Reviewing cinematic failure is easy.
Flaws are usually obvious, or numerous, or even interesting, which
make for good material. Some
films can be so bad that writing about them is a safe way
to vent. Yes, you are supposed to maintain some attempt at
objectivity, which is why I make a point of finding strengths and
weaknesses, but catharsis is catharsis. A legitimately excellent film
is more difficult to talk about. On the fanboy level, you don't want
to say too much for fear of ruining the experience. Its like
explaining the joke, or dissecting
the frog, you can't put it back together when you've
finished. Similarly, you doubt if your own response is a reasoned
one. Were you swept up in the moment? Do the nitpicks matter? Do you
have an unacknowledged bias? Or will your opinion presumed to have
one? I've already been extremely hard on the distinguished competition, after all. Going by fan reactions, and the occasional
gulf between critics and those fans, you'd think most films are
either excellent or dire, with nothing in between. This problem
becomes worse when the film is a sequel, especially one which is part
of these new, "universes".
Its at least partially a generational
thing, back in the 80's, 90's, even at the millennium, ye olde
video tape days, honestly good sequels were rare. Franchises did
exist, don't let anyone tell ya different, but sequels were usually
the domain of the lazy cash grab or the niche. This attitude still
remains common in film critics, whom often take the view all works
should be self-contained, rather coast on a previous success. Its not
a baseless complaint though, diminishing returns is a thing, and its
rather annoying to see a bad film presume a follow up. A persistent
doubt is whether you can fairly judge a piece of a whole? And whether
this flaw is a plot-hole or a sequel hook? As you liked the first
film, aren't you sold on the sequel by default? And, when you get
right down to it, multi genre long form story telling is some that
hasn't really been done on screen before. Its not unique to comics,
but its not exactly routine for Hollywood. When it comes to the
Marvel Cinematic Universe, we have all of the above and more. The
Marvel films have yet to produce an actual turkey, a few Ds
certainly, but tending towards Bs for the most part. And people love
them, assuming they don't have a dislike for the genre. But Marvel's
consistent success adds to the review difficulty. We have an idea
what to expect now, there's certainly enough for haters to hate, but,
somehow, the movies keep on surprising us. And when they don't, we at
least have something you can watch twice. The Law of Averages demands
they must do a bad film eventually. Perhaps there was one, and we
just loved them so much, we don't care. Does familiarity breed
contempt? Or maybe this will run and run, like your average soap
opera or Last of the Summer Wine. What will happen first, the end of
the MCU, or the heat death of the actual universe?
Yes, I am stalling for time.
Look, you only need to know one thing
about this film: its another success. If you need to know two things?
The harshest criticism I can make is that it is indeed a sequel. Its
drawing on eight years worth of material, which runs the risk of
alienating new viewers, but just about everything that makes this
film exceptional is made possible by that legacy. Could they have cut
a few characters? Yeah. Would have been a better film? Probably nah.
The airport fight that the trailers feature is a spectacle on a level
we haven't seen since Avengers: Assemble, the sense that another
fanboy dream has been made manifest. Whereas there the joy was that
somebody had finally “got” the idea of a team of heroes with
different powers, this film pitches two such teams against each other
rather than disposalible foes, and its worth the price of admission
by itself. All of a sudden, every single X-Men film looks like a
missed opportunity. But more important than that, it sells the
conflict. The film works because we know the characters, because we
know that they would act like this, and we know what's at stake. Its
like watching your parents divorce, or two mates in a nasty argument.
Its a tragedy that plays out in front of you, as deep bonds are
broken on principle. Who is right? Is the argument even about
government oversight? Neither, and not for long.
Comparisons to Batman V Superman are
impossible to avoid, and while its not really fair to make one, the
contrast is sharp. Even with eight years of continuity weighing them
down, and potential for Robert Downey Jr. to steal the show, the
Russo Brothers has created a narrative that makes a hell of a lot
more sense and doesn't shortchange anybody. Its still the Captain's
film at the end of the day, plot threads from his previous solo
outing being the starting point. As with the Winter Soldier, this
film takes another sledgehammer to the status quo, but is notable for
having something of a downer ending. Perhaps not for the reasons you
might think, and certainly not the ponderous gloom of Bats v Supes,
its a case where the actual villain of the piece wins. Marvel tends
be criticised for its bad guys, because if they aren't Loki, they
tend towards being 2-dimensional in some way, or not being given the
due screentime. The antagonist in this probably won't defuse those
complaints, but does go against the trend, and is used with same
level of intelligence of the rest of the film.
I don't want to say much more at this
point. With Marvel consistency being what it is, you know how you
will likely react to this film. Spider-Man? Yeah, he's great. Black
Panther? Nicely done. Vision and Scarlett Witch get some great
scenes. I will end on this thought. Captain America: Civil War may
not be the best film ever made, but its one of the best Marvel has
ever done, and certainly top ten material.
Images copyright Marvel, used under
fair use provisions
No comments:
Post a Comment