Before I start, a little history about me and super heroes. Like many guys my age who grew up in the late sixties and early seventies, we watched and emulated pretty much all of the Super Heroes associated with DC Comics (Batman, Superman, Flash, etc.) and Marvel (Captain America, Thor, Iron man, etc.). Cartoons from most awaited us every Saturday morning. Comic books would replace the cartoons during the week. I explain this because since these folks were part of our childhood, guys my age (definitely me) can be a little defensive when it comes to the portrayal of the heroes of our youth.
Wonder Woman
Well, I wouldn't consider it the best one ever made, but it was actually pretty good. Gal Gadot was well cast as Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman, and did a fantastic job. Chris Pine was also very good as Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman's co-hort throughout most of the movie. The chemistry between the two actors was fun to watch and dead on.
The story basically has Trevor, an American spy living in Europe towards the end of World War II some how stumbling (actually flying) into the modern time via some kind of time warp mechanism, which was never really explained, and splash landing near the island of Themyscira, or Paradise Island, where the all-female Amazons lived, including Diana Prince, clothed in Greek garb, togas and sandals. And, of course, the appropriate warrior clothing—shields, breastplates, helmets. Chasing Trevor through the time warp was a German battleship whose gun-toting occupants ultimately take on the bow and arrow flinging, horse riding Amazon women. A battle I never expected to see in my lifetime! I won't tell you who won, but afterwards, Steve and Diana return to 1944 Europe to try and end the war by bringing down the leaders of the Nazi party, one of whom Diana suspects of being the Greek God of War, Ares (no, it wasn't Hitler).
The ending isn't going to make everyone happy, but it was good. The action and CGI was typically very realistic, which seems to be the norm these days. The movie makers have special effects down to a science now. The only gripes I have are pretty minor and both involve casting. One of the villains in the movie, a character named Sir Patrick was played so-so by David Thewlis. Towards the end of the movie his character went through a bit of a change, at which point his role really started to become unbelievable. Even comical, although that wasn't the intention. But the real casting flub came with the character "Dr. Poison", a mad chemistry scientist with a deformed Phantom of the Opera face hired by the Nazis to create biological weapons. I don't know if the actress was to blame or the writers who created the character, but she was BAD! Totally unbelievable as a bio warfare technician, and not scary in the least. She reminded me of the Frau Farbissina character from Austin Powers. Totally out of place and almost laughable. Really missed the ball on that casting.
After the big fight out, the movie concludes the way it started, with Diana Prince in the offices of the Justice League (obviously to promote the new Justice League movie coming out this fall). But the movie failed to explain what her path was from the 1940's to today's Justice League. I know she appeared in last years "Batman vs. Superman" movie fiasco (good vs. good, hmm), which I saw and really disliked. And that movie may have explained her transition from Paradise Island to the Justice League. But I dread going back and watching it again just to find out!
On a final note, prior to Wonder Woman was a preview of the new Justice League movie, and I have to say it didn't do much for me. I still don't understand the reasoning of killing off Superman and having a Justice League without him. Oddly enough though, Henry Cavil, who played Superman, is in the Justice League credits. So either he's resurrected or there are flashbacks. Either way, why complicate things? Stay with the basics and just fight bad guys. Forget about all of these annoying plot changes! The screenwriters are trying to be too cute, in my humble opinion. There's no Green Lantern either! And throughout the preview, Aquaman is no where near water. Completely on land. But I'm sure he gets his flippers wet in the movie at some point. I would hope.
Spider-Man: The Homecoming
Like his Spider-Man predecessors, Holland does a good job playing a juvenile Peter Parker. In the original comics, Parker is kind of a kooky nerd-type in high school, and Holland portrays that to a tee. He probably takes the kooky part a little too far at times, which can be annoying, but overall he pretty much nails the part.
The best part of the movie though, is Michael Keaton as the good intention Adrian Toomes, who, because of some unfair bureaucracy that robs him of his lively hood, goes berserk and ultimately becomes "The Vulture", Spider-Man's nemesis in the film. "The Vulture" is a real villain taken from the Spider-Man comics, albeit quite a different looking one. It's actually an ironic role for Keaton, and I'm not sure unintentional, as in 2014 he played the title role in "Birdman", an Oscar winning movie in which he was nominated for Best Actor playing an over-the-hill actor who's claim to fame was playing the TV super hero and winged "Birdman" decades earlier. Keaton was great as "The Vulture".
It's always fun seeing Robert Downey Jr. on screen, and we were given the opportunity several times to enjoy him as Tony Stark and Iron Man again. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan, Tony Stark's right hand man, actually had the larger role in this movie playing Peter Parker's "guardian".
This version of Spider-Man basically continues from end of the last Captain America movie, "Captain America: Civil War", in which Spider-Man made an appearance after being recruited by Iron Man to battle Captain America and his cohorts (good vs. good...hmm). Anyhow, the battle left Peter Parker longing for more crime fighting opportunities with the Avengers. Iron Man, however, doesn't think he's ready and decides it would be better for Spider-Man, for the time being, to focus on "street level" crime, ie. small level street crime in Parker's neck of the woods. Stark assigns Happy Hogan to keep an eye on him. Predictably, an impatient Spider-Man goes looking for bigger and better fish to fry, and stumbles across "The Vulture's" illegal operation. Again, that's where I'll stop so not to give away too much.
The rest of the movie deals with this conflict, however, and includes one surprise that, as I said earlier, I didn't expect. It was a nice touch. I had one small issue with it, but I can't go into it without completely spoiling the moment. So we'll move on! Overall, it was an entertaining movie. Probably the most politically correct Marvel movie so far, I would guess. Very diverse cast, inter-racial relationships, and so on. Which is very cool. It was just more noticeable in this movie. Watching Peter Parker fine tune his spider skills after Tony Stark supplies him with a hyped up Spider-Man outfit was fun. We get a behind the mask view of Spider-Man, just like in the Iron Man movies where we listen and watch Tony Stark communicate with his computer AI.
Gripes? Not many. Peter Parker's best friend was pretty annoying most of the time. The seemingly unavoidable and unneeded love interest story line was included. Spider-Man caused more collateral damage in this movie than in any of the other five, and didn't seem to care. Even though most of it was avoidable. It's funny, because in the "Captain America: Civil War" movie, political authorities were trying to put control on the Avengers to reduce the collateral damage they were leaving everywhere they fought. Iron Man was for that, but Spider-Man I guess didn't quite catch on yet. Seems like he should have been on Captain America's side, who was against it!
So why not a raving review, you ask? Well, this movie was obviously written for a 20 year old audience, so it was pretty juvenile at times. I understand that, but can't quite relate to some of it, so it effects my movie experience. As a result, it was enjoyable, but basically a kids super hero movie. Which is a little disappointing seeing that folks my age are the real ones who grew up with these characters! But that's ok.
In conclusion, prior to "Spider-Man: Homecoming", there was a preview of the new Thor movie coming out this fall. And guess what? Thor battles the Hulk! As you can tell from my sarcastic comments above, I'm not a fan of the "good vs. good" story line. Maybe it's a reflection of society today, I don't know. But I just don't get it. Batman vs. Superman, Captain America vs. Iron Man, and now Thor vs. the Hulk. I know that ultimately they all end up on the same side. But why go that route? Are the screenwriters coming up with blanks? Are they out of ideas? And what happened to the good guys fighting the bad guys? There are plenty of villains in the Marvel and DC archives to pull out that the Justice League and Avenger folks can battle. More importantly, they are writing these movies now for kids, and I'm not sure having them watch good fight good is the best thing to do. Maybe DC learned something after "Batman vs. Superman" flopped at the box office. At least I hope so!
No comments:
Post a Comment