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. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

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.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …

I enjoy various physical pursuits.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)
I had no avid desire to see Sam Taylor Johnson’s adaptation of E L Gray’s novel, but I was curious about it – in the same way I am any big hit such as a Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. There’s no point pretending to have an opinion on something you haven’t seen. I haven’t read the novel, nor likely will I, but more power to Gray for getting her Twilight fanfic repurposed as erotic fiction; seriously, I don’t get the naysaying there (her prose may be a different matter, but as I say, I haven’t read it). Fifty Shades of Grey the movie? Well, its handsomely made, but it’s exceptionally dull.

I don’t think I’m probably that different to Fifty Shades devotees on that score; it seems to have been greeted generally with an “It was okay, but…” from those I know who have read the novels. My impression generally was of a wish-fulfilment fantasy a la Pretty Woman but with added (very coy) S&M. Well-performed with lip biting zeal by Dakota Johnson (appea…