Skip to main content

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel
(2019)

(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

In Black Panther’s case, T’Challa was roundly eclipsed by villain Eric Killmonger. Here, Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers is outshone by… well, pretty much everyone, except maybe her anodyne best bud Maria (Lashana Lynch). There have been various theories on why this is, perhaps the most common being that the fractured nature of her tale – an amnesiac gradually piecing her memory and supreme potential back together – rather impaired her chances of hitting the ground running as a fully conceived character. I’m not sure I really buy this, in that the movie’s structure had the potential for a relatively fresh take on an origins story, if only there had been more attention to making the mystery compelling and pushing the plot along (Memento comes to mind, where that lack of self-knowledge drives the story).

Carol rather listlessly comes across who she is/was, with convenient flashes of information here and there: nothing that really makes you sit up and take notice. Indeed, for Marvel’s mostsuper-powered superhero – I mean, she pretty much is, isn’t she? – there’s something curiously indifferent about the project. Brie is fine, but like Chadwick Boseman’s T’Challa, there’s little for her to chew on, and what there is is of the corniest “control your emotions/unleash them to realise your potential” variety (that “get back up again” montage is processed cheese incarnate). Which is why her arc doesn’t land. It’s both over-familiar and artificially foisted upon her; with any other superhero who has really taken off on the big screen, you can be sure that their sense of conflict/arc has actively translated, but Carol Danvers has been rather too schematically planned out, and as a result, she isn’t terribly interesting.

In terms of plot, the strongest element only peripherally relates to Captain Marvel, by virtue of her being duped: the Kree, who have trained her as a warrior, aren’t guardians of peace and justice at all, but aggressors bent on exterminating the reptilian, shapeshifting Skrulls (good lizards? What the…?) Accordingly, both Jude Law as initially hard-but-fair mentor Yon-Rogg, later revealed as bastardly, and particularly Ben Mendelsohn as initially dodgy interrogator Talos, later revealed as a sympathetic family lizard man, are more engaging presences than the lead (which is not to say the Skrulls-Kree conflict stuff is any better fleshed out, as a whole, than say the world of Green Lantern). I was a little disappointed that the paranoia potential of the Skrulls wasn’t developed more, but that makes sense in retrospect as (a) the Skrulls are good guys here and (b) it sets up a flip for the inevitable Secret Invasion movie. It’s a nice touch to have both Law and Mendelsohn use their natural, non-RP accents, but most of all it was nice to see Mendelsohn, typecast as a go-to Hollywood villain (well, it’s his fault really for accepting the parts), getting to play a good guy and be really funny.

Indeed, if there’s one thing that saves this movie from descending into the forgettable, it’s mining that patented Marvel seam of humour. Which is to say, it’s very formulaic humour, like the movie itself, but it provides a lift that the competently staged (by the second unit no doubt) but disappointingly sluggish action can’t (there’s one strong pursuit scene in an underground facility, but that aside, you’d be hard pressed to single out anything great, certainly not Captain Marvel’s “becoming”).

This is easily the best time Samuel L Jackson’s had in a Marvel movie – playing a version of himself a good decade younger than he actually was in the ‘90s, by the look of the actually pretty good de-aging; Agent Coulson doesn’t fare so well, but mercifully the character’s barely in it – and he’s very much the sidekick to Danvers. Indeed, while Fury works well (“If toast is cut diagonally, I can’t eat it”), there’s a vague annoyance when an emerging character is so engulfed by continuity that they don’t get the chance to take those all-important baby steps on their own. The presence of SHIELD here most hearkens back to their intrusive presence in Phase One, and if it wasn’t for Fury being an enjoyable element – as opposed to an extraneous one back then – it would grate just as much.

Also in his favour is his making best friends with cat-shaped alien/Flerken Goose (“It’s a cat, not Hannibal Lecter”), possibly the highlight of Captain Marvel (though the tentacled maw thing is a bit over-used design wise at this point). Still, it’s odd that Boden, Fleck and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (credited with inert Tomb Raider reboot, but also prospectively penning Gotham City Sirens, Sherlock Holmes 3 and a new Dungeons and Dragons, so maybe she was very unlucky first time out) should choose to undercut Fury by having Goose be responsible for his loss of sight in one eye. I mean, it’s funny, but it’s still a surprising choice.

Also in the cast are Annette Bening (barely makes an impression), Lee Pace (I actually thought they’d got someone else in as Ronan, à la Red Skull, as again, he barely makes an impression) and Stan Lee, cutely – or not, given the detritus that film is – swotting up on his lines for Mallrats.

How do Boden and Fleck fare? Well, okay… I mean, there’s absolutely no evidence of style or personality anywherein the movie (honestly, I’m surprised they even have a screenplay credit, since there’s nothing remotely as distinctive as their work on Half Nelson). Captain Marvel seems entirely made to order, nothing more so than the half-hearted attempts at ‘90s nostalgia, which principally consists of a Blockbuster drop-in and some sadly unimaginative and intrusive needle drops on the soundtrack (Come As You Are and Just A Girl being the most egregious). There seems to be a wide range of takes on the MCU directors, few seeming to be in unison on who’s handled their house-style requirements most heroically – I’d pick Shane Black, Jon Watts, James Gunn and Scott Derrickson, while I’m contrastingly not overly impressed by star journeymen the Russo brothers – but few can disagree at this point that, whatever the DCU’s deficiencies, and let’s face it they’re writ large in basic storytelling, they aren’t afraid to let talented filmmakers lead the way, rather than the producer.

Captain Marvel doesn’t turn up the feminism dial to eleven particularly, which might be to its credit – Maria’s flying the gender-warfare flag more pronouncedly than Carol – or perhaps to Marvel’s sheepishness, since it’s taken them so long to get there. There’ll be those who read topical commentary into the thing in dribs and drabs, but that kind of tack only invites a spotlight on its essential shallowness. Indeed, anyone looking for a progressive message here needs only observe how refugees and minorities congregate in awe around another white saviour figure. Don’t tell Brie that, though, or she’ll get right mardy with you. Captain Marvel will do, and has the box office to prove it, but that shouldn’t really cut it.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Y'know, I'd have guessed that you'd hate it, but I'm glad to be wrong; ironically, you sound like you like it more than me (I evidently mostly want to complain about it) but that's probably down to your take that it does nothing really special, when I'd argue that it does. Occasionally. (Like, I love the first memory scene, the train chase, the Escape From the Planet of the Apes reference--wha?--and at least the plot beats of the finale, if not the padded, middlingly-choregraphed group fight or the most awful song cue in a movie made of bad song cues.)

    I do think you're right about a lot of it, though--the one almost-fatal problem is that they don't give her a reason to be loyal to the Kree, so their betrayal of her, and her turning her back on them, don't land as the Space Jesus sacrifice they are in the usual version of this story. I mean, Superman, the Silver Surfer, the original Mar-Vell... they lost their homes and/or their freedom to do the right thing, whereas Carol regains both. It's not as powerful, or as exemplary. It makes her allegiance to the Skrulls more-or-less incidental. (And they easily could have. The USAF treated women like shit up until... well, anyway, the Kree Empire easily could have been a choice for a woman who apparently is good at and likes to inflict violence for the sake of a cause, is what I'm saying. I kept expecting her memory block to be self-inflicted!) I still think she's better off than T'Challa, who is such a nonentity in his movie (a shame after coming off as the most interesting part of Civil War!) that it's probably the reason I like Captain Marvel better.

    As for Marvel directors who broke free themselves the most, I'd pick Gunn, but only in GotG the first--even then, he really only remade the template, which is why even though I'd like to say Waititi, Ragnarok absolutely falls in line with a post-GotG, modified-Whedon Marvel Formula. Heck, I might say Reed: the Ant-Man franchise's frivolity feels genuinely organic in a way that the "cosmic pomp with piss-taking jokes" doesn't quite. Meanwhile, the Russos are consummate workmen, and not even, like, good workmen.

    Anyway, I might've just liked Captain Marvel more than Marvel 2018 just for having an actually good score, quite plausibly only the second time that's happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree regarding the USAF; it was irritatingly revisionist and a missed opportunity to give her some unforced substance.

      With the score, I probably didn't mention it as I'm not quite sure what I think. At times I thought it was pretty good, but overall it didn't stick in my mind, failing to make an impact or lift the movie. Which, with a middling one such as this, was really needed.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

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.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

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.