Movie Reviews: "Spider Bond"

After our original New Year's plans fell through, we decided to spend the New Year's weekend at the movies, watching two films that provided equally unexpected surprises. One pleasant and one not so pleasant. Let's start with the pleasant.

***SPOILER ALERT!  If you haven't seen either of the movies below and plan to, you probably won't want to continue reading, as much of the plot, and both surprises, will be revealed!***

Spider-Man: No Way Home

For the first time in years, we decided to go to the drive-in, where we saw "No Way Home" on New Year's Day, the third Spider-Man film featuring Tom Holland as the web-slinger. He is also the third actor to portray Spidey this century, the first being Tobey Maguire back in 2002 when he also starred in three films. In between the two, Andrew Garfield took the helm for two movies. In his three films, Maguire battled the Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and the Sandman. Garfield in his two outings fought The Lizard and Electro. 

Why do I mention this? You'll find out.

This film starts off sometime after "The Avengers: Endgame" and the death of Ironman, and not long after the last Spiderman film, "Far From Home" where Spiderman defeated and killed Mysterio, and was labeled by some as a villain for doing so. This resulted in the press revealing to the world that Peter Parker was Spiderman. Goodbye secret identity. This sentiment carried over to "No Way Home", where the film started with everyone out to get Spiderman/Peter Parker. Things got so bad for our arthropod hero that he asked fellow Avenger Dr. Strange to whip up a spell that would make everyone forget that Peter Parker was Spiderman. 

Unfortunately, as Dr. Strange was implementing the spell, Parker, who was easily the most annoying, juvenile bozo of the three Spiderman portrayals, decided at the last minute that several close people should be excluded from this spell. Needless to say, this messed up the spell to the point where it opened a chasm to what is known as the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and dangerous foes from other worlds begin to enter and appear. These foes, coincidently, were the aforementioned Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Sandman, The Lizard and Electro. 

Strangely, however, Spiderman didn't know who these villains were, nor did any of them recognize him as Spiderman, even though they fought each other in recent years. Huh?  Dr. Strange would soon reappear and announce that he would be sending the villains back to their respective universes via another spell. However, some of them had died in their original battle with Spiderman, which meant they would again die when they returned. How they they were resurrected in the first place was never revealed. Parker decided that wasn't fair, and instead wanted to try come up with a formula to cure these thugs and revert them to their pre-villain state. Which, of course, this Spiderman didn't know what that was since he didn't even know who they were. To attempt this, Spiderman again had to booby-trap Dr. Strange's spell, which he did.  

My first reaction to all of this was, "Argh", what is this twit doing? These are really bad guys. You're a crime fighter. Just send them back! I fortunately had watched the previous Maguire/Garfield Spiderman movies and was aware of their back stories. And as I thought about it more, I began to remember that each of these villains didn't begin as villains. Nor were their intentions to be villains. They all were victims of unfortunate circumstances or events that turned them into what they now were. So maybe they did deserve a chance of being cured? My thinking began to change. 

Soon after, another multi-universe window was opened to help locate Spiderman, who had disappeared due to a personal tragedy that he was partly responsible for.. Instead, in walked the two biggest surprises of the entire movie:  Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. Yes, Spiderman 1 and 2. As it turns out, there weren't three actors playing Spiderman all of these years, but each ARE Spiderman, but from a different Marvel Cinematic Universe. Kind of clever. So when the Toby Maguire Spiderman confronted the Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus and Sandman, they instantly recognized each other. Same with Garfield and Electro and The Lizard. Before long, all three Spidermen joined forces to complete the original goal: cure the five villains. Things didn't start well, which prompted the Garfield Spiderman to respond with one of the funniest lines in the movie:  "I don't know how to work as a team!" After a quick huddle, they figured it out, and you can probably guess what happened. It was a nice touch seeing the Maguire/Garfield Spidermen confront their respective villains once again, but in a post-villain state. 

I have to say that seeing all three Spiderman actors together was really odd. Mostly because it took me by surprise. One can't help wonder what it took to convince Maguire and Garfield to put on their tights again. Not only that, the villains were also portrayed by the original actors. All-in-all, the movie was very fun to watch, despite the confusing multi-universe concept, and the Holland Spiderman acting like a 10 year-old half the time. I know that Spiderman in the comics is a happy-go-lucky high schooler, but the whiny Holland is over the top and pretty annoying most of the time. At least to me. I've been pretty critical of past Marvel movie storylines, but this one deserves some credit. An enjoyable experience and well worth the price of a ticket. 

I had read somewhere that many thought that Maguire was the best Spiderman, Garfield the best Peter Parker, and Holland the best of the two combined. Can't say I agree with that. When you see all three actors together, you can clearly see how Holland isn't in the same league as Maguire or Garfield in acting ability. Personally, I think Garfield was the best all-around Spiderman/Peter Parker, but Maguire was my favorite. He's such a great actor (check out "Cider House Rules" sometime).

To fully enjoy the experience of watching "No Way Home", the movie makers pretty much require viewers to have watched the five Maguire/Garfield movies. Those who don't will miss many of the references to these movies, character backstories, and won't understand the relationships between the villains and their corresponding Spiderman. And as a result probably won't enjoy the movie as much as they could have. With how well "No Way Home" is doing at the box office, I'm guessing the film has jump started the sales and rentals of the original five movies tenfold. Which may have been one of the intentions of the movie makers choosing this storyline. I wouldn't put it past them! 

No Time to Die

We rented and watched this latest James Bond venture as part of our pre-midnight New Year's Eve entertainment. Going into it, I knew it was the fifth and final portrayal of Daniel Craig as 007, with the first being "Casino Royale" in 2006.  I won't review this one in as much detail as "No Way Home", as it's a pretty typical Daniel Craig Bond vehicle: lots of action, implausible, super human Bond escapes, dark, and little to no "Bond" humor. That's one of the biggest differences between Craig's Bond and the one Sean Connery and Roger Moore portrayed: they aren't as fun. No tongue-in-cheek moments. But this movie overall was actually pretty entertaining for what it was. Until the end, which is where the big surprise came. Again, like with "No Way Home", it really took me by surprise. But this one wasn't quite as pleasant.

So what's the surprise? Well, let's just say that Bond did have time to die. Because that's what he did. At the end of the movie an injured James Bond, unable to escape a factory that was about to be destroyed by missile fire, stood atop the building and watched with us as the missiles made impact, blowing 007 to smithereens. Kabluwee. Just like that, James Bond was gone, and a successful, long running franchise ended. Or was it?  

As a secondary surprise, it was also revealed that James Bond very likely had a daughter. The movie started five years in the past where Bond meets and falls in love with Madeleine, who, as a child, was almost killed by Lyutsifer Safin, who would re-surface in her adulthood and be the film's primary villain. Bond helps her escape Safin a second time, but are then separated for five years. When they accidently reunite, we learn that Madeleine now has a five year old daughter named Mathilde who she tells Bond isn't his. But hints throughout the rest of the film indicate otherwise. 

So could it be that the next Bond movie will feature a female lead, Mathilde Bond? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, seeing that todays movie studios continue to move into the direction of political correctness. Having another strong female character would fit right in. Not there's anything wrong with it. I'm all for it. I love characters like Black Widow and Wonder Woman!  But in the past five years or so, we're suddenly been inundated with women kicking the butts of men, relationships of mixed color, people with different sexual preferences, etc. in nearly every movie we see. Compared to movies released just 10 or so years ago, it's so obvious what Hollywood is doing now. Why? Two words: societal pressure. 

Not that there aren't people in this industry that have always supported issues like gender, sexual preferences, and minority oppression, but the studios of today don't want to be accused of being intolerant to anyone, and subsequently criticized for it, which would likely end up resulting in a hit at the box office. Or, in todays terms, being "cancelled". So what Hollywood is doing now isn't the issue, it should have been done years ago, but their motivation is what's troubling. Many are being "politically correct", and so obviously, not because they want to, but because they have to. Else we would have seen these type of characters in the volume we are now 15 years ago.

Phew, my speech is over! In short, I'd recommend seeing both movies when you have the opportunity. 

Movie Review: "Godzilla vs. Kong "

This past January I received my Comcast bill and noticed that it had increased by nearly $20 from the previous month. I also noticed that my last discount "perk" had expired a month earlier, which was a primary reason why. So I did what I usually do when that happens: give Comcast a call and inquire about current deals for existing customers. That usually works, and really paid dividends this time as they dropped my monthly bill $15 lower than what it was before the increase, while doubling my internet speed and throwing in both HBO Max and Showtime for two years. Thank you Comcast!

This allowed me the opportunity to do something I hadn't done in over 1 1/2 years: watch a new theatrically-released movie. In case you weren't aware, HBO Max, at least for the time being, is showing an occasional theatrically-developed movie in conjunction with it being released in the theater. Two such movies this year were "Wonder Woman 1984", which I didn't like and won't waste time writing about, and this one, "Godzilla vs. Kong", which was pleasantly entertaining. And after watching two bad Godzilla movies in 2014 and 2019, and an almost equally bad King Kong move in 2017, I never thought I'd say that!

Sure, "Godzilla vs. Kong" still had some lame storylines, and even lamer characters, but the action and visual effects all but made up for them. The general plot features a race between legitimate scientists and the proverbial nutty professor to find a power source in an unexplored area at the core of the earth. This power source is evidently what empowers the "Titans", or the prehistoric creatures that have appeared in the aforementioned Godzilla and King Kong movies. Including the two star "Titans" themselves.

The film starts out with King Kong discovering that the habitat he was moved to after his 2017 movie is man-made. Concerned that he might escape, his "keepers" decide to move Kong and plot to use him to lead them to this "power source" at the earth's core, and possibly discover Kong's original home. In the meantime, Kong has bonded with a deaf young girl named Jia who, it turns out unbeknownst to everyone, he can communicate with using sign language. On route to the entrance point of the earth's core, which I'm not quite sure how they discovered, Kong's keepers are alerted that Godzilla has sensed the presence of Kong, evidently through his power source, and is tracking him down. Can they get Kong to the core before Godzilla finds them?  That's the million dollar question. Or at least the first one.

In addition to all of this, a wealthy, ambitious, soft spoken, mumbling, hard to understand, borderline good actor business magnate has come up with the brilliant idea to create a mechanical man-controlled "Titan" that will destroy all of the other "Titans" threatening the world. And once he gets wind of this earth's core power source that could empower his creation, he and his loyal band of followers join in on the chase.

What did I tell you about the storylines?

I won't spoil when and where they happen, but Godzilla and Kong do have numerous confrontations (wouldn't be much of a movie if they didn't), including one with the mechanical "Titan", reminiscent of 1974's "Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla" movie (sans Kong). And that's where the movie really shined. These confrontations were game changers, cinematically. They were really incredible to watch. Even on a 55" screen!  One of the big reasons why is that they happened during the day!  If you go back and watch the two previous Godzilla movies, practically all of the monster fight scenes were done either at night or during a rainstorm where you could barely see what was happening. The fighting in "Godzilla vs. Kong" was a completely different, satisfactory experience. And even a little funny at times, as I'm willing to bet the movie makers are wrestling fans, as I could have sworn I saw both combatants use one or two WWE moves during their fighting.

Getting back to subplot #2, the wealthy magnate does get to the power source, thanks to a spy within the Kong group, but things don't go as planned when he tries to apply it to his mechanical monster. This all leads up to a pretty tasty conclusion.

Cast-wise, not all of the characters made a whole lot of sense. There was a trio of nitwits that tried to infiltrate the businessman's headquarters for apparently no other reason than to be the comedy relief for the movie. Their roles served no real purpose to the overall plot and were really a distraction for me. I rolled my eyes whenever they appeared, as they take you away from what's really happening. And as I stated earlier, the business magnate, played by actor Demian Bichir, although not bad, was very hard to understand, as the combination of mumbling, speaking softly, and having a thick accent is not ideal for one of the integral stars of a movie. Plus I have tinnitus, which doesn't help!

Overall, though, the movie was fun to watch and enjoyable with a pretty satisfying ending, despite the issues with some of the plot and characters. Ideal "brain candy", if that's what you're looking for. I'd recommend trying to see it in a theater if you can. I'm sure it's pretty spectacular watching it on a 50 foot screen compared to my 55" TV!

Movie Review - "Ford vs. Ferrari"

The rivalries that come to mind when one reminisces about sports in the 1960's would probably include the Packers and Cowboys in the NFL and the Lakers and Celtics in the NBA. But one rivalry that flew under the radar for many, including me, was that between Ford and Ferrari in the world of auto racing, specifically the world renown 24 Hours of Le Mans. Still the world's oldest active sports car race in endurance racing, the event has been held annually since 1923 near the town of Le Mans, France. Although it's lost some of it's luster in recent years, it was THE race back in the mid 20th century. And for its first 40 years, an American car manufacturer had never won it.

Wow, what a great premise for a movie!  Hollywood agreed, and so the idea for "Ford vs. Ferrari" was born.

In 1964, after Ferrari won it's fifth straight 24 Hour of Le Mans race, Henry Ford II engaged in lengthy negotiations with Enzo Ferrari to buy the cash strapped Italian car maker, with a a desire to expand Ford's presence in motor sports, and at Le Mans in particular. However, negotiations collapsed due to disputes over control of Ferrari's racing division. As a result, Ferrari backed out and soon after agreed to a minor partnership with Fiat. Fiat would later buy 50% of Ferrari in 1969.

The collapse of the deal spurred Ford to develop their GT40 project, with the intent to end Ferrari's dominance at Le Mans. The movie made it appear that Ford II carried a real grudge against Enzo Ferrari as a result of his decision to go with Fiat. A grudge that we were reminded of throughout the film. In fact, shortly after Ferrari's 11th hour switch to Fiat, Ford II, according to the movie, handed his executives, including a pre-Chrysler Lee Iacocca, a blank check to make that happen. And that's where the story of "Ford vs. Ferrari" really begins.

Matt Damon (Shelby) and
Christian Bale (Miles)

Part of Ford's strategy was to recruit the well known American car builder and former racing champion Carroll Shelby to lead the effort. Shelby actually co-drove the British Ashton-Martin car that won the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans race. Shelby retired from racing after that year because of a heart condition. After joining Ford racing, a heated and deceptive relationship between Shelby and Ford ensued....at least according to the movie. One of Shelby's first objectives was to recruit British driver Ken Miles, who actually became the chief test driver of Shelby-American in 1963. Although not mentioned in the movie, Miles helped Shelby develop the Shelby Cobra and is also credited with helping develop the Mustang GT350.

Miles would be the target of a couple of Ford curve balls, as Ford II's executives didn't think much of Mile's gruff, shoot-off-the-hip personality, and banned him from driving in the 1965 Le Mans because of feared negative public perception towards the company. However, after a disappointing 1965 La Mans race, Ford II backed down. A decision he wouldn't regret. After helping redesign the GT40, Miles was given the go ahead to participate in the 1966 race, one in which Ford would actually have three cars entered in.

Sharing the drive with Denny Hulme in the #1 Ford car, Mile's GT40 was in the lead at the beginning of the final lap following a nail biting, back-and-forth battle with Ferrari's #1 car that resulted in the latter blowing a gasket. Not sure that actually happened, but it was pretty exciting to watch.

With the three Ford cars now claiming the first three positions in the race, Ford executive Leo Beebe, portrayed as a real dufus in the film, came up with the bright idea of having a publicity photo taken of the three Ford cars crossing the finish line together. For this to happen, Beebe had to instruct Shelby to order Miles to slow down so that the other two cars could catch up, which he did, and Miles would only agree to do because he was told he'd still be declared the winner. Accordingly, the next Ford car, driven by Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon, and the third place Ford car caught up to Miles, and the three cruised across the finish line together. The French race officials, after initially agreeing to Ford's dead-heat "photo-finish", changed their minds due to a little known technicality. Since the McLaren/Amon #2 car had started some 20 yards behind the Miles/Hulme #1 car, it had traveled a farther distance, and because of that were declared the winners. Something that obviously didn't sit well with Miles, although in my research, he was much more upset about it than the movie portrayed. The movie didn't end there, but that's where my review will stop so not to give too much more away.

Since I wasn't aware of this story, much of what I saw in the movie was new to me. After watching the movie, I was anxious to do some research to see how much of the story was true, as some of what happened in it was a little hard to believe, and how much exaggerated. Something not uncommon for movie makers these days to do. But to my surprise, a high percentage of the movie content appears to be pretty accurate. Even the portrayals of most of the characters.

Henry Ford II joy ride:  did this really happen?

Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, and have very little negative to say about it. Although I don't know for sure, I have a feeling the Ford obsession to unseat Ferrari might have been exaggerated a little. As well as the portrayal of Ford II himself, who comes off as a cranky, unpleasant stiff. But he may have been that way, if quotes from the real Iacocca are true. Right before the race started, Miles and the Ferrari #1 driver were shown having a stare down. And of course, on more than one occasion during the race they have a heated confrontation. These and scenes of Shelby giving Ford II a joy ride and a Shelby/Miles wrestling match may have happened, but they had the feeling of Hollywood added movie drama. Minor stuff though. On to the positive.

The writing was very good and held my attention for the entire 2+ hours, which isn’t easy to do! The acting was also superb, as both Matt Damon (Shelby) and Christian Bale (Miles) were great in their leading roles. I had read that Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt were the movie producer's first choices, but I can't imagine them doing as good a job, let alone better, than Damon and Bale. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Best Supporting Actor nomination in Bale's future. Caitriona Balfe as Ken Mile's wife Mollie was also exceptionally good, while Tracy Letts and Josh Lucas as Ford II and Beebe did well playing easy to dislike slime-balls.

So overall, I would definitely recommend "Ford vs. Ferrari", particularly if you are a racing fan. But this was made in a way where you really don't have to be one.

Note:  If you're interested in seeing who all of the 24 Hours of Le Mans winning cars are, check out this site.

Movie Review: "Toy Story 4: Woody's Final Rescue"

Nine years after the release of Toy Story 3, and 24 years after the original Toy Story movie hit the theaters, the long-awaited, highly anticipated fourth installment of the popular Toy Story series was finally released on June 21. 2019. And, for the most part, it didn’t disappoint.

Although the film makers don’t use sub-titles with the Toy Story movies, this one could have easily been called “Woody’s final rescue”, as in each of the prior three Toy Story movies Woody either rescued himself (from Sid in Toy Story 1), was rescued (from Al the Toy Collector in Toy Story 2), or rescued others (from Lotso in Toy Story 3). This was no exception in Toy Story 4, as Woody came to the rescue of a new toy created by his current “child” Bonnie, who, if you remember, inherited him, Buzz Lightyear, and the other toys from their original owner Andy at the misty eyed end of Toy Story 3 as Andy went off to college.

Toy Story 4 pretty much picked up where Toy Story 3 left off, although by this time, Woody has fallen into second class toy status as Bonnie no longer was choosing to play with him. When a distraught Bonnie was taken to kindergarten orientation class, Woody decided to sneak along, as he insisted a toy would help her cope with her new environment. Once in class, Woody, hiding in a small trash can, removed some craft remnants that were in it, in addition to a plastic fork of all things, and exposed them to a brooding Bonnie when she wasn’t looking. Bonnie then proceeded to create “Forky’, her new toy and friend. The majority of the rest of the movie saw Woody trying to keep the two together. Forky, originating from the garbage, was naturally drawn to it. Some of the funnier moments in the movie had Woody trying to keep Forky from returning to his place of origin. Forky, by the way, was voiced over by actor Tony Hale, who did a great job.

"Forky"

During the week between orientation and the beginning of kindergarten, Bonnie’s family decided to
go on a camping trip. Bonnie and Forky predictably get separated, and Woody goes on a search for the lost utensil. After finding him, the two head to the campsite with Woody sharing his life story along the way. Upon arriving at the campground, the two pass an antique store where a lamp that originally belonged to Bo Peep catches Woody’s eye.  Bo Peep, who evidently holds a special place in Woody’s toy heart, was separated from the rest of the toys earlier on. Wanting to investigate and find his missing friend, the two enter the store, and as expected, run into the Toy Story 4 version of Sid, Al and Lotso:  Gabby Gabby.  Gabby has her eyes set on a little girl named Harmony, but she has a broken pull-string voice box that delays her from doing so, as she fears the child would reject her once she found out. As a solution to her problem, Gabby sets her eyes on Woody’s voice box. And this, of course, is where all of the fun begins. I won’t go into any more detail about the goings on in the antique store so not to spoil the story, but some interesting new characters are introduced along the way, including the creepy “dummies” who guard Gabby Gabby, and Duke Kaboom, humorously voiced by Keanu Reeves.

The list of original supporting characters are all here, including Rex, Slinky Dog, Jesse, and Hamm. All have less screen time than in the prior pictures, but none more noticeably than Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head voice Don Rickles passed away in 2017, thus the wedded buds were limited to one line each in this movie. Rickle’s was actually pulled from archived audio. Missing in action were the little green army men and, with the exception of a quick cameo, Barbie. And after playing a fairly big role in Toy Story 3, Ken was nowhere to be seen here. And what about Buzz Lightyear?  He’s definitely there and a hero on a couple of occasions. But even his screen time was less than in prior movies.

"Woody & Bo Peep"

Being promoted to a starring role in this move, however, was Bo Peep. Once the shenanigans begin inside the antique store, she pretty much ran the show. Which seems to be the norm in most Hollywood movies these days, at least in the ones I’ve seen lately:  a strong female character leading a weaker male one, and kicking the butt of others. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I’m all for it. But it’s Hollywood’s motivation for doing this that troubles me, as they are obviously reacting to pressure to do so rather than doing it voluntarily. If they really felt that strongly about it, we would have seen many more strong, leader, kick butt-type female roles 10 or 15 years ago, rather than being saturated with them in the past two or three years. Particularly in the action movie genre.

Got off track, sorry! Now back to the movie:

The showing I watched featured a particularly large amount of kids under six years of age or so, and there are two scenes in the movie that garnered noticeable reactions from them. One was the ending, which I’m sure many parents had to explain to them while driving home. I actually had no problem with it, but I kind of did with the second scene. I won’t reveal the ending, but I do want to address this other scene. Warning: there is definitely spoiler material here, so skip the next paragraph if you haven’t seen the movie!

"Gabby Gabby"

As mentioned earlier, the Gabby Gabby doll had her sights on a little girl named Harmony, but didn’t
want to confront her until her pull-string voice box was fixed. Well, towards the end of the movie it did get repaired, and the moment of truth did arrive when Harmony heard Gabby and discovered her sitting on the floor in the store. A flustery-eyed Harmony picked up the doll, and with Woody and Forky watching intensely, pulled Gabby’s pull-string a couple of more times. The last message from the doll was “will you take me home?” Still looking lovey-dovey-eyed at Gabby, Harmony shocked the audience (and especially the pre-six year olds) by pausing for a couple of seconds and then saying “Nah”. She then promptly tossed Gabby Gabby into a nearby basket. Yikes! I don’t know how many kids I heard in the audience say “why?” at that moment. To be fair, that rejection did set up a nice scene a little later on where Gabby found another child, but all this did was exchange one nice moment for another. Personally, I would have stuck with the original nice moment of Gabby uniting with Harmony, because I guarantee you the second question these kids asked their parents on their drive home was “why didn’t Harmony want Gabby Gabby?”  I’m sure the parents didn’t appreciate being put into that position by the Toy Story 4 writers!  And they really shouldn’t have been. I know the creators had a reason for doing what they did, but I have no clue what it is. Be interested to find out though.

Overall though, Toy Story 4 was very entertaining and definitely offered the same all around quality and entertainment value as it’s three predecessors. Some new characters took over the spotlight from a few of the old ones, with Forky and Duke Kaboom in particular being very good while others not as much (Bunny and Ducky).  The ending will please some and disappoint others. Was it the way I wanted to see it end?  Probably not. But it made sense when looking back at the entire story being told in the movie. Does kind of leave things open for a Toy Story 5, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Movie Review: "Avengers: Endgame" - Thank Goodness

Before I start, I acknowledge that Avengers: Endgame has been getting an 80% positive rating both by critics and moviegoers. And I can even understand why, as it is an entertaining movie, both in action and humor. But I’m siding with the 20%, and I hope my review sufficiently explains why. I fully accept the fact that after reading this, there’s an 80% chance you won’t agree with me. And that’s perfectly fine, as I am glad people are enjoying the film! It’s not the worst one ever made, and certainly not as bad as its prequel. So let’s explore why I didn’t like it quite as much as most. 

Last year around this time, the movie Avengers: Infinity War came out, the first of a two-part series ending battle that would pit the mostly inane, mental case Avengers against an intergalactic adversary named Thanos who was literally invincible. That should be a red flag right there. And it was (to me at least), if you read my scorching review of the film. 

In short, Infinity War was a story about Thanos’ quest to collect five different colored stones, called infinity stones, which, when together and activated, would give him ultimate power in the universe while eliminating half of its occupants in order to solve a misconceived overpopulation problem. The Avengers failed to stop Thanos, and half of the earth’s population dissolved into dust at the movies end. Including many of the Avengers. A movie where the superheroes fail. Just what everyone wants to pay ten bucks to watch! I know, it was an obvious ploy to extend this story into a two-parter. But as a stand alone film, Infinity War stunk.

The primary plot in this years sequel, Avengers: Endgame, had the surviving Avengers, who just happen to include the original Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk, as well as Hawkeye, Black Widow, and a couple non-Avengers, trying to figure out how to bring back the disintegrated 50%. And defeat Thanos, of course. The latter, quite surprising, was done effortlessly about 15 minutes into the movie when they tracked down the now powerless Thanos (the activation of the infinity stones took all of the power he had), on a remote planet.

With Thanos gone and the infinity stones no longer available, the remaining heroes devise a plan to go back in time and retrieve all five infinity stones before Thanos originally gets his chance to collect them. Then, hopefully, when one of the Avengers activates the infinity stones, which involves putting on a glove that contains all five of the stones implanted in it, everything would be reversed and billions of people returned. Two problems though. One, no one had a clue if this would work. And two, traveling in time had not yet been perfected. But no worries, in as perfect as perfect timing can be, we are taken to Tony Stark’s lab the moment he solves the mystery of time travel. Ant-Man’s testing of it was pretty funny, I have to say. So problem # 2 solved.

The remaining Avengers then team up and return to various times in the past to snag the well-guarded infinity stones. And that’s actually where the best part of the movie occurs, as we get to relive some of the moments from prior Avenger group and individual films. Of course, getting the stones isn’t easy for any of them, as, expectedly, unexpected obstacles crop up to delay all of them from achieving their goals. A five year old kid could see that coming. But still, some nice moments came out of these excavation adventures. Particularly when Tony Stark (Ironman) runs into his dad, and Captain America into an old flame. 

Not to give too much away, but one of the non-Avengers would meet with a particularly serious obstacle in their quest that would eventually blow a hole into the Avengers plan and ultimately make it possible for Thanos of the past to enter into the present day. And then, like in Infinity War, we get to watch the mighty Avengers get their butts kicked again. All of the Avengers, and I mean all, bounce of Thanos like a rubber ball. Sure, they initially get the upper hand against Thanos to give the viewer hope, but are then quickly swatted away like a fly and stomped in the ground. Old, predictable movie making technique.  Did like the scene when all of the women Avengers and heroes gathered and did a female group attack on Thanos. Think the movie makers were sending a message there?!

Even Captain Marvel was ineffective, which surprised me. Last year’s movie ended with a call to Captain Marvel, and then there was a big hullabaloo when she had her own movie back in March. In the first 20 minutes of this movie, she did save Tony Stark, which was a pretty good scene, and she did some reconnaissance on a planet Thanos was on for the remaining Avengers. But then she basically disappeared until the end of the movie, returning just in time to get her butt kicked by Thanos as well. Not quite sure what the movie makers were thinking. Well, actually I do, because not being able to destroy Thanos physically set up another plot twist that led to the film’s unfortunate ending.

Because of their ineptness and ineffectiveness to fight Thanos, a sacrifice had to be made in order to stop the thug for good. All an obvious ploy to introduce a sentimental, heart tugging ending to the original Avengers saga. Blah. Because of circumstances that I won’t reveal so not to spoil the movie too much, if I haven't already, the movie makers of Endgame went the mushy, pass me the tissue route, which, personally, had my eyes rolling, not watering. Not that I don’t like movies that do that. I actually do. But not in this kind of movie! These are superheroes. They come, they’re tough, they fight, they conquer. That’s it!  Read the original comics and that’s what you see. You’ll never see an instance where they face an opponent who continually pummels, outsmarts and completely embarrasses them. In short, Thanos was made to be too strong in these films. That's the bottom line. But he almost had to be in order for them to do the ending they wanted to. So yes, the ending was a bit of a disappointment for me. Watching Thanos slowly dissolve into dust like the wicked witch of the west in the Wizard of Oz just didn’t satisfy all of the frustration I had to sit through the past five hours of both films to get to that point!

I actually had high hopes for this years sequel, which has been getting pretty good reviews, as I mentioned earlier. But unfortunately, at least for me, it was mostly the same old thing. Certainly better than last year’s disaster, the script and direction continued to prove, however, that these writers and directors apparently have very little loyalty to the original franchise, and no idea how to transform the persona of the original characters to the big screen. They basically bought the rights to a franchise and then formed the characters the way they wanted in order to tell a story they wanted to tell. 

Examples you say?  How about a fat, alcoholic Thor?  Or a hippy dippy Hulk (Hulk body, Banner personality). Funny, sure. But totally against the traits of the original characters. Something Stan Lee and the original comic book writers never came close to even hinting at in their original writings. Sure, the old comics did reveal and examine the vulnerabilities each superhero had, but the characters never became mental basket-cases like some did in these last two movies. And Captain America suddenly being able to use Thor’s hammer (something he was unable to do in the first Avengers movie)? Please.  

Actor-wise, all of the characters are well cast and always have been. Mark Ruffalo in particular is good as Hulk/Bruce Banner. But, unfortunately, like in Xfinity Wars, the Hulk was underused and basically useless as an Avenger in Endgame as well. He was frequently used in a comic relief role. Strange. Oh, and speaking of strange, I do like Dr. Strange, I have to say. Benedict Cumberbatch really nails the role and is literally the perfect actor for that character.

So yes, yes, I’m a traditionalist and probably taking this too seriously. I admit it! I will grant it that this movie was entertaining in its way, but it bugs me when people take something that millions of us baby boomers or Gen X kids of the sixties and seventies grew up with, apparently knowing little to nothing about it, and then changing it to fit their vision so they can earn a buck. But all blame can’t be placed on the movie makers, evidently, as I read recently that Thor actor Chris Hemsworth insisted on the fat Thor idea being used. A quick check shows that he was born in 1983. That would explain it.

So have I liked any of these new crop of Avenger group or solo movies since they started coming out in 2008? The first of each (Iron Man - 2008, Thor and Captain America - 2011, The Avengers - 2012) weren’t actually too bad. But they were created by different writers and directors who obviously had some connection with the characters in their past. And I have a feeling that a healthier Stan Lee had a little more say in those films. But these last two have been pretty weak, in my opinion. Now the two Ant-Man movies? That’s something else. Two thumbs up for those! 

Movie Review: "The Avengers, Script Get Pummeled to Infinity"

If you’re idea of an enjoyable movie experience is watching the good guys get their butts kicked for 2 1/2 hours while the bad guy can literally do no wrong and is the center of the film, then you’ll love “The Avengers: Infinity War”. This extremely disappointing sequel in the Avengers film trilogy is a real head scratcher. I feel a rant coming on….

First off, one of the more likable “good guys”, although not technically an Avenger, gets brutally killed in the first 10 minutes of the movie. Talk about setting the tone!  And in the following two hours, two others (and possibly more) join him. During that time, one of the more popular Avengers, the Hulk, develops psychological issues during the first 10 minutes of the movie and is unable to become the Hulk for the rest of the show.  For 2/3rds of the movie Thor does not have his trademark hammer, nor does Captain America have his shield. Sure, towards the end, Thor does manage to round up an ax and Cap a miniature toy shield, but come on!  That’s like Superman without his cape or Abe Lincoln without his top hat, Head scratcher #1. Plus the days of superheroes wearing masks to hide their identity are evidently over. Spiderman, Ironman and the Cap were without masks for the majority of the movie. Ok, ok, that’s a little bit ticky-tack, I’ll admit it.

As I mentioned in previous reviews, I’m a traditionalist when it comes to something I grew up with and that entertained me every Saturday morning as a kid. I’ve actually talked to a couple of other people my age recently who felt the same way after watching the movie. Anyhow, if  you’re going to use the name of an entity like the Avengers, Captain America, Batman, Superman, etc. then you owe it to their creators and fans to at least show some resemblance to the original characters. For whatever reason, this movie did a terrible job in doing that.  And if you’re not going to do that, just create your own movie and develop your own characters! 

Alright, enough of that. Back to the movie. There are a boat load of superheroes in this movie. I counted 19, from the original Avengers (Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Hulk) to newer ones like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Spiderman, Falcon, Black Panther, and Dr. Strange, to the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.  The movie basically divided up these characters into different groups spread out on earth and in space. The best part of the movie by far was watching the interactions between all of them, particularly the ones involving the Guardians of the Galaxy bunch.  Watching Star-Lord and Ironman exchange wisecracks, and Thor and Groot team up was fun.

The big bad villain in this Avenger’s rendition is Thanos, a CGI-generated character, voiced by Josh Brolin, who appeared in the old comics and made brief appearances at the end of the second Avengers movie as well as both Guardians of the Galaxy films (Thanos, not Brolin).  Although the origin of Thanos is not made very clear, he’s a bad boy. His quest is to find the six “infinity stones” that would make him master of the universe and allow him to complete his plan of solving the galaxies population problem by randomly eliminating half of the inhabitants in it. Including those on earth. His problem? Three of the gems are in the possession of three of our heroes. And so the stage is set.

As he gathers gem by gem, it is evident that nothing can stop him. Literally. There was nothing any of the 19 superheroes in the film could do to make much of a dent in him. And they all tried! And often several of them at once.  The two times they did manage to inflict some damage, Thanos had the ability to turn back time and heal himself.  Talk about not fighting fair!   As ludicrous as it may sound, 19 Avengers and heroes could not take down this one dude. Funny thing is, he really doesn’t need any of these gems as he was kicking Avenger butt before he had any of them. Anyhow, this, evidently, is what the writers and director of the film have decided what moviegoers want to see. Head scratcher #2.

I read an interview with director Anthony Russo where he stated that in “Infinity War” he wanted to address the emotional side of the Avengers in order to remind everyone that they are indeed human and do have emotions. As a result, Russo decided to introduce several untimely emotional outbursts that completely sidetracked several of our heroes, in mid-battle nonetheless, on what they were there to do. Very un-superhero like, and very frustrating to watch. Head scratcher #3. Odd time to decide to explore your soft side, Mr. Russo! If you want to delve into character emotions, you might want to consider remaking “Love Story”!

Ok, as you can probably tell by now, I spent most of the movie pulling out whatever hair I had left on my head. Yes, I know. It’s only a movie and I’m taking it far too seriously.  But in addition to growing up with these characters, I was cursed with the Mr. Spock “if it’s not logical then it makes no sense” syndrome, which I also mentioned in previous reviews. And when something makes no sense, or is completely out of character, then you get frustrated a bit.

I should say at this point that “Infinity Wars” was filmed as a two-part movie, with part two airing in May, 2019. So that does explain some on why part 1 was presented the way it was. It’s obvious that the Avengers will re-group, somehow, and eliminate Thanos from his high horse. But from what we see in part 1, I can’t imagine how. The universe, and specifically earth, are literally left with no hope at the movie’s end. Accept for one thing. But to find out what that was, you would have had to stuck around for the post-credit teaser clip….which revealed the summoning of  superhero number 20. 

Yes, in the final act of the movie, Avengers head honcho Nick Fury makes a final, desperate call for help to one hero who has never appeared or even been mentioned in any of the past Marvel Studio movies:  Captain Marvel. We only know this because Captain Marvel’s logo appeared on Flury’s phone before the screen goes black. Unfortunately, only those familiar with the Captain Marvel logo will have any idea that’s who he was calling!  I didn’t, and had to look it up on good ole Google Images. So that scenario should be interesting. Evidently Captain Marvel will be able to do something the other 19 superheros haven’t, although I have a hunch that Dr. Strange and Thor will play key roles as well, based on earlier incidents. And in a clever marketing ploy by Marvel Studios, a “Captain Marvel” movie will be released in March 2019 that will supplement “Infinity Wars” part 2 two months later.

So there you go. I’m obviously in the minority in my view of this movie, seeing that it’s breaking box office records left in right in America and Europe.  But I’m still going to stick to my guns!  We’ll see if “Infinity Wars 2” will redeem the frustration of part 1. Have a feeling it will to a point. As much as I didn’t like part 1, I’m sure I’ll see part 2, as it almost certainly will be the final appearance of Ironman, Captain America and Thor in a Marvel film (contracts expire for the actors playing them). I just hope they don’t get the dumb notion to kill one or more of them off!  But nothing would surprise me with this head scratching bunch of film makers.

The Humerous Mighty Thor

In the last blog movie review I wrote that featured “Wonder Woman” and “Spiderman: Homecoming”, I went on a rant about the preview I saw of the new “Thor: Ragnarok” movie that featured another “good vs. good” battle, this one between Thor and the Hulk. This, coming off the heels of Batman vs. Superman and Captain America vs. Ironman battle manias in 2016, seemed like an odd trend that was starting to form among the writers of the super hero genre. Well, after watching Thor, I’ll be the first to admit that I jumped the gun on this one. Sure, they did fight, temporarily, but it was mostly tongue-in-cheek and actually pretty entertaining.

And the same thing could be said about the entire movie.

By far the most humorous of the Marvel super hero movies to date, all of the main characters in the movie apparently decided to take a chill pill in this third movie of the Thor trilogy. At least compared to the intensity they portrayed in prior Marvel films. Particularly Loki, the brother of Thor, who makes his first return to the big screen since getting his butt kicked in the first Avengers movie back in 2012 and his ho-hum guest appearance in the second film of the Thor trilogy (Thor: The Dark World) in 2013. In those, he was about as ruthless as you can get. No hesitation to kill or destroy anything. Seemingly having no conscience. Completely untrustworthy and unpredictable. In the Avengers, ruling earth was his only objective, and nothing was going to stop him. In Thor: Ragnarok, however, Loki has lightened up significantly. In fact, when we first see him, he is on Nasgard pretending to be his father Odin (Loki can change his appearance, if you remember) watching a theatrical rendition of Thor, Loki and Odin butting heads in a very funny parody (be sure to check out the guest actors playing the roles of the three Norsemen in the play). Hilarious. As in the past, Tom Huddleston does a great job portraying motivationally-questionable Loki. He’s actually my favorite character in the Thor films.

Chris Hemsworth, as Thor, had the unique dual role of super hero and comic relief specialist. He was not only involved in the many actions scenes and bad guy confrontations, but he would crack a joke when things got too intense. Very considerate! And speaking of bad guys, that’s where we come to what I consider the weakest part of the movie. Cate Blanchett, one of the best actresses around, portrays Hela, the never mentioned before more powerful and older sister of Thor and Loki who has quite a bone to pick with her younger brothers.  Hela awakens an army of zombie-like creatures who have been lying dormant in the depths of Nasgard and prepares them for the “Ragnarok” invasion, which is meant to destroy Nasgard and everyone in it. Helping her is Skurge, played by Karl Urban (aka, Dr. McCoy in the new Star Trek movies), who is only doing so to stay alive. Thor and Loki obviously cannot allow their world to be destroyed, or at least Thor, as we’re never quite sure with Loki.  Joining them in the battle is the Hulk, who Thor unintentionally reunites with while imprisoned on some planet on the other side of the galaxy (run by an entertaining Jeff Goldblum). How did Hulk get there? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out. To escape imprisonment, Thor must defeat the champion of this prison planet. You guessed it…that would be the Hulk. Hence the confrontation between the two of them. Needless to say, Thor escapes, taking the Hulk with him, and they both head to Nasgard (along with Valkeriye, another Nasgardian) to stop the dreaded Hela.

So the battle field is set:  Thor, Loki, the Hulk, and Valkeriye vs. Hela and her half dead thugs (shows you how powerful she is). What happens and how does it happen? You'll have to watch for yourself, as that would be giving too much away. But you can probably take a pretty good guess.

Getting back to Cate Blanchett as Hela and why I thought she was the weakest part of the movie. Simply put, I just didn’t think she was that effective, as she over dramatized the part. Probably because she’s just too good of an actor to play such a shallow role. I don’t know. But she kind of did the same thing in some of her other villainous roles, like in 2015’s Cinderella and especially in the 2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. 

That aside, this was a very entertaining movie, and certainly one of the better Marvel super hero movies. It kept you on your toes, kept you guessing, and most unexpectedly, kept you laughing. Who would have thought!  Look for all to reappear, probably for the last time, in 2018-19's two part

"Avenger's: Infinity War" flick.