Videogame Quarantine: Mini-Reviews of DEATH STRANDING, NIER AUTOMATA, GOD OF WAR (2018), NIGHT IN THE WOODS, and RESIDENT EVIL 2 (2019)(w/minor spoilers)

The last several months have been rather…eventful, for me. I got a new job that took up most of my time and energy, lost one of my cats, my father had a health scare, there was a change of ownership at my workplace leading to being laid off, my grandfather died, and then COVID-19 came along — where we all keep to ourselves as best we can, to avoid infection and the potential death that comes with it. I tried writing over those past several months but was often too tired or distracted to concentrate on it; however, with the free time available, it’s allowed an outlet to stave off both boredom and avoid further depression over the world’s current predicament (feeling like it comes straight from a Steven Soderberg movie, nonetheless). Which, almost presciently, our first entry deals with as a subject — in an idiosyncratic kind of way.

Image for post

Death Stranding

Ambivalence, in this day and age, is a sorely underrated sentiment. We live in a time of extremes, for both good and ill, but it’s ended up taking a toll on the discourse surrounding Artistic media. The “love it or hate it” paradigm makes it really difficult to have any nuanced discussion without presumptions that complicated reactions towards a work equate to “hatred” when not lavishing it in sycophantic praise. The reason I bring this up is that, when it comes to game developers, I’ve never felt more ambivalent towards a creator as much as Hideo Kojima. He makes plenty of creative decisions I can’t stand (“She breathes through her skin”?! Like a frog?!?!) yet when he does something I like, I really like it. Whether it’s the “Selection for Societal Sanity” scene from Metal Gear Solid 2 or the entirety of Metal Gear Solid 3 (with the best 007 theme song ever), they end making up for a lot and I can’t help but be forgiving.

I’ve played Death Stranding for well over 80 hours and still don’t know what to think of it; but, again, this isn’t from apathy — but ambivalence. There were certainly times I found it dull (with the largely expository and repetitive dialogue) yet it’s strangely refreshing to have a game where the challenge is almost entirely about traversal. It’s about scaling the various terrain of gorgeous landscapes, accompanied by movement mechanics and physics far more elaborate than any of the heavily downplayed combat. There are forced boss fights (one of which I, amusingly, defeated by throwing an attache at their head) I would’ve preferred to be omitted entirely — at least MULEs, Homo Demen terrorists, and BTs can be avoided entirely or evaded when confronted — as they aren’t nearly as enjoyable as maneuvering around a rock slide or trying to wade through waist-high snow as proficiently as possible while delivering a package. The experience, as aptly described by George Weidman, can become meditative as you slowly fugue into a Zen-like state to complete these tasks.

The narrative is less character-driven than it is by world-building in order to express high concept notions of a supernatural post-apocalypse where there’s the living, the dead, and those inbetween like Sam Porter Bridges (Norman Reedus) with a fictional ailment called “DOOMS.” It deals with internet isolationism in such a way that eerily echos the social distancing practiced now with COVID-19 and the protagonist being a lone courier with aphenphosmphobia makes it all the more relevant as speculative fiction. The society within the setting is one where people are forced to lock themselves away in fallout bunkers for safety from a now-inhospitable world, but to their own psychological detriment. In lacking much-needed human contact, there is an increased likelihood of suicide — which itself endangers the world further as corpses become Lovecraftian beasts made of crude oil or form vast, empty craters from exploding if not quickly cremated upon death— that’s lead to a Black Mirror-esque practice of combatting it with social media “likes.” It’s existentially frightening how closely it resembles our current reality and I doubt that’d happen without Kojima’s unique creative vision, warts and all.

Speaking of existentialism…

Image for post

NieR: Automata

Yoko Taro is another Japanese videogame auteur like Kojima but, unlike Kojima, my experience with his games has been indirect until now. Given his interviews and Q&As — part of me wants to love NieR: Automata unconditionally for Taro’s personality alone yet, unfortunately, I can’t.

I can appreciate what this game is doing. It acts as a Philosophy 101 course in the form of entertainment like The Good Place, where it’s less about dryly memorizing information than presenting ideas through an Artistic medium (though famous philosophers are name-dropped and some concepts elaborated upon). The way it plays with the limits of perception, changing from one point of view to another and gradually revealing more context to events we’ve initially taken at face value, is something I can’t help but love — made all the better with the involvement of automata (hey, just like the game’s subtitle!). There is a reason Blade Runner is my favorite film ever; well, that as well ashaving Karel Čapek’s R.U.R. (where the term “robot” originated) and Harlan Ellison’s unfilmed I, Robot script on my bookshelf. I’m also pretty sure Robot Carnival being my first anime had something to do with it…

My point being: this is the kind ofshit I live for!

What left me feeling lukewarm, despite all that, is its main gameplay loop. The combat is derivative of Bayonetta (a title I absolutely adore) but lacks the variety of enemy types and movesets for the player character that Bayonetta had in spades. This is worsened by an incredibly unbalanced upgrade system, where there’s very little tension as one can enable a character to both auto-heal if briefly left unharmed and gain health back felling hostiles. The visual uniformity of said enemy A.I., with exceptions like the weaponized bipedal oil rigs named after Friedrich Engels, left them feeling no more different than the armies of ineffectual cannon-fodder from the Dynasty Warrior series. They all blur together and no one encounter stands out after awhile (save for the beautifully orchestrated musical soundtrack evocative of the Ghost in the Shell films). Perhaps that’s on purpose, to represent the ultimate futility of warfare, but it’s hard to tolerate after tens of hours. The further I got, the less enthused I felt to continue — and that’s unfortunate because, in another form, I may’ve never gotten sick of it.

As far as the next entry goes? I don’t think I could say the same.

Image for post

God of War (2018)

There didn’t need to be another God of War game. This game could have, in fact, had nothing to do with the series and (a few tweaks aside) it’d be much the same, except it’d be a unique intellectual property rather than part of a brand. It also didn’t need an open world, with arbitrary RPG-style stats and an upgrade system based on resource-gathering that convolutes otherwise simplistic combat, or a story that — despite its interminable length—feels largely uneventful. It’s the same kind of plot from Rise of Skywalker that everyone (myself included) hated: there’s a single goal stretched out with a series of fetch quests in order to attain it. Videogames have been doing this for a while, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but this game is an egregious case of spreading oneself too thin…and there wasn’t much to spread as is.

If the game does anything right, it’s the characterization of Atreus. There are far too many works of fiction where youths, rather than behaving like actual kids, are basically miniaturized adults with the lame excuse they’re “wise beyond their years.” Atreus himself is, in fact, wise beyond his years but still acts like a kid. It’s what makes the interactions between him and Kratos feel authentic as a father-son relationship, because — though he is well-read and knowledgeable —Atreus’ naivete about the world around him clashes with Kratos’ experienced understanding of it and his learned cynicism. It’s also nice to have a game where a supporting character isn’t invisible to hostiles and actively takes part in combat, though this is hampered from a lack of danger (he can’t die) and his education is not expressed mechanically. Those moments of Kratos teaching Atreus are largely bound to scripted events and what moves he learns for combat are based on something as abstract as experience points in an upgrade system instead of Kratos directly fathering him. He’s definitely a step above Ellie in The Last of Us or Elizabeth from BioShock Infinite as an element of gameplay, but nonetheless still far from ideal.

Since it’s on-topic — here’s more about the youth!

Image for post

Night in the Woods

If Bryan Lee O’Malley and Richard Scarry (somehow) collaborated on a graphic novel, then had it adapted into a videogame, the final product would likely resemble Night in the Woods. There’s that wonderfully interesting contrast I loved in BoJack Horseman starring fanciful anthropomorphic animals, yet it’s nonetheless grounded — sometimes hitting too close to home — as they deal with crippling personal issues and the toll it takes on others around them. That is not to say it is humorless (far, far from such) but it’s definitely more of a dramedy than pure comedy and I’m happy that’s the case. Not everything needs to be a laugh-per-minute romp.

Relatable characters like protagonist Mae Borowski and her handful of friends aren’t poorly conceived caricatures created by out-of-touch middle-aged men pandering to youths, but by those who truly understand the mindset and behaviors common among dissociated 20-somethings living in economic uncertainty. Keep in mind that I’m not using “relatable” synonymously with “likable,” something I find utterly meaningless when it comes to discussing characterization in fiction, since Mae Borowski herself is usually not a likable person. In fact, she wouldn’t be nearly as interesting was she “likable.” Her massive fuck-ups realistically reflect the complicated nature of human beings and the frustrations that come with it. We’ve each had our moments whether it is getting too drunk and making asses of ourselves at a party, awkwardly conversing with people you hated back in high school and haven’t seen since, or heated spats with those you may otherwise get along with due to a petty misunderstanding: that’s all in the game. It also adds replay value as you don’t get to see every character vignette initially and need subsequent playthroughs to view them, but it never feels like a chore as you get to know more about these people you’ve already connected with — all due to fantastic writing and dialogue. Up to a certain point anyway…

After the game had spent so much time on these amusing slice-of-life interactions with townspeople, it was odd how partway through the game turns into a supernatural mystery that only soured my experience. Remember how I said the characters felt like genuine people dealing with personal issues you could understand? It’s still there, kind of, but then you have dreadfully on-the-nose lines to hammer home the theme of economic woes that were once subtle before — I didn’t need ignorant rednecks overtly blaming the immigrants for a lack of jobs to make the point more obvious. I also can’t stand how Mae’s internal conflict about her hometown becomes personified as a literal Elder God, though it could’ve remained wholly symbolic and more fitting with the rest of the narrative. It all comes off as half-baked compared to previous sections, as if the developers wanted to end on a “big note” though it is contrary to what’s already been presented. It could’ve ended as unceremoniously as Clerks did (there’s an undercurrent of taking things one day at a time instead of needing every decision you make to be a momentous event), as opposed to this last-minute horror story as incongruent as a square peg forced into a round hole.

The next game, on the other hand, works quite well as a horror story (half of it anyway).

Image for post

Resident Evil 2 (2019)

It’s unfortunate that, due to Konami (for some incomprehensible and godawful reason) switching from videogame development to pachinko machines, there will never be another proper Silent Hill installment (that’s why we have Death Stranding now— it originated as a canceled sequel helmed by Hideo Kojima). The Resident Evil series, on the other hand, has remained relevant because of Resident Evil 4 and its influence on AAA game design for the last fifteen years. Perhaps to a fault, given its format became a ubiquitous template for most action-adventure titles to the point such games are becoming less distinguishable from one another. The AAA videogame industry is absolutely terrible about overexposure and diminishing returns which, by God, I just want them to stop doing. Even Dark Souls has been subjected to that treatment and now Soulsborne titles are everywhere

When Resident Evil 7, which returned to its survival horror roots with a storytelling presentation akin to prestige television, got a positive reception from both audience and critics — news of a Resident Evil 2 remake caught my interest. The original game barely held my attention as it came off like an interactive B-movie with terrible acting and cinematography (nor were there any real scares as much startles), but my experience with the remake has been the polar opposite. The title is able to make a gameplay mechanic I usually despise (e.g. inventory management) into an immersive part of the experience that had me hook, line, and sinker.

There was always that sense of dread mixed with excitement, figuring out how much I needed to defend or heal myself while leaving enough room open for key items, as there’s always the danger that comes with mismanagement. Flash grenades might take up a much-needed slot, but it means you’ll save on bullets and leave zombies stunned long enough to escape from them instead of powering through and taking possible damage. You may have to eschew the usage of green herbs because, though it may provide much-needed healing no matter how minor, it’s wasteful if not combined with red and blue herbs — as it fully heals and temporarily reduces damage, making it particularly helpful in tougher situations with stronger enemies. The fact I’d let out a sigh of relief when coming across another policeman’s hammerspace fanny pack to gain more inventory space must mean something, a feeling equal to the adrenaline rush from outrunning Mr. X’s pursuit or when surrounded by zombies who can’t be killed simply by headshots anymore and require Dead Space-esque dismemberment to sabotage their mobility.

In fact, I don’t dislike anything in the game that much with exception to Leon Kennedy’s flaccidly-told campaign (his weapons fucking suck too). In Claire’s campaign, you get a story with neat narrative beats — like Claire and Sherry’s relationship evoking Ripley and Newt’s dynamic from Aliens — that, while far from groundbreaking or deep, is surprisingly restrained for a game by Capcom. They’re a company where good storytelling and characterization went to die and a target of mockery in the gaming community yet, now, all the poor line deliveries and badly localized dialogue are nowhere to be seen. It’s not as obvious when you play Leon, failed boy band member and adamant Blue Lives Matter proponent, because — despite sharing many of the same environments — there’re no thematic connections to make memorable character moments as he goes from one place to another to open one door after another. He lacks a strongly defined motivation to push him forward as opposed to Claire with her brother Chris and later Sherry. Speaking of Sherry; even her stealth-based interlude keeps up the pace as well as establishing how terrible a person Chief Irons is and why, while Ada Wong’s segment is little more than an unnecessary interruption that does not provide further context to the plot or texture to the setting.

The Remake for Resident Evil 3 was just released yet reticent about playing it, coming out barely a year after the last installment has troubling implications and — based on what Ben Croshaw and Marcus Turner have said — it’s more of an action title than survival horror and I didn’t want that. I needed to fill the absence left by a lack of Silent Hill games and never in a million years would I have expected a remake of Resident Evil 2 to partially fulfill that role…

Image for post

POSTSCRIPT

Originally, I didn’t plan for these mini-reviews to have any sort of connective tissue between them — yet they did. They’re disparate as games but share something in common; the theme of needing personal connection with others while nonetheless forced into separation whether it is based on internalized, societal, or even cataclysmic factors (all three in Death Stranding’s case!). The fact I played them on the days leading up to the COVID-19 lockdown was a happy accident, though “happy” is a bit of a misnomer (if only at this time).

Getting back to writing after a far-too-long hiatus feels great, which makes me think it should be a goal to write more often and consistently put out a new piece at least once a month (if not more). I already have some others in the works — one of which is about Netflix’s adaptation of The Witcher — and, hopefully, I’ll put them out sooner than later.

[Originally posted on 5/10/20 @ Medium.com]

I’d Rather Be FAR FROM HOME: A Film Review (w/spoilers)

After Into the Spider-Verse, I was worried it had spoiled me so much that Far From Home would ultimately disappoint. It is certainly not my favorite Spider-Man movie — that’s Into the Spider-Verse (obviously) — but it’s definitely my second favorite. Not any of the badly-aged and cringey (except for J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson) Sam Raimi films, the garbage fire that was Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel, or Homecoming where Peter just acts like a lovesick Avengers groupie while wasting Micheal “I’m Batbirdman” Keaton as the villain (who thankfully wasn’t the fucking Green Goblin…again).

So what, exactly, made Far From Home different (at least for me)? Short answer: it’s actually a Spider-Man movie, not simply another “Marvel movie.” Even if Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has a posthumous presence in the story, it never overshadows the rest of the material and provides the kind of crisis-of-conscience that came from the death of Uncle Ben — something which Peter has lacked in previous MCU appearances — and deftly connected to the villain’s own motivation within the story, but the danger they represent isn’t overblown. The film, rightfully, concentrates more on Peter Parker’s psychology and making the stakes more personal even if portrayed in an epic manner.

The long answer? I’ll get into that now…

FRIENDLIEST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

As stated in my (admittedly overlong and sometimes meandering) pieces on Infinity War and Endgame, I absolutely adore Tom Holland in the role…and still want to squeeze his cheeks, if I ever meet him (I can’t help it). He definitely captures the gee-golly-willikers take that Tobey McGuire was going for as Peter Parker, albeit far less campy, but — unlike McGuire — that doesn’t go away when he’s Spider-Man. He’s not the version of the character in the comics, cracking jokes mid-battle to annoy supervillains, but he definitely emphasizes the “friendly” in “friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.”

A problem I’ve had with a lot of Marvel movies, as far as their form of comedy goes, was how it came off more forced than naturalistic. There’s been this eager-to-please approach that makes it feel like the actors are in on the joke, nudging and winking while doing a shtick, except some of the best comedy comes from the unexpected or unintentional. Whether it is Drax’s inability to understand metaphors (and abysmal attempts at noticing social cues) or Thor’s bravado and bluster obviously covering up a fragile ego, it’s funny because the characters themselves are not trying to be funny — they’re playing it straight yet it is hard to take seriously.

Similarly, this Peter Parker both in- and outside the suit is humorous as a character because he’s congenial to a fault (e.g. politely introducing himself to Valkyrie, as played by Tessa Thompson…in the middle of an end-of-the-world battle) and adorably awkward when trying to hit on M.J. (who, in this case, is the disconcerting jokester — played here by Zendaya) the way a teenager actually would. It certainly feels more convincing than literally any (obviously ad-libbed)interaction between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in Amazing Spider-Man or its sequel. There’re other nice touches, like how the rivalry with Flash Thompson (Tony Revolori) isn’t based on an outdated nerd/jock dynamic (that stopped once Tech-Bros became a thing…more on that later) as much as it is predicated on wealth and class. It’s also very true-to-life the way Ned Leeds (Jacob Batalon) and Betty Brandt’s (Angourie Rice, who is co-starring with yet another pop singer) summer fling occurs and how seriously they take it, with the former giving condescending advice to Peter as if he’s been in a healthy relationship for many a year now.

Image for post
“It’s-a me, Mysterioooooo!”

A poignant aspect of the plot is how Parker, though still wanting to be a superhero, is stressed out by and made avoidant of the pressure placed on being perceived as Iron Man’s “successor” — a position that, at no point, he actually self-proclaimed and was simply assumed by others (including Tony Stark) — is asking a lot of a sixteen-year-old kid. It even causes his usually reliable Spidey Sense (please don’t call it a “tingle” unless you’re Marisa Tomei, who ages like the finest of French wines) to malfunction until the ending. It was difficult for me to perceive Peter’s avoidance as an act of cowardice because he, unlike Tony Stark, just wants to have something of a life outside of being Spider-Man than dedicate his entire being to that identity (which is faithful to how, in the comics, his work/life balance was a recurring internalized conflict). That’s not a bad thing and quite reasonable, moreso when considering what a wreck Tony Stark actually was as a person.

SINS OF THE SURROGATE FATHER

A big reason why Infinity War is one of my favorite MCU installments, as I stated elsewhere, is the acknowledgment that maybe some of these heroic characters aren’t always good people. They can, in fact, be downright terrible as human beings regardless of their feats, no matter how exciting or amusing. That isn’t to say they may as well be inhuman monsters but that, much like a real-life problematic fave, they’re far less ideal than they are made out to be either by themselves or admirers. You might like what they’ve done, but may come to disdain them — usually with enough time behind closed doors.

Tony “Iron Man” Stark is the exemplar of this.

His gadgetry may be fascinating and quips chucklesome, but his egotism and selfishness — two prominent personality traits — are often forgotten by audiences distracted by the spectacle. It should be remembered that he is a weapons manufacturer and only became a superhero when almost killed by one of his own missiles, not because he had a genuine interest in protecting the powerless from the abusively powerful like Captain America (Chris Evans) did. Though, even after becoming a superhero, he had endangered the world due to his overwhelming hubris (e.g. Age of Ultron) then betrayed many of his allies while undergoing a psychological breakdown (e.g. Civil War). However, I do not say that to diminish how — at other times — he was also integral to saving the lives of many and even died like a champion to do so. Plus Robert Downey, Jr. was so goddamn good in the role.

Image for post
(from MONSTRESS #18 by Majorie Liu, Sana Takeda, et al.)

In one of the best scenes of the film, after Spidey experiences a humiliating and near-fatal defeat, Harold “Happy” Hogan (Jon Favreau) has a heart-to-heart where he admits — being his closest and longest-known friend — Tony Stark wasn’t easy to be around or deal with. He was paranoid, obsessive, and never truly satisfied. That makes Happy one of the few people present in the film who’s wise enough to not expect Peter to become “the new Iron-Man.” He, instead, encourages Peter to walk his own path based on what he learned from his time as Stark’s kinda-sorta apprentice. What point is there in just replacing one whose time has passed and simply repeat their failings? It’s more important that, while acknowledging their achievements, we learn to avoid the mistakes the last generation made and become better for it.

If Tony had more foresight and knew what kind of pain and animosity his actions would have caused, especially after his death, perhaps Peter’s life — as well as those of his closest friends — wouldn’t have been endangered by someone whom he wronged in the past…

LAND OF CONFUSION

The zeitgeist we live in now is one of mass gaslighting, to one degree or another. Where the lies of charlatans are treated far too credulously, taking advantage of the goodwill of those well-meaning but gullible, and some even come to hero-worship them — as their fallacious narrative is more comforting than dealing with the disappointment that comes with skepticism and cynicism. Those who accuse legitimate sources of information as “fake news” are often the ones who help perpetuate the phenomenon most. It does not help these charlatans are gifted with a level of charisma that, though they abuse others including sycophants, often render them immune to further scrutiny as every indiscretion is swept under the rug with some convenient rationalization. They often have too much power, with little to no responsibility taken for their actions.

The point I’m making is that Quentin “Mysterio” Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) represents all of this.

Anyone who read the comics is well-aware his whole act of being a superhero from a tangent timeline fighting elemental monsters was a very likely falsehood, but knowing that didn’t really ruin anything for me. When it comes to cinematic adaptations of printed works — I want there to be changes made, for the better. Some stuff in the comics just don’t work in live-action, as much as fanboys are loathed to admit such (get the fuck over yourselves), and being too “faithful” might be a bad thing. No, what interested me was what changes would be made to him as a character. Originally, he was a special effects artist (though it is amusingly referenced with in-jokes about the actual process done for these movies) but that really wouldn’t work now. Making him an Elon Muskesque Tech-Bro not only makes sense when considering his weaponized drones used for advanced holographic imagery — which did, at certain times, strain suspension of disbelief — but that, accompanied by other former Stark Industry employees like William Ginter Riva (Peter Billingsley), his grievances are legitimate to some extent.

Stark pulled a Thomas Edison/Steve Jobs on Beck and took credit for the work he did, only to add insult to injury when giving his groundbreaking work a juvenile acronym like “B.A.R.F.” and tossed it aside in such a nonchalant fashion. Riva himself was pulled into a conflict between Stark and Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) which was little more than a dick-measuring contest writ large in the first Iron Man and, honestly, I can’t blame anyone holding a grudge over that. Though Beck speaks as if Robin Hood, upon tricking Peter him into handing over the E.D.I.T.H. glasses and access to more weaponized drones, he soon becomes another Sheriff of Nottingham the next moment as he threatens his accomplices due to minor dissent and an unexpected complication. Yet, rather than any self-realization on their part and trying to undo his scheme, they still followed his orders. Why would anyone do that, especially here? Fiction has plenty of henchmen who question their master and try sabotaging their efforts when knowing better, even in vain (e.g. Skurge, played by Karl Urban, from Thor: Ragnarok) — but not them and, at first, it confused me. Upon my subsequent viewing of the film, it dawned on me that their loyalty wasn’t to Beck as much as the false narrative he wants to impose upon the world.

Image for post
Quentin “Mysterio” Beck. Kinda (but really).

They’re not much different from the all-too-real villains of our current age: nihilistic opportunists who cravenly hide behind lofty lies and profit from the destruction they sow…

A POSTHUMOUS VICTORY

Along with Infinity WarFar From Home is the only other MCU installment where the villain succeeds, though one that is only achieved after their death. Being unable to do his version of The Syndrome’s scheme from The Incredibles, Beck’s spineless asshole lackeys take whatever footage was recorded by the drones and doctor it to frame Spider-Man for mass murder as well as doxxing him to the whole of New York City. This, of course, is pushed by none other than J. Jonah Jameson (and, by God, I was ecstatic to see they brought back J.K. Simmons for the role) who — given his portrayal as an online pundit and the graphical style of the show’s logo — may as well be Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones.

It echos incidences such as the dissolution of the community outreach organization ACORN due to bad faith actor and Andrew Breitbart protege James O’Keefe III or, more recently, former Quilette writer Andy Ngo’s demonizing of antifascist protestors by provoking them into a physical confrontation and using self-victimization afterwards for personal gain all while supposedly smart people expressed misplaced empathy for a “journalist” (which, god-fucking-dammit, he’s not) doing their “job” (of rationalizing heinous ideas appealing to fascists). In both cases, anyone perceptive enough can see through such egregious attempts of manipulation— those who believed them wanted to. If they truly cared about the facts, whatsoever, they would’ve waited and looked for more information as opposed to immediately coming to a conclusion based on an incomplete picture. They made up their mind before it occurred.

Image for post
J. Jonah Jameson. Kinda (but really).

When coupled with Captain Marvel’s take on “The Great Replacement” and demagoguery targeting refugees, and Thanos representing the resurgence of the “overpopulation” myth perpetuated by eugenicists of yesteryear like Thomas Malthus and Margaret Sanger from Infinity War, it’s nice to see this trend in the MCU using social commentary to inform their spectacles and make them resonate on a deeper level. I mean, most of the previous ten years suffered from telling over showing — with supposed “themes” outright stated by characters while no concrete action within the plot expresses it — but they’re finally doing it (more) and Far From Home definitely comes the closest to the spirit of 80’s-era satirical actioneers like Robocop and They Live, next to Winter Soldier.

Though, when you think about it, Mysterio’s posthumous victory was only possible because of Thanos’ posthumous victory. Wiping out half of all life across the universe may’ve been his intention, one that was achieved then subsequently reversed, but the psychological after-effects of “The Blip” (I’d rather they stuck with “The Snap” — ’cause that name sucks rotten eggs) still remained. The incident was so harrowing, worsened by the five-year discrepancy between those who survived and those who disappeared, that even Beck acknowledges it made people prone to believing any ridiculous scenario now. It’s what allowed him to execute his vile machinations and succeed. But, to tie all this up in a pretty little bow, there’s a line from Infinity War (no, I’m never going to shut up about it) that perfectly sums up the existential crisis the MCU (as well as our own world) is now afflicted by and that the Mad Titan (how fitting!) is responsible for:

Reality is often disappointing. That is, it was, but now reality is whatever I want it to be…


[Originally posted on 9/30/19 @ Medium.com]

Surfing The Netflix: BLACK MIRROR, Season 5 (w/spoilers)

As an anthology series, Black Mirror has never been perfect but — along with other shows like American Horror Story or Easy — it’s refreshing to have these self-contained stories as opposed to the currently popular trend of long-form storytelling that’s become exhausting in its overuse. Following its cancellation by BBC Channel 4 and adoption by Netflix, the overall level of quality seemed to drop with episodes as bad as the series premiere, “The National Anthem,” started to appear more often. Though the third season only had two episodes I’d consider particularly bad, “Playtest” and “Men Against Fire,” the fourth was nothing but terrible episodes and “Bandersnatch” managed to somehow be worse than them.

I couldn’t help but get this sense Charlie Booker had creatively exhausted himself, perhaps needing more guest writers to keep things varied, and was becoming more reliant on gimmicks as opposed to creating a thoughtful sci-fi morality tale. So, at first, I was dreading the new season — only to be relieved when finding they cut the number of episodes in half. Based on the plot summaries alone, it sounded like a case of getting back to basics as the speculative technology and human drama are intrinsically connected than dissociated with one another. It didn’t turn out exactly that way but it’s a step up from the previous season and definitely “Bandersnatch.” Though I think it started off a bit rough with…

Image for post

Striking Vipers

It’s basically Brokeback Mountain with immersive VR tech, but it could’ve been so much more than that.

The immersive VR tech is actually the least of my problems — it’s taking the concept seen in “Playtest” and fleshing it out a bit, for the better. It’s that the story never really moves past the premise of two guy friends having sex with one another as characters in a Street Fighter rip-off, only briefly touching on other subjects without really committing to them. One of them explains how great it feels to play as a female character when it comes to the literal cybersex, showing a sense dissatisfaction with being in a male body when outside of the game. You almost think it may end up dealing with body dysphoria and trans identity in an interesting fashion but…nope! It would’ve made the whole episode more eventful than stretching out what would otherwise be a half-hour’s worth of story.

If there’s anything I could compliment, it’s that the ending argues in favor of normalizing polyamory and extramarital trysts than demonizing them as abnormal. Monogamous relationships are fine if that is what the people involved want — but society has tried cementing it as the only way to be in a romantic relationship. It’s probably why, along with the rigidity of divorce laws in the past, so many stories involve an unhappy marriage with one or both individuals being unfaithful. It’s a way to tolerate a situation they feel unable to escape from without the general social and familial repercussions that would come about from such abandonment. They were not only sold on this idea of “one true love” but that it’d last forever — the reality, of course, is never that simple and accepting it would relieve so much anguish.

Image for post

Smithereens

The reason “Shut Up & Dance” is one of my favorite episodes is that, unlike so many others, it’s about the living nightmare that is our current internet culture. It didn’t need a sci-fi concept attached to get that point across when weirdly addictive social networking sites, trolling as a hobby, and harassment campaigns carried out by message boards filled with sadistic obsessives are all straight out of a dystopian cyberpunk story already. As time goes on, Satoshi Kon and Hideo Kojima (why, yes, I am a Japanophile!) are only further proven right in their cynicism about the internet. It was never leading to some New Renaissance but instead the further perpetuation of cultural detritus as well as a mechanism for which people are driven by their id, operating more on confirmation bias and self-validation than any self-proclaimed “logic” or “reason.”

Much like how I described “Striking Vipers” as “Brokeback Mountain with immersive VR tech,” I’d describe “Smithereens” as Collateral meets Phone Booth (I can’t be the only person who remembers them…right?) with contemporary internet culture as a theme but that’s meant as a compliment in this case.

There are things I could’ve done without, like the protagonist’s tragic background as the impetus for his actions or the cliffhanger ending that doesn’t punctuate the theme explored, but they weren’t deal-breakers. Because, even with those problems, it does enough right otherwise to make those minor issues whereas episodes from Season 4 were major due to their overwhelming presence. The premise should not have been a product of personal tragedy but of social alienation and the frustration with how internet culture has seeped into our reality for the worst. The best example being the protagonist’s anger over the performative empathy displayed by other characters throughout — touching on an issue I have with online interaction. A lot of times it can feel impersonal and insincere, based less on genuine connection than optics, that’s lead to the fetishization of concepts like “civility” while treating outright honesty as uncouth or even an act of aggression (something the episode “Nosedive” goes into as well).

It’s the same way I feel when someone I know personally wishes me a “Happy Birthday” on Facebook as opposed to calling me and having an actual conversation. Despite these sites literally being made to allow (as their descriptor implies) for social networking, often just make you feel more alone and disconnected from other human beings. It blurs the line whether there’s actually a person on the other end of a message and not just a well-programmed bot. What’s also profound is the realization that, though one can overshare details about their lives on them, you really aren’t heard on these social networking sites unless you’re a “somebody” and — if you’re a “nobody” — the only way to be heard is to ingratiate yourself to a “somebody.” That “somebody” here is the creator of the titular social networking site played by Topher Grace.

The episode could’ve gone the route where Grace was just another selfish Tech-Bro, but he’s not. You get a sense that he and the protagonists are, quite surprisingly, kindred spirits on two different sides of a social divide. While the protagonist is a victim to the everyday ramifications of an internet-addicted culture, Grace himself is a creator whose invention has grown so big and unwieldy that he can no longer control it while bound to the corporate bureaucracy that has formed from its ubiquitous use. It’s telling, when we first meet the character, that he’s interrupted during a sabbatical from media exposure and — when informed of the protagonist’s actions — is willing to have an honest heart-to-heart with him, moreso than those in the PR department who’re only concerned with damage control and keeping the company’s reputation clean. Yet even the PR people aren’t outwardly malevolent though, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, the worst kinds of evil are often committed for the most banal of reasons.

I wouldn’t claim it’s one of the best episodes of the series (it sure as shit ain’t “Fifteen Million Merits,” “White Christmas,” or “Hated in the Nation”) but, in this case, it is the best of the season. However, I actually enjoyed the next episode a lot more than most people — whose reactions were somewhere between annoyed befuddlement and intense loathing — but I can fully admit it was incredibly flawed as well…

Image for post

Rachel, Jack & Ashley Too

Okay, I did argue that Charlie Booker should bring in more guest writers to keep things varied — but Miley Cyrus wasn’t the kind of person I was talking about. Even if he alone is credited as the writer for this episode, it’s hard to not feel that the entire second half was self-insertion rebellious fantasy plotted by Cyrus herself. This leads to the story featured feeling as if it’s two entirely different tales haphazardly combined.

The first half, which is certainly the better one, is about the dangers of parasocial relationships and getting attached to an idealized public persona of an entertainer. The first of the three titular protagonists, played by Angourie Rice, is friendless and such isolation causes her to worship a pink-haired pop star to an unhealthy degree. She eventually twists her affable father’s arm into buying a kawaii robot (the third titular character) based on said pop star that only furthers her obsession to the chagrin of Rachel’s sister, the second titular character played by Madison Davenport, who feels she needs to accept the difficulties and disappointment of reality than withdrawing further into the naive optimism the pop star represents. However, what makes all of this interesting is that the pop star herself really isn’t the person she advertises herself to be — she looks uncomfortable and robotic in public interviews while acting like a female Trent Reznor behind closed doors, writing a lot of dark songs about suicide and alienation.

At that point, my interest was piqued. I was expecting this episode to make some poignant observations about the relationship between the audience and the artist as well as how capitalism manipulates both to their personal detriment — much in the same way BoJack Horseman brilliantly does — but none of that happens. As the second half rolls around, Miley Cyrus’ aunt becomes a cartoon villain who drugs her niece into a coma and tries to replace her with a realistic hologram…‘cause money, I think? Ashley Too, upon viewing a news broadcast of the pop star’s coma, short-circuits and requires both Rachel and Jack to fix it. It was bad enough Cyrus’ aunt turned into Snidely Whiplash but, apparently, these pieces of merchandise have a full digitalized copy of Cyrus’ mind that’ve been limited in function for commercial purposes. Like…what?

As much as I think Cyrus voicing a foul-mouthed robot is hilarious (I have a thing for ladies that talk like scurvy-ridden sailors!), proving she should do more comedy acting in the future, it’s a plot turn that feels as contrived as it is nonsensical. I like the idea behind such a development, having Rachel’s illusions about Ashley O crumble and trying to appreciate the artist as an actual person. They didn’t need a cutesy robot or even the Evil Aunt to make that point, perhaps having Jack help Rachel sneak into a hospital to meet an Ashley O recovering from an accident instead. Rachel would see her idol in a position of vulnerability and lacking the superficial veneer of glitz and glam. Instead, the story becomes a Disnified kid’s adventure with a very convenient happy ending and Rachel’s newfound appreciation of Ashley O as a flawed but talented human being isn’t really dealt with.

The problem isn’t that the ending is a happy one, it could’ve been and worked, but it needed an appropriate happy ending in the way “San Junipero” did — there was a precedent set and the final moments punctuated it. As I stated before, this feels like it belongs in an entirely different story. It’s a disappointing ending, to both the episode and this season of Black Mirror, but at least now I’m not dreading the next one…

[Originally posted on 7/23/19 @ Medium.com]

Surfing the Netflix: JESSICA JONES, 3rd & Final Season (w/spoilers)

Honestly, I think Jessica Jones—as a series — was ill-conceived from the beginning. It puts forth this premise of a hard-boiled private investigator who happens to be superhuman, in a world with many others like her, but she is rarely shown investigating and (following the most annoying trend in serialized drama) the long-form storytelling stretches out material that may work for an episode or two over a dozen. It’s hard to express how exhausting it is to watch, being so hyper-focused on one antagonist over a single season and having so much of the other “action” be…people talking. Incessantly. It all feels like a goddamn stage production instead of a live-action streaming drama involving superhumans.

I couldn’t help but imagine an alternate universe where every episode was self-contained with a case-of-the-week format much like Murder, She Wrote or Columbo. Perhaps it’d lead to other Marvel comicbook characters given an interestingly grounded live-action interpretation, each one either acting as the episode’s antagonist or seeking out Jessica’s help with a problem, while Zebediah Killgrave (who I like to call “The Grapist”) is only mentioned in passing before making an appearance in a season finale. That would’ve actually kept my interest, as opposed to suffering through another attempt to make the lightning that is Game of Thrones’ format strike twice (seriously, stop it already).

The third season doesn’t change the formula — it’s more of the same.

Though the grounded approach is appreciated, a refreshing contrast to the empty bombast of many Marvel films, it’s almost come to the point where a lot of the material — even when based on superhero comics — is almost indistinguishable from a typical procedural crime drama (albeit with very little procedure involved). It’s not that I want Rachael Taylor to wear an outfit slavishly faithful to her comicbook counterpart (even the show acknowledges how impractical and silly it’d be) but, like, just call her “Hellcat” once. Anything that shows some kind of acknowledgment of its comicbook origins than disdainful of them.

Would you believe me if I told you that Gregory Sallinger and Erik Gelden are actually based on comicbook characters? I can’t blame you, if not — I certainly didn’t think they were until I looked it up. It’s almost as if they were entirely new (bland) characters and just had the names of some lesser-knowns from Marvel’s catalog stamped on them afterward. Again, if they were restricted to a single one-off episode, I’d of tolerated it, but they quickly wore out their welcome. Just like Zebediah Kilgrave and Alisa in previous seasons. None of them could really carry an entire season, by themselves, but were forced to due to this rigid adherence to a narrative structure that wasn’t befitting the protagonist or their world.

Though, to be fair, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is comprised largely of characters originally conceived for film and television but has managed to keep my interest through both thick and thin. It’s the farthest thing from perfect — it took a while to get its legs and seasons can be bifurcated in terms of quality, with one half being better than the other — but the show is at least eventful. Even the other Marvel Netflix series like DaredevilLuke CageThe Punisher, and Iron Fist had more going on within a single season while having the same long-form storytelling format. More importantly, even if downplayed in presentation, none of them felt as begrudging as Jessica Jones does about its origins. It’s why they have a solid sense of identity than feeling like another anonymous entry in an overcrowded genre of tormented detective stories.

It’s baffling to me that the most interesting plotline running through the season wasn’t Patricia Walker becoming a vigilante, which the series had been building up since the beginning, but Carrie-Anne Moss as Jerri Hogarth trying to reclaim an old flame even if it means ruining her family. Despite being stricken with Lou Gehrig’s disease, which would motivate others to make amends for those they wronged, she acts as if written by Ayn Rand and the most selfish piece of shit imaginable. Her opportunism is practically nihilistic, as she cuts ties to Jessica to defend Salinger as a way to save her law firm from going under or blackmailing Patricia as hired muscle to force someone into a legal agreement.

There’s something intriguing about characters diagnosed with a terminal condition, like Walter White in Breaking Bad, to approach it with amoral abandon than introspective regret. Within our society, it’s often a faux pas to speak ill of someone who may have (say) cancer regardless of their actual behavior — seeing someone like Jerri Hogarth presented as undeserving of anyone’s love or friendship, regardless of how horrible the state of her health, is almost cathartic. That’s not to say that she “deserved” to have such an illness (no one does) but that, when she uses it as an excuse for her terrible behavior, others rightfully call her out on how it isn’t a valid reason to treat others like garbage or to be immune to the consequences of her unethical actions.

Along with Detective Costa, Jerri Hogarth also represents how homosexuality should be portrayed in most media. She’s not dignified but nonetheless feels like an actual human being who isn’t entirely defined by their sexuality, it’s only part of her identity and not one that overshadows every other aspect of her personality. She’s a person who gets what they want yet, whenever attaining it, quickly becomes dissatisfied and looks elsewhere. The season reveals that it didn’t just begin within the first season of the show — but an intrinsic part of her behavior, well before it ever started. She starts off as an unfaithful partner and ends as the worst kind of homewrecker, airing out another person’s dirty laundry to the public and causing them to commit suicide…all because she wanted his wife all to herself, as even being an extramarital tryst in an open marriage wasn’t enough. To paraphrase a character from the film Bad Santa: her soul is dog shit, but it makes her the best character in this season as a result.

Usually, when people speak of a conclusion, they often use the phrase “it ended not with a bang, but a whimper” to evoke disappointment from a lack of impact. For me, Jessica Jones didn’t end with a bang or even a whimper but a yawn or maybe a snore. For all the problems I had with the first season of Luke Cage and Iron Fist, they upped the ante for their second season and the series finale in both manage to be quite exciting. Given it was inevitable that the shows would be canceled due to Disney wanting to take their ball and go home, it’s like the showrunners said “fuck it” and went all out as much as they possibly could. Jessica Jones, being the series to last the longest next to Daredevil, didn’t bother putting in even a third of the effort.

By the time Jessica and Patricia finally go head-to-head, it was too little too late and incredibly lame compared to the other final season smackdowns. The choreography and staging for the whole scene are basic and unimaginative, which doesn’t make the most of Patricia’s newfound cat-like reflexes even when stuck in a tight corridor. Her night vision, though it comes into play, falls flat when the “darkness” that surrounds Jessica isn’t present because the corridor is still dimly lit. It looks so ridiculous and moreso in a show that takes itself so seriously in presentation, which would pass me by in something light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek like Legends of Tomorrow if not being outright amusing.

If I am being as negative as I am, it is only because this show had a ton of potential and wasted it tragically by the end, rather than going out in a blaze of last-minute glory. I don’t hate the show (I’ve seen worse) nor would claim anyone on the crew was lacking in talent (again, I’ve seen worse) — otherwise, I would not have stuck with it from beginning to end just as I did Game of Thrones. Comicbooks are, to me, an art form that has long deserved to be taken as seriously as literature or cinema. I see adaptations like Jessica Jones, along with Daredevil, as a better way of proving that than many of the Marvel movies that only use and further perpetuate the least interesting tropes of the comics they’re based on. I want a version befitting cinema and serialized drama, playing to the strengths of those mediums, than simply a live-action comicbook.

I know Jessica Jones tried, it really did, and the effort is admirable but it would be dishonest to not express that the result was lackluster. I can only hope that Disney — instead of flippantly dismissing the series as some fluke — take notes on what the show did right and apply it to their future streaming series. Ever since Endgame, it feels like the sky’s the limit…

[Originally posted on 7/1/19 @ Medium.com]

Varying Degrees of Disappointment: Mini-Reviews for GRAVITY RUSH, THE LAST OF US, AXIOM VERGE, and LONE SURVIVOR

Image for post

Gravity Rush

There’s a lot of potential in the gravity-shifting mechanic so central to gameplay but, following inFamous and [Prototype]’s stead than Portal or The Talos Principle, is simply an amusing method of mobility albeit with poorly implemented combat.

That gameplay loop would be tolerable, were hostile AIs not the most non-commital and least creative of all monsters — nebulous black goo with glowing weak-points. It clashes with the aesthetics of Heksville, densely-populated floating city districts with art nouveau architecture and steampunk technology in spades, when something (likely troublesome to design and program) like malevolent robots would be more fitting with that setting. Though the plotline is as incohesive as the combat, interesting creative decisions are made including a sidequest of carrying out a full conversation with a married couple “unstuck in time” akin to Kurt Vonnegut’s Sirens of Titan.

There’s this conceit that the protagonist, Kat, is in search of her past due to (of course) amnesia but that goal post keeps moving further back to the point it’s also part of the cliff-hanger. The game’s story is so episodic yet regularly reminds you of a mystery that is only hinted at further, often by characters who obviously know more but refuse to elaborate to play up the “Mystery Box” aspect, which only soured me despite a fondness for the visual presentation and admittedly charming cast. When taking the review by Ben Croshaw of the sequel into consideration — summarizing it as slightly different but still more of the same — it’s hard to feel enthusiastic enough to give a second chance.

Image for post

The Last of Us

If I can give Naughty Dog credit for anything, it’s that they understand cinematic language better than most other game developers (but especially David Cage). Whenever there was a cutscene, I could not help but find myself intrigued by the world and these characters — yet, unfortunately, the gameplay got in the way.

The combat and sneaking mechanics work perfectly fine (the game is never lacking in polish) but such sections are elongated to the point of exhaustion. Getting into gun-fights with post-apocalyptic highwaymen or quietly avoiding fungzies would be entertaining enough as brief interruptions but, when they go on for half an hour or more, it began to test my patience. This is not helped by the player character, Joel, being the most unlikable and least interesting person alive while Ellie, who is endlessly amusing and ridiculously adorable, tends to act as tag-along whom hostiles don’t acknowledge though her presence is what drives the plot. People may complain about escort quests in videogames but in cases like IcoDead Rising, or Resident Evil 4, they added a level of tension that would be lost with its omission. The dissonance is as distracting here as it was with Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite — we’re told of their importance, but their lack of ludic acknowledgment shows otherwise.

The saving grace, I suppose, is the ending with its disdain of closure as a narrative concept while reframing an act of heroism as selfish and even detrimental to the world itself. It’s a total downer with little sense of hope, but I can’t help but applaud sticking to such a creative decision. There’s too many a dénouement where poetic justice is dished out and everyone’s better off as though obliged, but that’s not the world we live in and need that reminder in post-apocalyptic fiction — otherwise it’s another insipid power fantasy that’d make Tyler Durden proud.

Image for post

Axiom Verge

Thomas Happ and I seem to share a good number of sensibilities: a fondness for the “Metroidvania” sub-genre, the aesthetics of H.R. Giger, and minimalist (almost obscurist) storytelling that’s less ludically dissonant than many other games. The fact he did all this by his lonesome is something that is both impressive and, to my shame, makes me feel quite envious I lack the skills to the same. I really, really wanted to like this game for all those reasons but can’t help but feel lukewarm about it.

It starts off well enough, introducing you to this truly alien setting — where the biological and mechanical are one, a place in which reality itself can glitch as if it was digitalized — with a clear sense of direction leading you to the first set of upgrades. The loss of interest came about when new modes of movement opened up and required backtracking, making me realize just how poorly-differentiated these levels are. They may have a distinctive background but the foregrounds are always these blocks, with a pallet swap from one area to the next, making navigation increasingly difficult as well as dull. Though the biomechanical alien nature of the setting was still appealing, the strange names for each section of the map — when coupled with the samey visuals — further dampened my enjoyment as I’d trek back and forth wondering where exactly I was or going to.

This wasn’t an issue I had in, say, Symphony of the Night as each area was entirely different and laid out in such a way that going between them didn’t feel like an arduous chore (except the clock tower with those goddamn flying Medusa heads). Even with the creative weapon selection, particularly how the Address Disruptor causes enemies to have their functions altered in numerous ways, it wasn’t really enough to keep me invested. But, all that said, I’m looking forward to whatever Thomas Happ has next on his plate…

Image for post

Lone Survivor

Much in the way Axiom Verge was an homage to Metroid, Lone Survivor is a love letter to Silent Hill — practically being a 2D remake of that game and its sequels (at least developed by Konami). As someone who liked that version of survival horror over Resident Evil’s cheesy take on the genre and always wanted more of it, I couldn’t help but feel intrigued enough to play it.

Unfortunately, like Axiom Verge, I become gradually soured on the experience the longer it went on. It wasn’t just the fact navigating endlessly similar corridors with rooms and branching paths, while constantly having to look at the map, is an exercise in annoyed boredom but that the game has less of an identity of its own than Thomas Happ’s title despite the comparable level of iteration. My eyes practically rolled out of their sockets when the titular protagonist finds a room with a woman he may or may not know imprisoned behind metal bars — it’s referential fan-service of the worst kind, next to most of the enemies being Cronenbergian meat puppets without faces.

Why be so slavish and just remind me of another game I already played? Why not use Silent Hill as an influence for something a little different? It doesn’t have to give me the moon or involve innovative gameplay mechanics — simply a work of Art that can stand on its own. Yet I can’t imagine why anyone would play Lone Survivor unless they were aware of Silent Hill, as its existence hinges on those games so much and there wouldn’t be much appeal to anyone not privy to its many tropes. Red Candle Games’ Detention, on the other hand, does not fall into this trap and — the atmosphere and folklore featured being symbolic of living under a military dictatorship, remembering the best monsters in horror are humans themselves — has a lot more to say than simply “I totally loved Silent Hill too!”

[Originally posted on 6/25/19 @ Medium.com]

Now That It’s Over — Let Me Be Honest About GAME OF THRONES (w/spoilers, obviously)…

I watched the show, from beginning to end, and still find it to be one of the most overrated TV series in years next to LOST.

This isn’t a revelation that came with the poorly-written, lackluster finale where Arya Stark turns into Frodo Baggins at the end of Return of the King but within the first season itself. Yes, the one that so many have retroactively portrayed as being close to perfection while ignoring the telltale signs of issues that’d become apparent in future episodes. Even Saturday Night Live had a sketch back then, which has since been scrubbed from the internet (for some reason — but I’ll assume that a segment of Game of Thrones fans are giant crybullies), mocking the gratuitous nudity and sex in the brothel scenes (apparently we’re too dumb of an audience to understand what happens in a place referred to as a “brothel”) by speculating they were taking advice from an over-sexed thirteen-year-old boy on set. It perfectly represented everything wrong with the series, just as it began, and now it’s gone…

As time went by, subsequent seasons came out and I noticed others commenting on the overuse of rape as if it were some great surprise. Really? Do you think a show that’d be so pandering with (largely) female nudity would leave rape as shock value dramatics off the table? Even though it manages to have varied and layered female characters unlike many shows and movies, which erroneously think a “strong female character” is simply a male action hero with different reproductive organs, you still have them getting sexually violated or physically beaten as if they were in a snuff film and it all functions as a juvenile approach to character-building. The kind of grotesque non-creativity that Satoshi Kon deftly criticized twenty-two years ago in Perfect Blue that goes unheard while Darren Aronofsky heavily borrowed from it.

There’s a lot of problems I have with the series but, to avoid making it a series of impenetrable blocks of text, I’ll make a somewhat breezy Cracked.com-style list of my three major issues. Starting with…

1. HISTORICAL FICTION WITH MAGIC (KINDA)

If there’s one thing I can’t stand in horror stories involving zombies, it’s the refusal of characters to refer to zombies as “zombies.” They always have to come up with some awkward alternative, as if it’s embarrassing to utter the word. But…why? They’re animated cadavers that mindlessly devour human flesh — they are zombies, based on the common pop culture portrayal of them. Some may run than limp along, others more invulnerable to damage, and can even have fungal growths spouting from their craniums like The Last of Us but they’re still zombies. Is it because the creators think to have characters refer to them as such be “too silly”? Why be so hesitant to embrace zombies fully as horror story monsters in a horror story? Why act as if they’re anything else?

Similarly, watching Game of Thrones is more like watching historical fiction about the War of the Roses with the pretense of also being a fantasy adventure. The majority of the series is a bunch of people standing or sitting around discussing statecraft and all the fantasy elements, like the dragons or magic, are few and far inbetween until later on. They’ll appear to remind us that this is, in fact, a fantasy story but will remain downplayed as we watch a bunch of similar-looking honky motherfuckers as they speak of the fake politics of a fake kingdom with a fake history at interminable length. Maybe you’re supposed to be impressed by how Shakespearean it all is but The Bard himself was more willing to embrace the fantastical in A Midsummer Night’s Dream or The Tempest while this show only does it begrudgingly despite the intentional inclusion of those elements.

Image for post
PULSE POUNDING ACTION! ACTION!! ACTION!!!

It would certainly be easier to accept, if it were a stage production, technical limitations and that much of the plot would have to be driven by dialogue via character interaction. However, Game of Thrones isn’t a stage production — it is an expensive televised series, yet it feels like a stage production nonetheless. It has no excuse to be that way, other than pompously self-satisfied enough to assume soap opera-style melodrama makes up for the lack of concrete action.

If Game of Thrones was titled “The War of the Roses” and actually about the War of the Roses, I’d have far less issue with that storytelling format. I’d be more willing to tolerate all the statecraft because there’s a real-world historical basis for it and, hell, you might learn something from it. Though a dramatization of those events, they are based on an important occurrence that shaped the United Kingdom as a confederation of nations inhabiting the same island(s) — something that has affected how we live right now, in some way or another. For all the real-world parallels Game of Thrones tries to use as part of its setting, it doesn’t really matter if you lack an attachment to Westeros as a place and having such would only be possible if you’ve already spent time immersed within it. The only perspective you see of Westeros is from those with immense power, compared to others, as they go about their political machinations. You never really get a sense of how the other half lives and I can’t help but find it aggravating as peasants and slaves exist only to aggrandize or demonize those in power, never to explore their perspective of the events. They may as well be non-player characters in a videogame than real people.

The reason I despise talking about the novels with people who’ve read them, as someone who hasn’t, is how some insist I should read them to “get” and “truly appreciate” the setting. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, declaring who does or doesn’t “get it” is fanboyish gate-keeping based on obsessive adoration of the content than an understanding of the narrative structure or overall cultural context. Maybe, when discussing what makes the characters unlikable in a modern context, I don’t want to be chastised because I’m just supposed to take everything as a given — immune to all scrutiny — while purposefully ignoring the world outside of it. Except it is a product of our modern culture and did not form in a vacuum separate from that culture. The books and TV series using real-world parallels from the past at all means any attempt at keeping it separate from reality is utterly inane. At least when it came to Lord of the Rings, stuff like The Silmarillion was supplemental than integral to understanding the story of a halfling journeying to throw a piece of mystical bling into a volcano. In fact, LotR never shied away from the fact it was a fantastical story in a fantastical setting the way Game of Thrones did until latter-day seasons. Though, even then, they botched it.

2. MAGIC: THE ULTIMATE DEUS EX MACHINA

I’ve never been as fond of fantasy as I have sci-fi when it comes to storytelling. Though concepts within both genres are wholly imaginary — sci-fi usually attempts to explain the mechanics of its technologies, in as internally logical a way as possible. Faster-Than-Light space travel might not be realistic but having characters, who’re informing the unaware, explain how it works which adds both a sense of texture to that world as well as setting up rules that those characters are governed by within it. But magic? At best, it’s vaguely defined — at worst, it’s arbitrary.

It’s a lot more interesting to watch an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where they’re dealing with starship engine troubles, discussing these well-established aspects of that device and the inner-workings in order to fix it, as opposed to seeing Gandalf use spells in the most convenient of times without a proper explanation as to why he didn’t do it before (those giant eagles would’ve cut down on a lot of travel time). He’s brought back from death in a more powerful form and the reason for it comes down to “just ’cause.” How the fuck can there be any tension, by that point? All dire situations can be fixed by Gandalf and the only reason he doesn’t is that Tolkien willed it so.

I know I just argued about the show’s unwillingness to fully embrace its fantastical elements, but part of that is because usage of magic becomes common in later seasons and ruined by the haphazard writing. The initial nature of it being seldom used is dropped for a more typical portrayal where it can pretty much do whatever the showrunners want at the moment to either increase or relieve tension, though it may not make any sense, than this unpredictable and unwieldy force as suggested in the story. The show couldn’t commit to its own hesitancy in using magic. It ends up going all Gandalf as the conclusion drew near since it’s easier to tell a fantasy story in that way, than sticking with what has been given precedence and keeping things consistent.

Image for post
Worst. Wizard. Ever.

I assumed, at first, magic was downplayed because so much indicated that — within this setting — it was ultimately unreliable and tended to make situations worse as a result. It was admittedly refreshing that one of the reasons magic was almost non-existent is that its practitioners, like Melisandre, were never consistent with the efficacy of their spellcraft. She sacrificed an innocent girl under the assumption that would lead to an important battle being won, but that doesn’t happen — the would-be king’s army fails miserably and Melisandre’s contribution didn’t help at all. She just burned a child alive based on a premonition that supposedly came from some fire god. Everyone else, on her word alone, simply took it on faith that human sacrifice would work in their favor and that adds a level of realism to the show far more than people dryly talking fantasy politics for tens of minutes. People in the past did exactly that, presuming certain atrocious rituals would please supernatural forces, and the results weren’t that much different.

When Melisandre manages to resurrect Jon Snow after being murdered, it’s portrayed as being more of a happy accident than anything else. There’s a delayed reaction that makes her think the spell didn’t work at all. Problem is that, past this point, magic is increasingly useful to being downright uncharacteristic and contradicting what came before. It even allows one character (Beric Dondarrion) to keep coming back to life, after numerous on-screen deaths, and to set his sword aflame as if he were in Dark Souls. So, this “Lord of Light” will turn that guy into an undead killing machine for no adequate reason other than “fate” while sacrificing a child based on their whims to win a battle doesn’t do anything? What an asshole! The fact Melisandre keeps doing things in favor of such a wretched deity, who screws them over in times of need when not refusing to assist them whatsoever, only makes her look like a dumbass than some wise mage…

Unfortunately, she’s not the only unbearably unintelligent character featured. It also seems, with many others, the showrunners caved into fan service — completely forgetting how those characters were written in previous seasons along with the ever-present possibility of their expendability. Y’know, the one thing the show is most known for.

3. NO LOVE FOR KINGS, QUEENS, LORDS, OR LADIES

I’ll never, ever understand the fondness others had for this guy:

Image for post
The Cinematic Prometheus

Ned Stark, if you were really paying attention, isn’t only a complete fool who brought death unto himself (he was very credulous of someone who is obviously untrustworthy yet never expects betrayal) but also a total piece of shit who made the conflict featured throughout worse due to short-sighted apathy anda slavish devotion to the divine right of kings.

Did everyone forget that, within the very first episode, he completely dismissed the warning of two men who saw the White Walkers before decapitating them? That his reason for doing so was basically “it is the law and you can’t contradict it”? I’d argue it wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that one act alone almost doomed everyone else in the story, making them ill-prepared for the Night King and his zombified hordes. Calling this guy “heroic” is almost kind of offensive, especially when you find out he’s well-aware of Robert Baratheon’s incompetence as a leader and supported his rule for the pettiest of reasons.

He didn’t go to war against Aerys Targaryen II because he was a sadistic ruler that made the people under his reign suffer horribly (Jaime Lannister, however, rightfully killed him for that exact reason), but because his best buddy wanted to have sex with his hot sister and denied it. Making it unforgivable when he lies about the truth of the matter, that the relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna was entirely consensual and not an act of rape (of course that has to be brought up!), that rationalized Robert’s war to become a gluttonous and wasteful king who doesn’t really improve anything. Ned knows this system is broken and the people in charge are corrupt as well as incapable of proper governance, but he nonetheless continues to support it because…it’s the law. The guy may as well be the Sheriff of Nottingham yet people keep acting like he’s goddamn Robin Hood.

It’s bad enough the show has a baffling number of characters to keep track of, many of whom only serve a perfunctory role and not developed past it, but that a majority of prominent ones are members of a feudal monarchy. They tend to be bougie pricks who never truly suffered under the opulence they lived in while everyone else was reduced to squalor. Like Ned Stark, most don’t reconsider the system to be a cruel joke that needs to be broken down and rebuilt from scratch with all the evidence of its disadvantages. Just about everything within the story implies that rule based on royal lineage only engenders endless conflict as numerous families manipulate and wage war with one another to gain a position of superiority regardless of the collateral damage caused. To hold such an amount of overwhelming power indefinitely until another challenger comes along, as more collateral damage is caused in the process. Not to mention, noted by some characters, those born into noble houses aren’t inherently more skilled at statecraft than anyone else and assuming that’s the case is part of the problem. Plus, well, the inbreeding that makes them mentally and emotionally unstable.

Image for post
Too bad he didn’t finish the job properly…

I can imagine some (disingenuous) pedants would argue characters espousing anachronistic viewpoints in a setting evocative of Pre-Renaissance Europe would, somehow, break all immersion. Yet this doesn’t explain why characters such as Tyrion Lannister or Oberyn Martell exist as well as the fact they’ve been two of the most popular characters on the show. Both frequently voice attitudes and behave in ways, closer to our own values and comportment in reality, that clearly make them outliers within the setting. It was nice, after so many scenes of people murdering infants and children like it’s a mundane activity, to have someone like Oberyn come along to point out how awful they are for doing such.

Both of them are well aware of their position in the world but, rather than be deferential to nobility, are often critical of it — Tyrion himself knowing that, if not born a Lannister, he’d of been culled as a newborn and frequently shows disdain for how others exploit “honor” to justify the unjustifiable. They know that almost all nobility, far from being majestic, is comprised of vainglorious human garbage. Then there’s Davos, the closest person to being “nouveau riche” in the cast. A guy so laid back that he doesn’t treat his new status as anything of note — never holding it above others or with a rigid sense of obligation, his loyalties based on his internal moral compass — and that informality makes him just as relatable to any contemporary person as either Tyrion or Oberyn.

If there’s any indication the showrunners aren’t responsible for the nuanced characterization of women in the cast, as much as G.R.R. Martin, it’s Arya Stark. Even the actress portraying her, Maisie Williams, had issues with how her character had become invulnerable instead of dying and whose arc was anti-climactic as there was no pay-off for the set-up. I’d add that it’s also when the showrunners fall into the trap of turning her into another vapid iteration of a “strong female character.”

Arya becoming a single-minded, emotionless assassin at the cost of her childhood should’ve been a tragic story to the very end than treated triumphantly at any point — another sign that pursuit of the Iron Throne only ruins the lives of others, with youths faring worse than anyone else. It’s acknowledged, once or twice, but she becomes defined wholly by how supposedly “badass” she is and ends up killing the Night King in a contrived manner ’cause fan service probably. The straw that broke the camel’s back, for me, was how dozens upon dozens of people in King’s Landing are being burned alive by Daenerys’ dragon while remaining unaffected herself. It’s almost like she was surrounded by an invisible everything-proof shield! Then a horse, also unharmed, comes out of nowhere to give her a ride and…that’s when I truly stopped giving a singular shit whatsoever.

A POSTSCRIPT

There is another fantasy story, also based on a series of novels, which I wanted Game of Thrones to resemble a bit more: The Witcher.

Image for post

It fully embraces the fantastical while managing to weave it into incredibly personal stories dealing with the human condition. Where monsters and people meet one another and, rather than any killing, come to profound existential truths with a tragic or heart-warming end attached. Politics, parallel to both past and present, are dealt with in a succinct manner than lost under a mountain of minutiae that is meaningless in the long run. All while fully acknowledging conflicts between the affluent are always masturbatory and help no one but themselves — the kingdoms and their rulers feeling interchangeable despite their ostensible and self-proclaimed differences (hint: they all fucking suck). Magic is not just a superpower that operates purely by the will of the storytellers but an arcane form of science with cohesive rules. Its practitioners are more like chemists, physicists, and engineers who follow specific methods and formulae for results than wizards flinging their hands around and making particle effects appear. Even the titular character, Geralt, treats the monsters he hunts less like the mythical beasts they are and no different to any other animal (or even person) as if he was just a gamekeeper — between the moments he’s either acting as a soldier of fortune, an investigator, or a political advisor.

It should be clarified what introduced me to the series wasn’t any of the novels, like many of those who watched Game of Thrones, but the third and final installment of the videogame series. I literally started at the end of Geralt’s story and, due to being was so intrigued by the world and those inhabiting it, decided to go back to the beginning of it all. Yet, having watched Game of Thrones from beginning to end, I feel the exact opposite about A Song of Ice & Fire — I’ve glimpsed into this place and its people, but far too alienated to indulge further. It was an exercise in drudgery, chasing a carrot at the end of a stick in the vain hope of finally catching it, that only ended in further disappointment. There’re things I liked about it such as the cast and production design, much in the same way with most Marvel movies, but the whole package is still less than the sum of its parts.

I could concede that the show “ended as good as it could have” but…that’s defeatist bullshit. It’s just setting the bar low and excusing creative laziness even as the show put itself on such a pedestal. Anything less than giving us the moon would be a broken promise because that’s what they advertised to everyone, for years. It had all that time leading to the finale to end all finales and, instead of delivering any of that, we just get another typical fantasy adventure that thinks too highly of itself.

[Originally posted on 5/28/19 @ Medium.com]

Childhood’s ENDGAME: An In-Depth Review (w/spoilers)

I’d listen to the words he’d say
But in his voice, I heard decay
The plastic face forced to portray
All the insides, left cold and gray
There is a place that still remains
It eats the fear, it eats the pain
The sweetest price he’ll have to pay

If Infinity War is The Empire Strikes Back of Marvel Movies, then Endgame is Return of the Jedi. This is not meant as a complaint, at least entirely. Like RotJ, Endgame has a strong start where the previous installment’s climax carries over but, as it goes on, it starts to drift back into bad habits from the other movies before Infinity War.

It never veers into territory where merchandising drives the creative decisions like with the Ewoks (who, to be honest, I like…because they eat people) or unwilling to kill off a primary member of the main cast (Harrison Ford hated Han Solo and wanted it to happen), but instead lays on the cheap humor a bit thick in parts to where it got grating as it has before due to how inappropriate and eager-to-please it can be. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) becoming a fat drunkard is, while amusing at first, something that remains throughout and became distracting with the obviousness of the fat suit. The worst part being when he summons his armor and his gut looks as if they stuffed some pillows under his shirt. Oh, and did I mention that five years of sedentary gluttony doesn’t affect his combat prowess much? ’Cause it doesn’t. Somehow. I could go on for days about the pointlessly mean-spirited remarks made in Scott “Ant-Man” Lang’s (Paul Rudd) direction too…

The difference is RotJ’s issues affect integral narrative beats that render the stakes tensionless (Stormtroopers being defeated by Ewoks with silly traps is hilariously bad) and the resolution feeling less earned by the protagonists than it should — Endgame’s problems are mostly tangential and make it better overall, but not by much. Though more structurally sound in storytelling, unlike RotJ, those tangential problems start to build up to the point it — like Hemsworth’s prosthetic beer belly — becomes a distraction.

Image for post
“I’m a big Trent Reznor fan too.”

Since I keep comparing the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Star Wars, I’ll make one more statement: the film didn’t disappoint me as much as The Last Jedi, with its implied intention to cause a paradigm shift in the conflict, only to revert back to the status quo by the end. A decision made purely for fan service (which further weaponizes a consumeristic audience to everyone’s, especially critics, detriment) and maintain recognizable branding for merchandise. Endgame at least keeps some of its promises, giving a sense of finality and permanence in certain regards, that indicates possible good tidings in the future. The ultimate problem is that leaves a good deal of other promises unfulfilled and myself once again cautious of the franchise’s future. Though I’m still looking forward to Spider-Man: Far From Home while having absolutely no interest in The Rise of Skywalker (easily one of the worst subtitles ever — it makes “Attack of the Clones” sound clever). At least the Marvel movies, unlike Star Wars, have a chance at being interesting.

THE BEST (AND WORST) OF BOTH WORLDS

When the film does keep its promises, they’re still handicapped in execution, and — as the title of the section references this — Bruce “The Hulk” Banner (Mark Ruffalo) makes for an illustrative example. He’s my favorite character in the film partly because we’re given pay-off to his arc in the previous one…yet we don’t see it. We’re told it with exposition. The five year time jump was an idea I really liked, as we get to see this half-empty world (reminding me of all those empty city streets in Neon Genesis Evangelion) and how the characters handle the situation for good or ill, so I’d understand why the Russos were hesitant to use a flashback but it means an important character moment happened off-screen (again). It’s explained to us, sure, but it’s dull for Bruce to do so purely through dialogue than with some kind of visualization — perhaps the moment he was finally able to reconcile both halves of himself, to become “the best of both worlds.” There’s no reason to keep it a mystery either, so why not show it? Given the film is already a minute over three hours, I’d be willing to have another (at most) 30 seconds to get that visual along with the explanation. That means you get to see that moment as the audience while the other characters, unaware of such, have it explained to them. It is, however, the least problematic example.

The most problematic one comes in the form of Natasha “Black Widow” Romanova (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint “Hawkeye/Ronin” Barton (Jeremy Renner). I must ask: outside of an attachment to these characters’ comicbook counterparts or the actors playing them, how do these movies try to connect the audience to them as people? Even as someone who’s read the comics, I still try approaching these movies from the mindset of someone who may’ve only had a passing understanding of them via cultural osmosis. Telling me a film is “for the fans” is utterly meaningless as a defense because Art is for everyone. These films — which is what they are in form, not simply live-action comicbooks — should still be judged on their own qualities within the medium rather than what studio press releases tell you to think (it’s astonishing how many people mistake such as their own opinion) or to confirm the biases of obsessives as if obliged. My point is that I could tell you why I like Natasha in the comics at length, but I couldn’t do the same for Johansson’s cinematic portrayal. I don’t dislike the latter because I liked the earlier either — a habit that others who both read the comics and watch the movies have, but which I find incomprehensible.

Image for post
HULK THE SMARTEST THERE IS!

When it comes to Natasha’s comicbook incarnation, she is a vivacious adrenaline junkie that’s slammed ass with almost every eligible bachelor in the 616. She doesn’t do it due to past trauma of lost childhood and forced sterilization (easily one of the most grossly sexist creative decisions made in any of the Marvel movies), but because she enjoys it and lacks any interest in motherhood as it’d get in the way of her lifestyle. Y’know, like a real woman would be — with a semblance of personality. Johansson has been in so many of these movies and, outside of what I referenced (both from the god-awful Age of Ultron), I couldn’t really tell you anything else about her other than she’s a typical action movie hero. Endgame doesn’t bother to shed any light on her background further than her father’s name was “Ivan.” That’s pretty much it and…who gives a shit?

An apologist could bring up the smaller character moments but, similarly to Tony “Iron Man” Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his portrayal across all these movies, they’re so inconsistent that they feel random or forced. She’s still stoic 90 percent of the time, with the other 10 percent often coming off as contrived than an organic progression of characterization. It should’ve been the other way around — she starts off as cold and distant, but becomes more open and friendly with each appearance. Hawkeye is even worse since, like her, he’s a typical action movie hero but the only difference is he has a family who’d been taken away in The Snap. We’re introduced to this notion, during the time jump, he’s gone off the deep end as he travels from one nation to the next wantonly slaughtering criminals with no rhyme or reason. My interest was piqued there, for a second, making me think we’d get someone as mentally unstable and desperate as Thanos (Josh Brolin) himself became as one of the protagonists. Except he doesn’t act that way at all — he’s the same stern action movie hero as before. As much as I found Thor looking like The Dude (but even more disheveled) from Big Lebowski annoying, Hemsworth really does a great job of getting across how broken he is as a person and has become avoidant of everything else in his life. There was an opportunity here for Renner to give a new spin with the character, but it’s one that goes untaken.

It makes the scene where Natasha and Clint are fighting one another over who gets to sacrifice themselves for the Soul Stone, a fantastic premise for an action set piece, kind of empty simply due to their involvement. Part of me couldn’t help but think, originally, it was going to be Steve “Captain America” Rogers (Chris Evans) who would sacrifice himself and Stark would attempt to stop him in vain. The reason I make this suggestion is that, given the ending, this would’ve made for fantastic foreshadowing. Instead, we have two characters who — purely in the context of these movies and not elsewhere — haven’t been properly developed enough to make the emotional impact of the scene effective. You really only care if you’re projecting the comicbook version onto the cinematic one or just like ScarJo who, though very attractive, isn’t an expressive enough actress that her crying feels as convincing as crocodile tears. It is, in my opinion, the worst part of the film not due to what it represents in the plot but because of how it was done.

MÖEBIUS SLIP

I usually hate time travel in cinema. Very rarely am I ever that impressed by such stories and, when I am, it’s more a case of presentation than a tightly-written script like 12 Monkeys, Looper,or Donnie Darko with one exception to that rule being Timecrimes. Others can be a fleeting amusement but it’s not a storytelling genre I’m all that keen on — which is made all the more strange by my fondness of alternate realities.

Image for post
Seriously, go watch TIMECRIMES. Now.

Endgame is now one of these movies…and, goddamn, does it never shut up about it. It’s enjoyable when the characters speak of paradoxes, chronal self-correction, and tangent timelines — all an effort to figure out how to do an awesomely high-concept jewel heist with precision — but gets bogged down when characters start name-dropping other films with time travel. If they just began and ended with Back to the Future as their point of reference, then it’d of been a lot less cringey, but they can’t keep themselves from also bringing up TerminatorBill & Ted, and Time After Time to hit you over the head harder than they already did. Yes, we get it, you’re talking about time travel and thus bring up a movie with time travel, over and over again — rein it in, guys.

It’s certainly not as funny as when they’re testing out their time travel tech, causing Ant-Man to come back as a geriatric and then as a baby, because at least it’s moving the plot forward. It gives you an idea of how important it is to get the technical kinks worked out before doing their continuum-invading caper. Even the scene where The Hulk confronts The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) is a lot more interesting than having one character commenting on another’s ass like they’re on some wacky videogame side-quest. Can’t they just take this shit a bit more seriously? I’m pretty sure they’re trying to bring back half the universe yet the only person — other than Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Rocket Raccoon (Sean Gunn/Bradley Cooper) — approaching it with a proper sense of gravity is The Hulk. Also, unlike his cohorts, he doesn’t screw up his task and requires a risky (as well as contrived) detour.

Thor and Rocket’s segment was probably the worst of the bunch next to the one with Action Hero Man and Action Hero Lady, made depressing by the fact their plotline during Infinity War was one of my favorite things about it. Thor’s heart-to-heart with his mother, Frigga (Rene Russo…who looks damn good for her age), as much as I liked it initially doesn’t ever lead to that moment where he cuts his hair, trims his beard, and burns all fat off his body by bench pressing submarines like a Nordic (but untattooed) Jason Mamoa. Yet another part of me couldn’t help but wonder why Thor, an emotionally and physically unfit mess, was brought along at all other than to talk to his (not yet) dead (hot) mom. There’s also something uncomfortable about Rocket assaulting Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) with a weirdly phallic object to get the Reality Stone…out of her body. How? They never explain nor show it in use but, since it may well’ve been a prop from Dead Ringers, it’s probably creepy as shit.

Now that I think about it, the detour Stark has to make in the 1970s to retrieve the Space Stone just feels like an excuse for him to talk to his (not yet) dead father, Howard (John Slattery). Well, that and Steve Rogers to stare at Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) through the shades of a glass panel like some lovesick stalker. It occurred to me that so many of these creative decisions weren’t made with narrative structure and themes in mind but for the sake of cheap sentimentality or laughs and fan service. Much like how it didn’t make sense for Thor to go back to Asgard given it might, y’know, trigger him due to his poor mental state — there was no reason for Steve to go back to the events of The Avengers except so there’d be a fight where he literally fights himself (and then ogles his own ass ’cause yuk-yuks). Oddly enough, that fight in of itself showed that which characters went where/when wasn’t thought about much if at all. You’d think Ant-Man would’ve tagged along with Black Widow and Hawkeye since, well, they’re the type of people perfect for a covert ops scenario like that. In fact, wouldn’t it make more sense to have it be characters who weren’t already at Stark Tower to stick out less? So, if not Natasha and Clint, you could have James “War Machine” Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and Okoye (Danai Gurira…more on her character and others, in a bit) go to decrease the risk even further.

Image for post
This is America (Chavez)’s ass!

Since I mentioned her before (and want this part of the review to end on a good note…kinda), my other favorite part from all the time traveling is where Nebula retrieves the Power Stone during the opening of the first Guardians of the Galaxy. There a great bit of anti-fan service that portrays Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) dancing to Redbone’s (utterly irresistible) “Come and Get Your Love,” if done diegetically, makes him look like a jackass but that they also knock him the fuck out. I also love the Terminator 2 moment when the covering of Nebula’s arm melts away and reveals a robotic skeletal frame beneath. It’s the only part of the heist where time travel concepts are explored further. Nebula’s younger self ends up having her future self’s memories, as they both exist at the same time, that causes a paradox and their minds to fracture as a result — just like Roland Deschain and Jake Chambers in Stephen King’s The Waste Land.

Even better, Future Nebula is captured by Past Nebula and — though dead in Future Nebula’s timeline — a still very much alive Thanos, as well as his other Children, that made me ecstatic about what would happen next. The problem with getting your hopes up too high about something is, when ending in disappointment, it makes that lack of fulfillment feel worse

COMFORTABLY NUMB & PERFORMATIVELY WOKE

The biggest problem with this movie? Carol “Captain Marvel” Danvers (Brie Larson). No, not Larson herself nor the character (she’s just been introduced), but the fact that — given both Infinity War’s post-credit sequence as well as her solo film preceding Endgame — you’d assume her participation in the plot to be major, right? You don’t do that much build-up without proper pay-off yet her role here is basically a glorified cameo. The most time she spends on-screen is within the first act and only appears two more times briefly after that.

Um, so…what was the point? Why make such a big deal about a character who’s tertiary at best? Was it just to stave off all the nay-sayers (e.g. me) who wondered why — with the existence of Haywire (criminally underrated), Atomic Blonde (fantastically shot and choreographed), and Red Sparrow (Oscar Bait dreck wasting a potentially interesting premise)— Disney/Marvel still hadn’t made a Black Widow movie yet while Warner Bros./DC actually released Wonder Woman? Okay, yes, I’m glad we got a Captain Marvel movie and that their cinematic iteration is a lesbian (how many kids would refer to their mom’s best friend as “auntie”? Especially back in the U.S. during the 90s? Nota lot!) but that lack of implied pay-off just makes it retroactively hollow as a result. Adding injury to insult, she’s not the only one either.

Image for post
“Iron Throne ain’t shit! Don’t got a sweet-ass view like this…”

Since Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and his sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) ended up victim to The Snap, leaving both Okoye and M’Baku (Winston Duke) alive, one might imagine those characters may’ve had a bigger part in Endgame but they don’t. Along with Carol, they are kept out of the plot with a couple of throwaway lines to try justifying it — they’re maintaining order in a now half-empty but chaotic world — but that instantly falls apart when Rocket and Nebula, both doing the same thing as them, are brought along on the time heist. Two of them would obviously be motivated to bring back the Wakandans, their warrior-king included, who disappeared in The Snap and the other simply due to being aware of how much damage it caused across the universe (Carol even states such outright to Black Widow). Why would they not take the opportunity to reverse all of that, if told about such a possibility? I’d of liked to have seen them taking part in the time heist since we’d get to know them a bit more as people and it’d make the events more intriguing having these fairly new players around. I’ve been dying to see more of Winston Duke as M’Baku, as I found him underused even within Black Panther (he had some of the best scenes), but now they’ve relegated him to being a non-speaking background character. Much in the same way that Captain Marvel, despite Disney/Marvel’s hype machine saying otherwise, has been greatly reduced in their ostensible importance.

As I said in my reviews of Luke Cage and Black Panther, Disney/Marvel only care about racial and gender diversity insofar as it can make them money. This is reflected in their tendency to pull their punches when it comes to the politics of those characters and I should’ve noticed that in Captain Marvel with its unwillingness to openly admit that Carol Danvers was a gay woman. I assumed it was an attempt at subtlety and that others could pick up on such obvious hints made about it but, after people started ‘shipping her and Thor together because of a single staredown (’cause game recognize game!), it then occurred to me the omission may’ve had to do more with not alienating part of the audience who are homophobic or petulant man-babies who complain about Art “pushing an agenda” (newsflash, you fucking assholes: they all do). The fact they’re willing to make such concessions on their behalf, despite not deserving such consideration, is both troubling and a sign the companies’ progressive cred is purely a PR tactic.

Yes, I know, they all participate in the interminable climactic battle but that was a case of “too little, too late.” Like everyone else in that sequence — they blend into the deluge of fan service-fueled visual clutter.

THIS’LL BE A BEAUTIFUL DEATH…

As much as I disliked the Battle of Wakanda during Infinity War, at least it made sense both in narrative and execution as the armies used actual tactics and one could follow what was happening. The climactic battle in the third act of Endgame, however, lacks both and functions as indulgent spectacle. It’s all quantity over quality.

When I spoke with a friend about the scene, he told me he liked it because he got to see all these different characters on-screen. Y’know what? That’s a perfectly legitimate reason to like it — I’m fond of mix-and-matched team-ups and it’s one reason I enjoyed Infinity War as much as I did. The issue for me (as usual) is there needs to be some kind of meaning behind it to justify their presence. Simply having the characters appear amongst others does not mean anything, when they aren’t significantly contributing to whatever is occurring within the plot. We did agree on one thing though: the bit where all the female characters gather together to do a woefully disingenuous “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar” shtick was the cringiest thing ever (yet more performative wokeness from Disney/Marvel).

Image for post
Pictured: an actual “strong female character.”

Almost proving my point, they show Mantis (Pom Klementieff) among them and she looks as confused as I was about her being there. All these other female characters are being defined wholly by their fighting prowess (since no one has yet to figure out the “strong” in “strong female characters” isn’t necessarily physical strength as it is how complex/complicated they are as people…) and she disappears once the combat starts. It all feels like a big step back from the Battle of Titan, which only involved six superheroes taking on a single supervillain, where she actually did something of import and being sabotaged by a fellow teammate was tragic — she could’ve had her moment of glory, pretty much saving the day, but kept from such due to a childish tantrum. Thanos was also more interesting as an adversary there, as he now lacks the Infinity Gauntlet and the heroes just keep hitting him in some way or another. It’s rather boring after seeing him throw a small black hole at Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) or using chunks of a moon to crush Tony Stark as he flies about while Spider-Man (Tom Holland…who is just kawaii) swings around to keep others from harm.

Y’know what I’d of preferred? If Thanos didn’t fight them. At all.

There’s a throwaway line (a lot of them are in this movie) where he admits, upon seeing his potential future and unhappy with the results, he was wrong and would rather make the universe “abundant with life.” Prior to Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor showing up he sits contemplatively on a rock that suggests a lack of bellicosity (doesn’t explain why he blew up Avengers HQ though) and, given how much I liked Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) in Captain Marvel, revealing himself to be a now-reluctant antagonist would’ve been neat follow-up in Endgame. Yet Thanos pulls a Kylo Ren (hey, there’s Star Wars again!) where he thinks the best way to do that is to…deconstruct the universe.

One would think, with everything that’s been revealed to him, he’d know that would be impossible to do — his alternate future self makes it clear even destroying the Infinity Stones almost killed him (not to mention his arm being burnt to a crisp making half of all life in the universe disappear). I suppose one could argue that, at that point, he’s so far gone that he’s prone to causing destruction regardless of the reason. Except, to me, that’s a half-assed excuse to make him another bland bad guy who does bad things ’cause reasons at the very last minute. There was obviously more going on with him during Infinity War, beyond causing destruction for destruction’s sake — but that’d apparently get in the way of all the obnoxiously overblown action, the kind fanboys ruin their pants over with a copious amount of watery ejaculate.

Image for post
I’ll never get sick of this guy, like, ever.

If there had to be some climactic battle to end all climactic battles, I’d rather it involve the Children of Thanos — Ebony Maw (Tom Vaughn-Lawlor), Obsidian Cull (Terry Notary), Proxima Midnight (Monique Ganderton/Carrie Coon), and Corvus Glaive (Michael James Shaw) — betraying their adoptive father due to his change of heart, then fight the heroes before unleashing their respective armies. They do appear in the final battle but, much like Mantis, you might not notice them under the avalanche of CGI monsters and pacing so fast the whiplash would cause decapitation. Ebony Maw is probably the only one you’ll recognize because he actually gets some lines in a previous scene and shown more prominently on-screen, unlike his other siblings, as the fighting rages on and when it finally ends.

There are a couple of things I liked, however: Spider-Man — living up to his “friendly” reputation — trying to introduce himself to Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) among the chaos, as if it weren’t happening, and Tony Stark’s death. I’m not being smarmy on the second point whatsoever. If you’re going to give a character a fitting and heroic end, that was the way to do it. It wasn’t just Dr. Strange reminding him wordlessly of his prediction with a single index finger, but that Stark has been defined by his selfishness as a character and — now being a father — does the most selfless thing ever in his life (“I am Iron Man!” are also great last words as any). Alongside a bittersweet epilogue of his funeral and Steve Rogers retiring as Captain America, it’s like watching the end of Logan all over again and I’m grateful for that alone.

It was a creative decision I was not expecting and was genuinely (as well as thankfully) surprised. I can only hope Spider-Man: Far From Home manages to do such as well but, since this started with an apropos song, I may as well end it with another from Nine Inch Nails off the same album…

Tried to save a place
From the cuts and the scratches
Tried to overcome
The complications and the catches
Nothing ever grows
And the sun doesn’t shine all day
Tried to save myself
But myself keeps slipping away

[Originally posted on 5/14/19 @ Medium.com]

Staring Into INFINITY WAR, Part 2: Agony Is Your Triumph (w/spoilers)

You sure you’re up for this particular murder mission?

Absolutely! The rage and vengeance, anger, loss, regret — they’re all tremendous motivators. They really clear the mind. So…I’m good to go!

I often speak of tension, or the lack thereof, when it comes to action cinema and how they execute its set pieces whether they be a fist-fight, a shoot-out, or a car chase. To me — it is far more important than spectacle. As much as bombast can be fun, it’s utterly meaningless without proper build-up and consequence while (even worse) rendering entire set pieces redundant. It’s why, as much as people gave it accolades, a film like The Raid: Redemption is dreadfully dull to me despite all the effort put in its martial arts choreography. It’s similar-looking fights in similar-looking apartments, one after another, with very little characterization thus we’re not adequately given any reason to care about those involved. It is a pure spectacle and I hated it.

Part of that is the protagonist rarely ever felt vulnerable and incapable of defeat. Sure, he’d get hurt, but it wasn’t dealt with the intensity of a combat wound — no fatigue to be seen — as if it were a scraped knee or bruised shin. It doesn’t impede them anymore or less, which makes their inevitable victory all the more obvious and boring. It’s amazing how Die Hard is considered one of the best action films of the 1980s (rightfully so) while current filmmakers nonetheless miss what made it work so well: John McClane got hurt. Really hurt. He had to run across broken glass barefoot to escape the gunfire, later shown to be pulling out the shards stuck in there before continuing on. It’s as painful to watch onscreen as it looks. But, then again, everything he deals within that movie is a struggle and — even better — you have distinguishable antagonists who’re an ever-present danger throughout (one of them even gets their own subplot!) than ineffectual, faceless canon-fodder.

The reason for bringing this up is because, as live-action adaptations of comicbook material, the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe forget this and fall into the pitfall of rendering tension moot for the sake of spectacle. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to believe Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) are normal human beings, when their skills are no more different than the superhuman abilities of other characters — all while rarely ever getting hurt to a debilitating degree, despite the conflicts in which they become involved. Moreso when explicitly superhuman characters like Captain America (Chris Evans) actually show more vulnerability, to the point it is a defining character trait. Maybe one of the reasons I keep lavishing praise on shows like Daredevil (other than how much I like Vincent D’Onofrio as Wilson Fisk and, no, I’m never going to shut up about that)is because the titular protagonist (Charlie Cox) gets the utter shit kicked out of him. It has nothing to do with dislike and experiencing schadenfreude as much as the complete opposite — even when beaten and broken, the tenacity to persevere shines through and downright encouraging to witness. It’s far more admirable a quality than simply slaughtering one’s enemies en masse with little resistance or strain. It may be entertaining in a videogame, as part of an interactive power fantasy, but passive mediums — especially cinema — needs adversity whether physical or psychological to test the protagonists lest the fantasy of overcoming great odds ultimately becomes an empty experience.

Thankfully, like so much else in the film, Infinity War delivered on that in quite a few surprising ways…

A TALE OF TWO SHERLOCKS

My familiarity, until more recently, of Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) — commonly referred to simply as “Dr. Strange” — was a passing one. I noticed him, sure, but he never really intrigued me. Outside of him and Victor Von Doom being Best Frenemies Forever, an interesting relationship dynamic if there ever was one (probably why I liked Chadwick Boseman and Winston Duke’s interactions in Black Panther so much), I only recognized him as the most powerful wizard within the 616.

That changed with reading a large chunk of Jason Aaron and Chris Bachalo’s run with the character that’s a wonderful mix of Cronenbergian body horror coupled with aesthetics straight from Beetlejuice, portraying the Sorcerer Supreme as having the grossest diet imaginable — Lovecraftian monsters. Seriously, he chows down on tentacled horrors from beyond the veil of time and space (via mystical kitchen fridge). I also love how one of the primary antagonists resembles a Shoggoth with a death mask for a face, fueled by the pain and anguish from the protagonist’s usage of magic.

So, yeah, it was exactly my kind of thing…and don’t tell me the image of Benedict Wong shoving bits of Starspawn down Cumberbatch’s gullet isn’t the funniest thing ever. ’Cause I’m pretty sure it is and you’d be a total liar saying otherwise!

Image for post
I don’t wanna imagine what heartburn from that feels like…

This was followed by what was easily my favorite scene in Ragnarok:

The solo feature, upon initial viewing, left me cold despite its many appealing aspects — a recurring issue I’ve had with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The characterization came off as inconsistent, of not knowing whether they wanted him as a prickly but compassionate medical practitioner (his bedside manner is terrible) who learns to be more open-minded and less egotistical or just Iron Man but with magic. It is only due to Infinity War, firmly establishing it is the earlier case, that’s made me retroactively like the film somewhat more than I had before (it’s got other problems). I’d go as far to say — out of all the protagonists featured — he’s as much my favorite as Ebony Maw (Tom Vaughn-Lawlor) was among the antagonists. Though sarcastic on occasions, he’s not prone to the same adolescent quips like others and earnest enough to treat a serious situation with a proper sense of gravity than smarmy frivolity. So very much unlike his new (also: armored) Best Frenemy Forever…

It’s unfortunate that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has effectively made me hate Tony Stark as a character. It has nothing to do with Robert Downey, Jr.’s performance — he’s perfect in the role, though Marvel’s films and series haven’t been badly cast overall — and I can’t help but respect the guy given the rock bottom he once hit ages ago then recover from it so well. He’s not the problem, at all, and I don’t want anyone to forget that when talking about Iron Man as a fictional character. The issue, per usual, is how he’s written but it’s also the studio’s tendency to never let him truly evolve as a person.

Image for post
The Ultimate Fair Weather Friend

The studio entertains character development with interesting ideas — his alcoholism, post-traumatic stress disorder, inability to keep promises, an obsessiveness that ruins his closest relationships, incapable of properly grieving for his dead parents, or being stricken with eldritch knowledge — but these traits are not portrayed or dealt with consistently. They may matter within the film featured, only to be abandoned by the next, then reintroduced elsewhere down the line when it seems fitting. Iron Man 3 ends with Tony promising Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to abandon his continual tinkering with power-armors and causing them to self-destruct to prove he will keep his promise. Age of Ultron, however, has him back in power-armor (and accompanied by autonomous look-a-like drones) without any mention to the events of IM3 or what happened between then and now. When Civil War came around, it appears that Pepper did take issue with breaking his promise and Tony is not on speaking terms with her. Finally, apparently happening between films and off-screen, Spider-Man: Homecoming reveals that Tony and Pepper are…back together again. Why? They just are. ’Cause reasons.

This would be excusable if we were dealing with pre-reboot James Bond, a walking vehicle to showcase exotic locations and get involved in conflicts that provide action set pieces with little to no personal arc attached, but the Marvel films keep showing an interest in Tony Stark’s psychology. Even the wretchedly half-assed IM2 made his self-destructive tendencies a central focus of the (otherwise unfocused) narrative. With Infinity War, he’s gone back to being who he exactly was at the end of the first IM, but — much like acknowledging Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) can be an insufferable, selfish man-child — the film treats Tony as someone who never stopped being a rich brat that needs a tough lesson in finally growing the fuck up. Who better to help than a wise mage who never suffers fools gladly?

Every interaction between Dr. Strange and Stark involves them butting heads, with the earlier frequently admonishing the latter’s showboating. There’s even a scene where Stark touches a valuable artifact, like a reckless child, that Dr. Strange responds to with a smack in the back of his head as if he were a schoolmarm. It’s not only a lot more enjoyable to watch than characters swapping similar bits of witticism but that those characters are a lot more interesting when strongly differentiated among one another. Comedy series like It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia work as well as they do because everyone in the main cast has distinct personalities that often clash with one another. Deadpool and its sequel aren’t much different in that regard, as the titular character (Ryan Reynolds) is surrounded by a supporting cast who’re disparate in outlook and behavior, and a lot of the comedic value would be lost if everyone else was a deranged fourth wall-breaking assassin who treats murder like a punchline to a joke. The moralizing from Colossus (Stefan Kapičić) and cynical apathy from Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), when contrasted with Wade Wilson’s incessant pop culture referencing and madcap antics, are absolutely beneficial to the narrative than a detriment to it. Making Dr. Strange into another Tony Stark did not work at all and I’d like to think it was (thankfully) obvious to both Taika Waititi and the Russos given their own background in comedy. Having Tony Stark into Dr. Strange’s heel (or vice versa depending on perspective) was easily the best decision they could make.

Stark does feel like he’s learning something, particularly when what remains of The Guardians of the Galaxy — Peter Quill, Drax (Dave Bautista), and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) — show up shooting first and asking questions later with him, Dr. Strange, and Spider-Man (Tom Holland…whose cheeks I just want to squeeze like an overly enthusiastic great aunt). Quill ends up being a mirror that Stark gazes into and comes to the depressing realization that, perhaps, he might actually hate himself. That all his vainglory was to cover up for how empty he felt following his parents’ passing unless he was either with Pepper Potts or as Iron Man. Much like how Quill stopped maturing entirely when cancer took his mother and abducted by Yondu (Michael Rooker)as an eight-year-old, Stark has been stuck at nineteen since a brainwashed Bucky (Sebastian Stan) assassinated Howard (John Slattery) and Maria (Hope Davis).

It comes to the point where Stark ends up having to parent Quill, belligerently dismissing all advice and demands superiority purely by ego (akin to Stark’s own behavior at the beginning of the film). It’s thematically apt given Thanos (Josh Brolin) is a malevolent god-like father figure but with the indication that Pepper is now pregnant with Stark’s child, or at least they’re trying to have one, that’s causing Tony to act more like a father as the film progresses. Even the callousness directed at Peter Parker in Homecoming (which was really confusing) has faded away and is more like heartfelt, albeit condescending, concern. He treats Quill like his least favorite and rebellious child, expected to hurt himself regardless of any attempt to dissuade him, while Parker is the loyal and favored son he actively protects from harm. Only to be (further) traumatized upon his slow death due to The Snap, holding him as he slowly disintegrates before his eyes. Exacerbated by the fact he reacts only as one whose life has gone largely unlived could and, even worse, it was Quill’s fault. Everyone else involved knew the stakes and approached it with bravery, almost succeeding thanks to Mantis’ hyper-empathic ability (giving her a great moment in the spotlight as opposed to being treated like garbage), while Quill’s tantrum sabotaged their efforts and partly why the universe is now half-empty. Stark failed as a surrogate parent and has to now live with both dying under his watch.

Image for post
Tony Stark and Peter Parker. Kinda (not really).

Though everyone acts as horrified by The Snap in some way, Dr. Strange handles it like a champ and it makes perfect sense: he already died. Not simply having seen it from delving into and observing possible future timelines in a prior scene but because, within his solo feature, he literally got killed several times over — if not hundreds or more — annoying a cross-dimensional entity into submission with a time-loop. Others have a difficult time comprehending their mortality, all slowly turning to ash that’s blown away by the wind with expressions of shock and despair, but not the Sorcerer Supreme for he has long ago conquered it by enduring it many times over and still alive despite it. As indicated with his torture by Ebony Maw, he is so dedicated to his cause and the lives it protects that the pain done unto his being is simply part of his duty. A trait he happens to share with a certain Norse god, you know the one!

THE FROG, THE RABBIT, & THE GIVING TREE

If one was to tell me my favorite plotline in the film would be Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Rocket Raccoon (Sean Gunn/Bradley Cooper), and Groot (Vin Diesel) attempting to forge a mythical battle ax — I’d accuse them of totally fucking with me and wouldn’t believe a single word. Yet, somehow, it is not a lie. It is the absolute truth and, by the gods, I couldn’t be happier overhow wrong I was.

It’s the least eventful narrative thread but there’s a greater sense of faith in itself, being character-driven without much action-based spectacle, and respectful of the audience who can appreciate it. With only one set piece — said forging of a mythical battle ax — and everything beforehand acting as build-up via interaction between the cast. Though “exciting” would be an odd descriptor to apply, it is the only one that aptly expresses my own experience. The Battle of Wakanda, wherein various superheroes mow down legions of alien monsters with a massive death wish, isn’t nearly as intriguing to watch — even with the epic scale and visual splendor — as Rocket going to sit down and sympathetically ask Thor questions about his state of mind. I’ve already seen these characters demolish faceless canon-fodder but it’s rare to see any interchange that managed to be earnest and saying a lot with so little, all while involving individuals as fantastical as a living Norse god and a gun-loving animal that talks. Even if you aren’t familiar with who either of them are, the scene I mentioned — with small but significant gestures — informs you that Rocket seeks connection, if only out of curiosity, but is very guarded about approaching others while Thor is an arrogant, perhaps naive in spite of his age of one-and-a-half millennia, yet well-meaning person. At no point is this brought up verbally by either like, well, so many other Marvel movies. I wish this subdued approach to characterization were more common than an exception to the (formulaic) rule.

Image for post
“Ya gangrenous-lookin’ buddy? We met before…”

A recurring gag throughout is that Thor refers to Rocket Raccoon erroneously as “Rabbit” (which, as none exist in Nordic nations, he’d make that mistake as a Nordic deity) that he tolerates uncharacteristically. He’s taken a great deal of offense from anyone who brings up the fact he’s an animal at all — moreso when it’s a pejorative like “pest” — but doesn’t display any with Thor and there’s a good reason for this: it’s wholly complimentary and never degrading. Even Peter Quill, supposedly his friend, treats Rocket like shit despite being well aware he’s likely a normal raccoon forcefully uplifted into sapience (not to mention all the augmentations that make him bipedal and presumably speak) that leaves him in an existential nightmare. Like, I can’t be the only person who notices that…right? When berated for his kleptomania, I was absolutely baffled — he’s a goddamn raccoon. They’re natural scavengers and the kleptomania is likely an extension of that, along with his intense curiosity and constant tinkering, yet everyone else keeps forgetting that. It’s treated like a personality flaw than a pathological condition as if he were Marie “Shut Up, Shut The Hell Up” Schrader from Breaking Bad. No wonder the only one he still tolerates is the tree with a five-word vocabulary…

Groot, currently in an adolescent form, is fairly apathetic for most of the run time — either fiddling with his handheld videogame or petulantly complaining (based on the responses towards him). He joins Thor and Rocket on a whim, having shown dissatisfaction with the other Guardians, but doesn’t seem to have much investment in their task either…but only at first. During the forging of Stormbreaker, the mechanism used to channel the heat from Nidavellir’s neutron star breaks and Thor proceeds to replace it with himself — which initially succeeds but leaves him charred to near death and the newly forged uber-ax accidentally split in two. When Eitri (Peter Dinklage) searches for a handle to combine the two parts in vain (um, the guy can’t even use his hands) and stating that, without the ax being fully formed, Thor will die. That is the moment Groot finally stops being apathetic and cares enough to use his own arm, then cut it off, to succeed in their quest.

Image for post
They’re Groot

This indicates in the previous scene, where Groot shows outright disdain for the other Guardians, that his behavior had less to do with being an asshole teenager than it is being greatly disappointed they were still thepricks he met in the first Guardians of the Galaxy. It made sense back then when their alliance was originally built on selfish goals, that soon becomes a friendship, leading Groot to sacrifice himself to keep others safe from harm. Though rendered as a merchandising opportunity in the next installment, an obnoxiously cutesy baby who doesn’t contribute as much as distract, it was nice to have the character I actually liked and wanted to see more of — not his nauseatingly infantile doppelganger — come back in such a magnificent fashion as he not only saved the life of a god but made himself part of the second most powerful weapon in the universe. Even all of them showing up at the Battle of Wakanda is my favorite part of that event, next to the entrance of Thanos and his subsequent Snap. A CGI clusterfuck battle can never be as enthralling or fulfilling the way subtle characterization and creating a situation that requires more than fisticuffs can be. I want more of that from these Marvel movies and, hopefully, this is a sign of good tidings in the future.

THE WEAKEST THERE IS…

If there’s any superhero (sometimes) whose gotten the worst treatment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it’s Bruce Banner — a.k.a. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo…formerly Edward Norton). The Incredible Hulk is (for good reason) considered the weakest of the Phase One movies next to Thor and can’t say I disagree, even if I still liked it more than the ill-conceived Ang Lee film from 2003. As someone who is quite fond of the character in the comics, I take bigger issue with how mismanaged and underused he is than I do Natasha “Black Widow” Romanova. He’s always second or third fiddle to another character and it’s rarely ever dealing with Bruce Banner outside of being The Hulk as he wrecks shit. The moments he is given are usually as Stark’s put-upon science-bro who’s neurotically on edge every hour of the day and they’re wonderful, even if few and far inbetween, unlike the inane romance with Natasha. It made no sense nor had any precedence, save for a scene at the beginning of Age of Ultron, especially since their previous interactions involved Bruce either threatening her or trying to murder her as The Hulk. Maybe if it was to indicate they were now friends, there’d be no issue — but not as romantic partners.

I like Mark Ruffalo in the role and actually more than Edward Norton. You’d think to portray a children’s TV entertainer with anger issues in Death to Smoochy would make Norton perfect for the role, but he’s too confident and level-headed for a wimpy scientist who lives in constant dread of losing control and unleashing a bellicose ogre into the world. Ruffalo, on the other hand, really does come off like that ticking time bomb of a human being. You get this sense that The Hulk is almost as much a metamorphological defense mechanism as he is a dissociative identity — as much of a product of Bruce Banner’s physiology as his psychology. This has been lightly alluded to but never substantially explored, until Infinity War came around.

Image for post
(The Hulk’s audition tape for JOHN CARTER)

It’s quite amusing how the ad campaign purposefully trolled the audience into thinking we’d just get The Hulk again, shown running alongside the other heroes into battle, but that never happens. The Hulk’s actual screen presence is quite brief and mostly relegated to the opening scene, as Thanos whups his ass like a punching bag in a gym for hyperactive Muay Thai fighters. He’s bled before, sure, but no other enemy with the misfortune to cross his path could take him down with such swift grace. The scene is evocative of another at the end of The Avengers where Loki (Tom Hiddleston) — also a (frost) giant but the runt of the litter, I guess — is picked up and slammed into the floor over and over again like a ragdoll but reversed. While The Hulk approaches fighting like an aggressive toddler with no form or tact, Thanos is nothing but calculated with each move and finishes him off with one forceful suplex. Aside from being sent to earth via Heimdall’s (Idris Elba) Bifröst bridge, he only appears in a few more instances. “Instance” being the operative word here. It’s all about Bruce Banner from here on and it’s been something I’ve been dying to see for a while now.

The Hulk becomes eerily reticent likely because, considering the theme of parenthood in its many forms, Bruce Banner had a physically abusive father and suppressed all memory of it. The Hulk — after Banner was exposed to Gamma radiation — is simply those suppressed memories made emerald flesh. Problem is that The Hulk assumed he could never be hurt the way Banner’s father hurt him…until Thanos came along and proved otherwise. This isn’t wholly speculative on my part either, as it was integral to Peter David’s comicbook run of the character and it’s referenced here. Remember when this happened?

Image for post

Well, that was also in the comics. Specifically The Incredible Hulk Vol. 1, issue #376 in December of 1990:

Image for post

Bruce Banner seems to barely register to the other characters in the MCU or just seen as useless when compared to The Hulk. So many of the conflicts haven’t really required Banner’s scientific knowledge to deal with a problem as much as brute force, which his alter ego has in excess. Despite being away for two years and a dire warning that must be heeded, Tony Stark doesn’t act all that enthusiastic to see a close friend and dismisses the advice of putting aside his rivalry with Captain America — acting as if he can solve the entire situation by his lonesome. Natasha herself comes off as frigid when greeted by him later, accompanying James “War Machine” Rhodes (Don Cheadle). It’s as if they’re not responding to Bruce Banner himself but to The Hulk, who was in control when he (respectively) clobbered and unceremoniously dumped them, but they’re not bothering to differentiate between the two. Even Rhodes himself takes amusement in embarrassing the guy in front of T’Challa, tricking him into bowing when no one else does (’cause T’Challa is the most chill monarch ever — he doesn’t chide Banner for the mistake either!).

But to also be fair, the last example wasn’t malicious as it was a gentle ribbing while both Tony and Natasha actually begin to treat Banner with a bit more respect after their reunion. After pressuring Banner to summon The Hulk to no avail (“Dude, you’re embarrassing me in front of the wizards!”), Stark realizes he simply can’t no matter how hard he tries and proceeds to console him apologetically. After the initial awkwardness passed, Natasha and the others credulously seek Banner’s scientific expertise to help Vision (Paul Bettany) with the utmost interest. When it becomes clear that Shuri (Letitia Wright) is more qualified than Banner in such a task, he isn’t left on the sidelines and away from the action as he was by Wong (Benedict Wong) in the first act, he’s brought into the fray — given none other than the Hulkbuster power-armor (hey, actual irony!). Watching Banner trying it, especially when doing so with unexpected glee, was pure joy to my eyes and ears. The best part is when he clumsily trips over as Okoye (Danai Gurira) is passing by, making a priceless expression that could only be accompanied with a thought like “we’re bringing this goofy motherfucker along, are you shittin’ me?!” Yes, you are — and it is glorious.

I had mentioned previously that, despite my disappointment with the creative decision to kill off all the Children of Thanos, that did not apply to Obsidian Cull (Terry Notary…and, yes, I’m still calling the character that) because he provides Banner his ultimate victory not just in battle but as proof that he can protect himself without The Hulk. What makes the victory all the sweeter is that Obsidian Cull is practically a Hulk doppelganger, another big dumb monster that communicates purely in grunts and reckless violence, that Banner defeats not by combat prowess — which he severely lacks — but through ingenuity. It’s hard to not read this as symbolic of one shedding their codependency and finding self-confidence. He’s a bystander at first, a nuisance that got in the way, but soon becomes more of a participant to the point he’s fighting alongside teammates without being The Hulk. It’d be remiss to forget that this is only half of his arc, the other which I expect to make it come full circle in Endgame. If what I’ve written here tells you anything, I’m ecstatic to see — it feels great looking forward to a Marvel movie again!

A review of Endgame will be up soon enough (I promise this time, really!)…

[Originally posted on 5/8/19 @ Medium.com]

Staring Into INFINITY WAR, Part 1: Sympathy For The Devil (w/spoilers)

I know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re right, yet to fail nonetheless. It’s frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you: to what end? Dread it. Run from it. Destiny arrives all the same.

Now, you might be wondering (probably not) why this isn’t part of my “Pop Culture Heresy: Marvel Studios is Awful” series.

I’m done with it. It was the wrong way to frame my analyses of these movies, TV shows, and who makes them — to alter my approach of Art criticism a bit and see how it goes. I’ll keep my previous entries up for both the sake of transparency as well as to remember what not to do in the future. However, that is not due to having some newfound love for the studio and its practices (which I absolutely don’t — I’ll deal with that elsewhere — though I apply more blame to Disney nowadays), but rather the fact they’re taking the creative risks I’ve been dying to see forever now. It should not have taken this long but, given the short-sighted entertainment industry avarice, we’ve been given nothing but an elongated set-up to something that should’ve started far sooner.

I don’t know how much sooner exactly — but, again, it should not have taken slightly less than a decade. Perhaps, given the set-up at the end of The Avengers, it’d of been soon after that film. Here’s the thing though: you don’t need to watch any of the other movies beforehand. It’d almost be a disservice to just how well this film understands self-contained storytelling. If you want to go see them, you can — there are plenty of things to like within each (like the always magical Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie in Ragnarok) — but one can simply read the plot synopses on Wikipedia to fill in some of the blanks. I’d still highly recommend Captain America: Winter Soldier as I have before, but that has less to do with lore-building than just as a damn good movie by itself. It expands on the previous installment and many of its themes while dealing with contemporary socio-political issues (as best as one could with an expensive blockbuster, anyway — still an admirable feat compared to most) more evocative of 1970’s conspiracy thriller and less like a superhero film. Funny, considering the Russo Bros. also directed that one…

Image for post
“You want the moon? I’ll give you the fuckin’ moon!”

With Infinity War? Just reading about it wouldn’t work as almost everything that is said and done in this movie is shown, with as little exposition as necessary. But even then, they still use such for further characterization than simply getting information across. The film is what I’ve wanted to see more of from this franchise since Winter Soldier because, along with those elements, it subverts all expectations that’ve come from the continual iteration as well as an over-budgeted and bizarrely aggressive marketing campaign that weaponizes its fandom. More importantly, so many plot points within it recontextualize certain aspects from those other movies to the point they practically feel ret-conned. As if to make up for lost time…and I love it.

DESTROYER OF WORLDS

Anyone who knows me well enough should be aware of my sentiments on the villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with the obvious exception of Loki (Tom Hiddleston). There’s always this great storytelling potential with each one, especially if allowed to stay alive, but they’re often reduced to one-dimensional baddies who “need” to die as if we’ve never moved on past action movie tropes of the 1980’s. They’re occasionally given legitimate grievances or personal issues to deal with — whether it’s Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), Hela (Cate Blanchett), or Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) — but end up getting swept under the rug in order for them to be demonized and defeated gloriously by the hero, in a half-baked and tensionless action sequence that may as well’ve been from G.I. Joe.

Erik Killmonger is particularly egregious because, as someone who was both witness and victim to anti-black discrimination in the United States and rightfully aggrieved that Wakanda’s isolationist policies allowed it to continue, he still “needs” to be some woman-hating gangbanger prick to make his death (at the hands of his cousin nonetheless) seem justified. Keep in mind that T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) not only forgave the man he thought killed his father and their accomplice, but saved the life of the man who did kill his father — yet it’s not considered that he allow Killmonger to live and make amends with him as family. Even James Wan’s recent Aquaman acknowledges that as an option within its main conflict.

None of them can really live up to Vincent D’Onofrio as Wilson “The Kingpin” Fisk in Daredevil nor able to, what with the difference in format, but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of being more layered as characters within a feature-length film (plus some) as Loki is highly indicative of that.

But now? I have Thanos (Josh Brolin) along with his Children…

Image for post
The Family That Slays Together, Stays Together

Thanos — unlike Killmonger — is not right. He is most definitely wrong. A person who thinks that mass genocide across planets is “saving” them from a painful existence simply cannot be correct, when such situations are far more complicated and need nuanced answers to be resolved. Yet, at the same time, I think Thanos knows this and still does it regardless. Unlike so many other Marvel movie villains — neither he nor anyone else ever state such outright. It’s all implied through cryptic lines that could mean many different things depending on how one wishes to interpret them (I’d call him “The Dark Souls of Marvel Movie Villains” if that phrase wasn’t so obnoxiously, and erroneously, overused).

As far as my interpretation of the character goes? He wants to die.

He lived through seeing his civilization and people become extinguished before his very eyes, to be the only one left of his kind, and it broke him so much that — upon observing so many other civilizations were in the same state — he just couldn’t let it happen again. It’s difficult to not think, on some level, he wanted people to fight back and be victorious in order to prove him wrong and finally put out of his misery. Throughout the film, he’s partial to those who challenge him — even as he torments and tortures them — as if to act as an obstacle for them to overcome. The best evidence I can give for this is a single line, near the very end of the film, where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) decides to pull an Oberyn Martell (hey, Peter Dinklage is here too!) and Thanos responds:

You should’ve gone for the head…

He doesn’t gloat of his superiority or personally belittle the hero who struck a blow against him, but instead pointing to his failure to finish the job properly and make him remember what to do next time they met in battle.

Thanos isn’t just an oddly religious alien warlord. He’s a force of nature. He’s an atom bomb with arms and legs. He is a Hindu god.

I don’t make that last comparison lightly but instead of using the terribly translated and outdated version that asshole J. Robert Oppenheimer quoted, I’ll go for a better-written and more recent variant (emphasis mine) by Paramahamsa Sri Swami Vishwananda:

I am death, the mighty destroyer of the world, out to destroy. Even without your participation all the warriors standing arrayed in the opposing armies shall cease to exist. I am Time, the mighty force which destroys everything, fully Manifesting Myself, I am here engaged in destroying the worlds. Even without you, none of the warriors arrayed in the enemy ranks shall survive.”

Image for post
Thor and Thanos. Kinda (but not really).

Thanos is something else and it’s perhaps more integral to the film’s plot — a trait he shares with the legendary Darth Vader of Star Wars fame: he’s a father, though not a very kind one, of course…

THE PRODIGAL DAUGHTER

One of the (many) things that made the Guardians of the Galaxy films incredibly disappointing for me — despite James Gunn’s skill as a director and writer (prior to being erroneously fired by Disney over an obviously manufactured controversy but has since been rehired, hopefully because Disney was shamed into submission) as well as a top-notch cast and soundtrack that almost rivals the musical selections in a Edgar “He Should’ve Written & Directed Ant-Man Goddammit” Wright film (“The Chain” is my favorite Fleetwood Mac song…)— was how the relationship between Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) felt like all tell and no show.

When first introduced, they both verbally remind each other that they are sisters, which is odd given most siblings (whether they’re biological or adoptive) don’t need to do such as they’re already quite aware of this fact. Despite the second film’s pretense of supposedly being about “family,” it doesn’t actually bother to explore Nebula’s stated grievances and why she’s so fratricidal towards a sibling she seemed to get along with otherwise. I mean, sure, she has an expository monologue — all of which would’ve been more interesting to see as a flashback — that’s about as natural as a botox injection and little more than set-up for a lame punchline. In the end it was all just an excuse for an action scene to keep things “exciting,” much like the other subplots that only make the whole film a less cohesive piece. It’s hard to really care about events when they’re so dissonant to one another and characters have to tell you, the audience, how to feel as opposed to getting it across with more subtlety either in the visuals or writing.

As I said before, Infinity War does a commendable job recontextualizing and certainly does so with this relationship by finally giving us both a glimpse at Thanos’ relationship to both Gamora and Nebula along with better idea of them as rival siblings.

Despite initially coming off as another generic “strong (but still sexually objectifiable) female character” these movies keep on using — with exceptions like Shuri (Letitia Wright) or Okoye (Danai Gurira), who are actually strong female characters — this film informs us that she is instead little more than a spoiled kid who ran away from home to make her Daddy mad. She and the other Guardians ride around like a mercenary Scooby Gang who don’t take anything seriously and, even when coming across a scene of wanton slaughter, can’t keep from thinking about how they’ll enrich themselves from it. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising given they’re all lead by a pop culture-obsessed man-child who’s first shown kicking animals, none of which endangered him or even impeded his movement, for fun while dancing to music on a Walkman (how charming! Well, not really…especially if you replaced them with puppies).

Image for post
The Guardians of the Galaxy. Kinda (but not really).

Though ostensibly a villain, no thanks to a visage that exudes malevolence (which is surprising given it’s Amy frickin’ Pond with her beautiful red hair and lovely Scottish accent — like Kelly MacDonald before her…), I can’t help but think Nebula was the true hero and we were manipulated into thinking otherwise due to a skewed perspective of these events. Both she and Gamora were plotting an insurrection as seen in the first GotG installment and eventual assassination of their adoptive father, but only Nebula stuck to the plan — changing it when need be — simply to fail in the end…all because her sister, either out of cowardice or indecisiveness or (in my opinion) still being emotionally co-dependent on Thanos. Gamora just went A.W.O.L. and off to play with her new group of opportunistic drinking buddies (Groot (Vin Diesel) being the exception — he’s pure, like Spider-Man (Tom Holland) — but Rocket (Sean Gunn/Bradley Cooper) is getting better about it…) until Pops got sick of waiting for her to make a check-in call before the clock hit 12:00 A.M.

But Nebula? She continued on, despite all the strain she went through to accomplish what would ultimately be a botched job, only to be tortured and implied to have been sexually assaulted (Thanos’ torture chamber attendant seemed rather…handsy, like some Japanese chikan). Yet, unlike her other siblings, she is a survivor. She’s one of the few left in an otherwise half-empty universe and given the tenacity she has shown through all the turbulence that has befallen her, I doubt she’ll stop moving until she’s dead…while still on her feet.

Perhaps she’s more like her father than her other brothers and sisters — especially Gamora — could ever be.

Though it would be remiss to not bring up how, on some level, there is something bittersweet about Thanos and Gamora’s relationship when — in a rare instance — a brief flashback sequence, rather than an expository monologue, tells of how they first met:

The subsequent scene wherein they have a heart-to-heart, much of which hit rather close to home given my own parental experiences (“I never taught you to lie…that’s why you’re so bad at it!”), reveals that — even with all her belligerence and the inconvenience it has caused him — she is definitely his favorite child and whom he wishes to carry on his legacy once passed on (all despite being one of the youngest and most rebellious). She yells and screams about how much she hates him and what he represents, as Thanos sighs with great restraint, before responding with the reminder that she could’ve easily absconded and never come back before, but nonetheless did, only to support his omni-genocidal galactic crusade upon return for two decades. Eventually this interaction devolves into an act of abuse that — though physical for Nebula, all too familiar with it — tortures Gamora psychologically enough to break down what little resistance (if there was really any to begin with, as much as avoidance) she had left in her being.

It occurred to me during these scenes that — though played by actors largely in their 30’s and 40’s — Gamora acts more like a girl than she does a woman and this applies to many other characters including fellow Guardians Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) as well as Thor, Loki, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) — whether or not he is The Hulk — and Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr). They’re all children in the bodies of adults. Even Gamora’s “will-they-or-won’t-they?” shtick with the unflatteringly aforementioned Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) comes off less like two platonic grown-ups dealing with sexual tension now than curious children about to lose their innocence, both on the verge of full-blown puberty and trying to process all these weird new feelings they’re unfamiliar with. Thanos himself practically symbolizes adulthood, as it comes relentlessly out of nowhere and one is given little breathing room for recovery, to render unto them all the rudest of awakenings. It won’t be pretty — it never is, but perhaps should be.

INTO THE SOUL OF DARKNESS

“I am Time[…]fully Manifesting Myself

Earlier within this piece, as an aside, I mentioned being loathe to describe Thanos as “The Dark Souls of Marvel Movie Villains” and that wasn’t as frivolous a statement as it may’ve seemed. To briefly clarify, for any unfamiliar with the phrase or its origins, before going further…

Dark Souls is a videogame series made by Japanese developer FromSoftware that gained what you’d call a “cult following” due to its oppressive atmosphere, punishing gameplay difficulty, and purposefully opaque storytelling. “The Dark Souls of [X],” when not simply observing similarities between it and another title (such as The SurgeandNioh), almost always references the second of those three aspects as its most defining quality — of being the most harsh or challenging, regardless of the activity or medium involved — with the other two seen as “optional” by many despite being integral to the experience. All of which I find completely wrong-headed.

I’d not only apply all those qualities to Thanos as a character but to Infinity War itself as a film. Their tone, even with those moments of light-hearted relief, is overwhelmingly grim. Both challenge the protagonists — emotionally, existentially, and physically — in ways they have not before and even questions their competency as heroes. Neither will bore you with an abundance of minute details espoused at length, the basic essentials kept succinct, but rather make inferences and leave others pondering what may be going on inbetween the lines.

It was rather surprising for any of this to be the case in my experience watching the film. Expectations were set low and my dwindling interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe were part of that — to expect great disappointment and end up unexpectedly ecstatic— and then there’s this visual clusterfuck:

Image for post

It looks like a toy box violently puked action figures onto a pile of neon signs, causing a migraine in the process, and represented my worst fears about the movie. A bloated, indulgent mess full of bells and whistles with nothing else rattling around in its skull regardless of whatever pretenses are made. Another exercise in empty spectacle, which we have an overwhelming surplus of already.

But…it’s all misdirection. A red herring. A sleight of hand. This poster, however, is better representative of the subject material and tone of the film:

Image for post

Infinity War isn’t just any horror film — it’s a cosmic horror film.

I’ve already spoken of Thanos at length as well as Loki, Gamora, and Nebula to a lesser extent but have yet to speak of his other Children that’ve gone unnamed so far. They are Ebony Maw (Tom Vaughn-Lawlor), Proxima Midnight (Monique Ganderton/Carrie Coon), Corvus Glaive (Michael James Shaw), and Cull Obsidian (Terry Notary…I also prefer to call them “Obsidian Cull” ‘cause it sounds better). Very much unlike their younger siblings, each acts as an extension of their father’s will to some degree or another — almost like avatars for a Hindu god, actually!

As someone who cared little for Thanos’ comicbook counterpart (‘cause why do you need him when you have Darkseid?) I wasn’t aware of the Black Order, whom the Children of Thanos are based upon. Viewing Infinity War, it was refreshing to find villains who I knew so little about but managed to be intriguing — especially due to their excellent visual designs — and wanted to know them more as people…though they aren’t really people, when you think about. They’re humanoid in form and inexplicably speak English, yes, but they’re still extraterrestrials. The way they perceive the material world may not coincide with the way we, as homo sapiens of planet earth, do and makes it practically impossible to fully comprehend them as beings.

The true Marvel Souls starts here…

You know less about them than Thanos but, as inferred by Gamora’s backstory, it’s easy to deduce they’re each from a world he had conquered while culling half of the sapient population. Proxima and Crovus only have about six lines between them while Obsidian Cull (I told you it sounded better!) is reduced to unintelligible grunts, but— given his namesake — Ebony Maw is the most talkative of the four. He is both Thanos’ herald and (presumably) eldest Child, the film itself opening as he gracefully steps around corpses while evangelizing his adoptive father’s morbid spiritual philosophy with the calm of a Buddhist monk and eloquence of William F. Buckley. His appearance, though off-putting, is nowhere near as intimidating as his siblings coupled with a lack of signature weaponry in hand. That’s because Ebony Maw doesn’t need one as he is the weapon. Telekinesis, when used elsewhere, is often amusing or goofy but rarely is it ever as fucking terrifying the way Ebony Maw applies it during Infinity War next to the way Rainmaker does in Looper. It goes beyond making objects float in midair or pushing things out of the way — with an eerily acute perception of his immediate surroundings, he uses the very environment against the protagonists. He doesn’t just shove glass filaments into Dr. Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) face, but makes a wall swallow him while upside down. Then there’s turning rubble into flying spikes of death, causing a fire hydrant to burst open and temporarily incapacitate Wong (Benedict Wong), or chopping a car in twain a half second before it hits him. Made all the more unsettling by how slight and effortless his gestures are to make any of this happen, when it’d be portrayed with heavy-handed dramatics like arms flailing about or intense bodily tremors elsewhere.

In case it wasn’t already obvious (which it should be), I find the character absolutely delightful. Vaughn-Lawlor’s every utterance is pure gold and, next to Thanos himself, is what I wish more of in Marvel villains. At least, insofar as making them viable as threats rather than coming off as performative and largely ineffectual. Unfortunately, much like an ouroboros, this circles back to an issue stated earlier on in this piece…

FALLEN ANGELS

It is bad enough when the film kills off some of the most interesting, imposing antagonists within the setting — but it’s worse when their deaths are treated as part of a joke or simply rote in execution. Especially when, purely out of convenience, these indomitable warriors from space who’ve likely slain thousands (if not more) by hand and able to fight superhumans to a standstill suddenly lose their competency. All of this is done in order to give one of the many heroes an easy “win” that, with everything else suggesting their only victory would be a Pyrrhic one, feel unearned and only means there are now three less villains to use within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I generally despise resurrecting characters as a rule (comics are terrible about it) but this is one of the exceptions where I wouldn’t mind it.

Notice how I said “three” and not “four”? That’s because, given his personal arc within the film (which I shall explore next time!), I didn’t mind that Bruce Banner defeated Obsidian Cull by flinging him into a force field and getting disintegrated in the process. He’s a big, dumb lizard man who only makes guttural noises and whose entire existence is to get embarrassingly beaten up by the heroes with no semblance of personality as the other Children. His loss is not one that leaves an intense absence. I could even get past how his death was downright slapstick, but it’s tough to tolerate when Proxima being flung into a War Wheel by an ill-defined, inconsistently-powered character (I hate Wanda so much) is equally comedic.

Good riddance to reptilian rubbish!

Keep in mind that, in their previous encounter, Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) was retreating most of the time and easily overpowered when dealing with Proxima directly. She could’ve been killed were it not for the intervention of Captain America (Chris Evans), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson…and why do these movies keep forgetting she’s just a normal — albeit highly trained — human?), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie…who at least has a rocket-launching jetpack with metal wings) but, now, the cosmic Amazonian mass murderer of planets is careless enough to be defeated with…whatever Scarlet Witch’s powers are supposed to be. It doesn’t matter since her abilities are derived from how convenient it is for the plot at that very moment, like an anthropomorphic Sonic Screwdriver, than based on any kind of internal logic presented by the narrative (because there is none) just like they were in the comics.

Similarly, Ebony Maw’s death functions as the punchline to a joke set up by Peter Parker referencing Aliens as a “really old movie” (okay, that was hilarious, I’ll admit) — getting vacuumed into the celestial abyss after the most obvious of tricks, becoming an oversized popsicle. Which, just like Proxima, doesn’t make sense given his prowess as displayed in prior scenes. It’s just there to make Parker and Stark look all the more amusing, as if that was really necessary (it wasn’t). Corvus Glaive’s death may’ve been forgivable, given the injury sustained in a previous battle acted as potential foreshadowing, were it not for it being so bland as getting stabbed from behind by another character off-screen as if it was a surprise (it wasn’t). Only made nonsensical by Vision (Paul Bettany) being broken to the point he’s barely functional, though he could’ve as easily distracted Corvus enough for him to be injured once more and fall back to fight another day in Endgame.

I’d ask “why?” if the answer wasn’t so obvious: there is none, save for habit and expectation via well-worn fictional tropes. To stick to a formula that has only wasted further potential under the fallacious notion that “the bad guy must die because the bad guy must die.” It’s not a rule set in stone, just like the insertion of useless love interests, but they keep doing it despite the lack of demand or obligation for it. I’m not saying these characters should never die (as that’d be awfully boring) but this is ending something as it is just beginning. Superheroes are often defined by their nemeses, to force scenarios that put their skills or abilities or own morality to the test, making this dismissive expendability detrimental to storytelling possibilities as time goes on and the roster shortens with each insipid death.

Hell, Mystery Men made that point back in 1999 — almost nine years before Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe occurred. Wish that lesson was taken to heart…

That is not to say, as much as I still take issue, this is a deal-breaker of any kind nor is it the only problem I have. Yet none of them have ruined my fondness of Infinity War even with subsequent viewings — a great deal unlike most other Marvel films. Thanos and his Children aren’t my favorite thing about the movie, they’re just one of my favorite things about it. I mentioned Bruce Banner’s arc before and there’s plenty more. That is, for next time…

[Originally posted on 3/25/19 @ Medium.com]

Pop Culture Heresy: Marvel Studios Is Awful, Part 3 — My Likely Unpopular and Misunderstood Review of BLACK PANTHER (or, The Marvel Cinematic Formula)

For anyone who is curious (though I doubt it): the reason I haven’t put up anything in the last several months is I’ve been suffering from Mitchellesque writer’s block and Shinji Ikari-level clinical depression. Along with that combination, there’s the job I’m actually paid to do and that takes priority over my hobbies. I write largely out of personal interest and, as much as I’d like to be paid for it, I’d rather put out something that feels right to me — even if it takes some time — since I’m doing it for free anyway.

The issue I had, to discuss the Marvel Cinematic Formula, was how to frame the subject. Previous attempts had either been too long or too dry in execution for my own liking. Thankfully, with the release of Black Panther, I’ve been given just what was needed…

Image for post
Japan’s answer to Charlie Brown. God help us all

It doesn’t surprise me that the film had such an emphatic reaction among audiences, but that isn’t because it’s a Marvel movie. Unlike the increasingly interchangeable, mediocre spectacles that is their oeuvre — a live-action adaptation of T’Challa, the Black Panther of Wakanda, holds far more cultural significance somewhat similarly to Wonder Woman. I absolutely get all the hyperbolic praise, unlike every other release from Marvel these days, as the cast and setting are an extreme rarity in the world of big budget studio films run and almost entirely populated by white dudes.

However, I didn’t love Black Panther like others have despite my fondness of King T’Challa and his home (it’s the only fictional location I’d want to live in!). Though, to my surprise, it was a far less annoying and disappointing experience — I actually ended up enjoying myself from time to time. I’d go as far to say it’s closer to my favorite (Captain America: Winter Soldier) than my least favorite Marvel movie (a two-way tie between Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron). It’s nonetheless hampered by the Marvel formula which is (aggravatingly) adhered to a slavish degree, despite not needing to anymore, and makes a few perplexing creative decisions as a result. Of course, that would involve going a bit more in-depth…

*THERE BE SPOILERS, FROM HERE ON*

The most distracting element of Black Panther overall, and I’m sure this may sound confusing to some (or many), is that it comes off like the second entry of a trilogy than its initial chapter. Despite taking place chronologically right after the events of Captain America: Civil War — there are aspects of the narrative, especially characterization, done less as an introduction to the material than as a reintroduction.

A portion of the main cast — Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o), W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya), M’Baku (Winston Duke), and Zuri (Forrest Whitaker) — feel as if their character arcs began in a non-existent previous film, with many of the events relating to them in this film acting as pay-off. We’re told that Nakia and T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) are former romantic partners, for example, but it’s never adequately explained why they broke up. More importantly, the performances by Nyong’o and Boseman don’t indicate a strained relationship — they’re charmingly adorable around one another — so why not just omit the detail entirely? It could be argued that’s giving the characters these internal lives outside of the events of the film, but that’s hard to believe when the characters — explicitly through conversation — keep bringing up the importance of those past events in relation to a current one. Then there are the motivations of W’Kabi having occurred off-screen but driving him throughout, to the point of betraying T’Challa, as well as how both T’Challa and M’Baku are inferred to be frenemies but never elaborated upon despite being integral to the third act.

Zuri, however, is the most egregious given he’s introduced within this film as a surrogate father figure (was Angela Bassett as T’Challa’s hot mom not enough? I mean, Rene Russo was one of the best things about Thor 2…) but is killed midway through the film and assumes you should somehow care. Much like Quicksilver in Age of Ultron, I wondered why they involved him at all if he wasn’t going to be sufficiently developed as a person and simply killed off to artificially ramp up tension. He’s as underdeveloped and pointless as Whitaker was in Rogue One — the film’s cast is already overstuffed for a first installment and I’d of preferred they held off on using him altogether. He’s definitely not Obi-Won Kenobi from A New Hope and there could’ve been some much-needed breathing room without his presence.

Speaking of artificially ramping up tension: Black Panther is a prime example of how Marvel films make their protagonists far too powerful and seemingly invulnerable — causing so many of the action sequences to become redundant as result. The filmmakers seem aware of this, to some degree, and have to contrive ways in which the character is made vulnerable in order to experience adversity of any kind. The film literally starts out with T’Challa dropping in from the sky and neutralizing a bunch of Boko Haram members, which would’ve been fun or amusing if it wasn’t done so effortlessly on his part. Their bullets just bounce off his suit like small pellets, with no sense of impact whatsoever, and makes one wonder if there’s ever going to be a viable threat for him to face.

Well, he does — in a very forced way.

This ad is brought to you by: Wolf Cola, the Official Soft Drink of Boko Haram

It’s telling the two best fights involve a ceremonial death match wherein T’Challa — apparently granted superhuman strength and speed from a mystical plant — has to depower himself with a concoction for combat to be on equal footing. Just think about that for a moment; if T’Challa didn’t handicap himself, there is no doubt he’d win without issue and the ceremony would be unnecessary in the first place. I get these are larger-than-life characters who have epic conflicts but, goddamn, you want them to be naturally vulnerable on some level so they can be challenged and persevere. This problem is exacerbated when Shuri (Letitia Wright), who is basically Q to T’Challa’s James Bond as well as his teen sister, gives him a new suit that is more advanced and powerful than his previous one. Along with also being bulletproof, it all fits within a necklace as nanomachines and has a defensive shockwave function after absorbing enough kinetic energy. Like, couldn’t they have those added features and made it less bulletproof, just to entertain the possibility he could be killed if he got too reckless? If it wasn’t for the fact vibranium just so happened to be stored and transported by some pseudoscientific mechanism that made their super-suits malfunction, the final confrontation between T’Challa and Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) would’ve just been them hitting each other continuously with no progress being made either way. Gee, that would’ve been totally fucking dull!

I’ve been noticing this about the Marvel films for a while now and probably why I lack much of any emotional investment in the characters or events. I mean, why care when you know these people won’t be significantly harmed or even die? Sure, they’ll kill off supporting cast members and the villain-of-the-week to make it seem like shit’s gotten real but never one of the heroes. They treated War Machine being blown out of the sky in Civil War as if it was this momentous occasion…except he didn’t die, simply injured and shown to be recovering just fine. Even after falling hundreds of feet back to earth, in a broken metal shell that likely would’ve further injured than protect him. When characters are put into a truly dangerous situation that requires them to be unconventional in approach, like in Iron Man 3, the ending will likely involve a deus ex machina that renders it moot. Well, that and having it done as a ludicrous battle instead of a more subtle confrontation that isn’t entirely predicated on fisticuffs. It’s impossible to be surprised or excited anymore when you’re given almost no curveballs whatsoever.

The best compliment I can give the film is that, like both Guardians of the Galaxy installments, it is far more self-contained than anything else under the Marvel Studios brand. Outside of referencing the death of T’Chaka (played by father-son team John and Atandwa Kani — which was a brilliant casting choice) from Civil War and a post-credits scene with a Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) cameo, everything that happens in the film is specific to Black Panther as a character and his world. It isn’t like Spider-Man: Homecoming where they bring in Michael fucking Keaton as the antagonist and waste a potentially interesting plotline involving him as a corrupt surrogate father figure, all so Robert Downey Jr. can take up a third of the run time to remind us Iron Man exists (as if we needed that — and we really don’t). One can only hope it continues this trajectory and the sequels won’t end up being one half of another character’s movie or just another ensemble piece like, well, Civil War.

Image for post
Groot had all the best lines!

The other best compliment I can give the film is that, unlike both Guardians of the Galaxy installments, the interpersonal banter between characters is more naturalistic. It lacks this eager-to-please, overly quippy approach that just gets grating and feels as if written by a teenager who just learned the concept of “self-aware humor.” Certainly helps that T’Challa and his family, including Killmonger, actually come off as a family due to how they act towards each other. They don’t need to vocally remind us, in a patronizing fashion, that they’re “family” even when all their behavior indicates the exact opposite. There’s an attempt at subtlety that is best exemplified by the criminally underutilized M’Baku (and, by extension, Winston Duke) after his initial macho posturing and begrudging defeat in the first ceremonial duel. Having saved T’Challa when mortally wounded in a similar bout with Killmonger which, along with having yielded to him in combat before (due to a compliment nonetheless), suggests a deeper connection — he’s surprisingly casual, no bluster whatsoever, when speaking to him or other members of his family as if he’s known them personally for years. Despite the antagonism present in his mannerisms, it is difficult to not think he and T’Challa are the best of friends in an odd way. If there was just another scene explaining why he chose to assist T’Challa against Killmonger with the rest of his tribe, rather than being another deus ex machina, would’ve made it the movie’s biggest highlight. It falls short, of course, but remains the most interesting interpersonal dynamic presented in the whole narrative.

Though it’d be remiss to not admit that Erik Killmonger is the closest Marvel Studios has gotten in creating a consistently dimensional villain for any of these movies. He’s still nowhere near as good as Wilson Fisk was in the first season of Daredevil (I’m pretty sure no one else can be, at this point) — but at least he’s given grievances that, unlike Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, are presented as legitimate throughout. Even T’Challa outright admits that the guy has a point and he did kind of win despite dying, given his own cousin’s change of heart. It’s always nice to have some hint of moral grayness in stories that are otherwise far too black-and-white, because it’s verisimilitudinous than cartoonish and reminds you the “hero/villain” dynamic is often an issue of perspective than a law of nature.

It’s just unfortunate that so much of his background, per usual, isn’t shown to us as much as told. Everett Ross (Martin Freeman) does an info-dump explaining he was in the military and how it prepared him to take over Wakanda — but I was wondering why, y’know, they didn’t use flashbacks to get the same information across visually. Marvel Studios seems to only use such a helpful storytelling device with chagrin and would rather have characters literally spell things out for the audience, though no one talks that way even when informing someone else in reality. So, what? They’ll have a dream sequence where Killmonger talks to his late father, but not remember his experiences in the military? If they did, it’d of been a great way of reaffirming why he thinks starting a worldwide race war is the best route for social revolution. It’s too bad that, unfortunately taking a note from Luke Cage, the film bends a knee to respectability politics by the end. T’Challa chooses to be more diplomatic in his approach, while never entertaining the idea that revealing Wakanda to the world — especially mostly white, neocolonialist nations — might still end up reacting with hostility and violence.

There’s another problem though: Erik Killmonger shouldn’t have been the first antagonist for a Black Panther movie. As I had stated earlier, this film would’ve worked better as a second installment and stand by that. The main antagonist should’ve been Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis) but, more importantly, they should’ve adapted the Reginald Hudlin-written and John Romita, Jr.-illustrated comicbook storyline — “Who is the Black Panther?”

Image for post
[Cue the BET series theme song]

I’m sure it wouldn’t happen, given how much Marvel Studios goes out of its way to not call out racism — which makes so much of its “progressive” cred come off as disingenuous — and the storyline involves a cadre of white supervillains lead by a totally racist Klaue to invade and take over Wakanda. This is all done on behalf of national Western interests, including France and Belgium, known for their colonialist pasts (or neocolonialist present) as well as the Vatican. I shit thee not, that is the actual premise and it’d of been magnificent live-action cinema. But, again, Marvel Studios likes to play it too safe and scared to imagine ever doing anything even slightly challenging — even their depiction of Ulysses Klaue is one that leaves any hint of being a white supremacist to a couple lines and the fact he’s an Afrikaner now (you know why…). Sure, he calls Killmonger a “savage” at one point despite knowing he’s Wakandan — suggesting he believes them to be too primitive to “deserve” their scientific advancements — but it’s completely tangential to what’s essentially a familial conflict. Also, like far too many Marvel villains, he gets killed off after barely being used.

At some point, Marvel Studios will end up in the same situation as Captain Amazing in Mystery Men where — due to all their decent villains being put out of commission — they’ll end up having to grasp at straws and just bring back the Average Joe version of Helmut Zemo or Tim Blake Nelson as The Leader (bet you don’t remember that!).

The welcome improvements certainly make it one of the better movies in the studio’s catalogue but they’re nonetheless marginal improvements — the same ones in Thor: Ragnarok that are attributed all this hyperbolic praise that’s downright misleading when considered further. Oh, Hela brings up Odin’s dark imperialist, bloodlust-driven past and her grievances for being locked away? It’d of been nice — just like with Killmonger — to actually see that as flashbacks than just pay lip-service. It’s always lip-service. There’s a saying that actions speak louder than words and that perfectly explains the ultimate problem with these films; so much of the plot and characterization isn’t driven by the subtleties of behavior and interpersonal interaction, in its many varieties — but almost entirely by what comes out of a character’s mouth. You have to assume what these films are supposedly about not based on the events that occur and the physical actions taken by characters, but because someone stated it outright.

I can’t be the only one who notices all this, right? That the concrete actions taking place in these movies are almost entirely about these characters either having extended exposition-laden dialogue or punching things ‘cause reasons? I’m pretty sure Alfred Hitchcock had a lot of events happen in his movies and rarely ever involved info-dump monologues or long bouts of pugilism. Drama, throughout its existence, had characters involved in numerous activities where neither verbose exchanges nor feats of combat occurred. Much like watching Game of Thrones or any of the overly-talky HBO dramas — you can’t help but wonder if these audio-visual mediums have regressed in form. It’s turning films and televised/streaming series, both which tend to lack and transcend the limitations of traditional drama, into glorified stage productions. Worst of all, they’re starting to feel like the same glorified stage production.

It’s probably why the Phase 1 releases were my favorite (except for one film) over those that followed, and I’ll explain why next time…

[Originally posted on 5/8/18 @ Medium.com]