Skip to main content

This isn’t freedom. This is fear.


Trailers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The perceived “Avengers effect” whereby individual Marvel superhero properties are expected to get a box office boost from the goodwill and increased exposure of that mega hit, got an easy vindication when Iron Man Three sailed past the previous two installments.  Indeed, it doubled Iron Man 2’s worldwide gross.

But Downey Jr’s Tony Stark was already twice as successful as Marvel’s other fledgling superheroes, and the combination of his witty delivery and Joss Whedon’s post-modern dialogue was central to the appeal of Avengers. It should be no surprise that Iron Man Three did well, because it would have coasted to success on its star’s charm anyway. What differentiated it (controversially, perhaps with some fans) was that it ploughed its own distinct furrow. It wasn’t content to offer the lazy option of the big, better, more forgettable sequel that was Iron Man 2. Instead it chose not to follow the standard superhero formula and embraced a plot that included, well, you know, a plot. There were major twists, and Stark was kept out of his suit for the majority of the running time (a studio-friendly decision, since for some reason they think the public are paying to see the actor not the masked superhero, but one that worked). They threw in an annoying kid who, shockingly, wasn’t annoying. Shane Black was allowed to come in and shake things up a bit, and he did so in a wholly good way.

One might expect Edgar Wright’s Ant Man to work on similar lines, as it is informed by (relatively) auteurist instincts. Who knows what Guardians of the Galaxy will turn out like (I’m hesitant as James Gunn has yet to really “wow” me). But Thor and Captain America have an uphill struggle to make themselves distinctive and attractive as solo properties, particularly as both were approached in a (then) rather half-arsed budget-sensitive manner. I was extremely sceptical of Kenneth Branagh tackling a big Hollywood movie. I well remember the unintentional hilarity of Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. He couldn’t even keep that steadicam from overacting in his big screen version of Hamlet. But he delivered an entertaining, undemanding movie. It may have owed a little too much to Masters of the Universe, and it played everything very safe, but it was okay. The sequel comes with the promise of more of the Asgard Marvel head honcho Kevin Feige and co were reluctant to indulge too much first time out (lest it alienate). It also ropes in Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor, as if to say, “This will be a grittier fantasy epic”. But I’ve seen the trailer a couple of times and I can’t remember anything distinctive about it. Not the plot (Loki must team up with Thor; well no one could have seen that coming), not the action (there are some big battles, surprisingly), not the performances (Chris Eccleston is in there, under a pile of prosthetics and pointy ears). It might well be very good (but my expectations are middling), I’m sure it will at least be entertaining. But it sells nothing but formula. There’s nothing to make you think they’ve come up with something different. More than bigger, better, (possibly) more boring.

Which brings me to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. If I had some good will towards Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger left me mostly indifferent. It was all rather underwhelming. I had little familiarity with the character, other than that his name was not the most advisable one for a superhero in the current global environment. Fish out of water, or time, stories are a reliable standard, from Adam Adamant Lives! To… Thor. The problem was at least partly Joe Johnston, one of those safe-pair-of-hands journeymen who can be trusted not to mess up a Jurassic Park movie but who will also be in no danger of pulling off something more impressive than Spielberg. He’s bland and, true to course, he made a bland Captain America movie. It never built up a head of steam, failed to make the action involving. It just kind of sat there.

And Chris Evans is a charismatic guy; pretty much everything he did previously showed this (including the best part of the poxy Fantastic Four duology, Johnny Storm). But as Cap he becomes a block of wood. He even looks pallid and anaemic. Aside from Downey, Evans represents Marvel’s most obviously crowd-pleasing pick for a franchise king. But they put him in a vehicle that works against all his best qualities. Evans should be quick, sparky and irreverent. Cap is slow, bulky and staid. You can see Evans having to work against giving the character’s (few) witty lines a bounce. His personality fizzles out in the role.

I’m not sure that has really changed in the sequel. But, on the evidence of the new trailer, other aspects appear to have been given the kick in the pants that Thor: The Dark World lacks. Screenplay writers Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus contributed both the previous Cap and The Dark World screenplays. They also adapted all three Narnia movies. Perhaps not the most illustrious of CVs, although my understanding is that the Winter Soldier plot they’re basing their script on is a good one. What is most arresting (and of course a trailer can be cut to suggest qualities that are not in the finished movie; The Counselor appears to be the latest example of just such a let-down) is the flourish directors Anthony and Joe Russo have brought to the table. Known for their work on comedies, including Arrested Development and Community on TV, they had an early “up and coming” vibe with well-cast heist flick Welcome to Collinwood about a decade ago, but nothing suggesting a facility for massive mayhem. So this looks like one of those cost-effective chances that has paid off for Marvel (just as plumping for Jon Favreau paid of with the first Iron Man). The images suggest a keen grasp of framing and staging, from the lift fight to the car flip, to the crash and burn hellicarrier to the final shot of the Winter Soldier catching Cap’s shield.

I’m less than sold on Scarlet Johansson’s Black Widow. This may just be sour grapes at Emily Blunt losing out on the part, or it may just be that nothing has been done to make the character distinctive or interesting (other than put Johnansson in tight-fitting catsuits).

But the rest of the trailer content struck a chord, as it echoes the Russos’ previous comments that they wanted to combine the Captain with the trappings of a ‘70s conspiracy thriller. The vibe of the trailer suggests Cap’s traditional American values are pitted against a world where threats are neutralised before they even happen, and where  “to build a better world sometimes means tearing the old one down”. The Captain’s response is a head butt to a USA where pre-emptive strikes and drone attacks are an integral to the modern military machine. “I though the punishment usually came after the crime” he chastises. Appropriately, and picking up from the uneasy authoritarian vibe of their previous depiction(s), SHIELD is a force not to be trusted, an encapsulation of governmental propensity to act unmonitored and unanswerable to higher authorities. Might this be the first Marvel movie with a serious and graspable commentary? Well, Robert Redford shows up, Condor himself, so you’d have though some kind of carrot attracted him (I doubt that it was the thought he would once have been an ideal Captain). I expect the whole thing will devolve into unfettered explosiveness during the final act, but this looks like it might also have some bite. 


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There