Skip to main content

Are you seriously telling me that your plan to save the universe is based on Back to the Future?

Avengers: Endgame
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I had a good time with Avengers: Endgame, what with its Back to the Future Part II revisiting of its own history, various of its character developments, and particularly with its resourceful throwing of spanners in the works of the team’s best laid plans to return the lost populace of the galaxy to their present, but I wasn’t overly impressed by the Russo brothers’ ability to explain their pet version of time travel. Indeed, I went away thinking that element was something of a train wreck. I’ve since moderated that view, but with a few caveats (there’s a particularly concise, digestible account of how Endgame most likely coheres here, but it’s very much the exception among numerous pieces explaining “How time travel does make sense in Endgame” that make no sense unto themselves). Endgame isn’t the most elegant picture, plot-wise – I’m sure there’s an actual kitchen sink in there somewhere – and like almost all Marvel movies, it culminates in a battle that confirms Kevin Feige will simply never understand that less can be more (and that the Russos, while reasonably adept at one-on-one action, have no particular aptitude for vast spectacle). But it does, in the main, satisfy as a wrap up to ten years of the MCU, even if it conversely entirely fails to whet an appetite for the next ten.

In terms of that over-stuffed plot, there’s so much in there that some of it couldn’t not hit its marks. The five-years-later opening stages are especially engaging. Sure, they’re replete with broad-stroke doodling of the ramifications of the Snap for these guys: Hawkeye becoming a full-on vigilante assassin; Thor turning lard-ass – as Rocket observes, “You look like melted ice cream”; Hulk having come to terms with himselves and thus almost but not quite justifying his irksome uselessness in Infinity War; Cap, er, leading self-help groups. But the Russos and writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely at least partially justify their gargantuan runtime by letting this unfold at a steady pace, allowing the enormity of the change to hit home (of course, they’ll have had The Leftovers to give them their cues). And before that too, there are nice touches: the disappearance of Hawkeye’s family; Tony’s emaciated tirade at Cap (both familiar to and rawer than previous instalments). It’s going to cost a lot to pull down all those Snap memorials, though, now death is not the end. Still, they could put up much needed affordable housing on sites where they most likely pulled houses down to put the memorials up.

I was equally caught up in the agile introduction of a slew of complications to the time heist plot, even if many of the actual emotional beats left me stony-faced. There's allowing a version of Loki to survive (disappearing elsewhere into timeline B, presumably), and (also presumably) a prior Gamora so letting various continuations of the franchise proceed unhindered. And throwing in a need to return to 1970, waxy-faced Howard Stark notwithstanding, since the iffy effects added to the sense that this father-son reunion wasn’t all it might have been. There's also Thanos’ discovery of dual Nebulas in 2014 effectively messed up matters; I’m a sucker for these types of plots, even given the frequency and/or frequent misuse of them.

Frankly, though, I was less than moved by Black Widow’s self-sacrifice; could they have picked two characters we care about less – I know, I know, I’m speaking for myself – to play out a scene designed to pack such emotional heft? On the other hand, while I’ve quickly grown very tired of quippy Thor, since everything about him now smacks of playing for easy laughs, safe in the knowledge this version is an audience pleaser, including the fat suit, the scene with Rene Russo’s Frigga was genuinely touching.

The climax, though. Nebula’s ability to bring Thanos et fleet back through the wormhole with but a Pym particle to her name doesn’t bear much scrutiny on the face of it. But the escalation of events leading to Tony and Strange exchanging an exasperated look of “Here we go again” as, despite all their efforts, events appear to be repeating themselves (“We messed with time. It tends to mess back”), is such a strong moment – along with Tony’s clever-clever old-switcheroo self-sacrifice – that it very nearly justifies the abundant excess elsewhere. Fight after fight after confrontation piles on as each hero gets their moment against Thanos but to little ultimate consequence. These are, at least for the most part, decently choreographed. It’s with the mass mayhem that Endgame rather gets lost up its own wormhole, even with a Giant Man in the mix.

As soon as the as the (re-)assembled, reconstituted heroes and armies arrive through a portal, it’s evident this is going to devolve into the same-old pixelated overkill, and much of it flies by frivolously (Peter’s return in particular is disappointingly lacking in personality). I had to laugh at the way Captain Marvel (“What, you going to get another haircut?”) is dealt with, having her arrive in the wake Infinity War’s post-credits fanfare and a solo movie only to be abruptly removed from the mix after a perfunctory cosmic AA routine because she’s too super-powered not to sort things out in double quick time (admittedly, her reasoning is sound, but the writers’ is no less obvious for it). I also had to laugh, derisively this time, at the Russos’ opportunistically self-congratulatory “sisters are doing it for themselves but only one-and-a-half have had their own movie so far so not that much” gathering storm, which has to be most wretchedly cheesy moment in the MCU, easily outdoing the previous title holder, Joss Whedon’s ill-advised speed-ramped panorama shot in Age of Ultron. Especially as, having so gathered them, their combined efforts evaporate into the usual confused melee.

The aftermath of all that carnage finds Tony in funereal form, Valkyrie the new monarch of New Asgard, and somewhat tiresomely, Thor and Peter Quill squabbling over who’s in charge (I really enjoyed that interaction in Infinity War, but sometimes less is more, and a whole Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 of this just doesn’t appeal). The funeral roll call is something and nothing, really, but it’s no doubt obvious that I’m too cynical to be moved. Nevertheless, bravo for finally writing out Cap and Tony (it might have been more affecting if the latter had gone when we still wanted more). I do wonder how they’re going to fill the gaps going forward, however, as charisma-wise there seems to be surfeit of B-players.

But back to the time travel. It’s ironic that the Russos took pointed time to scoff at other movies’ time-travel misfires when, hoisted by their own petards, they failed to explain their own sufficiently coherently, hence the widespread variations in interpretation for how Endgame’s supposed to coalesce. One of the most common appears to be that an unhealthy dose of magic wand – “the infinity stones cure everything” – is required to make it all work. Bruce – no wonder he can’t create a successful time machine – authoritatively mocks his co-Avengers’ movie logic by telling them "if you travel to the past, that past becomes your future and your former present becomes the past, which can't now be changed by your new future".

To be fair, the movie does appear to follow that through, so in the Avengers-verse paradoxes cannot take place, but the fact that so many – myself included – initially read this as a linear timeline suggests the Russos needed to do a bit more to underpin matters. The Ancient One’s visualisation lacks the clarity of Doc Brown’s in the suddenly-maligned Back to the Future Part II, but her words essentially confirm multiple timelines, even if she (unnecessarily) couches it in the language of the stones causing the universe(s) to operate as it does: “The Infinity Stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits. Now, this may benefit your reality, but my new one, not so much. In this new branch reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world would be over-run and millions would suffer. Tell me, Doctor, can your science prevent all that?

The branch version of time inevitably throws up its own problems that aren’t wholly accounted for (and even though Back to the Future set out a linear, singular version of time, there’s no really satisfactorily way to explain the end to the first movie other than that Marty arrives in an alternate timeline, replacing a version of himself from a much better-off McFly family). But as Ng Xin Zhao’s piece points out, Endgame just about gets away with the time travellers being able to return to their reality (they could feasibly end up in any multiple one) by travelling back through the same wormhole they left by.

Still, though, each divergent timeline should really create another divergent timeline, so I don’t fully buy into the idea that returning to timeline B and bringing back the stones hasn’t inevitably led to a timeline C (where the stones are never returned, simply because it has to exist as “a reality” until Cap actually goes back). So there is a version (and presumably this illustrates either the Ancient One’s flawed logic or that of the Russos) where exactly the concerns the Ancient One has over a future without the stone must come to pass; time travel will inevitably have terrible consequences for some version of the Avengers in some alternate branch reality.

Bruce’s optimistic account of how time travel works is essentially a less objectionable version of Steven Moffat’s self-conscious timey-wimey, whereby the Doctor Who showrunner played so fast and loose with plot logic that River Song could leap off a roof knowing the TARDIS would appear to catch her once the Doctor found out she had jumped off. It’s designed to stick two fingers up to an audience hoping for internal coherence (and consequences). Absolutely fine if you’re Bill and Ted, but less so if you’re trying to look at it rationally and/or suspensefully (the Back to the Futures had to make rules for timelines gradually changing to get around this kind of thing, so Biff was able to return to the same 2015 even though his younger self has changed 1985 by the time Doc and Marty get back to it).

Then there’s Cap returning at the end, now with a doubtless very saggy, wrinkled ass, accompanied by much speculation that he lived out his life secretly with Agent Carter in the A timeline so was able to pop up nonchalantly on a bench at the end. The Russos have confirmed he didn’t do this, though, so at least they’re reinforcing their own processes: “If Cap were to go back into the past and live there, he would create a branched reality,” Joe explained. “The question then becomes, how is he back in this reality to give the shield away?” Actually, my question is how unscrupulous Cap must be to snatch away any vestigial hope the Cap in the (B?) branch reality, the one he has muscled in on, has for happiness (or whomever Carter would have married, come to that). He’s presumably presuming Cap would behave exactly as he did, which he may well have done, but on the other hand…

Most amusing, though – or horrifying, given the variable potential repercussions and altercations of people moving on with their lives in the intervening period – is the five-year gap that finds the Snapped returning at the same age they were before. As we saw in micro form with Scott’s daughter, this will presumably mean half Peter’s classmates have long-since graduated. And that’s not to mention the global resourcing issues resulting from all those extra mouths to feed. Definitely a job for the Avengers. I’m sure Captain Marvel will be able to sort it out.

So Avengers: Endgame has more than its share of indulgences (some would label it fan service) and slightly ill-advised decisions, but I found it a more satisfying experience than Infinity War overall. The first part suffered – if that’s the right word – from its linearity of purpose and the inevitability of backtracking on its decisive gesture. The attempts to mix that up and provide a grand send-off get the better of Endgame at times, but not unlike the final season of Game of Thrones, it’s difficult to see how else it could have played out.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.