Media itt: movie/film discussion - Beware Spoilers

[Matthew]

I just finished Civil War and I have a few remarks, most notably that Captain America could actually never beat Iron Man in a fight but I don't care too much about that information. I really, really fucking liked how Marvel has handled Captain America lately (though I suppose it's Marvel studio and not the comics). For a character that is supposed to idealize all that is American for him to be conflicted about what is right and wrong is absolutely perfect. As far as character design goes, I don't think they could have made him better.

I will always like Downey as Iron Man and he's probably the most perfect role for the character that has ever been cast. I've been a fan since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and I've never been really upset with any of his performances (though I'm biased since Iron Man is rivaled with Spider-Man as my favorite super hero). I loved whomever they chose for the role of Spidey, he felt more natural than the fuck who ever starred in the last two movies and was more geeky than Maguire could ever hope to be. Absolutely thought that was a perfect pick.

On a side note I recently wrote and starred in my friend's senior thesis film. I really loved the experience and want to do more script editing given the chance as once I saw my final product I was astonished at my words really being brought to life. It was about a ten minute Western that I really felt happy about and we've (my friend and I) been talking about expanding the script to be feature length. Though the ten minute production cost about 2,000 I think the cast we had was absolutely amazing (aside from myself). If you'd like to check it out just PM me. My friend should get it uploaded to Vimeo soonish (with password access) and I'd like to hear critiques so yeah.

 

[vonFiedler]

#92: Captain America: Civil War
I really enjoyed Avengers 2: Civil War. To me, it was the perfect follow-up to the first Avengers film. Avengers was very good for what it was, but every fan knew that what it needed going forward was real consequences in the continuity, character drama built up over movie after movie, and an increase in scope for the universe at large. It would have been absolutely tragic if instead, Avengers 2 was just a shuffling of the status quo that had no real dramatic weight and threatened to have the mcu exist only in continuity spurts as old heroes leave and new ones enter. So glad that this was the Avengers 2 we got instead.

Real talk though, I'm so glad that the fears I had after last year were put to rest. Aside from the lack of Hulk and Thor, this was everything you could have wanted in an ensemble at this point. Every great character gets moments to shine, and the plot of this Civil War bears almost no resemblance to the one in the comics, so it's a whole lot better. The interplay between Captain America, The Winter Soldier, Iron Man, and Black Panther is just fantastic, and I'd defy anyone to say that Zemo isn't the best villain the series has seen yet, which is amazing for a guy who never fights or wears a suit.

The Russo brothers aren't big names like Whedon or Wright, but I think it's important to understand who they are, as I'd go as far as to say that they have more credibility to their names. Collectively they directed 15 episodes of Arrested Development, 30 episodes of Community, and also produced most of the latter. So they obviously understand comedy, drama, and characters. This doesn't prove that they can do an action movie, but Winter Soldier and Civil War certainly have. With them directing the next two Avengers movies, we're set to have a great MCU for at least three more years.

 

[vonFiedler]

Started my last post too close to my work shift.

#181: Network
This movie is legendary in its ability to predict the state of modern television as far back as 1976. It's like they made a movie about Glenn Beck and sent it back in time. It's hard to really describe Network without just describing how Fox news operates. But it's not just predictive, it condemns what it predicts. It talks about generations whose only cultural background is television, and their desensitization and lack of self-improvement. I wasn't immediately thinking of this movie as being a 10/10, but when I think about it, it more than anything is what I want out of other media that I only get from books. It has a platform and it makes a case of it, and it does a damn good job.

#182: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
I'm going to have to borrow my feelings from Roger Ebert. It starts out spectacularly, with a lot of gusto and some very fun, very witty scenework. But once the characters go one the run 1/3 through the movie, it dips and never recovers. It is too indulgent in scenery shots, musical montages, and still-pictures. The writer described Butch and Kid's trip to Bolivia as "where the real adventure starts", but the movie could have fooled me.

#183: The 400 Blows
A more figurative translation from the original French might be "Raising Hell", but hell was hardly raised. I'm starting to suspect that there's an old form of European cinema, probably has a name too, that isn't about telling a story but just presenting life as candidly as possible. Like a painting in movie form. Well, I don't get a whole lot out of a paintings and I don't get a whole lot out of these kinds of movies. Though the child actor was decent, and a scene with a psychiatrist near the end of the movie was very good.

"Your parents say you're always lying."
"Oh, I lie now and then, I suppose. Sometimes I'd tell them the truth and they still wouldn't believe me, so I prefer to lie."

Music was pretty good too.

#184: Stand by Me
Of course Stand by Me was going to make this list. It's one of two R rated kids movies, the other being on the list, and it's a Stephen King non-horror movie, two others being on the list and one of them at #1. But at first, you really wonder how it's hackneyed writing and obvious Stephen King tropes could amount to a movie any better than Sandlot. Well, it takes its time, but the emotional drama and scenework by the end of the movie are absolutely gripping, and helped a great deal by performances from three of the best child actors ever.

Truth is I had seen this before, but didn't remember it. But then, I'd have seen an edited version in school.

 

[ButteredToast]

Random Marvel Cinematic Universe Rant

I have slowly been getting more and more into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Over my spring break, I decided to take on the entire MCU franchise as one of my major undertakings for completing the top 250 list. I have really enjoyed myself through the movies, as there have not been any disappointments. I even enjoyed that Hulk movie no one liked.

Yesterday me and my girlfriend went and saw Civil War, and I happened to enjoy that movie quite a bit too. It is pretty amazing how they have put all of these multifaceted standalone story lines all together and continue to break it apart and put it together again. Both big picture and small picture, these movies work really really well and while they are far from masterpieces they are quite entertaining.

My main thoughts about Civil War relate not to the story, but where the entire series as a whole is going to go. Beings that I was able to sit down and take in the entire movie universe within the last few months, I wonder if the entire thing has gotten too big. Not big in the terms of money or fans, but big in the terms of the scale of conflicts and the number of "persons with super abilities." One of the things that I really liked about this series was that the movies always tried to operate within the scope of science and of our world. Even with the "alien movies" like the Thor movies and Guardians of the Galaxy, there is a scientific explanation for the "magic" of the series. I like how they have handled this. It makes the impossible believable in our rules by our world.

But have we gotten to the point where we can't do this anymore? Just looking at the number of characters already in the Marvel Universe to this point, we need to really stretch and take a lot of assumptions to make these things happen and for all of these heroes to come together and exist.

We have to accept that super solders were created during World War II and the beginning parts of the cold war, yet these secrets have somehow been lost in time or confined to a few geniuses whose ideas can't be replicated. Even though there are a host of amazing geniuses who can create super fighting suits, master quantum theory, create a synthetic superhero, flying cities and other really amazing marvels of science. When one of these geniuses tries to replicate this ancient technology, he turns himself into The Hulk. To include Thor into this world, we have to include that an ancient race of super aliens who have space ships but fight with bows, swords, and hammers can magically teleport through different realms because they have unlocked wonders of science in their own world. Quite deux ex machina to introduce a character, but it works in the sense that we don't have to understand aliens and they can quirkily exist far far away except when they mix with our world.

For whatever reason this kind of worked. A lot of the other super heroes we know like Hawkeye, the Falcon, the Black Widow and War Machine are normal human with powers granted to them through just their normal athleticism or through technology. Antman too I guess, but in accepting Antman I really wonder just how many freaking geniuses we have on Earth capable of unlocking these crazy ass secrets.

But with Ultron, we started seeing more and more weird things. Vision is a weird ass guy, and while I like him as a character, I don't like his existence. He is Tony Stark's AI who comes to life as a synthetic person and is how a laser beam shooting computerman infused with an infinity gem. We also get the "twins" who are like human mutants I guess who obtained their powers through questionable means and just show up. The Scarlet Witch uses mind magic that... just shouldn't exist.

I mean, we started the series with our core characters logically fitting into the real world. Captain America was a science experiment during WWII, Tony Stark is a super genius billionaire who kind of buys super powers, the Hulk is a freak scientific accident, Thor is an alien and can get away with not making sense, and Hawkeye, Falcon, War Machine, Black Widow, and Antman are just gifted regular human beings without powers.

But now we are getting more and more superheros with more and more powers that just don't have fitting explanations. Spiderman got his powers how? I know, getting bit by a radioactive spider. Stand alone, this works, but in what kind of world are we living in where we have this rapid influx of superheros and radioactive spiders? What the hell is Black Panthers deal? How did he get his superhero abilities? This wasn't explained, but now we have another superly enhanced human guy with his own powers just... there. In Vision, we now can make synthetic superheros who arent even human beings but are AI in a body? And we have a magic witch who kinda came out of no where and just have been plopped in our laps.

And the next movie is this Wizard guy Doctor Strange who will I'm sure push the world into more mysticism and into a completely divorced reality operating at different rules than the real world.

For a series that has done it's best to try and make things seem realistic, we kind of need another movie to explain what the hell is going on with the rise of all of these super heroes sprouting up all over the place. Why is this happening and what are people doing about it? How are people doing it? While Civil War tried to answer these questions, it brings up new questions of its own. And I'm wondering if the series is just getting war too big and jam packed with too many superheroes...

 

[brightobject]

not to mention how contrived civil war is

oh shit, every time we save the entire fucking world and the whole world population of 7.5 billuion ppl like two hundred offscreen characters who we never even see or are even developed die or get hurt, uh fuck were all criminals now

also uh now we should submit a request to the local dept head before going on an urgent mission to save the world makes sense

 

[ButteredToast]

not to mention how contrived civil war is

oh shit, every time we save the entire fucking world and the whole world population of 7.5 billuion ppl like two hundred offscreen characters who we never even see or are even developed die or get hurt, uh fuck were all criminals now

also uh now we should submit a request to the local dept head before going on an urgent mission to save the world makes sense

I mean I liked the subject matter of the movie. Without shield, the Avengers were kind of a rogue agency and things were getting a bit out of hand. The Avengers obviously extend past the control of the United States. They have been kind of operating without the rule and the will of the people, and while the majority of people see them as saviors there are others that see them as vigilantes. Doing what they want to do without checks and balances, and not answering to anybody.

It was good to have introduced this coping with the reality of the Avengers. Showing that they're not gods and they're not kings, and they are responsible to the world at large. Everyone kind of agrees with this. Captain America wants to have checks and balances, but doesn't believe in government and bureaucracy to always do the right thing. Iron Man would rather be put under check and legitimize his actions away from small scale things and work within the system to bend the rules.

It's really hard to justify having the Avengers fighting another super powered bad guy or some corrupt evildoer. That has kinda gotten old. The fact that the biggest threat to the Avengers is trying to fit back into normality is a GOOD thing and better than just introducing another random powered bad guy. They had to find a way to make this type of "villain" interesting and worth a damn and they were able to do that. But when you have an entire flock of superheros sprouting all over the place like weeds with crazier and crazier superpowers... it kind of defeats your notion of returning back to the real world with real rules and real consequences.

 

[Matthew]

I think the main problem with this is how far Marvel has actually taken their universe. In the comic medium it is perfectly fine because you take it piece by piece and devour the story over a year or a few years. I really love the comic series and it feels super natural and things happening "just because" is a perfectly fine explanation when you probably forgot what happened a year ago.

When you look at it as a whole the universe has become almost Lovecraftian in nature, with cosmic powers that are beyond human understanding, creatures which simply are strong just because, or alternate universes. When you translate it into a film medium it looks completely contrived, despite how great, and reasonable, the story is in its proper medium. This is why most books don't translate well into films (though Fight Club becomes an exception), because with a novel you can take your time and digest what has happened if you don't fully understand. With a film you're forced to eat everything that's given to you in the time span of the film (90 - 180 min). That's why this scope of "everything is too big" is happening. All these events happened in different comics and were a piecemeal of the overall story. If you wanted the full story you would read them all, if you only wanted Iron Man / Spiderman's perspective you would just read those and not miss that much.

It just becomes another medium trying to reflect another but it lacks the ability to do so. ButteredToast

 

[vonFiedler]

I could argue with a fair bit of these posts but I think I have a better question instead.

At what point can you call a superhero movie a masterpiece without needlessly worrying about how it will affect your credibility? Like, I see that kind of talk all the time. "It may not have been a masterpiece, but it was really great". Like some things aren't supposed to be masterpieces. And it's true that a film version of a superhero story will lose a lot over comics or even tv. But film in general isn't as good as comics or tv anyway. So, if you enjoy superheroes, and can admit that there are superhero stories in other mediums that deserve high critical acclaim (and there are), what do you need from a movie to be able to say the same thing?

See, even as someone who just said that Avengers 3 is gonna be gooood, Matthew couldn't be more right in that it's gonna be this Lovecraftian story about people struggling and probably dying. And I think it probably won't be as good as Civil War, which in spite of being an ensemble epic, had tight character conflict and a down-to-earth villain. If Civil War is the height of superhero movies, is it a masterpiece? If Avengers 3 is somehow better, will that be a masterpiece? If not, don't you think you're just excluding the format from such a designation for arbitrary reasons?

Final piece of evidence:

Case rested

 

[Matthew]

I think the problem with this ideal "superhero movies can't be masterpieces" actually stems from the culture of the thread itself but whatever. I stand by my statement that Deadpool isn't a masterpiece and a kick-back movie, and that's what it intended and I didn't mean for it to sound negative if I did. The problem is there are so fucking many superhero movies it's becoming over-saturated with movies that are good and bad and you have to just sort of numb yourself to the idea that there is a good superhero movie rather than an it just being okay. Civil War was pretty good, at the end of the day; character development, plot, not out-of-this-world villain, if it wasn't for the heroes, and a film followed the same plot, we wouldn't really argue about it.

That being said I'm not sure if the quips about Marvel becoming Lovecraftian was sarcastic, but the stories really have become about other dimensional beings and some follow the ideals that Lovecraft has left behind.

 

[vonFiedler]

Oh yeah, Deadpool was super generic in many negative ways, but it was a lot of fun in spite of that. That's definitely "not a masterpiece". I'm just wondering what could qualify. Over-saturation is probably a genuine factor in why people feel that way though.

 

[Matthew]

In that case I'd argue the first Iron Man is the closest Marvel has achieved to a masterpiece film. It is my favorite marvel film, so take this with a grain of salt, but I found Tony Stark going from war monger to anti-war due to his imprisonment really tastefully done. Not only does the first act display Tony's will to survive against odds but it also shows his brilliance; a factor which plays heavily into the character. During his escape scene it plays into this role of right and wrong, we should feel happy that Tony is burning and blowing up these extremists, but at the same time he is no better than the people he is fighting against. What is the point if violence only breeds more violence. I'm all about the first act of Iron Man.

While I do think it drags in the third act, it's hard to compete with the first two, it retains this ideal of "peace should come first" while Tony destroys everything around him. The movie breathes of deep anti-war sentiments and nails it down with the fact that war cannot be stopped by more violence; not even Iron Man and all his weapons are going to stop brewing hatred towards people.

EDIT:
vonFiedler

 

[ButteredToast]

If we assume that films are meals, existing in numerous different forms and able to appeal to many different tastes, superhero movies and large blockbuster movies are candy. There are some REALLY awesome candies out there that taste amazing. But as great as those candies are, and as amazing as they taste, they are fundamentally different from eating a steak or a lobster or whatever.

When you go into a movie knowing that the majority of the movie is going to consist of a simplified world of good verses evil, impossibly choreographed action scenes, and little, if any, real life implications you know that you're loading up on sugary candy. And while these movies can be entertaining and fun, you know that you're still eating junk. You know that you are sacrificing "nutrients" in story, relevance, creativity, and profoundness in order for the "sugars" of a version of a standard cookie cutter type of action script. Even in a seemingly flawless movie done in a unique way, it still is missing in ways that really really great movies can be.

 

[UncleSam]

The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, and while Civil War was a better-than-expected Marvel movie, the subject matter it handled (superheroes facing the consequences of their vigilanteism) was just done better in many previous movies.

I like Marvel and have seen a fair number of their Avengers movies, but none of them have really gone beyond the level of 'really good action movie'. Honestly X-Men First Class is a better movie than any of the Avengers or spinoff movies by a mile, and even that only skimmed the surface of introspection. I liked that Civil War tried to do that, but, as mentioned previously, it was done quite superficially. I also liked Zemo a lot, but there just wasn't much for him to do.

Gonna throw up a top ten superhero movies list and let people debate about it now:
1. The Dark Knight
..........(not even close)........
2. Watchmen
3. X-Men: First Class
4. The Dark Knight Rises
5. Dredd
6. Batman Begins
7. Spider Man 2
8. X-Men: Days of Future Past
9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
10. Captain America: Civil War

I'm really not a fan of Iron Man honestly, and the Joss Whedon quipping wears on me after a while in many Marvel movies. Still, there haven't been many superhero movies to transcend (even partially) popcorn action fun, and that's honestly what the Avengers movies and spinoffs do quite well.

That being said, I don't like that Marvel is essentially embracing the 'superhero movie only' stereotype and just running with it. While inconsistent previously, superhero movies before the Avengers would occasionally be true masterpieces, an outcome which is more or less precluded by the very nature of newer just-for-fun movies.

I'll watch Marvel, but I won't re-watch them (with a few exceptions). I won't bother much of DC (never going to see Batman v Superman), but the ones that I do bother with I'll rewatch again and again.

 

[vonFiedler]

If we assume that films are meals, existing in numerous different forms and able to appeal to many different tastes, superhero movies and large blockbuster movies are candy. There are some REALLY awesome candies out there that taste amazing. But as great as those candies are, and as amazing as they taste, they are fundamentally different from eating a steak or a lobster or whatever.

This is a flawed comparison struggling to conform to a previous assumption. After all, candies have different taste, not always being sweet, and are in no way less capable of being crafted as high food art compared to steak. Hell, many stories about feed being tied to lasting memories involve candies and desserts, and that sounds a lot more to me like high art than that steak that you ate on a tuesday night just because you were hungry, like a lesser entertainment flick watched just because you were bored.

Point being:

When you go into a movie knowing that the majority of the movie is going to consist of a simplified world of good verses evil

Civil War didn't

impossibly choreographed action scenes

So?

and little, if any, real life implications

So almost nothing has been good for about a century now, going by that metric alone.

story and creativity

It was said earlier and I didn't address it that comics evolve organically over years and the movies don't. But we have had these movies for years, and way more crazy bullshit happens in a year of comics than over two movies. But the thing that makes some superhero comics and tv shows SO good is the build up over build up of continuity. It's a thing that other movies, even masterpieces, suffer from. Fundamentally shallower characters, no room to breathe, less complex storylines. Both its characters and its story are the culmination of what, ten movies now? Civil War doesn't work in a vacuum. But that the directors risked alienating new viewers and vow to go even further in that direction in the future, that's artistic integrity if I ever saw it. Boyhood took 12 years to make? So will Avengers 3 part 2. Even simple sequels and trilogies don't usually work like this. Just look at The Dark Knight, which drops a staggering amount of plot threads from the end of Batman Begins (not to mention the plot holes it make anew).

As far as creativity goes, superhero, sci-fi, and fantasy stories allow us way MORE creativity by freeing us from the shackles of suspension of disbelief. You said it yourself that the MCU has a become a crazy world, and Matthew says its Lovecraftian. That's great! And I like DC comics more cause it's even MORE like that. There's nothing inherent in that which sacrifices creativity. If you can't be creative in that setting, you have a writing problem. Civil War didn't. It was an amazing original story. And Zemo wasn't great just because he was "down-to-earth", because he was so in a setting like this. He's the man trying to understand forces he cannot hope to. How's that for relevance?

IF you believe that comics can achieve these heights and be called masterpieces (and it's unreasonable to say otherwise), then certainly the height of a film series like this (IF we've seen it) should be lauded for accomplishing the same things. You're judging them by the cookie-cutter scale that movies go by, but they are trying to change what movies are fundamentally by taking inspiration from better mediums (and while being influential in this, have had profoundly better success than their competitors). Civil War is a better Boyhood. It's the best superhero movie. I'll wait until Avengers 3 to decide which is the masterpiece, but I'm not discounting it.

 

[v]

yea well I still hope zemo gets the moonstones in Infinity Wars and rolls out with the sock on his head. or as Citizen V, maybe with his sokovian kill squad as the V Battalion!

 

[ButteredToast]

vonFiedler

You need to get off the whole "well, in the comics..." argument. I don't really care what happens in the comics or how they're trying to follow the stories of the comics but can't all the way or how they can't explain things that take time in the comics. I'm looking purely at the movies, stand alone from anything else. Divorced from movies or ideas that can before or after it, in any form or genre.

The idea of what is a masterpiece is not in any way objective. It is purely subjective, and while there may be a plurality as to what a "masterpiece" is, it's far from a universal idea. Your question was at what point can you say a superhero movie is a masterpiece without it affecting your credibility. I don't personally see how a superhero movie can achieve the profoundness that other movies can by their very nature. Superhero movies are not so much art as they are entertainment.

At the end of the day, that's what Civil War was. It was entertainment. Find it as unreasonable as you want it to be, but I don't see how I can say that a super hero movie is a masterpiece. Hell I get confused when people say that things that the Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. I don't see how that's art. It's well constructed entertainment. It's good stories done in visually appealing ways that elicit oohs and aahs. But I struggle to see how that's art.

We were all entertained to watch our lovably built up friends face off against each other and not follow the exact script. Amazing CGI fighting, remarkable choreography, and fear that these guys are going to beat the tar out of each other and end up destroying the bond that they have built up. It was different than the majority of the overly done superhero movies that preceded it in all makes and forms, not just in the Marvel Series. Just because it has twists and turns does not transcend the boundaries between art and entertainment in my mind.

When I strip away the razzle dazzle of the movie and try to get to the core of it, I stumble. Answers like "well it's different in the comics and it's not possible to replicate the comics" don't do jack shit for me. They're not answers, but more inherent flaws to using the medium of film to tell this type of story. You gain flashiness and razzle dazzle, but you lose depth and substance.

If people want to believe superhero movies are works of art and some of the greatest pieces of film making in existence, than you can go ahead. You don't lose credibility in my eyes. There are people out there that like James Joyce and Modern Art, and if that's your thing then go for it. I don't happen to agree, but your not wrong for coming to your own informed side of things.

 

[TheValkyries]

I know I haven't made any headway in my list of write ups Im dragging my heels to do for all the foreign language films I watched I do feel that watching so much action movies has given me a taste of what good action movies are.

Civil War is a goddam bombshell of an action movie. This movie was a masterpiece of action cinema and blatantly so and there are lots of other films to look at that are maybe tighter overall (read: Creed) but none to this scale.

One of the most important things in an action movie is how the action happens. Is it just appearing from nowhere and largely disjointed and doesn't make too much sense? Or is it coming from a logical place? The action that is being protrayed itself has character, what rapid decisions and choices they make under pressure and in distress. Much like how Gaurdians of the Galaxy used humor to color their characters Civil War used action.

The opening sequence is like a thesis for action as character. The whole point of Crossbones outrageous attack is to draw out the Avengers, the instant Cap shoes up Crossbones organizes a way to distract the rest of the Avengers to go toe to toe with Cap because that is what he wanted and he couldn't care less about whatever job he was trying to pull off. Falcon uses his tactical acumen to survey situations and quickly end them. Black Widow shows her ridiculous mastery of improvisational decision making in high stress situations as well as her flexibility in dealing with changing developments. Cap is singularly minded focused on the mission doing everything he can until he hears Buckys name and loses focus. ALL OF THIS is in the action sequences AND ALL OF THIS character backdrop returns later and informs many of the decisions they make (particularly in the airport battle for both Falcons decision to sacrifice parts of team cap for the win as well as Black Widows adaptation to prevent T'Challa from catchin Bucky and Steve).

The most interesting of this opening set piece however is Scarlet Witch and her arc throughout this film. Scarlet Witch is basically under a field test and is showing her evolution and mastery of her powers and how she uses them as a support for the other members in combat situations. She locks down targets for Falcon, delivers Cap into where he needs to be clears the building of the tear gas. She does not use her powers offensively at all for most of the first act. Finally she contains the explosion that Crossbones tried to set off but began losing control and quickly tried to move it away to save everyone but in doing so caused an explosion in the building that killed the Wakandans. In her conversation with Vision later she speaks of the fear people have of her powers and the fear she herself has. How's she's worried she can't control it. Fear and control. Weird where did I hear that? Oh right when Hawkeye came back and told her to get off her ass she told Vision that she cannot control others fear of her but can control her own and she begins to use her powers offensively for the first time.

The next Major action sequence immeditsely followed the UN Bombing and had Cap finding Bucky and being chased down by T'Challa. Things are tense between Steve and Bucky all the way up until the shit hits the fan and one of the first things you see is Cap protecting Bucky and helping him out. They even have the moment where the tension from before is borne out as Bucky punches through the floorboards next to Caps head to get his backpack. Everything about this sequence informs you about their character, Buckys brutality that pushes injuries a long way but won't kill and Caps more efficient disabling style.

This sequence walks us all the way up until the Black Panther appears. If you ever wondered why everyone likes the Black Panther it's because of the mastery of action as story telling. T'Challa shows up with confidence and swagger and begins to dismantle Bucky. The Panther uses his length and speed to be efficient like Cap but also is as brutal as Bucky he is a warrior through and through. The chase continues onto a highway (where these guys start outpacing cars while sprinting). One of the most iconic moments for me of this intro to the Panther wasn't his fighting ability but how he shows improvisational skills as creative as Black Widow. Bucky finds T'Challa in a headlock while on the motorcycle and the Panther runs up te side of the wall on the highway flipping over Buckys head to break from the headlock from underneath. Everything about the Black Panthers chase is furious and determined while exuding strength and power. Even when out of his Vibranium suit he is able to go toe to toe with the unlocked Winter Soldier during his escape.

Notice how almost all of our major character introductions have been through action. We get to know these characters throw how they act in the fights.

"Spider-man is great" as he quips about the right to remain silent mid fight gets told off by Falcon for talking too much and as he conveys his ideas through movie references. Ant-man's psyching himself up "you're the best you're the best you're the best you're the best" as he's about to go Giant Man. Vision's reconciliation with Scarlet Witch distracting him and causing Rhodes fall. Hawkeye and Black Widow holding back against each other and almost treating it like a sparring match.

And of course the main event. Cap v Iron Man. In a movie full of story through action their story was told in how neither of them were taking action. How they were avoiding the fight. Tensions were boiling and boiling until finally the big reveal of Mission Report, December 16, 1992.

How does Tony react? What is said 3-5 lines before he flies into a blind rage? All the dogged determination shown by T'Challa to chase Bucky to avenge his Father is dwarfed by Tony's need to avenge his Mother. This movie shows two best friends begin to literally tear each other apart and destroy each other. The Shield cracking the arc reactor in Tony's suit was the end of the movie. That was it. Many like to claim the letter at the end patched everything up too neatly but things are not neat at all. That was a vicious fight and not easily forgotten. I really don't think I need to elaborate how emotionally raw that fight was and how savage it was.

Man just all of it. There was not a single wasted action beat in the film. All of that "candied entertainment" was packed with story rich nuance. If Action movies are allowed to be great movies than this was a masterpiece movie.

Bonus: Can you think of a more vicious revenge than T'Challa catching Zemo's suicide bullet and growling "The World of the living is not done with you yet."

 

[Soul Fly]

You guys carry on with that ehrm civil argument, I wont take any sides in this argument.

I'll just add that what made the MCU possible in the first place was the Iron Man, which was a field test for the newly restructured Marvel Studios after that horrible management in the 90s which caused them to hemorrhage the X-Men, Spidey and most of their uber-popular popular IP to Fox, Sony etc. So maybe give it its due in terms of not just a smart plotline but managing to completely pull Phase 1 on its own. The other movies were anywhere in the spectrum of slightly above average to pretty forgettable and only carried reasonably well because of an unprecedented cinematic hype of the Avengers showdown.

In my opinion Avengers did reasonably well and peaked in terms of popularity just because everyone and their mother in law had been masturbating to that concept ever since palatable CGI and big budget superhero movies became a thing Marvel fortunately retained control over just enough IP to pull that off. Joss Whedon is basically a civilized Michael Bay without the urge to shoot moving telephoto shots all the time.

Once that hype had worn off quite a bit, phase two started showing the cracks with the plots becoming increasingly formulaic repetitions with Age of Ultron barely managing to generate hype by pumping money into marketing that Hulkbuster v. Hulk sequence (that was still a great action sequence, god bless Whedon, despite his inability to accommodate any nuance whatsoever in his screenplay) in an otherwise overloaded film barely managing to significantly explicate on any character (except whatever the fuck was going on with hulk and black widow)

...

Amidst all this white noise (I stopped watching MCU movies in the theaters due to their sheer repetitiveness), I finally got around to randomly watching Winter Soldier and I can say without compunction that it was closest MCU ever got to the quality and finesse of the first Iron Man. It was injected with a quality and depth which had missing for quite a long time and made a kickass film out of Captain America of all the Avengers (the first one was such a predictable Joe Johnston snooze and basically extended Avengers backstory). I found out that it was the Russo brothers who did that and I was pleasantly surprised, I mean they were the guys who directed comedy sitcoms (!), but one thing modern comedy sitcoms do great is character development, which was the main driving force behind Community and Arrested Development, and maybe that's where they picked that particular skill, but regardless it made for a great movie and actually made me give two shits about the characters and their motivations instead of "good-guy-vs-bad-guy-in-a-black-and-white-plot-heavily-contrived". It also helps that they know how to do great action. And when I found out that they would be at the helm for phase three I was excited af.

IMO Civil War is the trigger film where the Russo Brothers are injecting the rest of the universe and it's superpowered characters with the same level of depth and maturity that they did with Cap and Black Widow. Under their helm with whatever little screen time RDJ had, Tony Stark got more character growth than both Iron Man 2 and 3 combined. Wanda and Vision's perception/agency dynamic was brilliantly done (which SHOULD have been there in Ultron) and I think we can agree that T'Challa's introduction was excellent. I wish they had come into the scheme of things earlier because now they have to work with the collective baggage of almost a decade's worth of MCU backstory and a lot of the shallow garbage that came with it (*cough*hulkxwidow*cough*), and the plotlines are only going to get more constricted and stretched with the introduction for Strange and Co. leading up to Phase Three, but I can't wait to see more of their stuff leading up to Infinity Wars.

Perhaps my favourite part of Civil War was how the ideological core of the conflict was ultimately left unresolved, which is great. Almost all earlier MCU material have gone for conveniently self-contained resolutions in favour of keeping a creative clean slate for the great big outside threats+ MAX FAST-BLURRING ACTION SEQUENCES introduced in the Avengers. I'm all for Marvel actually starting to handle more complex material, because it physically also represents the age of the universe and it's target audience. Even if you were small teenager when you watched the first Iron Man, you're already in your twenties, plus I'm tired of the standalone movies being self-contained origin stories/sequels repeating the tired cliches. These superheroes deserve better and I'm happy they're finally getting it.


If I feel like it I might write a tl;dr some time regarding the superhero paradox subject matter of Civil War sometime.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Random Comments on X-men Apocalypse

Really not sure how I feel about this movie after the first watch.

The good: En Sabah Nur's character was well executed and lived up to the hype for the level of power he was required to have. His introduction was excellent too. The character introductions were done well, in general, didn't take too long and gave us some quick-hitting backstory into their motivations. Jean Grey was introduced and developed successfully. Fassbender was brilliant in all of his scenes - didn't have a lot of dialogue through the second half of the movie but his expressions conveyed his words for him. Quicksilver scenes were as brilliant as they were in DoFP. Special effects were unbelievably good.

The bad: The motivations of the four horseman for following ESN were never really clear. It wasn't apparent if they were following him by choice or through his control - only Magneto had that made explicit. Just him enhancing their powers doesn't really suffice for me as sufficient motivation, especially for Storm (though that payed off well in the finale). Angel's death: what a fucking waste of a character. Jean x Scott - on the whole the romantic undertones weren't earned and came off cheaply, especially when the entire audience knows they end up together. Only when Jean was telepathically empathizing did that pay off well. Psylocke was pretty useless. The impact on the world has hyped up highly but carried no impact to any character we cared about and was underrepresented in impact for what they suggested it should be.

The hmm: Havoc's death - not sure how I feel about it as character development for Scott, though it did lead to what I felt was the best earned romantic subpoint with Jean and Scott. Wolverine's involvement - last I heard Hugh Jackman was done with being Wolverine, why include him here if you aren't introducing a new actor for his role?

I just got a very weird vibe from this one. As much as the film tried to stand on its own, so much of it was setting up the storyline to take us to the point we were at in the original X-Men, from setting up the Wolverine storyline, to Magneto and Charles having the speech they did in the first movie, to the creation of the real X-Men, it's hard to say what the film ended up accomplishing.

One final major question mark for me: Jean Grey's abilities. Singer has just set up the Phoenix Force as the most powerful mutant power in existence, and rightly so for it being capable of singlehandedly destroying a would-be god. Problem is, she's now been shown to have the Phoenix Force available to her and for it to be under her control. What threat is possibly credible that she couldn't handle? It raises a lot of questions about where her story goes and what threats can challenge the X-men when the mental block repressing Phoenix from the original trilogy is no longer present. The only apparent possibilities I can foresee right now is a bunch of mental struggles with jean trying to control her power (gag) or Rogue being introduced (presumably along with Logan) and contacting Jean to provide the opportunity to seal the Phoenix Force (potentially interesting).

An enjoyable film overall, taken as a stand alone action movie it hit the marks it was supposed to, but it fell flat in certain points and leaves questions about the direction of the franchise that may prove difficult in providing satisfying answers.

 

[vonFiedler]

After taking a break while camping, two movies popped up on the list and stuck around.

#110: Children of Heaven
And I was pretty okay with that, as the first is only the second Iranian film on the list. A Separation was a fascinating movie from a fascinating movie-making country, and Children of Heaven didn't fail to live up to it. When a boy loses his sister's shoes, the siblings go to great lengths to try and remedy the situation, knowing that their father couldn't afford to pay for new ones. The theme is about a child's duty to their family, but the children are far from model. They conceal truths and cause trouble, but for a poor family they try their best. There's something really complex and endearing about their struggle, helped not a little by the boy's acting talent. And it culminates with a foot race that is absolutely heart-pounding. Very worth seeing, and with sweet music.

#141: Tokyo Story
Looking into this movie, it seems the obvious metric for its success is whether or not it made me cry. It didn't. But I put some thought into it, and I think I respect it a great deal. On the surface this film is about kids neglecting their parents, but I think given the smaller storylines within, the theme is about how relationships and feelings fade with time. There are a good number of characters in the story, and each are fairly nuanced. And there is something very charming about the way the director shoots scenes; eye level from the ground.

 

[vonFiedler]

#188: In the Name of the Father
Another movie that is difficult to watch, in a good way. Honestly, we're developing an educational grand tour here. Throw this movie on right after marathoning Requiem for a Dream, American History X, and Platoon, and you'll shatter any young child's innocence while showing them the harsh realities of the world. It's a story we've seen time and time again, only the guilty parties never get punished. It's fucking infuriating.

#189: Persona
I adore Ingmar Bergman. He has only one more movie on this list, and that may not be enough for my taste. But it'd be easy to imagine Persona as his masterpiece. Maybe it's too weird to be his highest ranked film, but it's the unflinching dedication to telling this story the way it needed to be told that is so enthralling. Weird things aside, he knew this was a story that would be best told with only 75 minutes and four actors. And this paid off, as similar stories have aped it ever since... I think. That's assuming I understand what was going on at all. But it invigorated me during the movie and races through my mind in the aftermath. If you like psychological horror, you owe it to yourself to check this film out. Find the penis!

 

[Karxrida]

Saw the X-Men movie since one of my distant relatives was visiting and he wanted to see it. Decent watch, but it felt like it was all over the place (the Stan Lee cameo should not be in an otherwise tense scene, Magento's comedic F-bomb was dumb considering the circumstances). It needed a rewrite and probably a trimming so it didn't end up so unnecessarily long. I at least was able to follow what was going on without having seen any of the other movies, so it's got that going for it.

Wolverine totally felt forced. That entire sequence was pointless outside of getting the team in suits and giving them transportation, both of which could have been done if the school hadn't been blown up.

I'm pumped for Suicide Squad. Unlike the other DC movies it looks like it's trying to be fun.

 

[brightobject]

watch The Nice Guys its funny as hell, paced well, note that its mostly a character comedy and the plot is mostly fluff designed to just put the characters in absurd situations, gotta love shane black

 

[vonFiedler]

#173: Nights of Cabiria
Another movie that popped right onto the list. This seems to be the case when a beloved movie from an obscure darling director doesn't have quite enough votes to qualify for the list. Federico Fellini has one other film on the list, but I now won't mind seeing both. Nights of Cabiria follows the eponymous prostitute through an almost anthological sequence of events as she struggles to find meaning in her life. I praise the format heavily, as I was very emotionally invested by the end of the first act. The way that little story ended was very well done and quite moving.

The ending

I've talked a few times about these types of films and their "woah edgy" video game endings, but this was a sad ending done right. Yes, it sort of comes on quickly after a period of expecting a happy ending, but it's so foreshadowed by the themes of the film and even the very first scene that it creates a strong sense of foreboding, and there's just honestly no other way the story should have gone. It's not better because it's depressing, it's better because it's right for the story.

Bicycle Thieves was also called a neorealistic movie, but so much more happens in this film. Both in terms of different scenes and stories, but there are also a multitude of feelings one is supposed to be exposed to, rather than just one dragged out over 90 minutes.

#191: 12 Years a Slave
I was on quite a run of good movies, and this wasn't a bad one, but it's not very good either. Maybe I'm just always picking on biopics. In this category, which fucking floods great movie lists and oscar nominees, I've only ever considered The Intouchables and A Beautiful Mind to be 10s (Dog Day Afternoon is a true story, but not quite the same thing). Hell, I only consider Schindler's List, The Wolf of Wall Street, Rush, In the Name of the Father, and Straight Outta Compton to be 9s.

Hey, there's a good comparison. In the Name of the Father absolutely wrecked me. Isn't 12 Years a Slave kind of the same movie? Why didn't I feel the same way (outside of a nicely emotional ending)? I guess I must be a racist. Or, having seen that movie only last weekend, if I had seen this first, would I have given much more of a shit about this and vice/versa?

 

[Matthew]

It's been a bit since I've seen 12 Years a Slave so take this with a grain of salt, but I remember its "big scenes" mainly focused on violence. While that's horrible what happened I think the emotional damage which was done was fairly undermined by that choice.

Though when I look back at the film all that really stood out to me was the whipping scene so maybe I'm a racist too I don't know.