of the mountainous Jabari Tribe, challenges T’Challa. After a fierce fight, M’Baku concedes defeat and T’Challa is officially acknowledged as King of Wakanda.
Unfortunately, T’Challa’s triumph is short-lived when Wakanda intelligence becomes aware of a robbery committed by a group of thieves led by an old foe of the country’s, Ulysses Klaue. The latter had stolen an old Wakanda artifact from a London museum that contains vibranium, a metal substance that has allowed Wakanda to become the most technically advanced nation in the world . . . unbeknownst to other nations. When Wakanda intelligence learns that Klaue plans to sell the vibranium to the C.I.A. at a location in Busan, South Korea; T’Challa, Nakia and Okoye travel there to interrupt the planned sale and arrest the arms dealer. Instead of arresting Klaue, T’Challa stumbles across a family secret involving one of Klaue’s fellow thieves, an African-American named Eric Stevens aka Killmonger, which will threaten his position on the Wakanda throne and endanger the country itself.
After being disappointed by five MCU movies in a row, I found myself wondering if I would ever enjoy a movie from the franchise again. Thankfully, “BLACK PANTHER” proved to be a more than pleasant surprise. Thanks to Ryan Coogler’s direction and the excellent screenplay that he co-wrote with Joe Robert Cole, “BLACK PANTHER” proved to be a unique film that combined the usual elements of a comic book movie, a family drama and a rare exploration into the political and social aspects of the African diaspora.
Family drama is nothing new to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Audiences have seen this played out in movies like the Thor trilogy, 2015’s “ANT-MAN”, and to a certain extent, 2008’s “THE INCREDIBLE HULK”. “BLACK PANTHER” is another addition in which a deadly encounter between T’Challa’s father and uncle – King T’Chaka and Prince N’Jobu in 1992, led to the new king learning about his cousin and N’Jobu’s half-American cousin, Erik “Killmonger” Stevens aka Prince N’Jadaka. That 1992 encounter led to Erik becoming an orphan and abandoned by his isolationist uncle T’Chaka. This, in turn, led Erik to see revenge against the nation of Wakanda. Ironically, Erik never got the chance to exact his revenge on the very person responsible for his loss, namely his uncle, who was killed by Helmut Zemo’s bomb in “CIVIL WAR”. But for him, T’Challa and Wakanda served as a convenient scapegoat for his vengeance.
What made all of this even more fascinating and a lot more original than the MCU’s other family dramas was how Coogler and Cole managed to mix a good deal of political controversy into this family saga. One of the reasons Prince N’Jobu had fallen out of favor with his older brother was his growing disenchantment with Wakanda’s isolationist policy with the world – including those of the African diaspora around the world. After his experiences in late 20th century Oakland, N’Jobu decided to reveal Wakanda’s existence to Ulysses Klaue and help the latter infiltrate Wakanda to smuggle out more vibranium. N’Jobu had planned to use the vibranium to create weapons and lead a revolution of the African diaspora against the dominating Western nations. With his father dead, Erik planned to not only get his revenge against the Royal House of Wakanda, but also carry out N’Jobu’s plans. Watching this, I am reminded of Loki’s plans in 2011’s “THOR” – namely to keep a powerless Thor stranded on Earth, while he sets up the Frost Giants’ destruction and win Odin’s favor. As much I had enjoyed that movie, Loki’s plans seemed rather lame to me in compare to Erik’s. But what made this story arc even more interesting is that in the end . . . Erik’s plans to use Wakanda weapons to conquer the world eventually led to T’Challa’s decision to finally end Wakanda’s isolationist policy.
“BLACK PANTHER” featured some pretty solid action sequences. I enjoyed the sequence featuring T’Challa and M’Baku’s fight for the throne; Erik and Klaue’s confrontation at an abandoned South Korean airfield; T’Challa and Erik’s battle for the throne; and the Battle of Mount Bashenga, in which T’Challa and his forces attempted to prevent Erik and the Border Tribe from sending Wakanda weapons to the outside world. All are pretty good action sequences. But if I had to select my favorite, it would be the confrontation at the Busan casino between T’Challa, Nakia and Okoye against Klaue and his minions. With C.I.A. Agent Everett Ross thrown into the mix, this particular sequence was simply boss, especially since it lead to a wild car chase on the streets of Busan. That once scene featuring Okoye slamming her wig into the face of a Klaue minion will probably remain imprinted in my mind for years to come.
Another aspect of “BLACK PANTHER” that I admired was the film’s production designs. Mind you, the film maintained that same flat photography that the MCU has become infamous for. However, I think Rachel Morrison’s photography was enhanced by some sharp colors, the movie’s visual effects, Hannah Beachler’s gorgeous production designs that convey the world of Wakanda, along with the art direction team led by Alan Hook. Aside from Beachler’s production designs, I was especially impressed by Oscar and Emmy nominee Ruth E. Carter’s costume designs. Someone had compared them to those costumes featured in the 1988 comedy, “COMING TO AMERICA”. But honestly . . . I think I prefer Carter’s more natural designs, as featured in the images below:
But all of the above would have meant nothing without the talented cast for the film. “BLACK PANTHER” featured some first-rate performances from the likes of Daniel Kaluuya, who portrayed Border Tribe leader W’Kabi, who desires his own personal vengeance against Ulysses Klaue; Sterling K. Brown as the revolutionary Prince N’Jobu; both John Kani and son Atandwa Kani as the older and younger versions of King T’Chaka; Angela Bassett as T’Challa’s strong-willed, yet loving mother and advisor, Queen Ramonda; Denzel Whitaker, who gave a solid performance as the younger Zuri; and Martin Freeman as C.I.A. Agent Everett Ross, who proved to me more entertaining and relevant in this film than he was in “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”.
However, there were those performances that really impressed me. One came from Andy Serkis, who was a hoot as the murderous, yet over-the-top South African arms dealer, Ulysses Klaue. Letitia Wright was equally entertaining as T’Challa’s witty and charming sister, the tech-savy Princess Shuri. Another came from Lupita Nyong’o, who gave a passionate and heartfelt portrayal of Wakandan intelligence agent and T’Challa’s former girlfriend, Nakia. Forest Whitaker gave a first-rate performance as Wakanda’s top courtier and former spy, Zuri. Whitaker was especially impressive in one scene in which his character was forced to confess King T’Chaka’s past actions regarding N’Jobu and Erik Killmonger. Winston Duke was very impressive, imposing and at times, rather amusing as M’Baku, leader of the mountainous Jabari Tribe. Also, his first appearance in the film – during T’Challa’s coronation ceremony – is one of the most memorable moments I have seen in a movie for quite some time. Danai Gurira was equally impressive and imposing as Okoyo, the traditionalist leader of the king’s bodyguards – the Dora Milaje. Although I found her character’s conservatism a bit annoying at times, I must admit that Gurira gave one hell of a performance.
However, this movie is really about two characters – King T’Challa of Wakanda aka the Black Panther and his paternal cousin Erik “Killmonger” Stevens aka Prince N’Jadaka. Yes, I know that the movie is called “BLACK PANTHER”. But to be honest, this movie is about both cousins and how their conflicting views on Wakanda’s role in the world and especially upon the African diaspora.
Chadwick Boseman’s second turn as T’Challa proved to be a different kettle of fish from the driven newly ascended king determined to seek revenge for the death of his father, T’Chaka in “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. In this film, Boseman gave a more relaxed performance as the happy and more satisfied young king, eagerly anticipating, yet slightly fearing his new role as king. However, Boseman’s relaxed performance skillfully transformed into one of disbelief, anger and outrage when T’Challa learned about his father’s actions back in Oakland 1992. This was especially apparent in two scenes in which Boseman gave outstanding performances. The first scene featured his confrontation with Zuri, who confessed the true circumstances about Oakland. Boseman gave a very intimidating, yet regal performance in that scene. The other featured T’Challa’s second dream in which he expressed anger and disappointment at his father’s spirit for what happened to Erik.
Speaking of the latter, Michael B. Jordan has been receiving rave reviews for his performance as Erik “Killmonger”. Some have been declaring his character as the best MCU villain ever. I do not know if I agree with that assessment. But I must admit that Jordan gave one of the most skillfully ambiguous performances I have encountered in the franchise. Audiences could easily sympathize with his backstory – the young boy who had lost his parents and abandoned. Also, one cannot help but admired Erik’s desire to help those African nations and members of the African diaspora – something that his cousin seemed unwilling to do. And yet, the level of violence Erik seemed willing to utilize in order to achieve his goal or his unwillingness to face that the one person who had truly wronged him was dead justified why the talented Jordan had portrayed him such ambiguity.
As much as I enjoyed “BLACK PANTHER”, I did have some problems with the film. One, there is a chance that I may have stumbled across a major writing blooper. In “CIVIL WAR”, Avenger Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch had accidentally killed a group of Wakanda subjects during a mission in Lagos, Nigeria. The Wakandans had been there on a goodwill mission. This lead King T’Chaka to publicly support the Sokovia Accords – an act that led to his death. And yet, Ryan Coogler and Joe Robert Cole made it clear in the 2018 movie’s screenplay that Wakanda has practiced a policy of isolationism for centuries. Although Coogler and Cole remembered T’Chaka’s death in the 2016 movie and Bucky Barnes’ presence on Wakanda soil, they apparently forgot about this goodwill mission in Nigeria. Also, why did Erik Stevens wait so long to travel to Wakanda and make a bid for the throne? He could have challenged his uncle T’Chaka for the throne and get his revenge against the very man who had wronged him. Instead, he waited until after T’Chaka’s death. Why?
Exactly when did Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes arrive in Wakanda, as shown in one of the post-title scenes in “CIVIL WAR’? The movie opened with T’Challa and Okoye returning to Wakanda for the first time since T’Chaka’s death. Were both Steve and Bucky aboard T’Challa’s plane? Were they aboard the Avenger jet that Steve had used to fly to Russia in the 2016 movie? Where were they? In fact, there was no scene featuring the pair’s arrival in Wakanda for the first time, which I found rather odd. Speaking of arrivals, why was Okoye with T’Challa when he first returned to Wakanda? I realize that she was the leader of the Dora Milaje and that King T’Chaka was in Austria at the time of his death. But Okoye was missing in a scene from “CIVIL WAR” in which Avenger Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow had sought T’Challa’s help to track down Steve, Bucky and Sam Wilson aka the Falcon. As the king’s leading bodyguard, she should have been there – whether with T’Chaka or T’Challa. Instead, another Dora Milaje bodyguard named Ayo (portrayed by actress/model Florence Kasumba) was there. Yet, the latter was missing aboard T’Challa’s plane upon his return to Wakanda. One last question . . . why did T’Challa’s closest friend, W’Kabi of the Border Tribe, seemed so willing to help Erik carry out his anti-isolationist policies? Why? I understand that he might be grateful to Erik for finally killing Klaue, the man who had killed his father years ago. But am I really to believe that his gratitude extended to supporting Erik’s decision to end Wakanda’s isolationist policy . . . especially since he had made it clear earlier in the film that he fully supported the old policy? Was he really that grateful to fight on Erik’s behalf when T’Challa had returned alive to resume the challenge against Erik? I truly found this hard to believe.
And why was the only truly negative black character in this film was the only one of some American ancestry? There was something about the film’s portrayal of African-Americans that struck me as rather negative and a bit one-dimensional. In this film, African-Americans seemed to consist solely of poor and slightly thuggish people barely capable of surviving on their own, except through criminal activities. The idea of Wakanda coming to their “rescue” with advanced technology made the latter country seem very similar to the White Savior trope. And if Wakanda was going to share their technology, why did T’Challa do so with the entire international community, instead of simply other African nations and the African diaspora . . . as Nakia had originally suggested? Considering that Erik had pointed out that many countries – especially in the West – were catching up technically with Wakanda, along with the international community’s generally negative attitude toward African nations and those of the African diaspora; I cannot help but wonder if T’Challa had ever considered that many of the more wealthier nations would take advantage of his generosity at the first opportunity? Or was this plot twist something that Kevin Feige and the other Marvel/Disney suits had insisted that Coogler and Cole include?
However . . . despite these misgivings I have about “BLACK PANTHER”, I cannot deny that I truly enjoyed the movie. I did. I thought Ryan Coogler, along with screenwriter Joe Robert Cole and a talented cast led by Chadwick Boseman, did an exceptional job in bringing comic book hero the Black Panther and the world of Wakanda to life. At this moment, “BLACK PANTHER” has become one of my five favorite movies in the MCU franchise.
I first wrote the following article during the early fall of 2016:
“COMIC BOOK MOVIES: CRITICAL HYPOCRISY”
It just occurred to me that none of Marvel’s Captain America films ended on a happy note. Yet, they have never been criticized for possessing too much angst or being depressing. On the other hand, D.C. Comics films like 2016’s “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” have been accused of being dominated by these traits. And I have never understood this contrasting attitude toward the two comic book movie franchises.
In “CAPTAIN AMERICA: FIRST AVENGER”, Steve Rogers lost his close friend, James “Bucky” Barnes during a mission. He was forced to crash the HYDRA plane into the cold Atlantic Ocean, where he froze for the next 66 to 67 years. Because of the crash, his burgeoning relationship with S.S.R. Agent Peggy Carter abruptly ended, with her believing that he had died. The movie ended with Steve awakening in 2011 New York City as a fish out of water and the world completely changed.
Although I love it with every fiber in my body, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER” proved to be a rather depressing film, if one is completely honest. The only positive thing that came out of it was Steve’s new friendship with Afghanistan War veteran, Sam Wilson. Otherwise, the movie featured the downfall of S.H.I.E.L.D., the very agency that his old love Peggy Carter, Howard Stark and Chester Philips had created, due to a major mistake they had committed. And that mistake turned out to be the recruitment of former HYDRA scientist, Armin Zola into the newly formed S.H.I.E.L.D. agency. Steve discovered that despite Johann Schmidt aka the Red Skull’s death, HYDRA continued to exist and that it had infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D. and the U.S. Senate. He also discovered that his former best friend, Bucky Barnes, was not only alive, but also a brainwashed assassin for HYDRA. Everything eventually went to shit by the end of film, including Steve’s career with S.H.I.E.L.D.
“CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” proved to be another depressing film. It introduced the Sokovia Accords, a United Nations sponsored document that forced enhanced beings like himself and other members of the Avengers to register with and be regulated by various governments. The main drive behind the Accords was Secretary of Defense and former U.S. Army General Thaddeus Ross, who had been the nemesis of Bruce Banner aka the Hulk. The Sokovia Accords finally gave Thaddeus Ross the opportunity to control a team of enhanced beings. The ninety-something Peggy Carter finally died. And the Avengers faced another threat – a Sokovian named Zemo, who wanted revenge for the destruction of his country – an event caused by Tony Stark’s creation of an artificial intelligence (A.I.) called Ultron. And Zemo also used the still brainwashed Bucky Barnes, whose past involved being coerced by HYDRA into murdering Howard and Maria Stark, to get his revenge. Between the Accords and Zemo, the Avengers suffered a permanent split by the end of the movie.
On the other hand, many film critics and moviegoers have criticized about “darker” aspects of the DCEU films. They have accused director Zack Snyder and the production teams behind the DCEU movie franchise of being too depressing or portraying its major protagonists as a bit too angsty. One, I see nothing wrong with morally and emotionally complex comic book hero movies. Also, at least two of the DCEU movies, “MAN OF STEEL” and “SUICIDE SQUAD” ended on a happier note.
“MAN OF STEEL” ended with Clark Kent aka Superman moving to Metropolis and joining the staff of The Daily Planet as a junior reporter and exchanging a knowing smile with his love, Lois Lane – the only person other than his mother who knew of his identity as Superman. “SUICIDE SQUAD” told the story of a group of super villains (two of them, meta-humans) who were forced to battle a powerful sorceress, bent upon world-domination by the director of A.R.G.U.S., Amanda Waller. Although Waller’s right-hand man, Colonel Rick Flagg, had allowed the villains to walk away after she had been kidnapped, the “Suicide Squad” assisted Flagg in taking down the Enchantress anyway. They were repaid with a reduced prison sentence and a few benefits. Also, “SUICIDE SQUAD” was filled with a great deal of humor – something that many critics and moviegoers have complained that the DCEU was lacking.
I find it ironic that “MAN OF STEEL” and “SUICIDE SQUAD” have been criticized for being “depressing and angst-riddled”, along with the DCEU’s boogeyman, “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” (which I also adore with every fiber of my being). Yet, the MCU’s Captain America films have managed to evade such criticisms, despite their ambiguous endings. Why have many critics and moviegoers have been so hard on the DCEU films about their ambiguity and given the Captain America films a pass? Hypocrisy much?
Post-Script: And the hypocrisy has continued. As late as the summer of 2018, many moviegoers and critics have either expressed hope that the DCEU would release more light-hearted and “hopeful” films. They have also expressed hope that Warner Brothers Studios’ upcoming releases – “AQUAMAN”, “SHAZAM” and “WONDER WOMAN 1984” – will feature more fun-oriented plots.
Yet, during the same year, Marvel Films/Disney Studios released three MCU films – “BLACK PANTHER”, “THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR” and “ANT-MAN & THE WASP”. The first film proved to be an angst-filled and political family drama. The second film ended on a catastrophic note in which the main villain achieved his goal and wiped out half of the universe’s population – including many familiar characters. And although the third film proved to be a lot more light-hearted, its post-credit scene ended on a devastating note – a residual of what happened in the second film. Hardly anyone complained about this and instead, complimented the MCU franchise for its willingness to be more serious.
I am another moviegoer who is getting sick and tired of the regarding Marvel/Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and Warner Brothers/D.C. Comics’ D.C. Extended Universe (DCEU) films. I have come across articles in which fans of both movie universes have accused the other of excessive bashing.
I never understood this rivalry between Marvel and DC Comics movie franchises. To be honest, I find it unnecessary. And I believe today’s audiences are getting too caught up in this so-called rivalry, thanks to the media, the studios and the two comic book conglomerates. I have seen both DC Comics and Marvel since “SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE” first came out in 1978. Why do certain films from one comic book company need to be better than those from another one? I have seen films from both that I found very impressive. And I have seen films from both that left me feeling disappointed. For me to decide whether the Marvel films or the DC films are better strikes me as ridiculous.
Some fans have claimed that since the MCU films perform better at the box office, they are without a doubt, the superior series of films. One major problem with this reasoning was the box office performance of the five major comic book movies released in 2016. Marvel’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE CIVIL WAR” proved to be the second (or third) biggest box office success of that year. Yet, D.C. Comics’ “BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” proved to be that year’s fifth biggest box office success. Although both the DCEU’s “SUICIDE SQUAD” and the MCU’s “DOCTOR STRANGE” never reached those heights in terms of box office, both were successful and ironically, the DCEU movie proved to be a bit more successful.
However, I believe that box office performance is not a true reflection of a movie’s worth. No one knows the true reason behind the critics’ current and more positive reaction to the Marvel films. Not really. True, some film critics might honestly believe they are better. Then again, it is possible that some film critics were bribed to praise the Marvel films to the sky and/or bash the D.C. Comics movies. Personally, I had stopped regarding their opinion as fact a long time ago. After all, their opinions are dictated by personal tastes, or . . . other means, just as the opinions of moviegoers are dictated by personal tastes. – Yes, there might be more people who believe that the current Marvel films are better. But I have encountered a great number of opinions that favor the current DC Comic movies. And I cannot help but wonder if the MCU fans are simply the loudest. Also, judging a film based upon box office success or the number of fans for a certain franchise strikes me as irrelevant. There are a lot of fans of the “TRANSFORMER” films. A lot. Which is why those movies generated a good deal of money. In the end, it is all subjective.
I am fans of both the MCU and the DCEU. I have been aware of some bashing of the MCU films by certain DCEU fans. However, their bashing seemed to be minor in compare to the consistent and excessive stream of criticism and bashing directed toward the DCEU films … and I believe this bashing is getting out of control.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that a lot of Marvel fans (or perhaps I should say the Marvel/Disney company is threatened by the three movies released by DC Comics between 2013 and 2016. These three movies signaled the end of the Marvel/Disney’s monopoly on a series of comic book movies based upon a collection of titles. The bashing for the DCEU has become utter ridiculous and excessive. I am also beginning to wonder if those who had accused Disney/Marvel of paying off the critics to bad mouth ALL THREE DCEU movies that have been released so far … had been right after all. Because this criticism has become over the top. It has now extended to both “WONDER WOMAN” and “JUSTICE LEAGUE” and they have yet to be released. Has bashing the DCEU movies become the “in” thing to do? Just as bashing the “STAR WARS” Prequel films is still a popular past time? I hope not. For I had almost bought it myself.
When “MAN OF STEEL”, “BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” and “SUICIDE SQUAD” first hit the theaters, I was reluctant to see all three, because I had stupidly accepted the bad opinions about them. Yet, I overcame my reluctance and went to see them, anyway. And when I finally saw those three movies, I enjoyed them. All of them. Very much. In fact, I regard “BATMAN v. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” as one of the best comic book hero movies I have ever seen. And that was when I finally realized that a film critic’s opinion was worth dog shit. No more. I am simply going to form my own opinion of any movie I am interested in seeing. And I refuse to be some mindless drone and accept the views of others simply because it is the in-thing to do.
The idea that we are supposed to be accept that the Marvel or MCU films are better than the DCEU films, because many film critics or movie fans say so is irrelevant. It is irrelevant, because their views are matters of opinion. Preference. I do not accept this view “numbers matter” regarding the artistic quality of a film, because I do not share it. I have watched a lot of comic book movies in my time. From my perspective, only my opinion of an individual movie count. I do not care whether any those movies are based upon the titles of Marvel, DC Comics or any other comic book company that exists. And considering that art and entertainment are subjective in the end, what is the point in declaring that MCU films are better or that DCEU movies are better? It seems like a waste of time to me. I think we all should focus on which individual movies that appeals to us and not bother on which company makes the better films.
Warner Bros./DCEU is scheduled to release two movies in 2017. Disney/MCU has scheduled three to be released. I plan to see all five movies this year. And I will be damned if I pay attention to any film critics or moviegoer . . . until after I have seen these movies. Regardless of who performs better at the box office, I am the one who will decide which films I want to see and which ones I want to buy, regardless of whether they came from DC Comics or Marvel.
Below is a list of my favorite movies of 2017( List subject to change):
TOP FAVORITE MOVIES OF 2017
1. “Dunkirk” – Christopher Nolan wrote and directed this acclaimed look at the British Expeditionary Force’s evacuation from Dunkirk, France in 1940. Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance starred.
2. “Wonder Woman” – Gal Gadot starred in this movie about the D.C. Comics’ heroine Wonder Woman and her experiences during World War I. Patty Jenkins directed.
3. “Murder on the Orient Express” – Kenneth Branaugh directed and starred in this fifth adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1934 novel about a murder aboard the famed Orient Express. Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfieffer co-starred.
4. “I, Tonya”– Margot Robbie starred in this deliciously bizarre biopic about the controversial Olympic ice skater, Tonya Harding. Directed by David Gillespie, the movie co-starred Sebastian Stan and Allison Janney.
5. “Marshall” – Chadwick Boseman starred in this interesting biopic about an early case of future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Directed by Reginald Hudlin, Josh Gad and Sterling K. Brown co-starred.
6. “The Post”– Steven Spielberg directed this fascinating look about The Washington Post’s efforts to publish “The Pentagon Papers”, the controversial Department of Defense documents about the Vietnam War. Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks starred.
7. “Detroit”– Kathryn Biegelow directed this harrowing look at the Algiers Motel incident during Detroit’s 1967 12th Street Riot. John Boyega, Will Poulter, Algee Smith and Anthony Mackie starred.
8. “Justice League”– Zack Snyder directed (most of it) this entertaining, yet flawed tale about the formation of the Justice League of America and its battle against the alien villain known as Steppenwolf. Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa and Henry Cavill starred.
9. “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”– Johnny Depp returned as Jack Sparrow in this funny, yet slightly poignant fifth entry in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. Directed by Espen Sanberg and Joachim Rønning, the movie co-starred Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario.
10. “Logan” – Hugh Jackman and director James Manigold reunited for this haunting adaptation of the 2008 Marvel Comics tale, “Old Man Logan”. Patrick Stewart co-stars as Charles Xavier aka “Professor X”.
Honorable Mention: “Baby Driver” – Edgar Wright wrote and directed this tale about a young Atlanta getaway driver and music lover who is forced to work for a kingpin in order to settle a debt. Ansel Elgort, Lily James and Kevin Spacey starred.
LJONES66 