Last Seen Blogs
Text
Item 47
I had TOTALLY forgotten this short. It's a big longer- 10 minutes or so. I do think the dig where the boss calls Jasper "Coulson" was well-placed.
Mostly it's a funny, relatable idea. Two randos find a piece of alien tech, figure out how to work it, and use it for bank robberies. This would happen. I also like the idea that Jasper has probably done this a few times- taken criminals and turned them into consultants. It makes him look "soft" (unwilling to kill) but in reality, what better way for him to build loyalty. This one did drag a bit in the middle though- at least on this viewing.
Note for me
Directed by: Louis D'Esposito
1 note
·
View note
Text
The Avengers (Avengers Assemble)
So it took me a week to finish watching The Avengers.
It wasn't the movie's fault. It's a great film, especially if you are into the action-packed, fighting scenes. The dynamic between characters is great, and it has one of (if not my absolute) favorite quotes of the series.
But it is 2 hours and 23 minutes long and I had a weird week in terms of work, plus I wasn't actually feeling like watching a bunch of fight scenes. So it took a hot minute. Also, I had just finished season 2 of Loki not that long ago and going back to really bad Loki was a bit hard. He has few if any redeemable qualities in this one.
I'm not going to attempt a standard review given my less than standard watching procedure. I'm just going to call out things I liked.
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow will forever be flipping incredible. In the Battle of New York where she's jumping on the flying Chitari and such- epic. But also her clear care for Barton and her emotional manipulation of both the criminals at the beginning and Loki later on- chef's kiss. I'm so glad she's the one to close the portal.
(Quick side note/small spoiler- there's a fan theory going around that her "feelings" for Banner in Ultron are all fake, just a method of control. I call bullshit. She is clearly fascinated by him throughout this film. If anyone's feelings are fake, it'd be Banner's, but Mark Ruffalo is too genuine for us to ever know.)
Erik Selvig and Barton both under Loki's control and then when they come out of it did incredible jobs. I particularly like the writing of Selvig under Loki's control- the science fascination unbridled, versus any actual desire for power. I think this hits the Tesseract's power and Loki's manipulation abilities dead on- they don't project what Loki would assume others would want onto them- they magnify the worst parts of anyone's desires and abilities. Barton is a master strategist and Selvig wants to understand every aspect of the cosmos. Generally these are traits they've put to good use. But under Loki, they're manipulated into awful acts.
Samuel L. Jackson's line "I recognize the council has made a decision, but as it is a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it" could be emblazoned on my tombstone and I'd be happy. The delivery was pitch perfect and always makes me laugh, while also being deadly serious.
Coulson- Clark Gregg's best role by far and the small amount of fanboying here just humanized his normally very stoic disposition so well. So glad they did opt to bring him back and in style.
I'm a huge Mark Ruffalo fan, both as an actor and just as a human being. It was incredibly difficult to come in after Edward Norton to fill this role but he nailed it. The moment when he tells about how he tried to commit suicide and the Hulk spat the bullet back out breaks my heart every time. There's obviously a lot of parable here about learning how to channel your anger. I personally think anger has gotten a bad rap, especially among women and activists. Righteous anger, as Starfire might say (yes, I know, I'm daring to mix DC and Marvel again, fight me later), is a powerful motivator. Anger can fuel us to change that which needs changing, but it has to be directed. Hulk shows that well enough. But I also appreciate the slow realization by Banner throughout the film that the Hulk is less crazed, destructive monster and more protector. We're not *there* just yet by the end, there's still some concern, but he's beginning that process of acceptance and understanding.
Captain America is mostly well written here, particularly in demonstrating he doesn't just follow the U.S. or orders blindly any more. He still sees himself as a soldier, but when Tony and Bruce alert him to the smell of fish in the air, he goes looking for answers. This is key character development for him as there was a time where he would have considered himself more bound to higher-ranking officials. However, I would wager Marvel regrets the one "God" comment they made in there as it doesn't really fit him overall.
Stark and Thor perform well, I just don't have a lot of commentary for either. Their rivalry is solid, though the idea that Thor would leave his brother unattended, even in remote mountains, seems unlikely.
I will also argue for more women sooner but that ship has sailed. I had forgotten about Thanos in the post- credits scene, so that was a good addition.
Note for me
Directed by: Joss Whedon
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer
This one is just fun. Flat out fun.
Coulson is being prime Coulson. Driving fast yet safe in his fancy but nondescript car. Getting gas and trying to pick out the best type of cheap gas station donuts to get. And then a robbery. In prime fashion, he draws attention to himself but in a very "yokel" way. Like oh yeah, I'm here too and don't forget my gun.
And then he kicks ass without wrinkling his suit.
I want to call this "classic Coulson" but it's actually not classic at this stage. I think I assumed this One-Shot was made at least after Avengers but no, it was released before.
This is important because it shows just how much this side character stood out with only a couple of small appearances. And he's an original character- not a comic book device that they were determined to make work. No, this character grabbed audiences right away and I think the credit really belongs to actor Clark Gregg. His lines were good, don't get me wrong, but it's the dead pan delivery, the yes man appearance with a maverick underneath, the fact that Clark Gregg looks like he could be any of our dads or uncles or older brothers but instead is a badass S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. And as time goes on, it's clear that he is a beating heart of justice amidst a lot of people with giant egos. It's Coulson's realness as much as his badassery that makes us love him.
And makes us love watching him kick ass.
Note for me
Directed by: Leythum
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Consultant (One-Shot)
I debated how to go about writing the posts for One-Shots. Should I combine them either in a group of One-Shots or at least with the next big thing? I mean they're like 3 minutes long- does it make sense to give them their own post?
I ultimately decided yes. While the post will be shorter than a movie response, the one-shots don't always tie into one another enough to group and I don't want to add them to a movie response that may already be long (see me rambling on about Captain America).
So, The Consultant...
First off, I appreciated how they retconned the post-credits scene from The Incredible Hulk. When you first see that scene, the assumption is that Tony is trying to find Banner to recruit him for The Avengers. Which is logical and likely the original plan. But post the Edward Norton exit, it didn't work quite as well. So making the switch to Blonsky (Abomination) was actually kind of genius. It's exactly the kind of move you can see the American military making- trying to pardon a former military hero even if they are clearly beyond dangerous is this universe. Plus, it never guaranteed another sighting of Blonsky but left it open to possibility.
Secondly, this little one shot is actually super helpful in the characterization of Jasper Sitwell. We don't get a LOT of Jasper- he's around enough that you probably notice him but just barely. And in some ways, that's great for what eventually happens. (Sorry for the mild spoiler if you somehow don't know and are reading this.) The idea that he really wanted to play the patsy and that he was reticent about using the consultant both fit with his end game. It also is interesting to see how he reacts to not being on level with Coulson.
An excellent bit of character work and even solid plot work all in 3 minutes.
Note for me:
Directed by: Leythum
1 note
·
View note
Text
Captain America: The First Avenger
So this movie will most likely be a bit different in review to all the others. I've seen this film more than any of the other MCU films. Why? Well, firstly, I have made previous runs at watching the entire MCU and those times I did it in timeline order, which meant this one came first. Secondly, I literally adore every actor in it, especially Chris Evans and Hayley Atwell.
I can sincerely say that I appreciate this movie more every single time I watch it.
This time what came to mind most strongly was that I think this movie, despite its minimal female cast, falls under "The Bisexual Gaze".
For those unfamiliar, there was a tumblr post (apologies for the reddit link but it's the closest I've found to the original so far) a while back talking about movies that just as there are movies made from the male gaze (both of the Iron Man movies so far definitely qualify) and movies made from the female gaze (I'd argue The Marvels was made from this and I've heard people use the Birds of Prey movie as a good example), that some movies are made from the Bisexual Gaze. The best example is The Mummy with Brendan Fraiser and Rachel Weisz.
The short explanation given to define the Bisexual Gaze is usually "everyone's hot" but I'd say it's more than that. Yes, everyone is hot, but no one is overly sexualized or, more importantly, objectified. People can be sexual, yes, but there is clear choice and consent involved OR actual (not "coy") outrage when such choice and consent are violated. Everyone is not only attractive physically but is shown to have valuable skills that contribute to their success- be it intelligence or combat skills or emotional intelligence. The Bisexual Gaze is in many ways the Human first gaze. (Pansexuals, if you want to also call it the Pansexual gaze, I'd say have at it.)
So instead of just gushing about how much I love the Captain America movie, I'm going to instead ramble about why I think it fits the Bisexual gaze. And of course, as a bi person, we all know my opinion is God on this one. (Sarcasm, that was sarcasm, don't come for me.)
Chris Evans is hot.
Obvious. However, this is particularly interesting in this movie as he's first portrayed as a scrawny guy that many would not define as traditionally hot. (I have no problems with smaller scrawny guys but will say that CGI hurts the look a little here as his head is too big for the frame given.) We then get his transformation and it is the one shirtless scene we're given. He even puts a shirt back on before chasing Erskine's killer. This is my point about minimal sexualization/objectification. We see Captain America in a full coverage uniform the majority of the time and his uniform is less than flattering at first. Despite having a well built and traditionally attractive male lead, the emphasis is NOT on his physique, but on his actions and his emotions. THIS is what we are drawn to- his determination to take down bullies, his love and care for his friends, his dedication to what is right. Hotness extending beyond a simply beautiful body.
Hayley Atwell is hot.
I would both LOVE to look like Hayley Atwell and to, well, get with Hayley Atwell. She is gorgeous. But she's gorgeous in that 1940s way of a full coverage blouse, a skirt that does not dare go above the knee, and just the right amount of make-up and hair skill. We see her in the red dress once but even it is a modest cut by today's standards. I'm going to say this for completeness sake- Atwell has a great chest but this film did not center the camera on it- her FACE is the center of the frame if she is alone on camera OR it is the space between her and her speaking partner. I make this point because this filming decision is the number one reason I can argue why a movie with only 1 female lead is indeed an example of the bisexual gaze- Peggy is ALWAYS treated with respect by the cameraman and by extension, the director. She's also in charge of her body. When Hodge makes crass comments towards her, she orders him about and knocks him out, demonstrating that such actions will not be tolerated. She's also integral to all planning and pushing the plot forward. SHE saves Cap from the dude with flame throwers before the major showdown with Red Skull, which is key to cementing their equality in partnership. He's technically the superhero, but Peggy Carter needs no serum.
The closest thing to a "sex" scene is led by a female.
If you're thinking "what scene is she talking about", I am referring to the scene with the blond secretary who comes on to Cap while he's waiting to talk to Stark. This scene is especially important given the time period the movie is set in. This woman openly flirts and then grabs Cap and pulls him into a kiss. He is clearly surprised and quickly uncomfortable with that situation (going back to actual rejection of ignoring consent). It is a reversal of gender roles that would have been typical at that time in a variety of ways. Cap is male and the higher rank but he is not remotely using his position to get female attention. In fact, he sits a good distance away from the woman when told he can wait. But this woman see something she wants and she grabs it. (Inappropriately, but she does.) And unlike Black Widow, she's not doing this as a manipulation tactic- she just wants the bloke.
Cap is shown to be an intellectual.
This was a new detail for me this round but there is a brief scene in the montage of his training pre-serum where he is unpacking stacks of books. This recognition makes it so much more understandable why he's able to look at a map for 3 seconds and remember where bases were located or quickly strategize how best to use his team as battle conditions change. It also adds to him as a person- of course the scrawny kid from Brooklyn who couldn't really fight took himself to the library to find other ways to better himself.
Cap and Bucky- Just friends?
Obviously this becomes more of a thing later. And Cap is clearly in love with Peggy. But I'd argue at least that Bucky has some level of feeling for Steve that goes beyond regular friendship. It may be simply brothers-in-arms or found family, but it's hard to deny that Chris Evans and Sebastian Stan eye contact has some homoerotic vibes to it. While we're on it, Stark appears to have some level of feelings towards Cap as well. This is shown more clearly in the Agent Carter series (spoilers) but I'd say Steve Rogers makes more than a few 1940s men question just where they lie on the Kinsey scale.
Tommy Lee Jones does not care how hot anyone is.
This may seem like an odd one, but hear me out. In most films where there is one female lead among a bunch of men, that woman has all the men wrapped around her finger which is why she's allowed to be the lead. And as we've established, Peggy Carter is a capable, compelling, and hot female lead. But Tommy Lee Jones as the colonel does not give a flying fuck. He just doesn't. He tells her off or threatens to multiple times. He sees her as a soldier, not as an attractive woman. And I don't think this is an age thing. We don't see him look at any of them women that pass him (a few are shown bustling around the SSR) nor does he mention a wife or any female interest. This is a man with a singular focus- win the war- and he will use the best people, whoever they are, to do that. He's also not moved by Cap's hotness. After his initial display of skill post serum, Jones orders Cap to a lab because he's the only super soldier he's got. He later begrudgingly agrees to use him after he frees Bucky and the other men, but this is solely about using an excellent tool to an end. His character may not literally be asexual, but his actions are within this context. And THAT does not exist in a male gaze movie.
Speaking of ace rep...
Both Red Skull and Dr. Zola never show the slightest sexual interest in anything or anyone. Their focus is on taking control of the world and science. Now I won't claim there isn't anything problematic with villains being cast in asexual lights more than heroes, but I do think it's interesting simply because it shows how little of this movie is sexually or even romantically motivated. We have ONE romantic storyline and even it takes a backseat to the job of winning the war. Our power-hungry villains don't seem to care about women (or men) in a sexual way- they just want control in general. I'm not sure I'm expressing this well but there's something to be said about two men NOT being motivated by a desire for female adoration in any way.
Aesthetics.
This is going to 100% be my view and I don't have the words to express it well but it's my blog so it's going in. The grain of the majority of this film that created the 1940s feel heightens glamour but lowers sleekness and sexiness. It makes you want to watch these people but in a wanting to KNOW them way, not in a how they fill out their outfit way. We have one real scene of sleekness and that is after Cap busts out of his "hospital" into Times Square and that is portrayed as overwhelming and overstimulating, not sexual at all. That grain is even kept in his fake hospital wing.
I am noting right now that some of this could be argued to be a Demisexual gaze, and rightly so. Captain America DEFINITELY strikes me as demisexual.
A couple final notes. I really appreciate the diversity in Cap's chosen team. Not just that there are different races and ethnicities represented, but they are represented in unique ways. Our Asian chap is gruff and takes no shit and makes sure people know he's from Fresno (American born and bred), rather than meek and bookish. The black soldier went to Howard University (prestigious and HBCU) and is the linguist of the group, a role reserved for intellectuals in tv and movies. Even Dum Dum, who is a giant, well built, typical white dude is constantly cheery and funny rather than a brute. They don't get a ton of screen time but they make the most of what they do get.
And finally, I had, like most I imagine, assumed Red Skull had died from touching the untethered Tesseract. But this time I noticed that it does indeed look more like he got sucked into a Bifrost type stream. SPOILER- This makes his reappearance in Infinity War much more logical (within the MCU of course).
If you've only watched this one once, I strongly suggest a second viewing. I really feel this one more than any of the others (at least so far) gets better with each watch.
Next time I get to do a couple of One-Shots, which is exciting for reducing list purposes.
Note for me:
Directed by: Joe Johnston
1 note
·
View note
Text
Thor
So, cards on the table, Thor was never a favorite of mine.
In terms of the "Chrises", Hemsworth isn't the one I find the most attractive. And a big part of the marketing appeal around Thor in this first film IS about his masculine attractiveness. So when I watched it the first time, I remember thinking "meh, okay" about the movie.
I did enjoy Natalie Portman's character of Jane, LOVED both Sif and Darcy, and Heimdall? C'mon man. No one is cooler than Idris Elba's Heimdall.
So how about this viewing?
This round I was really taken with the cinematography. I don't think I fully appreciated the majesty of Asgard in the first one (or the skill it took to create it), nor the Bifrost, or even Jotunheim. Say what you want about Kenneth Branagh but his films have a beauty to them. (How much of that credit belongs to the editors is up for grabs as obviously post-production is crazy for films like this.) If you are considering a re-watch, I'd strongly encourage you to really look at the environments created for Asgard and Jotunheim- they're gorgeous and unique.
I appreciated Thor's breakdown scene when he can't lift Mjolnir more, probably due to Thor's struggle with worthiness and general depression in Endgame.
I will say in general, I think I appreciated Hemsworth's acting more this round. He has to be this kind of old-timey knight figure among normal people and he has held to that well throughout his whole Avengers tenure. I imagine that is harder than it seems at times.
Despite having finished Loki Season 2 recently, Tom Hiddleston's performance in this first movie doesn't wow me. It's fine, good even, but doesn't stand out to the level one might expect, at least for me. Avengers is coming soon though and there our boy villain shines. I will say I think the problem here is the plot is actually a bit TOO convoluted. The writers couldn't quite decide, or so it appears, what to do with Loki. His anger at his father's deception would be logical but he seems to have turned all that on Thor in a way that didn't fully jive for me. I think there could have been a bit more to show his desire for a throne prior to the reveal OR a bit more of Thor being a bit of a jerk to him. Either would help me understand his motivations more clearly.
Portman, Kat Dennings (Darcy), and Heimdall all stand. I was more interested in Erik Selvig this round and love/hate the fact he was an original character for MCU. (He has sense been added to the Marvel comicbook universe as well). Coulson was his badass self as always and I had forgotten about Hawkeye's small but important part.
Probably the hardest part for ME with this movie is that the Jotuns were mostly painted as just bad. In some ways Loki is treated as proof that isn't true (never understood why he wasn't blue except when he was holding that casket thing- supposedly Odin magic/illusion I guess?) but then turns. Odin pays lip service to the idea that they can't just attack a whole race for the actions of a few, but we don't SEE any positive or even neutral examples of Jotun. I know people will say that some groups are supposed to be bad, but I think that goes against a core principle of Marvel. No group of beings that we are supposed to see as PEOPLE can be inherently all bad. Now if they had made them monsters, that's different- monsters can be bad or at least, indifferent. But monsters don't have coherent conversations with you either.
I guess I would have liked to see a few Jotun trading or conversing or a Jotun mother with a child or such. Anything of that nature would have "humanized" them more.
Overall, Thor was more beautiful to look at this time around (because I appreciated it more) and overall I'd say more enjoyable, but still not probably in my top 10 of all the movies. Maybe I'll make that list when I finished. Tomorrow- Captain America, with my favorite Chris.
Note for me:
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Iron Man 2
All right, let's do this.
Not too long ago I saw a post somewhere where someone was complaining about this movie. I was trying to think back and remember what they might not have liked.
Having rewatched it, I just think they are crazy.
I might as well start by fangirling over Mickey Rourke's depiction of Whiplash. This character DESERVED more than one movie, it was so well done. (Accent not withstanding- I don't know what a good Russian accent sounds like, but I know a bunch of people didn't like his.) First of all, we have this powerful specimen of a man weeping over his father's death, demonstrating depth of emotion. We then seeing him kicking ass in the science department. Rourke plays this menacing genius so well. He is largely silent and unreactive, so every word we get from him, every twitch of an eyebrow is meaningful. He's captivating from the moment we meet him. He's also not screwing around. When he goes after Tony, he goes for the kill. He does not care about casualties. Too often, superhero movies will have a villain expound on their reasons for what they are doing, thus giving our hero time to get away. Whiplash doesn't do that. He gets down to business. He's strong, he's brilliant, he's capable of this destruction. But for the foresight of Pepper bringing the suit and Happy driving, Stark would be dead. Luck is his undoing, not his own ego.
To dive in further here though, I love the way the movie forces us to see everyone else's perception of this man. Hammer WATCHES Vanko (Whiplash) hack into his suits, he WATCHES him do physics on a Stark scale, and yet still, when money fails to produce results, he treats him like a big dumb lug who can be bullied by bigger, dumber lugs. Because Vanko refuses to speak proper English throughout the movie (which my headcanon is that he can, but chooses not to) and because he's large and tattooed and has long messy hair, the assumption is repeatedly made that he's a dumb ox. EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. What I love about this is that it's so freaking true to life. People will make assumptions about a person based on physique and will hold on to these assumptions, even when PROVEN wrong. (See Lizzo and every plus-size athlete.) Tony IS a notable exception here. When he confronts Vanko, he talks to him scientist to scientist, acknowledging his intelligence, before taunting him with being stuck in prison. He sees the brain combined with the brawn and, while he refuses to show any fear, he knows the man is a force to be reckoned with.
My only complaint is the dismissive attitude everyone had to Howard Stark having Anton Vanko deported. I'm not a HUGE fan of the fact Marvel opted to make the Russian guy "only out for money" while the American guy "wanted to provide energy for the people", but even if I go with that, it's problematic. Stark already HAS oodles of money by the time he's creating the arc reactor- of COURSE he can opt to just make something for "the good of humanity." Vanko defected, from RUSSIA, during the COLD WAR- he'd have been left with nothing but his own talents, knowledge, and skill. He finds a job and realizes he can make his own millions and we're supposed to think that's bad while loving Howard? Come now. And to have him deported back to the country he betrayed for it? Howard's a hypocritical ass.
I had forgotten this was our first introduction to Black Widow, which was awesome overall. I love Scarlett Johannsen's ability to play the emotional manipulator and also the badass. There's a little overplay on her use of sexuality here, but it makes sense given Tony's proclivities. I do like that they move quickly from animosity to friendships with her and Pepper- we don't have to groan a the two women backstabbing BS.
When I watched this the first time, I did guess the atom thing about a half hour before it happened (to the shock of my friend). I appreciated the building of the collider more this time. I also appreciated Iron Man's character building more this time. He'd just started saving the world, just started paying back an impossible debt to Yinsen, only to learn that his time is more limited than he thought. And he fluctuates between wanting to do so much more and also just wanting to have "fun" in his typical self-destructive spiral way as he's dying. RDJ does this well, though this is actually one area where I felt the fast-talking, West Wing style banter sometimes hurt audience participation in these emotions. There were times where you didn't quite have enough time to process before we were on to the next.
Hammer is annoying. And this is what some people will complain about. Except... he's supposed to be! Hammer is the epitome of people who want to buy legacy. He wants to be known and liked and yeah, a little feared. (If he only cared about being known and liked, he'd have gone the charity route, rather than the war arms route.) He has no skills, so he trades off others' skills and fails to understand anyone who money doesn't speak to.
I want to be clear on this - people who money doesn't speak to, not people who already have money. He does understand Tony Stark to a degree- they both inherited money after all- and his undoing there is more jealousy that Tony got brains to go with his bucks. But he knows legacy is where to hurt the man. He's right about that. What he's wrong about is his ability to bribe and bully Whiplash.
The film quality is definitely sleeker here. We're moving toward the "modern Marvel" LOOK. But there are still lots of times moments are allowed to sit and harsh truths are unveiled. I'm watching for the type of banter people complain about but it's not here yet.
Oh, last because if I don't address it, someone will complain. Don Cheadle vs Terrence Howard as Rhodey- the fact is both men are incredibly talented and equally capable at playing this role. I wish they'd stuck with one or the other but both played their A game in the movies they were in. I don't think I gave Cheadle enough credit when I watched this one the first time (I was on a real Terrence Howard kick at the time and still think really highly of him as actor) but he pulled off the switchover very well.
Note for me:
Directed by: Jon Favreau
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
So, it's no secret that Edward Norton got dropped and swapped for Mark Ruffalo in the MCU. That said, there is a small scene at the end of the movie that does connect, as well as some more recent references back to both the Abomination and Samuel Sterns, make it still a necessary part of this insane quest.
Plus, Edward Norton is a good actor and I enjoyed the movie the first time, so might as well.
I'm not going to be able to stop myself from comparing Norton's Hulk to Ruffalo's, so I'm just going to be direct about it. Both have a sadness but Norton's is more desperate and striving, where Ruffalo's is more depressed and resigned. While I like Norton's acting, I actually am glad in this case they switched to Ruffalo (all the drama notwithstanding- I'll actually say it sounds like Norton may have gotten a raw deal from the studios) because I think Mark fits better with the team. Mark Ruffalo's strength is he CAN blend into the background and NOT be forgotten. He can be part of a team, not the star, and yet you still care about him, still WANT to know what happens to him.
Norton can't. His acting demands attention from the audience and I mean that in an absolutely positive way. When Edward Norton is on screen, you CANNOT pay attention to anything or anyone not directly interacting with him. For someone normally so softspoken, his presence is commanding and I cannot see how that would have jived with the rest of the Avengers' cast.
All right, on to the movie.
I've got to start off discussing the grittiness again. That's the word that just stands out to me on these re-watches: the first movies are gritty. They're dark. The banter is there but there is an undercurrent of living in a rotten world . I'm watching for when this changes and shifts, because I know it does. I didn't have that feeling when I went to The Marvels or when I've been watching Loki- Season 2. (Yes, I am also watching new stuff because I live in the real world and want to discuss that stuff with friends and could never complete my ENTIRE MCU GOD DANG IT challenge in a timely fashion.)
Thinking about it, these first two movies feel like they fit in the Venom universe more than the actual MCU. Hmm.
On a more comic note, I joked with a friend that the title of this film should be changed to "The Incredible Running Man." The amount of shots just of people running, especially at the beginning, is crazy.
Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky/the Abomination is really compelling. I found this doubly interesting as I noted how much smaller (stature wise) he is than many of the other soldier actors. His fire as a fighter stands out even though he's NOT the epitome of brawn.
The writers depictions of women in this movie frustrated me this round. First of all, I count 3 females TOTAL. We have Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, we have the 1 female soldier (that's it- we get one people) and she's outright called a bitch by Blonsky's character, and we get Marianna, the ONE (again- really- there were no other female actors?) female at the factory. I'm sure there will be some excuse about this making Betty stand out or whatever (never mind that that doesn't stop them from having plenty of male actors in movies where the female hero is the focus). But what doubly frustrates me is that Betty is supposed to be this super scientist and yet she does really dumb stuff. The big one for me on this was when they pawned the necklace to be able to travel to Sterns (because they only had $40) and she BUYS A DIGITAL CAMERA. Guys, this was 2008- digital cameras weren't cheap. Phone cameras SUCKED at that time, if you even had one. Why would she EVER have spent that money? Because the director wanted to have her look at a photo later, that's why. (I want just 1 single mom on a budget in ever writer's room to say things like "They wouldn't do that, you morons.")
I liked the use of the smartwatch with the pulse tracker both when I first watched it and now. That is a factor I kind of wish they would have kept in some way- though I know they went more with the "I'm always angry" method.
Time for a sidebar- there's a LOT of internet discussion about what it means to be worthy in terms of wielding Thor's hammer. I haven't stumbled as much into discussions about anger and Hulk's "powers." The closest was the discussions about the scene in She-Hulk (which I haven't seen at all, except for that clip where he's trying to teach her how to control it and is frustrated at how easily she manages). I think anger is an emotion that doesn't get dissected enough. It's usually labeled as bad and thrown in the bin. But anger can be good- it can propel someone to make changes or stand up for what's right. This movie does a great job of showing that a LOT of Hulk's anger only really rears up when Betty is in danger. It's a protective impulse, not a destructive one. Obviously, unchecked, it's terrible and terrifying but within proper contexts, anger can be its own superpower.
This one overall did feel a bit slower on the re-watch, but I do think the fact that I now know it doesn't connect as much to the others made me impatient. It's still a solid film and worthy to see if you haven't.
Note for me:
Directed by: Louis Leterrier
1 note
·
View note
Text
Iron Man (2008)
As mentioned in last post, when I went to Iron Man I literally had no idea that such a superhero existed. (I thought Sherlock Holmes with RDJ came out first but apparently not so I had essentially no knowledge of the actor either.) My friends and I decided to spend the day out at the nearest town big enough to have a book store, craft stores, and a Target, as well as a Drive-In movie theater. I was now a college student and enjoying the freedom of no curfew, rebel that I was.
I'm pretty sure the movie prior to Iron Man was the Narnia: Prince Caspian movie. I mention this because I hated that movie. It bastardized the book something awful and after the first movie was so faithful an adaptation, this was incredibly disappointing. However, this meant I was doubly primed to appreciate the awesomeness that Iron Man ended up being.
I've watched it a few times since then, but usually as background to something else. I decided for this challenge I did REALLY want to watch the movies/shows. No other distractions- just it. I can take breaks (it took me 3 days to finish Iron Man due to various constraints last week) but when I'm watching, I'm JUST watching.
Here were my takeaways this time
The differences in Terrence Howard's Rhodey and Cheadle's Rhodey are always a bit mind boggling and part of what makes Iron Man feel really different from the later films. We're also just starting MCU so while they aren't LACKING budget, it's not the level it would be later. This doesn't hurt the movie at all for the record, if anything I think it meant the story had to be more well-developed and the actors better.
But this first film has a seriousness and a somberness that most of the other films only flirt with (notable exception being Infinity War of course).
The scene where Tony goes back to help Gulmira, Yinsen's home, and we see the 13 year old boy screaming and crying as his father is pried away from their family, the soldiers clearly planning to execute him and all the other grown men. The young boy tears himself away from his mother to his father, determined to keep him, to save him. His father, begging his son to go, so that he will live even though he knows- he KNOWS he will not. This moment of utter terror made personal just before Tony shows up is incredible and all the more so when put into historical context. The U.S. was still in Afghanistan and Iraq at this time and it was easy for citizens here to paint everyone in those areas with the same brush. But in this moment you CAN'T. You HAVE to see the family ripped apart right alongside the terrorists and be forced to realize that race, ethnicity, language don't make terrible people- actions do.
A common criticism of Marvel movies is they don't let a moment sit- that they always break a serious moment with a joke. But this one doesn't do that. There are multiple heavy moments- after Yinsen's death for one and when Pepper nearly quits (because she can't watch Tony self-sabotage and possibly die) and he tells her:
"I shouldn't be alive... unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy, Pepper. I just finally know what I have to do. And I know in my heart that it's right."
This moment sits between them so clearly, so starkly and it is not ended with a joke, but with Pepper grabbing the flashdrive and asking what to do. (Thinking back, I'm wondering how many of those MCU "broken" moments are by Tony. He's the one uncomfortable with emotion. Him breaking those moments with humor is actually 100% in character. Something to pay attention to as I watch.)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, some of the key themes of this movie just strike to the heart.
Death from a distance is easy to ignore or even be complicit in, but death up close rips us apart. Tony sold weapons that he knew took lives for years but it wasn't until he watched Yinsen die that I think he really understands what that means. Yes, his parents had died before but he wasn't THERE, he didn't SEE it. This death, this is the one that makes him really know what it means.
You don't have to change everything to be a better person. Tony is still self-centered. He still likes attention. He's still arrogant and as we will see next movie, open to playing the field as Pepper and him haven't committed. But not only has he stopped being complicit in the deaths of the innocent, he's taken on the mantle of protecting them.
Lastly, who the good guys are is largely a matter of perspective. This obviously gets hit harder again in Ultron (oh that glorious train wreck- I'm looking forward to writing about you), but it matters here. Tony was fine manufacturing weapons because he assumed he was supporting the "good guys", the 'Muricans. But not only was Obadiah dirty dealing, he is forced to learn the good guys aren't always as discriminatory with their weapon use as they purport to be. That it's easy to start painting with broad brushstrokes in areas where precision is actually called for.
Overall I'm really glad I PAID attention to this one this round. The grittiness and the depth really hit the way they did the first time or even more so. Onward to The Incredible Hulk, even though it's only semi-canon now.
Note for me:
Directed by: Jon Favreau
74 notes
·
View notes
Text
Marvel-ous Mondays... but it's Sunday
I was always, and mostly proudly, a nerd.
My parents had a set of orange student encyclopedias downstairs and they convinced me to do "reports" for fun. I played that Microsoft Encarta Trivia game as well as various incantations of Where in the ?? is Carmen Sandiego and even a math game known as Number Maze for an inordinate percentage of my childhood. I read books and maintained collections and had a microscope I insisted on for Christmas that I didn't know how to use.
But I didn't read comics.
I don't know why exactly. I went to bookstores, I even used to buy baseball cards at the local video game rental place, but I don't even remember SEEING comic books in real life. I also didn't watch X-men Evolution or any of the other great Marvel animation my friends remember. Probably my mom didn't like them for one reason or another, or they may have been on when I was out practicing for various sports. Regardless, I didn't have the usual indoctrination into comicbook universes that my fellow youthful nerds had.
The only small window of Marvel that opened for me pre-teen years was that my neighbor, a boy named Jon, collected X-men cards. And he would want to play X-men with myself and our other friend, Kari. He didn't have very many girl cards (another factor that may have limited my interest) so I was always Storm. (I don't remember who Kari agreed to be.)
These days, awesome as Storm is, I'd opt to be Jean Grey.
Regardless, my nerdy youth did not sense any lack and I continued into nerdy teenagehood unaware of the cinematic superhero renaissance on the horizon. The first of the X-men trilogy with Sir Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier (and of course, the then barely known amazing Australian, Hugh Jackman, as Wolverine) came out but it didn't garner my interest. I think my friends and I may have even watched it on a movie night (I grew up in a small town- trips to the movie theater 30 minutes away by car were rare and magical and reserved for something you assumed would be awesome... or a birthday), but my mind was probably on something or someone else.
It wasn't until the second movie, where Shawn Ashmore (who I adored from the much too short Animorphs series- yes I loved the books too) had a larger role that my interest was piqued. Genetic evolution as an explanation for powers? Fascinating. Found family for those who were either rejected or who just needed something their family couldn't give? Awesome. Being ashamed of being extraordinary in a world demanding conformity and ordinariness? Hell yes, sign me up.
One thing I will say for me is once I'm in, I'm in. I was now committed to X-men and all future movies and I would appreciate them no matter the reviews or the complaints of how it did or didn't match the comics. Which I still hadn't read.
But I had not expanded to Marvel at large. I watched at least one of the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies and liked it well enough, but it didn't grab me. It also seemed like superhero movies were all so male-dominated (except X-men, where it at least had smacked of a 30-70 split), so it didn't feel like it was FOR me.
Then Batman Begins came out.
Sit down geeky gatekeeper boy. I see you- yeah, I know you are about to "school" me about how that's DC and you've been talking about Marvel. I'm well aware of the difference- this post is about HOW I got INTO superhero movies (and leading up specifically to the MCU). And Batman was a part of that process, even if he is DC, mainly because Christopher Nolan's trilogy is fucking phenomenol.
Batman Begins, even more than X-men, sucked me into the superhero universe. The world it created felt real and therefore accessible to someone like me who hadn't experienced years of indoctrination into a universe littered with superheroes. I understood trauma and darkness and people doing bad things and the desire to stand up to all of that but not having any idea how to do battle with the world's demons at the same time you were fighting your own. I understood Bruce Wayne in all that and the film was just fucking good, regardless of previous interest. (Add in that my best friend in college was getting into film in general so I was watching A LOT of movies and ended up more interest in their storytelling than my friend in the long run.)
So superhero movies were now on my list of acceptable movies to spend money on at the theater. I also was now in college with a little bit of dispensable income and a movie theater within 10 minutes and/or friends at home that were down for a whole day out that ended with a late night at the drive-in. The latter of which is exactly where I first watched Iron Man, a movie about a superhero I didn't even know existed (I know, right?) with an actor I associated with Sherlock Holmes.
And into the MCU I dove.
I've unapologetically loved this universe ever since. I've read some of the comics now, and I've enjoyed them, but honestly my love remains with the movies and shows that are part of this canon. A love that only grew over the years and that still finds magic in the new directions the universe is taking.
But like most, I've missed things. There were movies I didn't and haven't seen, shows I didn't keep up with, and so on. So I'm doing this blog as sort of a "fun" resolution. I want to watch through the ENTIRE MCU- all the shows and movies (whether they are considered "canon" or not- like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D). I've tried several times before but haven't done it.
So this year I've committed to Marvel-ous Mondays. Every Monday I will watch (or at least start) a Marvel Movie or 2 episodes of a Marvel show. I'm going in release order. (I was originally going to do Chronological order but all the timey-wimey ness (Gatekeeper boy I swear to Gaia I will have you forcibly removed, you know damn well David Tenet was in both universes and would approve that use) has made that order really complicated.) And then- I'll blog about what I watched and what it meant to me.
Will this have tons of insider geeky knowledge where I note all the little details they included? No, I likely don't know most of those.
Will this be an incredibly insightful film critique? Doubtful, I'm not a film studies scholar- I'm just someone who really likes movies and shoes and books and storytelling. I'm an ardent amateur.
What this will be is one nerdy girl reflecting on the MCU and why certain movies and characters resonate with me and what I do and don't like and what I associate with each film that I've seen (and how I feel about the pieces that I haven't). And mostly, I'm hoping blogging about it will keep me going when my squirrel brain tries to run off in distraction.
If you feel like following along, welcome. I love you 3000.
1 note
·
View note