Movie Review: The Batman

I usually try and avoid spoilers in these things, but The Batman's been out for a month and a half and there's enough talking in riddles in the actual movie, so... SPOILER WARNING.

One of the first movies I reviewed for this blog was The Dark Knight. I'll save you the trouble of clicking on the link: in short, I said it was a really good movie, but not all that good of a Batman movie. Jump ahead fourteen years, and we find ourselves with the opposite. Matt Reeves has given us a great Batman movie that's sort of mediocre when considered independent of the title character.

Oddly, The Batman almost works as a direct sequel to The Dark Knight in a timeline where the third Nolan movie never came out. It picks up at about the same point in Batman's career, with similar power levels and villains who feel stylistically identical to those in the Nolan movie. If it weren't for some minor continuity issues, you could almost handwave this as a chapter in that continuity. 

But let's put a pin in the nerd stuff and talk about this as a movie first. In some ways, I was being unfair earlier when I called this mediocre. Aspects of The Batman are fantastic. This looks gorgeous, the score is magnificent, and for the majority of the runtime it's well paced and exciting. This works well as a crime thriller, which is one of the main things it's trying to be. It's by no means a failure.

The main area I think this drops the ball concerns character relationships. Large portions of the film focus on Bruce's relationships with three supporting characters: Jim Gordon, Selina Kyle, and Alfred. All of these relationships culminate in dramatic scenes, and yet none actually feel earned. The movie seems to tell us that Bruce and Selina form a bond, but we never really see or feel this. You of course can infer stuff from the comics to fill in the gaps, but it's not in the movie itself.

This is even more of a problem with Alfred, because we're expected to assume a familial relationship we're not shown. We're given a sequence where Bruce tells Alfred he isn't his father, followed later by one where he tells him he was wrong. What's missing is any kind of establishing sequence where we're shown Alfred being that father. The end effect is hollow.

I suppose Bruce's relationship with Gordon is a tad better, in that it's more casual so the lack of an establishing sequence is less damaging. It still doesn't deliver much of an emotional punch, though. I feel like they could have devoted more time to all three relationships. The main detective plot (more on that in a moment) could have been trimmed back a bit if they needed room. Honestly, the pacing there is more about tone than story - the Riddler's plan mostly amounts to noise, anyway.

Now that I'm done complaining about all that, let's talk about why this still kind of rules as a Batman movie.

I'll start with the detective stuff. While I think they could have simplified that part of the movie without losing the effect, I thought the basic story was absolutely the right approach. The bulk of the movie is a grounded "world's greatest detective" story. While that's certainly not the only valid version of The Caped Crusader, it's arguably the most significant, not to mention one we've never seen seriously attempted on the big screen.

I also appreciate this adhered to Bruce's "no killing" rule better than any previous live-action incarnation. It's not perfect, mind you: while Batman doesn't appear to kill anyone, there were a few moments where the movie prioritized spectacle and action over clarity. The fight at the end features some blows you could interpret as lethal. Likewise, there's a chase in the middle involving an exploding tanker truck where it's hard to imagine there weren't civilian casualties as a result of Batman's pursuit of the Penguin. I think we're supposed to assume otherwise, given no one brings it up or even arrests the Penguin for causing said explosion, but I found the moment extremely distracting.

Through the rest of the movie, however, Batman is shown explicitly not killing his enemies, and even discourages allies from using potentially lethal force. This is a refreshing step up from the Nolan movies, let alone Batman v Superman.

What made me even happier was watching Batman transition from avenger into superhero over the course of the film. The movie is largely a repudiation of vengeance and even justice as motivations for the character: it's the story of Bruce learning his first responsibility is to give people hope. Would I have preferred a Batman movie start with that? Sure. Would I have liked to see a little more genuine empathy and compassion from Bruce? Absolutely. But this is so much more than we've gotten from these movies in decades.

Honestly, I don't even think that's the primary reason this works as a Batman movie. The element The Batman nails that nearly every other live-action version misses is tone. While ostensibly realistic in its approach, The Batman has a operatic feel, largely thanks to a combination of cinematography and music. While this certainly isn't the surreal Gotham of the Burton movies, the look and sound of the film gives it a sort of mythic character reminiscent of the 90's animated series. Scenes with Bruce and Selina on rooftops could have used a rewrite, but there's no denying the grandeur of it all.

Speaking of Selina, I doubt it's possible to imagine a more perfect casting choice than Zoë Kravitz. That said, I was a little underwhelmed by how the character was written. I realize this is preference, but I'm a strong believer Catwoman should be Bruce's equal. Here, she's more of a sidekick who's out of her league. I really hope she's written as a more effective character in the sequels. 

Unsurprisingly, Pattinson is great in the role. I'd like to have seen him using the Wayne persona more, though they did a good job finding an excuse to downplay it. I will note I was impressed how the movie managed to sell the secret identity by subtly adjusting how Batman's weapons and vehicles were presented. Bale's Dark Knight always felt like a rich guy in a billion-dollar suit; Pattinson's feels like a weirdo who cobbled everything together. Even with Wayne acting and looking like a depressed goth, I never got the impression his secret would be obvious. If anything, it reinforced the image of him as a celebrity's kid everyone dismisses.

Let's talk gadgets. I'm glad the Batsuit finally looks good, though there's still room for improvement. I love that the eyebrows are reminiscent of the Adam West suit when they catch the light. I do wish we'd gotten some version of Bat-a-rangs. Likewise, I found the realistic wingsuit silly looking. I suspect it was sort of supposed to be: they wanted that sequence believable, which it was until he walked away from what should have been a crippling impact.

I was pleasantly surprised by this version of the Batmobile. It was a nice blend of believably low-tech and impossibly effective. That seems to be a constant design theme in the film: the movie wants the audience to suspend their disbelief while still allowing for silly, over-the-top comic book sequences. And for the most part, it works. I'd personally like to see them drift away from realism in later installments, but this is absolutely a good start.

One area I was less keen on was action. The fights weren't bad, but they weren't spectacular, either. I hope they put more effort into stylizing them in future installments. Comics and animated shows depict the Caped Crusader as almost inhumanly efficient and effective. As much as I despise Batman v Superman, they came close to translating that idea. The Batman feels like a step back in that respect. Again, this is a subjective observation: if you don't care about the comics, this won't bother you.

Overall, The Batman isn't the best live-action movie about Batman, but I think it's likely the best live-action Batman movie. They get the world and character right in a way the last two iterations did not (three if you count the overrated Joker movie). I think weak writing prevented relationships from standing on their own, which is a problem, and the finale was underwhelming. But at this point I prefer a flawed movie that gives us a decent Batman than the alternative. I like this thing quite a bit and look forward to the sequels.

Movie Review: The Suicide Squad

Watching The Suicide Squad feels a lot like reading an issue of a comic entrenched in continuity you know nothing about. For better or worse (mostly better, but not entirely), this comes off as being part of something much, much larger than what's onscreen. Only that "larger thing" doesn't actually exist, so we're left to fend for ourselves. In other words, if there's a problem with The Suicide Squad (and, to be clear, that's a big IF), that problem is the DCEU. Because the movie is framed as a deviation from the norm, it's a bit awkward there's no real "norm" for it to deviate from. The last seven movies in this franchise are Justice League, Aquaman, Shazam, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984, Justice League again, and now this: if everything is weird, is anything? And more importantly, is that even an issue?

It's certainly a double-edged sword. The DCEU's lack of cohesion makes it more conducive to experimentation than the relatively focused MCU, but it also robs its successes of the contrast that contextualized the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. The Suicide Squad feels like it should also be interesting as part of its franchise, in addition to as its own story.

But since it's got to stand on its own merits, it's fortunate it's got merits to spare. The movie is overflowing with fascinating characters, thoughtful dialogue, and absurd action. It works simultaneously as a war story, a comedy, a satire, and - lest we forget - a superhero flick.

To be clear, there's a lot going on here. This is a movie that revels in gratuitous violence one moment, only to shift to a poignant philosophical or political point the next. When it's not ripping off heads, it's sweet, heartfelt, and at times shockingly beautiful. It cares deeply about its characters, even if the world they inhabit doesn't. The unapologetic fantasy elements in the trailers obscure the fact that this movie has a great deal to say about very real foreign policy.

Depending on your point-of-view, I think you could accurately describe the film as a whole as layered or patchwork. The themes resonate with the characters and their stories, but at the same time there are so many flashbacks, cutaways, and asides, it feels a little like you're being tricked into believing the plot is more complicated than it really is. This is more intended as an observation than a complaint: I think the style adds a great deal to the movie.

The characters are more or less universally wonderful. I felt a little shortchanged by several not getting enough screen time, but if you asked me for something to cut to free up space, I'd be at a loss. This definitely leaves you wanting more, but that's hardly a problem. The movie isn't above killing off minor characters for laughs, but when it wants you to feel a loss, it succeeds. Without giving too much away, I'll say it gave the character I'd least expect to care about a final line that stopped me in my tracks. And, to be clear, I'm the kind of person who expects to care about talking raccoons, tree men, and walking sharks. When I say this movie pulls out a surprise twist on a character's inner life and motives, trust it's something truly unexpected.

This is a great movie. Is it my favorite James Gunn movie? Nah, that's still Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2. It's not quite my favorite DCEU movie, either, though it's somewhere in the top tier alongside Wonder Woman, Birds of Prey, and Shazam. This is worth seeing, assuming you're not easily grossed out. For the record, I'm not big fan of gore, and nothing in this bothered me too much (and almost everything that came close was in the first ten minutes).

One last note I feel needs to be acknowledged: I watched Suicide Squad the only way that made sense to me, given the fact we're in a pandemic, and I've got a young child - on HBO Max. There is a very real possibility that impacted my reaction to the movie, so take that how you will.

Movie Review: Black Widow

By my count, there are at least four distinct movies in Black Widow, two of which I really enjoyed. If you're thinking that's a roundabout way of saying the film as a whole is something of a mess... well, you're not wrong. But I mean what I say about the good stuff: when this works, it really works. Of course I can't really talk about the component parts without at least acknowledging what they are, so consider this an extremely longwinded and needlessly confusing spoiler warning.

My guess is the script for Black Window went through quite a few iterations before reaching this point. It feels like a movie that started with a strong vision that got chipped away by studio notes and rewrites. The first act goes in some dark directions: we get some backstory and insight into Natasha and the world she comes from. Tonally, this clashes a bit with the jokes tossed in to maintain the MCU flavor, but it still worked for me. I thought it did a great job selling this as a darker corner of the same world.

After a few action sequences (more on these in a minute), the movie transitioned into a sort of Soviet superhero sitcom for a while. I really liked the spy thriller opening, but this... this I absolutely LOVED. It was weird, funny, and surprisingly touching. The characters were emotionally broken people, and it was a joy seeing them interact in almost a parody of 80's situation comedies.

You've probably already done the math, so here comes the stuff that disappointed me. First, the action. It's not so much that it leans heavily on CG and blue screens, or that it doesn't look real: that's true of a lot of the genre. The larger issue is it doesn't feel integrated into the story. The fights feel like distractions, and not particularly interesting ones. It doesn't help that most of the antagonists aren't distinct or interesting enough to be compelling. The only one with a personality stays offscreen most of the movie, and the rest are literally mindless puppets. This becomes a pretty big issue towards the end, when an army of nondescript enemies works against the theme they're supposed to represent.

And speaking of theme...

Here comes that "fourth movie", and I need to be very, very careful, because I have a feeling I'm going to be in bad company here. Black Widow tries to work in some social commentary, and it just didn't work for me. Before I go on, I'll acknowledge I'm a cisgender man, and it's entirely possible this will play better for other audiences.

To be clear, I think what Black Widow tries to say is good, and I like the concept behind how they're trying to say it. But I don't think the idea was given enough room to breathe, particularly because it was competing for screen time against themes of family, and those felt more developed. Themes built around misogyny and control came across as rushed and didn't deliver enough of a punch.

Ultimately, I think this was one of the MCU's weaker entries, though that's a long way from a failure. We still got great characters, including several new additions I'd like to see again. It's enjoyable enough to warrant a viewing or two, but aside from the aforementioned sitcom sequences, it's not all that memorable. It also raises the question why Disney+ is charging an extra $30 bucks for this but giving us far superior Marvel series free with subscription.

Movie Review: Justice League (The Snyder Cut)

I know the studio is technically calling this "Zack Snyder's Justice League," but let's not delude ourselves into pretending this will be remembered as anything other than The Snyder Cut. Besides, the prefix "Zack Snyder's" implies the theatrical cut belonged to someone else, and perhaps the largest reveal of this incarnation is that's not really true. Obviously Snyder (no relation) wasn't happy with the original (who was?), but most of the scenes I assumed had been written and shot by Whedon apparently weren't. Likewise, the paper-thin mulligan hunt forming the narrative backbone remained unchanged. In short, this is less a complete reconstruction of the 2017 flop than a conventional extended edition. It's just... really, really, really extended.

I'm something of an anomaly among film fans and critics, in that I have no issue with movies being long, provided that time is well used. If you're telling a complex story, developing a detailed world, building out interesting themes, or even constructing an elaborate tone, I'm happy to invest almost any amount of time in a project.

Here's the thing, though: The Snyder Cut accomplishes none of these things. Other than a couple expanded arcs, the story is the same as it was in the theatrical. The world, while definitely improved, was still underdeveloped. The themes... don't make me laugh: this is still "Justice League: Friendship is Magic," but now it's Friendship is Magic with the occasional decapitation. Theme is not Zack Snyder's forte. 

That brings us to tone, which I suspect is the aspect most of this movie's fans will point to in order to justify its length. Because it's true the movie does, in fact, have a tone. It does not, however, build that tone, subvert it, or use it to meaningfully enhance its story (again, there's barely a story at all). The tone is present at the start, it doesn't evolve or change much, and it sticks around through the unnecessary epilogue. That same tone could have been easily injected into a two-hour movie, a 60-minute TV show, or a music video (and if you've ever seen a Zack Snyder movie before, you won't be surprised to hear most of this feels like a series of music videos, anyway).

In short, this didn't need to be this long, and it doesn't really gain anything from that length. There is, however, some good news. Taken on its own merits (which, again, is tough to do since it's mostly the same as the theatrical cut), this is largely an improvement. More importantly, it's far, far, far better than Batman v Superman. Infinitely better. That movie was trash.

I glossed over the characters above, but this does a better job with most of its leads. Flash, in particular, is delightful - he was a standout in the theatrical, as well, and most of those scenes made it into this installment, as did some fantastic new ones. Flash's powers work perfectly with Zack Snyder's visual style - if there's a reason to sit through this, it's for the Flash scenes.

I wasn't as head-over-heels in love with the new Cyborg material as some reviewers, but the character is definitely better treated here than in the last version. I do like the sequence where he uses his powers in a Robin Hood capacity. The rest of his arc is fine, but mostly I found it boring. Your millage may vary - like I said, this interpretation of the character is definitely picking up some fans.

After Flash, I actually think Batman benefits the most from this cut. It wasn't so much more material than the fact the darker tone means his optimism shines through a little brighter. A smirk here and there means more in contrast.

Wonder Woman and Aquaman didn't get much out of this - there's some new footage, but I don't feel like it adds up to anything more substantial than we got from the previous installment (besides, they both have solo movies that are far better than either version of Justice League).

Superman is notable in that he gets significantly less screen time here than in the theatrical, which was surprising. For what it's worth, we still get a happier, more hopeful Superman than we saw in Man of Steel or BvS, if only briefly. In other words, this is a truncated version of Superman from the theatrical Justice League.

Steppenwolf is more interesting here, though still underwhelming. He's less a generic villain and more a pitiful, desperate monster trying to get home. This doesn't really go anywhere or pay off, but I guess it counts as an improvement.

The action scenes are generally improved, but get ready for some caveats. The movie has some great moments where the concepts and effects come together and deliver some truly awesome visuals. But it also has a bunch of sequences where actors in bulky costumes cut to obvious CG cartoons, breaking the flow. In addition, the movie continues to mistake brutal for cool, which undersells the value of the characters being adapted. It also drives home the fact that this is not, in fact, a movie for grown-ups.

I could go on, both nitpicking and complimenting various sequences or elements, but I don't feel the need to indulge in a Snyder-cut of my own. Ultimately, the nicest thing I can say is if I were advising someone who'd never seen either version of Justice League which to watch, I'd point them towards this one. The meanest thing I can say is if I were talking to someone who'd already seen the theatrical, I'd tell them they could skip this. It's not awful, but it really just doesn't add that much of value, especially weighed against its runtime.

Movie Review: Flora & Ulysses

Flora & Ulysses is frustrating in that it's enjoyable but - taken as a whole - not actually all that good. That's another way of saying aspects are really good, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

What sets it apart is that the good stuff is, well, really good, and there's a lot of it. This isn't a situation where there's a cool moment or two amidst a bad movie: the dialogue is consistently funny, the characters are likable, the casting is far more inspired than you'd expect from the premise, and the direction is solid. It's just there's really not much movie here, as though someone forgot to settle on a premise or point before making it.

In theory, this is the story of a young girl struggling with family troubles who adopts and befriends a superpowered squirrel. Only despite being highly focused on the situation's relationship to comics and superheroes (including a great deal of cross-promotional Marvel references), the superpowers are ultimately superfluous. This isn't really a superhero story, nor is it a deconstruction of superhero stories. It doesn't meaningfully comment on the genre, it doesn't incorporate elements or tropes in a way that builds out the story it's actually telling... the superhero stuff is just kind of there to kill time, fuel jokes, and allow them to reference the MCU from time to time (not that they need an excuse: there are also numerous Star Wars references, along with a bunch of homages to other Disney/Fox properties).

But, again, none of that stops this from being genuinely fun. As disposable entertainment goes, it gets the job done. The CG squirrel is cute enough, provided you're not too sick of this style of animated creature to enjoy it.

The pieces are all there, it just needed an outline. But if you set your expectations appropriately, there's no reason not to have fun with this. I mean, movies like this being at all good is a new phenomenon, one parents of the world owe the Paddington films a huge debt for inspiring.

If Disney's really going to keep cranking these out, it's nice to see they're putting in some effort. This isn't a home run, but it's solid enough I don't regret the time I spent watching... despite the fact it never really went anywhere.

Movie Review: Wonder Woman 1984

I watched Wonder Woman 1984 in the most cinematic environment my living room would allow. Lights off, volume up, phone away, didn't pause once from start to finish... And as the end credits rolled, I realized I'd made a huge mistake.

Weird as it'll sound, I think this would have been better if I'd stopped the movie every thirty minutes or so to get a snack. Or if I'd watched the first half one day then picked it up the next to see the finale. Hell, I think the experience would have been better if I'd paid less attention. Maybe checked Twitter every now and then: you get the idea.

Because, here's the thing - this wasn't really a movie. Or at least it didn't feel like one. It was more like a miniseries with an absurdly high budget stitched together. It never really coalesced into a compelling whole, so trying to watch it that way made matters worse. I honestly think sitting and watching it in a dark theater would have been even more of a letdown. This just didn't feel cinematic.

It's difficult to pinpoint where things went wrong. The pace is the easiest target, but I'd have been more forgiving there if the characters had worked. And the more I think about the characters, the more I think they might have worked if the movie had a different tone. Meanwhile, the tone might have felt really cool if it weren't for the pacing... and so it cycles.

I think that's the actual issue: the choices made for tone, character, and pacing all clash, culminating in a movie that just doesn't work. The film opts for a tone unlike its predecessor, instead serving as a campy homage to the Lynda Carter series and Richard Donner Superman film. I don't think that's an inherently bad choice, but it really calls for a snappy, exciting pace. Aquaman was working off of similar inspiration, but it moved at a fast clip, leaping between fantasy locations, to avoid overstaying its welcome.

The other thing Aquaman did well was make its characters compelling. The first Wonder Woman movie did this as well - we liked these people and their relationships. But I couldn't connect with anyone in 1984. Diana felt uncharacteristically mopey (I'd believe that she'll always love Steve, but the "I'll never love again" angle doesn't jibe with any version of this character I've seen... including the one in the last movie). Likewise, the villains - both of whom were given complete character arcs complete with redemptions - were never all that believable or interesting.

We were left with a character-driven story about characters we neither believed in nor cared about, playing out in an absurdist, campy cartoon world.

The action scenes were decent and at times fun, but mostly lacked real gravitas or impact. To be fair, there were a handful of standout effects moments - the invisible jet, for example - but they were few and far between. If it wasn't going to give us a stronger narrative, we needed more of a "wow" factor to gloss over the movie's shortcomings. There was a little here and there, but not nearly enough.

The movie was also hamstrung by existing continuity, which it should simply have ignored. Wonder Woman isn't a subtle character, and having her constantly shush or wink or outright ask side characters for discretion was just confusing. 

And speaking of trivial details that bugged me, I was also underwhelmed by the gold armor, which felt completely tacked on (and I really, really like its comic counterpart).

This is obviously a long way from the worst movie in the DC Expanded Universe (looking at you, BvS), but it's still a hell of a letdown after the astonishingly good first installment, to say nothing of the string of successes we've seen recently (Aquaman, Shazam, and Birds of Prey were all great).

If you've got HBO Max, by all means put it on, but keep your expectations in check and don't try to make it through in one sitting.

Movie Review: Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn

I was originally going to include this in one of those "catching up" posts, but when I finished I looked at what I'd written, and realized it was basically a full-length review. On top of that, this hasn't really been out that long, and what even is is a "new movie" anymore? So, in the off chance anyone's curious, here are my thoughts on Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn.

I'm going to need to look at this movie from a number of different points of view. First and most importantly, as a movie in its own right, divorced from its source material, this thing is pretty damn awesome. Or at least the first half is - around the halfway point, it loses some momentum and becomes merely awesome. I know that's harsh, but I've got to be honest here.

To be clear, I'm approaching this as an action/comedy hybrid, and in that context, "pretty damn awesome" doesn't even cover it. The fight scenes in Birds of Prey and the Fant.... The fight scenes in Birds of Prey are some of the best we've seen in years. Forget Deadpool: as much as I love those movies, neither installment has a single fight sequence that can hold a candle to what's in Birds of Prey. This is inventive and energetic in a way that's reminiscent of Steven Chow or Edgar Wright. Cathy Yan knocks it out of the park, and she does so with an over-sized mallet.

The comedy is solid, even when the kicking stops, and the movie's over-the-top characters are engaging. Like I said before, the movie loses steam around the point it coalesces into a coherent narrative and rushes to a climax, but it's still entertaining. It's also worth noting some character details feel tacked on - Black Canary's powers being a prime example. The nerd in me likes that they come up, but if we're looking at this as a self-contained work, they feel wedged in and unearned.

Speaking of which...

I said at the start I'd need to look at this from more than one perspective. So let's lose the facade of objectivity and talk nerd stuff. How is this as an adaptation?

Okay, I'm going to have to subdivide further because as a comic book movie, this is amazing. The use of color combined with the gorgeously stylized action make this one of the most intriguing translations of the comic book genre we've ever gotten. So... I guess that's another point for Birds of Prey.

Here's a third: as a Harley Quinn movie, this is all kinds of awesome. Margot Robbie was already great in Suicide Squad, which is pretty remarkable given how bad that movie was (I liked it, but I'm not delusional). Here, in the hands of a talented creative team, she's really able to shine, and she does so in ways that honor the character's history.

But - and we're finally at the but - this is also ostensibly a Birds of Prey movie, and...

I'm sorry, but it really isn't. The characters in this movie are good, but they're not the Birds of Prey, nor are they given anywhere near enough screen time to feel like anything more than sidekicks. Given how good the comics are, that's a bit of a let-down. Using the names "Cassandra Cain" or "Black Canary" without really using the characters bugs me. They turned one of the most bad-ass martial artists in the DC Universe into a pick-pocket, when they could have just made up a new character or... hell, the DCU isn't short on pick-pockets. This is one of those cases where the people who get the reference are the least likely to appreciate it, so why use the name?

Yeah, there is a part of me that agrees with the detractors, at least on that point. I don't feel as bad dinging this movie over dorky trivia, because the movie kind of asks for it by treating the Canary Cry as a twist, then doesn't even explain it to the non-nerds. You don't need to make a comic-accurate film, but the way this cherry-picks which lore to use and which to drop is distracting, whether you're a geek or not. It's the one aspect of the finished product I'd call sloppy.

Otherwise, this thing's great. The style is a world apart from anything that's been done recently, and it's a joy to experience. Sure, I wish they'd stayed a little more faithful to the source material, and I wish the last half had been given space to breathe, but make no mistake: this is easily one of the best movies in the franchise, along with Wonder Woman and Shazam. And more importantly, there's really nothing else like this.

Catch Up, Part 3: Capes

So, there was a time I caught more or less every superhero flick that came out opening day. That time was before I became a father. Now, I'm batting* less than 500 on catching them opening year, and that was when going to the movies was still possible. Hell, I barely saw Spider-Man: Far From Home on blu-ray in time to make my end-of-year rankings.

Today I'm looking at a bunch of movies I didn't see on time. Well, really I'm looking at two I didn't see in the theaters and one that's a modified reissue of a movie I did see and review. But now it's got scenes with Fred Savage, so I'm going to talk about it again.

At any rate, let's get started.


Joker (2019)
Eh. It's fine.

Okay, I'm going to level with you: I'm pretty sure I'd have liked this quite a bit more if it hadn't made a billion dollars and been nominated for Best Picture. I'm pretty sure I'd still have had reservations, but I'd probably be shoving those aside and focusing on how the good the movie looked, how impressive Phoenix's performance was, and... I don't know, how bizarrely random it is that a hyper-serious, R-rated standalone Joker movie exists in the first place.

But we don't live in a parallel universe where this was a middling success: we're in the one where it's one of the most profitable movies ever made, and... ugh. What the hell, audiences?

This movie was good as an exercise, but it was missing one big, obvious thing. And, no, I'm not talking about Batman, because...

Okay, it was missing TWO big obvious things, because the Joker really needs his nemesis, even if you're telling the story from his perspective. But assuming you really, really wanted to tell a Joker story that maybe does or maybe doesn't double as a Batman origin depending on what was real and what was being imagined...

This movie still needed a point. Because - at least as far as I can tell - it doesn't have one. It sort of implies a few possible points around class warfare, mental illness, and the like, but nothing it has to say really goes anywhere or feels justified.

Again, I realize the irony. If this had flopped, I'd be saying it doesn't need a point, that the fact it was well made and engaging was enough. But this got a ton of cash and accolades I don't think it deserved, so - fair or not - I'm going to heap a little criticism on that pile, as well.


Dark Phoenix (2019)
Watching this eight months after its release was a bizarre experience. At this point, critics and audiences have ripped the movie to shreds, so it wasn't like I had high expectations.

Was it really that bad? Honestly, I think the answer is, "No, but it was nowhere near good enough, either."

It's weird they tried this at all. At the end of the day, it really is a remake of X-Men: The Last Stand, a film some consider the worst in the series (they're wrong: that honor will always belong to X-Men Origins: Wolverine). The thing I find hard to wrap my mind around is this plays out more like a retread of that movie than a more faithful adaptation of the comics. Sure, there are a handful of details tossed in connecting to the source material (there's a group of aliens who are sort of a hybrid of the Hellfire Club, the Shiar, and Skrulls), but they wind up sort of indistinguishable from the army of generic mutants at the end of Last Stand.

At the end of the day, this incorporates a ton of elements created for that film. Jean's backstory isn't exactly the same, but it's pretty close, right down to Xavier having suppressed her memories. There are sequences designed to evoke moments from The Last Stand, presumably in an attempt to make the audience wonder if they'll play out the same way. I guess we're supposed to be relieved when Jean doesn't disintegrate Xavier in this version?

Honestly, this could have used some of The Last Stand's camp. This thing takes itself way too seriously, probably in an attempt to address that criticism of The Last Stand and X-Men: Apocalypse. It ends up feeling like a weird amalgamation of tones from 90's action movies and from modern superhero flicks. Captain Marvel mostly managed to walk that line; this does not.

That said, I appreciate this occasionally tries to deliver a little of the superhero excitement missing from the series. Both the space shuttle rescue and the New York mutant vs. mutant fight were - at least in theory - closer to the comics that we've gotten from most of FoX-Men movies.

But while I appreciate the attempt, the execution left a lot to be desired. The fights were underwhelming, and the rescue felt small. Still, this is a step in the right direction. Or it would have been if it weren't the final step into oblivion.

Ultimately, this was a movie that should never have been made. In some ways, it was better than I expected, but - as is too often the case - that raised it to the level of dull mediocrity. I'm not sure how you make "alien super villains" boring, but this pulls it off.


Once Upon a Deadpool (2018)
Should I even bother? I mean, it's an edited-for-content version of Deadpool 2, along with a new frame story featuring Fred Savage. Is there any point in rehashing a movie I've already reviewed?

Maybe. Because this was trimmed down to PG-13, it offers a hint of what an MCU-friendly version of the character might be look like, should Disney decide to go that way. And, personally...

I've always secretly wanted Deadpool PG-13. I know that's not a popular opinion, and I don't mean to dismiss what they accomplished (particularly in the first movie), but I actually prefer comedy/adventure to be less gory and scatological. So, in that regard, I appreciate that this demonstrates the character still works toned down.

That said, I'm not sure the movie quite works. I mean, it works fine if you've seen Deadpool 2 before, but without context, I suspect some of this would be hard to follow. Also, quite a bit of the action becomes unsatisfying. That's not because action and violence can't be satisfying in PG-13 when that was how it was originally shot, but the fact this was originally filmed and edited for R means you lose a lot of payoffs.

Fortunately, the scenes with Deadpool interacting with Savage are hilarious and go a long way towards justifying this experiment. I wish we'd gotten even more time with the two of them, or possibly some additional content.

Beyond that, my feelings about the movie haven't changed. I found it funny but wish it had adhered a little closer to the original's premise of Deadpool being an absurd character in an otherwise relatively grounded superhero world, as opposed to the setting being inherently comedic. I also still wish they'd been a little more conservative around civilian casualties: it's kind of hard to reconcile the idea that saving one life matters when the "good guys" are getting countless others killed randomly.

I know, I know: I'm not supposed to take this seriously. It's all probably making a statement on the excessive violence permeating '90s media and all that, but it still pulls me out, and I'd still like to see them dial back the civilian casualties in future incarnations.

And I really hope there are more movies with these characters. Outside of Mangold's Wolverine movies, this is far and above the best version of the X-Men we've seen on the big screen. I'd love to see this Deadpool, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Colossus, Cable, and Domino show up in the MCU.





*batting, in this context, should be read as a reference to Batman and not to any kind of sporting event -ed.

Movie Review: Avengers: Endgame

Go see the movie.

No, really. Stop reading this, and go see the movie. I don't care if there aren't tickets left or if you have work or kids or anything else going on in your life you think is more important. Wedding dates can be moved, but you only get one chance to see this spoiler free, and you're blowing it if you read further without watching the movie.

Is Endgame really good enough to warrant that level of compulsive behavior? Well, the thing is, the answer to that question is... a spoiler.

The answer to every question about Endgame is a spoiler, because... well, that's a spoiler, too. It's all spoilers, all the way down. No elephants or turtles in sight: just more spoilers.

So you've been warned, and yet you're still here, still reading. Hopefully, that means you've already seen the movie, because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate. Let's start with that earlier question: is Avengers: Endgame actually good enough to deserve the unprecedented degree of paranoia surrounding every detail of its plot and premise?

Of course it isn't. No movie is, and while Endgame is a damn fine film, it's not even the best in the series.

Before your eyes roll into the back of your head, let me assure you my earlier spoiler warning was entirely sincere. Because while it may not completely justify the level of secrecy surrounding every aspect of the film, the very fact this secrecy exists is worth taking advantage of. Plus, the elements of the movie being concealed are fascinating. This is a movie with a massive budget that was, for all intents and purposes, barely marketed at all.

We're escalating the severity of our spoiler warning now, because I'm about to tell you that the aspects you should care about aren't who lives or dies. I mean, I'm not going to type a list here, and there are certainly twists in both camps, but frankly those were perhaps the least surprising elements of the movie. Even less than the overall plot, which is also a minor spoiler at best.

What are they hiding, then? Well, genre, for one. Or more accurately, for three: each of Endgame's acts has its own distinct tone and genre. Hell, for all intents and purposes, each of Endgame's acts is its own damn MOVIE.

Yup. One of the reasons Endgame is three hours long is it's secretly a trilogy of films. There's enough of a through-line to tie it all together, but the degree to which its sections are self-contained is unprecedented among movies anywhere near this scale.

But the same goes for this level of secrecy. The vast majority of scenes from the trailers were drawn from the first 15 minutes, with a few quick shots drawn from the end and even fewer from the middle. The second act is the main part they're trying to hide, even more so than the end, which...

Okay, let's go to maximum spoiler warning. If you haven't seen this movie, you aren't permitted to read further. Seriously. I will call S.H.I.E.L.D. and have you taken to a secret government facility if you read another word without seeing Endgame first.

The end of this movie is like nothing that's ever been put on film. When Infinity War came out last year, a lot of us described it as a crossover event, similar to the big company-wide summer events in comics. I bet the Russo brothers were laughing their asses off, because that... that was nothing.

This actually delivers the scope of a company-wide crossover. This is at once a breathtaking conclusion to a twenty-two-movie-long arc AND the foundation for a whole new generation of films. It's awesome. It's incredible. It's a solid thirty minutes of brain-melting wonder. There are easily a hundred separate shots and sequences, any one of which would justify the price of admission.

And then there's all the stuff I'm still not talking about. Stuff that's at times hilarious, heartbreaking, or - in some cases - kind of dumb. There were character decisions I absolutely loved and others I really could have done without. There are plenty of things in Endgame that just didn't connect with me.

But, God, what a ride. This isn't the best of the Marvel movies, but it might be the biggest accomplishment. This is by far the most ambitious MCU movie to date. Honestly, you don't even need to specify "MCU." This is one of the most ambitious movies ever made. I never want to hear anyone accuse Marvel of playing these too safe or too "by-the-numbers" again. Endgame invents entirely new categories of risks to take. It looks at some of the company's most successful characters and cavalierly subverts everything that makes them popular and successful. Even when you're not on board with the direction, you can't help but respect them for having the guts to try something new.

If you want to nitpick this, you'll have a plethora of options on where to start. This is the first MCU movie that's fairly unforgiving if you're walking in blind. Maybe you can follow along if you've only seen 16 or 17 of the 21 preceding movies, but even that's going to be a stretch. And the... er... science-fiction trope at the core of the movie's premise is used haphazardly. The explanations don't quite work and the film contradicts (or at the very least under-explains) its own rules - I don't think there's much point denying that.

But who cares? This is weird, quirky film making you'd expect to see in an art film blown up with a $500 million budget. It's three movies and three genres in one, and none of it has any right to work, let alone invoke laughter, cheers, and tears in its audience.

But against all reason at fourteen million six-hundred and five to one odds against it, somehow it pulls it off. And everyone deserves to see that play out on the big screen.

Movie Review: Captain Marvel

The movie's story structure is inverted, so let's go ahead and open with this: in summary, Captain Marvel is a solid installment in the MCU. It's not the best or most memorable film in the mega-franchise, but if you're a fan, there's more than enough to justify buying a ticket.

Okay. Easy part's out of the way. Now let's try and actually talk about a film that... God, I don't know where to begin.

There's a lot going on with this movie, though it's all woven together skillfully enough to work. Narratively, it's successful, which is no small feat given it's a throw-back 90's nostalgia prequel built around a character suffering from amnesia trying to recover memories from the 70's and 80's while hanging out with a digitally de-aged 70-year-old actor reprising the role he's been playing for more than a decade while also sort-of channeling an unrelated character he played in a 90's action movie who partnered with an unrelated amnesiac super-spy trying to reconcile her past with who she's become...

...And you'll note I didn't even mention the galactic space empire warring against the shape-shifting alien infiltrators.

But like I said, the narrative somehow works overall. The disparate pieces, on the other hand...

Well, most of those still work well enough, but you can feel the movie starting to strain. The script doesn't quite pass the "show, don't tell" rule, which is mainly a problem concerning Carol's personality. We're informed about her attitude, humor, and drive more often than we see them, which I found disappointing. That said, the supporting characters are good enough to make up for this oversight.

I'd also have liked a little more from the movie's tone. Some of the best sequences are built around surreal visions as Carol experiences faded memories. I loved these moments, but they felt a bit muted. I'd rather the movie had embraced its weirdness a little more than it did. That's not to say it wasn't weird - there are some great surprises from the comics, as well as some good jokes - but it still left me a bit unsatisfied. I don't need every one of these movies to be Guardians, but I do think this could have used a little more of those movies' willingness to embrace absurdity.

The movie's largest tonal imbalance (for me at least) stems from an overuse of drama and a focus on theme. Make no mistake, there's still a lot of comedy and action in this, but the core of the film is a rather weighty exploration of who Carol Danvers is and - more importantly - what she represents. This is about her power and her choice when and how to use it. And those are extremely powerful themes. It's just...

Sigh.

Yes, I know this isn't fair, but here's the thing: When you build a movie with these themes and play them up this intensely, it really feels less like you're making a movie about a woman who's a superhero and more like you're making a template for all future movies about women who are superheroes. And Captain Marvel kind of has that vibe, like it's conscious it's an event. And to its credit, I think it's good enough that it could have been that movie, the movie that defines what the iconography of a female superhero means to the world.

It could have been that if an even better movie with the same aspirations hadn't been made a few years earlier.

This doesn't mean there isn't room for both, nor does it mean that Captain Marvel doesn't still work as a movie. But I do think a lot of the weight they were going for lands with a little less force because we've been taken on this philosophical journey before. This movie really feels like it should be the first modern movie of its kind, and the reality is it's not. That doesn't undercut the theme, but it does undercut its impact.

In a "post-Wonder Woman" world, it might have been better to make a movie about a female superhero, rather than a movie that's about the significance of a movie about a female superhero, if that makes sense.

That being said, the theme certainly isn't a total loss. Since I'm criticizing the film for contextual reasons, it's only fair to mention context also enhances some of those same thematic elements. In an extremely ironic twist, real-world misogynistic protests of the movie play into the core story to a degree that's almost shocking to behold. I don't think the filmmakers intended to predict the precise language and form of these attacks, but the movie functions perfectly as a response.

But enough contextualizing. This is a really good superhero origin story and a really good movie, all around. It's well acted, well directed, and the effects work allowing Samuel L. Jackson to turn back time even more than usual is virtually seamless. And we haven't even touched on the brilliance behind Annette Bening's casting. On top of all that, this movie also manages to deliver what might be my favorite "prequel-explanation" I've ever seen. I know it's become a little cliche to cross every 'i' in these movies, but I really appreciated this one.

Still, in a world where multiple Marvel movies won Academy Awards last year, it's worth managing expectations. This is a solid entry in what's frankly the most impressive genre film franchise ever constructed. But I don't think it's one of the best.

Movie Review: Aquaman

I'm honestly not sure whether I'd characterize Aquaman as good or bad - there are a lot of aspects the movie juggles exceptionally well and others that are technically failures. I'll get to some of that in a moment, but...

Here's the thing. I don't care whether this is a good movie or not, and I have a feeling you won't either. This is one of those movies you smile through, beginning to end. It's a wonderful experience, in spite of its flaws, and my only regret is I didn't spring for IMAX.

There are a handful of reasons this is as enjoyable as it is. First, the pacing in this movie is phenomenal. It moves quickly from backdrop to backdrop, showing off a fantasy undersea kingdom at a scale we've never seen before. The movie features diverse settings that feel like a half-dozen different worlds.

There's one location lifted from DC comics that had me staring in wonder and shock at the screen. It's a short bit, and I don't want to give anything away, but it comes right after the most artistically impressive sequence of the film. The movie had already blown my mind with that, then it dropped them into a place I honestly couldn't believe they'd included in a live-action movie. This is the kind of thing even Marvel's too timid to include, and here it's barely a side note.

DC Comics are at their best when they embrace the fact they're composed of fairy tales, modern myths, and absurd premises. And this, more than any other adaptation of any DC property, doubles down on that. This is the first DC movie in decades that feels like it's proud it's based on a comic.

Even if you don't care about any of that - if comics have never interested in you - this is still an engrossing, ridiculous fantasy/adventure extravaganza. It's like a cross between Star Wars and the 1999 Mummy with visuals borrowed from Tron. Imagine an entire movie full of the best moments of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, and you'll be close.

Is that good film-making? Sometimes. The stuff with Black Manta is incredibly well done. Both his back story and the fight in Italy are incredible. But most of the movie is technically flawed. I'm seeing estimates that they spent around 200 million on this - I'm not sure 300 million would have come close to paying for the effects they really needed. This is one of those movies where you can tell you're watching actors standing or being dangled in front of green screens for 80% of the run time. A lot of it looks, well, cheesy. And a lot of the acting's cheesy. Dialogue: cheesy. Then there are plot contrivances, background that's illogical or under-explained, motivations that don't add up...

And you won't care at all, because you'll be sitting in a theater watching superhumans interact with undersea monsters. I've seen reviewers discuss whether Aquaman is closer to Thor or Thor: The Dark World, and I'd like to weigh in on that debate. For my money, the experience is on par with Ragnarok - I don't care if that's sacrilege.

This movie is silly, absurd, and at times campy... and I really think you'll love it as much as I did.

Alternative Movie Review: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Longtime readers of this blog will no doubt have forgotten I've breached the boundaries of our dimension in the past to travel to other worlds to watch movies that, sadly, could never exist in our own. In general, I've given up this practice due to the dangers involved (accidentally visiting a world where Brett Ratner directed Episode VII is enough to make one rethink the value of venturing beyond the fields we know).

But I'd burned through the new She-Ra series, caught up on The Good Place, and - frankly - grown tired of the weather, so I decided to drag the old Cosmic Treadmill out of the closet and take it for a spin. And doing so brought me to a world like our own in many ways yet... decidedly different. There, I came across a movie (released theatrically, no less) that was strange, fascinating, and wonderful; a film that seemed a manifestation of contradictions: it was animated but not dumbed-down, action-packed but character-driven, fun but still emotionally powerful. And, strangest of all, a universally acclaimed superhero movie... made by SONY.

I know, I know - what I'm describing seems impossible, but remember that in a multiverse, there are no limits to what can exist.

This movie was called "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse," and it delved into the lore and history of Marvel comics to a degree far beyond what would be conceivable from Hollywood productions in our own universe. From the opening credits, it embraced its origins, referencing its past and the mediums it sprung from to a degree that put our Earth's Deadpool to shame. It elicited humor from crossing styles and ideas without sacrificing gravitas. It injected comic sensibilities into its style in ways unthinkable to audiences of Earth-Prime.

This looked and felt like no animated movie I've ever seen.

Can you imagine a movie studio in our world being willing to put Spider-Ham on the big-screen in a film that wasn't a parody? It boggles the mind.

More than that, the film utilized (coincidentally enough) multiversal travel, and,within the context of a cartoon, the filmmakers trusted their audience to keep up. Perhaps it was the meticulously structured script that made this possible, or maybe the people of the world I saw this on were simply better educated than those on our Earth - either way, the crowd followed along and seemed to love it.

If ever there was the platonic ideal of a fantastic movie that could never be made in our reality, this was it. That thought stayed with me as I left the theater, recovered my Cosmic Treadmill, and returned to this world.

And all I can do is tell you how sorry I am that our dimension's film studios are so limited in their capacity for imagination. Because if anything like this ever came out here, I'd like to think it could change everything. It could demonstrate movies don't have to all look and feel the same way, that the range of styles available to storytellers is as wide as the multiverse.

It's a beautiful idea and it was a lovely film. I wish all of you could have seen it with me.

Movie Review: Ant-Man and the Wasp

Since I started this blog ten years ago, I've tried to avoid puns in movie reviews whenever possible. It's not that have anything against puns - as a point of fact, I have immense respect for the art form - but the practice is widespread to the point of being ubiquitous. I'd like this blog to be different, and as such I've always attempted to find another path.

I bring this up to clarify that when I call Ant-Man and the Wasp a small film, it not intended as a joke, a reference, or - God particle forbid - a pun. It's merely because the movie's scope and stakes are refreshingly limited, which is both welcome and unusual for this genre.

That "God particle" line, on the other hand, was a pun. Look... I slipped up. I'm only human. Moving on.

This has already been an extremely busy year for superhero movies (this is the third MCU flick of 2018, the fourth Disney superhero movie, and the fourth Marvel superhero movie - with more on the way). I think it should be obvious this isn't topping anyone's best-of list, even limited to this genre. Ant-Man and the Wasp was a great film, but it would be unfair to compare this to the ground-breaking Black Panther or the unprecedented scale of Infinity War. 

The thing that makes Ant-Man and the Wasp worth seeing is that it doesn't try to compete. It doesn't stick a giant portal in the sky to try and convince you the world's about to end. It doesn't feature a sociopath out for world domination or destruction. There's no apocalypse that needs to be prevented. The closest the movie comes to a generic villain is a tertiary antagonist who wants to monetize Pym's technology. And not even through weaponization - he wants in on the clean energy industry.

I heard the term "romantic comedy" bandied about while this was in development, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. There are a couple romantic subplots, but overall I'd call this a family comedy. The movie is far more interested in the relationships between its characters than it is in its superhero shenanigans.

Not that those shenanigans aren't great. The movie has a lot of fun with its conventions, playing with the size-altering powers of its leads in innovative ways (though it's worth noting the trailers have given away several of the best gags).

I had to double-check the rating. I'm guessing they added some harsh language to bring this up to PG-13: it feels like it should be PG. Hell, if they'd toned down a few minor things, it could almost have been G.

And, frankly, I'm grateful. There's no shortage of uniform, edgy superhero flicks out there. Thankfully, Marvel has been willing to expand this genre in other directions. You can view Infinity War as the absolute pinnacle of the generic, gritty superhero movie. It essentially takes the formula that everyone else has failed to emulate and perfects it. Meanwhile, movies like Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-man: Homecoming, and this incorporate superheroes in other types of stories. Comic books have been doing this for ages, but it's a relatively new direction for movies to take.

It was absolutely the right choice for these characters. This was a great summer movie, the sort of pop-corn flick air-conditioned theaters were made for. But if you don't get get around to seeing this on the big screen, don't sweat that, either. It won't lose much shrunken down on your television.

Damn it! Puns again.

Movie Review: Incredibles 2

Let's start by addressing the wrong question: Is this as good as the first one?

The answer is not really, but it doesn't try to be. And that's important because, had it attempted to be as good as the original movie, it wouldn't have been as much fun as its predecessor. And Incredibles 2 actually does manage to pull off that feat. Hell, it might even be more fun.

The first installment was as good as it was largely due to the sense of wonder we experienced watching Dash and Violet discover their powers. But that's done - if this tried rehashing that, it would have been a mess. Wisely, it goes in a very different direction. No, wait - that's not quite accurate. Incredibles 2 goes in two different directions.

Most of the characters are tied up in a super-powered family comedy that feels like a 1960's sitcom bathed in radiation. It's weird, crazy, and hilarious. By now, you'll probably have heard that Jack Jack is a concentrated ball of awesome. True, though seeing everyone else interact and attempt to adapt to that is where the real fun comes in.

Meanwhile, the other half of the movie follows the revamped Elastigirl on her new job, which...

Okay, you know how we spent the last fourteen years repeating the mantra that the original was the closest we were ever going to get to a real Fantastic Four movie? Yeah, well, this might be the closest we ever get to watching a Batman story play out on the big screen. You'll see what I mean - this is some of the best superhero action/adventure ever made. Executives at Warner Bros. may want to bring along a notepad and something to write with.

While Incredibles 2 absolutely feels like two separate movies playing out side-by-side, there's a point to this. The stories are tied together not by forced story connections but by the ways characters are impacted. The movie is pulled apart by the conflicting plots, but it's supposed to be. That's the idea - the theme is built on that dynamic.

There's a lot to love here, and I'm barely scratching the surface. The new heroes are great, and the new villain is even better. Yeah, you'll have a pretty good idea where this is headed 25 miles in advance, but that won't spoil the fun.

I'll give you a head's up about the tone: this isn't the original. There's still exhilarating adventure and danger, but nothing remotely as dark and scary as we saw last time.* This may have been a studio mandate, but - honestly - it works surprisingly well as a commentary on where the genre has drifted. The first Incredibles movie asked us to take superheroes seriously, but that was a long time ago. In a post-Batman v Superman world, it's nice to get a reminder this genre can also be optimistic.

This might change after I see it a few more times, but Incredibles 2 is currently my favorite superhero movie of 2018. And, in case anyone's forgotten, that's high praise this year.

If you don't already have tickets, what in the world are you waiting for?

*Caveat. There was nothing all that dark in Incredibles 2, but parents of young children should be warned I heard the kid next to me BAWLING during the pre-movie short. This will make a lot more sense when you see it.

Movie Review: Deadpool 2

Calling Deadpool 2 a comedy/action/superhero/sci-fi flick is somewhat reductive, in that the description fails to differentiate between the many gradations in each genre. Comedy/dramedy/parody/farce/pulp-action/buddy cop/war/spy/superhero/sci-fi feels closer, though I'm sure I'm forgetting a few sub-genres.

In other words, there's a lot going on in this movie. Whether that's a good or bad thing is going to hinge on your expectations and what you want out of it. The experience offered by Deadpool 2 is something of a Rorschach test, even more so when you try comparing it to part one. It's at once funnier and more serious than its predecessor; it's both better and worse, depending on how you look at it.

As a comedy, I'd say it's better. The jokes hit harder, the concept is less constrained, and the film feels even more eager to take risks. But a lot of the humor stems from an underlying change in premise. The first Deadpool was essentially a humorous story set in a serious world. Wade saw everything in comedic terms, but there wasn't that much inherently funny beyond his perspective. That's not the case with the sequel, which is set in a far more self-aware version of the X-Men Cinematic Universe.

To put it another way, Deadpool no longer feels out of place in his surroundings. If anything, he comes off a little darker than most of the characters around him. Hell, he might be one of the more realistic characters, provided you're flexible with your definition of the term "realistic." After the first movie, I hoped they'd use the setting for other characters and teams, but - honestly - that's hard to imagine here. I'm definitely game if they want to try a Domino or Cable spin-off (Zazie Beetz and Josh Brolin were both fantastic), but it'll be tough extricating them from this setting. The central thesis of Deadpool 2 seemed to be that superhero stories are silly. That's not a particularly strong framework to build a connected universe on, assuming that's still the goal.

But, again, it makes for a hell of a fun comedy. The movie embraces the meta aspects of the character far more wholeheartedly than the last time around, and - assuming you have a high tolerance for that kind of humor - it's nothing short of hilarious. It mocks entire generations of action movie tropes - I caught references to every decade since the 70's, though it seemed especially interested in the 80's and 90's.

In addition, the movie's score raises the bar in the genre. I don't want to give anything away, but it's absolutely inspired. I'll be disappointed if they're not at least nominated for an Oscar for that score.

As a story, Deadpool 2 lacks the cohesion of the first. There's still a through-line, as well as a handful of surprisingly poignant emotional beats, but the movie has almost as many side plots as tones. If you go in expecting a tightly told, elegant story from this, you're going to be disappointed.

You're better off expecting to have a good time watching a superhero parody flick: this more than delivers on that level and even manages to throw in a little extra. Just be aware there were trade-offs made to reach that point.

Movie Review: Avengers: Infinity War

As a far of the genre, I'm in awe of Infinity War. I think I can say that without spoiling too much. I can also say the movie looks absolutely stunning, the action sequences significantly raise the bar on what live-action blockbusters can pull off, and the interactions between heroes and villains are wonderful.

Obviously, you expected most of that from the trailers. But we can't go on without talking a little about spoilers. Note that I said talking about spoilers. That's different than including spoilers, though be warned, even a fairly high-level discussion about the experience offered by this movie and its somewhat unique relationship with spoilers, may spoil some aspects for some people.

But I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Because, depending on your background around comics, the level of knowledge you have about the stories Infinity War is based on, and how closely you follow Marvel's long-term plans... you may want a little preparation.

The litmus test is a bit counter-intuitive: the more you know about the source material, the less information you should seek out beforehand. If you know who Thanos is, what he's after in the comics, and what happens along the way, you've already read more of this article than you should before seeing the movie.

To put it another way, the source material is a sort of spoiler, albeit one you may be better off having some experience with. That's not to say this is a straight adaptation - it isn't - but understanding what's happening on-screen versus what's happened in the comics may provide some welcome context.

If you're just a casual fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you may want to know, for example, that this is essentially the first half of a two-part project, the second of which is slated to come out next summer, when we'll also get the next Spider-Man installment.

At this point, I'd advise seeing the movie before reading further, no matter who you are. I'm not going to go into details, but I am going to say some things that might let longtime fans connect some dots.

Starting with my main takeaway from Infinity War: this is easily the ballsiest thing Disney's ever done. Hell, it may be the ballsiest thing ANY studio's ever done. Because, while die-hard nerds like me may have some idea of what's coming next year, it was pretty clear hearing the audience react that most of them did not.

I never want to hear another complaint that these movies play things too safe. This was perhaps the least safe movie imaginable, to the point I'm a little worried they made a major miscalculation. The MCU is the largest franchise in history, and Disney's taking an astonishingly risky wager on how the public will react. We won't know whether it pays off until next year. For what it's worth, I really hope it does.

So. Was it any good?

It was great. It was incredible. The Russos pulled off something absolutely unbelievable, delivering a cosmic superhero story on a scale grander than we've ever seen a live-action movie pull off. This thing is as surreal as the Guardians movies, as funny as Homecoming, and as tense as The Dark Knight. In one film, they fully refuted the notion that genre needs to be visually dark to have weight.

Because... my God... this has weight. Maybe too much. It leaves you feeling uncomfortable and shaken. That was clearly the goal, but... kudos to Disney's executives for green-lighting this. I hope they don't come to regret it in the next few years. Regardless of what happens in the next movie, they may have already ostracized a number of fans.

Infinity War juggles two dozen characters better than most movies can handle three or four. With only one exception, I felt like everyone got their due. Unfortunately, that one exception was a personal favorite - I was a little let down with their portrayal of Gamora. But pulling off a cast of this size with only one misstep is nothing short of amazing.

We've never had a blockbuster like Infinity War before, in more ways than one. The movie succeeds on a level that was previously unthinkable. I'm grateful to the Russo brothers for making it and to Disney for not stopping them. But I can't help but wonder if the rest of the world is ready for this movie.

I certainly hope so, because they're clearly going to see it.

Movie Review: Black Panther

Let's get the disclaimer out of the way now. It should be pretty obvious that Black Panther is an extremely important movie, both in how it handles representation and in its exploration of themes and subgenres that have never before been approached with this kind of budget or studio backing. And - let's be frank - I'm in no way qualified to talk about any of that. The only aspects of this I'm remotely qualified to address are how it stands as a superhero movie in general and a Marvel installment in particular.

Fortunately, on top of all that really important stuff, Ryan Coogler delivered an absolutely fantastic Marvel flick.

(Thank God - can you imagine how awkward this would have been to write if he hadn't?)

First, let's talk about what this movie is and is not. It's a year-one story, but it's not an origin, at least not for the Black Panther. They already delivered a perfect origin story in Civil War, and this doesn't ask you to sit through a retread of T'Challa's arc from that movie. The version of T'Challa who appears at the start of this one has already undergone the intense emotional and philosophical journey depicted there.

That, alone, is almost unheard of in superhero sequels. Consider where Tony Stark is emotionally at the start of Iron Man 2 and 3 (or Avengers, Age of Ultron, or Civil War). He hasn't completely forgotten the lessons he's learned, but each movie opens with him at the mercy of his flaws. This is intentional, of course: the theory driving these (and most movie scripts) is that an internal struggle is better than an external one. But while that's a good rule of thumb for standalone stories, it tends to get redundant when serialized. And, in case you hadn't gotten the message after eighteen movies and eight television series, the MCU is kind of an experiment in serialized entertainment.

Coogler clearly understands that. You know what else he understands? That T'Challa, post-Civil War, isn't all that interesting as a person. He's interesting as a symbol. He's compelling to watch as a hero. But he basically obtained enlightenment at the end of Civil War - it's hard to identify with someone who's done that.

A lesser director would have rolled that back. They'd have had T'Challa regress to a point where he had to repeat the same journey, learn the same lessons, and confront the same inner demons. Then they'd probably have hoped the novelty of the setting would distract you.

But Coogler does something far more interesting, something comics have been doing for decades. He accepts that T'Challa is the least interesting part of the story, then uses that to his advantage. The fundamental story at play in Black Panther isn't T'Challa's internal struggle: it's Wakanda's. The young king essentially stands in for his nation as it undergoes a spiritual transformation. Ultimately, T'Challa becomes the setting, and his kingdom becomes the lead.

(Incidentally, Batman comics have been doing something similar for ages with Gotham. DC should be even more embarrassed they let Marvel beat them to this than they should be about losing the race to Darkseid/Thanos.)

Speaking of Batman, you know who is more interesting than the Caped Crusader? Everyone in Gotham. That's why Batgirl, Robin, Nightwing, Joker, Catwoman, and the rest of them have endured so long. Once you're past Batman's origin (and maybe one or two lessons on the importance of trust and family), your interest shifts to the quirkier side characters.

Coogler takes a similar approach here. This film is full of new characters - heroes, villains, and fusions of the two - and every one of them is a joy to watch. That's not hyperbole, by the way. Literally every single significant character is given a chance to shine, and I loved absolutely every one of them. The movie delights in taking the time to show why each one is worth exploring. You'll walk out of the theater wanting at least four or five spin-offs.

A lot of people are praising Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger and Letitia Wright's Shuri (and for good reason - they're probably the two most fascinating characters in a crowd of fascinating characters), but I want to hone in on Andy Serkis's Ulysses Klaue. If ever there was a character you'd consider relegating to the side, it'd be him. Klaue is sadistic, racist, and greedy. In the world of Black Panther, he's a symbol of pure evil. But while Coogler captures all that, he still finds time to explore the character's merits as a supervillain. He shows you why he's been successful for so long and why he's intriguing. His joy and energy are infectious, even when he's saying and doing reprehensible things. You hate what he is and what he stands for, but you kind of like him.

If he does all that for Klaue, just imagine what he does for characters who are good people. You know what? Don't bother trying to imagine it: just go to the theater and help ensure this innovative, beautiful film makes at least twice as much on its opening weekend as Justice League managed. You'll have a great time and, more importantly, they'll make more movies like this.

Movie Review: Justice League

How do you make a sequel to what's almost certainly the worst movie of its genre? Hell, Batman V Superman might be the worst movie of any genre, at least in terms of missed opportunities and bad decisions (incidentally, if you haven't seen the first part of this YouTube miniseries, you're missing out).

Warner Bros' solution seems to have been to throw two directors, a stack of studio notes cribbed from every negative review, and - if rumors are to be believed - three hundred million dollars at the screen, in the hopes of getting something remotely watchable.

And... honestly... they kind of succeeded.

I know, I'm as surprised as you are. But while I wouldn't call the movie good, the vast majority is absurdist fun in the form of an unabashed love letter to the DC Universe and its history.

But what's the movie like? That part's easy - this is camp to the core. Aside from an extremely dull thirty or forty minute chunk of the film that tried to wring out some drops of drama, this feels more like a big-screen version of Superfriends, Adam West, or Batman: Brave and the Bold than a continuation of the franchise. The movie that made it to screen is basically an extended self-aware joke, for better or worse.

Granted, it's a movie fraying at the seams. Remember that scene in BvS where Flash traveled in time and appeared briefly in the Batcave? It's pretty clear how that was going to tie in with the resurrection of Superman, but the entire subplot was abandoned in favor of a streamlined story. The resurrection story that's left is hilariously idiotic, lacking any real tension or payoff, but - again - that's probably better than the alternative. Superman's return to the land of the living here is as emotionally hollow as his death, but at least Justice League has some fun with it.

And - credit where credit's due - the Superman who appears in this movie is damn near pitch-perfect. Henry Cavill finally gets to demonstrate he was a good choice for the part all along - he just needed a film where he was allowed to smile. Plus, it's hard to overstate how effective a few seconds of the Donner Superman and Burton Batman themes are.

But remember those stories about Cavill's digitally-removed mustache? You will be able to tell, and it will be jarring. You've been warned.

And while I'm issuing warnings, this seems like a good a time to tell you that whoever directed the sequence with the Amazons was a piss-poor substitute for Patty Jenkins. There's an extended fight on Paradise Island that feels like it belongs on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Also, if you've seen any cut scenes from the Injustice games, expect flashbacks during the final battle at the end of the movie. Visual effects were not this movie's strong suit.

And... for the love of God... Batman either needs to be recast or Affleck needs to lay off the gym. He's way too bulky for the role - he looks ridiculous.

But if you can stand all that, you'll be rewarded with some solid interpretations of these characters and some good moments. This might not have been the movie where Warner Bros figured out how to tell a good superhero story, but at least they stopped being embarrassed by the genre and had fun. The critics tearing this to shreds aren't wrong - the flaws in Justice League are legion - but I still enjoyed the experience. And I think those of you who are into the comics or any of the animated incarnations of the team will be at least entertained if you check it out.

Movie Review: Thor: Ragnarok

Thor: Ragnarok has a great deal in common with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Both are comedic, nostalgia driven 80's superhero movies set in the cosmos that lean heavily on music to carry their tone. But while I certainly enjoyed Ragnarok, I didn't love it the same way I loved Guardians. In fact, Ragnarok is currently my least favorite live-action American superhero movie of 2017, which means it's nothing more than a wholly enjoyable comedy/adventure movie that corrects numerous flaws with its predecessors while opening exciting possibilities for the franchise's future.

And here I'd hoped for so much more.

Okay, so obviously the bar's been set pretty high. Wonder Woman, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Guardians 2, and Logan were all excellent - we've been spoiled. Fortunately, Justice League is right around the corner, and it's almost guaranteed to correct the curve. But until then, the competition is steep, and - for me, at least - this one didn't quite measure up.

I say that despite finding it consistently funny and entertaining, with great characters and some phenomenal fight sequences. There are numerous fantastic moments and pieces in this. But with one exception, I just didn't feel those parts coalesce into anything more. There wasn't much to the larger story, and the tone - while fun - never gripped me or pulled me in.

Doctor Strange's role (that shouldn't be a spoiler unless you missed the stinger at the end of his solo movie) is a perfect example. It was a great scene that allowed Strange to feel as bizarre as he does in the comics - I'm glad it was in the movie. But that doesn't mean it needed to be there - you could cut him entirely, without it impacting the story. The scene doesn't integrate or build off the themes in a meaningful way.

Strange isn't alone - most of the movie unfolds as a series of mini-adventures. The Hulk/Thor gladiator fight is wonderful, but there's not really much logic behind it. Hulk is funny, and they do offer some intriguing exploration of his childlike mentality and emotional problems, but there's not much in the way of development. Likewise, Valkyrie is a wonderful addition to the team and universe, but her turnabout on whether she'll help Thor feels far more dependent on the movie deciding to move on than on her personal story.

To the movie's credit, all that is reminiscent of comics. Ragnarok, perhaps more so than any Marvel movie before it, recreates the experience of tearing through a small pile of issues. I just wish those issues had been a tad more substantive.

I promised one exception - that's Odin and his relationship with Thor and (to a lesser extent) Loki. The scenes built around the Allfather come closer than anything else to tying the movie together. There's something enticing here - I wish it permeated the rest of the movie a little deeper.

Ragnarok felt more like a big-screen version of Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes than an installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Keep in mind, Earth's Mightiest Heroes was the good Avengers animated series, so that's not exactly a bad thing. This is light, ridiculous fare; popcorn entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that: I just found myself wishing there was something more. Either something more developed structurally, more artistically satisfying, more emotionally impacting... take your pick.

Your mileage will likely vary. This one was better received than Guardians 2 (or pretty much anything else). And it deserves to be praised - it is really, really good. But, in my opinion at least, it doesn't quite live up to Marvel's other offerings this year.