Avenger's Infinity War

Spoilers

Avengers: Infinity War, is Marvel Studios’ epic culmination of a decade of superhero storytelling. The Avengers, a group getting increasingly larger with every passing MCU entry, are pitted up against Thanos, a giant purple alien with genocidal ambitions and one of the most unique goatees you will ever see. Thanos, voiced perfectly by Josh Brolin, seeks to collect all of the infinity stones in the universe, all-powerful gems and long running MCU plot devices that have served as macguffins for the better part of a decade. With these stones, Thanos plans to wipe out half of all life in the universe to account for overpopulation… or something (it’s best to turn off your brain for this movie, it can be ruined for you if you spend to much time mulling over the details of Thanos’ haphazardly hatched plan). Despite some confusing plot elements and a glut of characters, Infinity War mostly succeeds at pulling off this monumental filmmaking task.

The Russo Brothers, Marvel’s prized directing duo, have been given the keys to the kingdom and the lofty task of closing out this epic chapter in the MCU with Infinity War, and next year’s sequel which promises to be an even tougher task. While Infinity War is not perfect, the Russo brothers have pulled off something truly impressive with this film. Looking at the cluttered poster for the movie does a good job of showing just how expansive the logjam of A-listers in this movie is, and how tough a job it is for them to give each of this cherished characters the necessary screentime to be fleshed out and satiate the egos of the copious amount of celebrities in this thing. Infinity War finds Marvel at arguably their most conservative, but also their most ambitious. While they are fully aware that this formula would guarantee billions, the endeavour is still audacious for reasons beyond the insane cast and comparatively bloated runtime. Infinity War essentially bypasses all exposition and flexes Marvel’s might as the preeminent IP in Tinseltown. There is not even a slight attempt to fill in the many blanks for more passive viewers, Marvel has reached the rare position to tell audiences that they’re just along for the ride at this point and if you aren’t caught up at this point, then they don’t need your business. This attitude is usually impossible to get away with, unless your Marvel and can do no wrong in the eyes of their legions of fans. The MCU is yet to be tainted like Disney’s other tentpole franchise, Star Wars. The Marvel comic-book stans have not turned on Disney’s cinematic offerings like the more toxic and impossible to please Star Wars fans. The MCU has yet to have a perceived “mis-step” like The Last Jedi, and this is largely due to the infallible formula established by the MCU.

Kevin Feige, the architect of the MCU, has created one of the most viable products in cinematic history. There is endless material to use and reboot time and again, especially with the impending Fox acquisition, and a winning formula that has yet to grow stale with audiences. Yet, Infinity War is representative of everything both right and wrong about the franchise, fitting as it is the MCU’s crowning moment thus far. There are likable characters, a surprisingly compelling villain for a Marvel movie, franchise best special effects work (a department that has been lacking in past efforts), and even a satisfying conclusion for fans finally waiting to see something different from this franchise. And yet, this supposedly risky ending, where nearly half of the new characters disintegrate after Thanos snaps away half of the planet’s population is not risky at all. Many of the “deceased” characters have movies scheduled in the future, essentially killing all of the manufactured suspense. Infinity War is the franchises Empire Strikes Back. The heroes lose, which is a welcome sight, but they don’t actually lose. Marvel’s corporate structure and penchant for building hype for their future projects somewhat undermines what could have been a more shocking conclusion. Marvel would never let the good guys be down for too long, but announcing a Spiderman sequel and release date while the character is supposedly dead sucks all the tension out of the room.

However, there is still reason for excitement for the inevitable sequel. The depleted cast is a blessing in disguise for the Russo brothers, who now have a much smaller roster to work with and incorporate. The original Avengers cast is essentially all that’s left after Thanos wins, and seeing Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the rest of the most seasoned crew save the days one last time is an enticing prospect. A possible swan song for Chris Evans and the MCU’s most important actor Robert Downey Jr. has potential to be both epic and heartbreaking. Infinity War cleared the deck and set up a potentially phenomenal finale, but not without some underhanded jockeying for the future. Marvel has always had one eye on the long term without always focusing on the task at hand. Their penchant for worldbuilding in the middle of another character’s movie has always taken me out of the experience. You remember that this is a studio, a business, and choices made in their movies make less narrative sense and are really more devices to set up future characters and future plot points. This is on full display in Infinity War, the most bloated Marvel movie ever. Interestingly, it  is the film’s bloated nature that makes it such a monumental feat. Despite the likely massive studio interference and necessary plot points that needed to be broached for future use, the Russo brothers delivered in spades.

Infinity War has great action sequences, despite Marvel’s historically choppy combat editing. There is a particularly memorable face-off on Thanos home planet, and all of the characters have fantastic chemistry. Infinity War benefits from a decade of character development, yet stands very well on its own if you want to just turn your brain off and watch superheroes team up and kick ass. But the film works best in the context of a 17 movie build-up, a huge storytelling endeavor, and really can be seen as this generation’s seminal franchise. The MCU is this era’s Star Wars to a great extent. While these movies, Infinity War included, don’t push the envelope artistically, they have completely reshaped what’s possible for movies going forward and has raised the stakes for what it means for a film to have scope. The sprawl and ambition of this movie is something to be revered. While traditionalists may scoff at the franchise being more of a product than a piece of art, they have to understand that the theater industry has been dying for years, and the MCU has shown the roadmap to consistently sell out the box office. Marvel has figured out what many others haven’t, which is absolutely worth something. If you spend a decade following anything, becoming even slightly emotionally invested, the grand conclusion almost has to be epic even if it us just closure. The MCU has captivated our attention and delivered on our lofty expectations. Sometimes, even just meeting expectations is a huge success when failure is not an option this deep into the franchise. We’ve seen how a rabid fan-base responds to something vaguely considered a failure, and Marvel’s ability to garner applause instead of jeers from one of the largest and pickiest fan bases is a massive feat in the age of toxic fan culture.

"Game of Thrones" Season 7, My Thoughts...

                                  (Some Spoilers)

Game of Thrones, the biggest thing on TV, just wrapped off its seventh season. It's as popular as ever and continuing to be the biggest piece of monoculture in a crowded TV landscape. Thrones is always divisive, always controversial, but nothing if not consistently captivating. Season 7's filming schedule was delayed for weather reasons (sensible choice given that "winter is here"), was subject to script leaks and eventually aired a couple months later than expected with an abbreviated 7 episodes, as opposed to the usual 10. It's still Game of Thrones, but did feel like a different show due to the hurried pace at times and forced plot points. There were signature moments of course, but this was probably the worst season of the show thus far, which still means it's one of the better shows in TV history. 

Following an all time great finale in Season 6, and a penultimate episode, "The Battle of the Bastards",  already etched in television lore, the bar was set very high for this season. Dany had finally set sail for Westeros, a prospect six years in the making, Jon's journey from the lowly bastard of Winterfell to King in the North was complete, and his parentage was finally revealed and executed on screen perfectly. All the chess pieces were moving into place and setting up for the show's final act. These monumental events and revelations took six years (!) and captured the collective consciousness of millions (16.1 million to be exact watched the season seven premiere live). Most importantly, they felt earned. They took time, as we watched our favorite characters get beaten down, told what they couldn't achieve, violated, tortured, and some even killed, only to rise again and triumph so spectacularly and satisfyingly that season six is probably my favorite so far. It was cathartic, powerful, and but also had more than enough fireworks to keep the audience thirsting for what was to come. The prior seasons also had moments like this: Tyrion killing his evil father, Jaime slowly redeeming himself, Arya getting revenge on pretty much everyone, just to name a few. But season six's last few episodes carried the weight of an entire series at the peak of its popularity and delivered a fulfilling payoff. It was so great precisely because it was so long overdue, the pain of waiting for every large conflict to come to a head made the realization of them so much better, in every way. But season seven did not have the same emotional importance, not even close. It didn't feel earned.

Ever since season four George R.R. Martin, the mastermind behind the novels the show is based on, has no longer been involved with the show. He wanted to focus on writing his books, and the show-runners D.B. Weiss and Dan Beinoff were left to pick up the pieces and go forward after running out of book material. They probably conferred with Martin about having a direction in mind but still, it was uncharted territory for the most part. They've done an admirable job. Season's five and six were both really good, at times great, but season seven started to show a bit more strain. Season seven seemed rushed, simply put, and not just because of the shorter episode count. There was so much fan service, panicked pacing and the season displayed more of the writers' plot maneuvering than the show defining political maneuvering in King's Landing, where I've always found Game of Thrones to be at its very best. The season just felt unnatural. Nothing seemed to be happening organically. It was transparently just two men in a room, moving around chess pieces frantically at the behest of a rabid fanbase. The show somewhat lost its way, as Beinoff and Weiss did their best to adhere to an ever-expanding viewership and have all the necessary dominoes fall. That was perhaps the most frustrating part, Game of Thrones became predictable. 

Thrones has long been the standard in subversive storytelling, unapologetically killing off fan-favorite characters, doing the exact opposite of what people have always expected, and overall just being unpredictable, laden with twists and turns that feel necessary, not gimmicky. Almost every plot line this season was predictable, forced, or just plain irritating. The Night King got a dragon, Euron Greyjoy, while enjoyable on screen, sailed into the show and became a plot device cheat code that showed up when convenient. Sansa and Arya had the most artificially manufactured and hard to watch beef in recent memory. The show has literally turned Bran Stark into a clairvoyant encyclopedia. He knows everything, about everyone, at all times! Why even bother at this point? Luckily he hasn't ruined the show's element of surprise either because he selectively uses his immense power, or his powers are just incredibly vague to begin with. Jon Snow's suicide squad expedition up beyond the wall with a pack of fan favorites has been well documented at utterly foolish, and likely existed solely to give The Night King a dragon. Speaking of The Night King, we only have six episodes left of this entire show, he has been marketed as the preeminent baddy, yet we know nothing about him. As far as I can tells he's a mute ice dude who would be an Olympic javelin thrower if he was dealt a different hand in life. And he can raise the dead, but he himself has not been that menacing a character if we're being completely honest. Villains like Cersei, Joffrey, and Ramsey were so good because they were/are reviling characters, and we knew their weaknesses, we knew their insecurities and we saw them be truly cruel. Does anyone really hate The Night King? We're supposed to hate him because he is evil, in an impersonal, esoteric sense. He's never made our skin crawl or be truly afraid. He's a Marvel villain, a video game level you need to get past, and not nearly as important to the narrative as Thrones' human antagonists. This of course can change, but there's such little time left to substantiate his character it feels as if the writer's won't bother. Also, why is Gendry back? Like why on earth did Gendry need to steal valuable screen time in an already shortened season? And how does he run so fast?! Thrones season seven has left us with more questions about its trivial logistics than its moral ambiguities or big themes, i.e. the important stuff. 

With Thrones' trudging onward even further into post book territory, it's safe to wonder whether Weiss and Beinoff even know how they're gonna end this thing. They no longer have the luxury of Martin's novels to guide them, and it shows. And maybe they're just tired? Hell, I would be too. As great of a show Game of Thrones is, these guys have been living and breathing it for the better part of a decade. They already seem more invested in their new show Confederate, which may or may not be a good idea, but that's a discussion for another time. They are clearly yearning to mix things up creatively. It's not as if HBO is trying to rush this thing to the end to clear up space for something else. Thrones is their biggest hit ever, they would fund it for another decade if the show runners wanted to. But Weiss and Beinoff want to end it, it's their call. As two clearly talented and motivated writers, maybe they want to do something new. And they are talented, granted Martin wrote the source material, but Weiss and Beinoff have done a phenomenal jobs bringing the pages to life, and have even realized some characters better than Martin had, he admitted as much himself. Weiss and Beinoff have always had a firm grasp on the characters, perfectly understanding their motivations and knew exactly how the characters would act in any given situation Yet in season seven, characters began to betray everything we've come to know about them. Tyrion, Varys and Littlefinger, advertised as the most intelligent men in Westeros, have been borderline stupid. They've been reduced to shells of their former selves at the expense of the plot moving in a certain direction. Watching Tyrion get outsmarted so easily, or seeing Littlefinger trip over his own webs of deceit, was... dissapointing. 

It may seem like I hated the new season, and I definitely did at times, but truth be told Game of Thrones is still one of the best shows on right now. I'm still going to watch, and so is everyone else. Game of Thrones is not losing any fans any time soon, if anything it will continue to gain even more. And this season, for all of its pacing issues and forced plot developments, still had its signature moments. Episode four, "The Spoils of War", was a standout, combining reunions we've long been waiting for with a breathtaking action sequence featuring Dany on dragon-back and her Dothraki army ambushing Jaime and Bronn and the returning Lannister forces from Highgarden. Having fan favorites on both sides of the battle made for a much more complex sequence and allowed viewers to be emotionally invested in its outcome. That and dragons breathing fire in an open battlefield is awesome, and something Thrones fans have wanted for like... ever pretty much. The finale had some great moments of dialogue, Olenna Tyrell's death scene was brilliant, and there were a handful of other great moments as well. The acting is still very good, but some of the dialogue was still forced and stilted, and frankly I've stopped trying to understand why the Jon/Dany incest romance had to be a thing. But the production value is as good as its ever been. The camera work, the visual effects, it's all top notch. Ramin Djawadi's score is as good as ever. Game of Thrones still has a ton going for it, and the undying support of millions of loyal fans. The writers just need to be more deft at advancing plot lines, and really be more in touch with the characters we all know and love, or love to hate. Game of Thrones is still Game of Thrones, but this last season was a bit worrisome, I'll leave it at that. 

"Logan Lucky" Review

"Logan Lucky" is Steven Soderbergh's first film after his mini-retirement, and stars Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough, Katie Holmes, and Hillary Swank. It follows two brothers in North Carolina Jimmy (Tatum) and Clyde (Driver), one a war veteran bar-tender with one hand, and the other a recently unemployed construction worker. The Logan brothers are down on their luck and envision a better lot in life for themselves. So when Jimmy crafts a very intricate plan to rob a Nascar motor speedway, a very exciting caper/hicksploitation comedy ensues. 

Soderbergh's return to filmmaking is welcome, as he is back in his Ocean's Eleven-esque comfort zone, with clever execution and smart writing. The slick dialogue and twists and turns that have defined his Ocean's trilogy are back in full force for Logan Lucky, only instead of men in suits, they're lower class southerners who band together their collective wits to pull off a heist way above their perceived capabilities. Soderbergh does a fantastic job of taking a concept familiar to him, but blending his style of filmmaking with a demographic yet to be explored in his filmography. The mix of southern "charm" and highly sophisticated 

"Dunkirk" Review

Dunkirk is Christopher Nolan's tenth film, an ambitious retelling of the Dunkirk evacuation in the early stages of WWII starring Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles (yes that Harry Styles), and Fionn Whitehead in his very first film role. A visually stunning and action packed film, Dunkirk also makes sure to extend Nolan's unprecedented run of greatness since Memento all the way back in 2000. Nolan remains one of the most dynamic and consistent directors in the business, with his art house-quality blockbusters still being must sees after all this time. Dunkirk is simultaneously both a complete departure for Nolan, but also a work with his fingerprints all over it. A war film for one, a straightforward narrative, and not even remotely sci-fi/mind-bending in terms of its plot, but its never that straightforward with Nolan. Dunkirk is told in three different timelines, from the land, or "The Mole", spanning one week, "The Sea" spanning one day, and "The Air" spanning one hour. These narratives intertwine throughout the film and jump around and intersect and essentially make a pretty simple story pretty complicated. But this does not hinder Dunkirk at all, but actually improves the overall experience. Nolan also brings his Cinematographer from Interstellar, Hoyte Van Hoytema, to create one of his most visually immersive and impressive movies. 

Impressive really is the best word to describe Dunkirk. The lengths that Nolan will go in order to avoid using CGI and maintain as much realism as possible are something to revere. Nolan used actual repainted spitfire fighter planes to capture the aerial dog-fights prevalent in "The Air" storyline, shot portions of the film on sight at Dunkirk, built intricate sets, and rather than digitally impose thousands of extras, chose to build cut outs of soldiers to prop up in the background. Nolan's commitment to practical effects has always been a trademark of his, but perhaps has never been so critical to the film's quality than in Dunkirk. And I don't even know how the dog fights were shot, or how he managed to even piece this film together so well. Nolan has employed spinning hallways for Inception, used an air piston to actually flip an eighteen wheel semi truck in The Dark Knight, and has really never lost his integrity as a filmmaker before, but Dunkirk may be the film that benefits most from Nolan's technical prowess and preference for practical effects, as it truly is a spectacle in a way that his other films may not have been.

" ...a beautiful movie from beginning to end, with every shot framed perfectly, the searing ocean blues and soft gray color pallet, and Hans Zimmer's frenetic score setting the suspenseful tone. Dunkirk is a perfectly made film from a technical standpoint and is simply put, a visual marvel."

Dunkirk lacks the mind-bending, thought provoking qualities that have come to define his past films. Granted, the non-linear structure does require the viewer to piece together the plot, but the plot is really where the complexity of this film ends. Dunkirk is an inspirational story, but really an event more than anything else. A visual spectacle that shows off the talents of a master filmmaker at the peak of his powers, employing every trick in his arsenal to truly immerse the viewer in a frantic, chaotic, horrifying, yet somehow stunning environment. Dunkirk shows ships getting blown up by torpedoes, young and innocent men drowning, air planes crashing into the water, so basically lots of death. Yet it is a beautiful movie from beginning to end, with every shot framed perfectly, the searing ocean blues and soft gray color pallet ,and Hans Zimmer's frenetic score. Dunkirk is a perfectly made film from a technical standpoint and is simply put, a visual marvel. 

Dunkirk is short by Nolan standards, with a 106 minute runtime, and is also his shortest script at around seventy-ish pages. The former suggests that Dunkirk is a swift rush of adrenaline that doesn't outstay its welcome, which is true. However the latter is seems to be partially responsible for Dunkirk's thinly drawn characters. It's tough to say whether it works or not in this regard. Nolan clearly has a vision for this film where the characters are not so much characters but rather just people. They are expendable soldiers thrust into a horrifying situation, and we the audience are able to live vicariously through them and experience the film through someone we can easily relate to, precisely because they are so thinly drawn. The audience can easily immerse themselves into the characters because there are... blank, in a sense, with no qualities for us to like or dislike. They're surrogates to an extent, vessels that Nolan has created so the audience can step in and experience the environment he's created. With a film this thrilling and grounded in the "event" more than "the story", it works. And that's not to say Dunkirk doesn't have a story, Fionn Whitehead's Tommy has quite an exciting arc, while Mark Rylance and his sons have a heroic and tragic storyline that's quite poignant. But even still, Dunkirk could have benefited from a bit more personality out of it's characters. A bit more color, more backstory, maybe even slightly more complex motivations than to simply survive. Granted, survival should be priority one, two, and three in the situation the characters find themselves in, but a little complexity or variation amongst the crowd would've been nice. Dunkirk smartly strayed away from having a cliche exposition dump that nearly every war movie seems to have, soldiers huddled around a campfire, talking about their fine lass they have "back home". But even a little bit of humanity added to the characters of Hardy's Farrier, Harry Stlyes' James, or Whitehead's Tommy would have added a lot to the film. I had to look up all of their names on IMDB by the way, not that it would've mattered what they were anyways. 

Despite some slightly thinly drawn characters, Dunkirk still succeeds at what its trying to be, and succeeds in a big way. It's a large scale, suspenseful, gorgeously shot, yet contained war epic that will keep your gaze firmly fixed on it for the entire film. 

A-

 

"War for the Planet of the Apes" Review

War for the Planet of the Apes is the final installment of Twentieth Century Fox's Apes reboot trilogy, following 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and 2014's Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. War seemingly picks off where Dawn left off, as an army of humans are on collision course with the apes in what promises to be a violent confrontation that will decide the fate of the planet. Andy Serkis returns as Caesar, essentially the closest thing the apes have to a Jesus/Moses type of figure, and he is forced to battle his demons as war with the human race looms. Caesar has always been the most diplomatic and pragmatic of the apes and has never wanted to engage in war with humanity, but after the events of the last film he has been given no choice as his kind have been put on the defensive. Caesar has also been the most emotionally grounded and reasonable, but in War, the conflict becomes more personal than ever and truly tests his nature. Fueled by rage, Caesar embarks on a revenge mission tracking down a human military commando known simply as The Colonel, played by Woody Harrelson. What ensues is a gripping tale of survival and sacrifice that is one one of the most brutal and well made films of the year, and the perfect ending to a surprisingly fantastic trilogy.

"...there are moments of excitement, but this film is really not what it was marketed to be, but rather a slow burning and often tragic film that builds up to a riveting final act reminiscent of fireworks, in a much more emotional and poignant sense than the pyrotechnical comparison would suggest."

War begins with a brief summary of the previous films, then jumps right into the action with a forrest raid led by humans against the apes. Arrows and bullets are flying, bombs going off and debris flying everywhere. It's a brilliant sequence, shot very well and emotionally punctuated by Michael Giacchino's musical score, one of the best and most minimal of his career I might add. But after this opening sequence, War for the Planet of the Apes almost entirely stops being a war movie. There really isn't another Ape vs Human battle sequence like it for the rest of the film, until the end of course. War promises to be the explosion heavy third installment, the film that tries too hard to be overly climactic and make the other movies pale in comparison due to the risen stakes and scale of the action. Like the third Hobbit film, or Iron Man 3 or X-Men: The Last Stand, and many other comic book movies, War set itself up to be the action packed culmination of everything the prior films built up to, high octane but low substance. However, it completely subverts expectations and becomes something entirely different than what was expected. It transitions into a dark, thought provoking drama more than anything else, and the movie is so much better for it. Yes there are moments of excitement, but this film is really not what it was marketed to be, but rather a slow burning and often tragic film that builds up to a riveting final act reminiscent of fireworks, in a much more emotional and poignant sense than the pyrotechnical comparison would suggest. 

War for the Planet of the Apes also witnesses what could only be seen as the nearly final evolution of motion capture technology. The apes are more lifelike than ever before, down to every single hair on their backs and wrinkles on their faces. It's hard to see how much better the technology could get, as almost immediately into the movie you forget that they are computer generated. Their faces move so perfectly and convey such a strong sense of emotions it's hard to fathom that it's entirely digital. Which is where Andy Serkis comes in. Having been one of the best Mo-cap actors, probably the best, since his days as Gollum in Lord of the Rings, Serkis turns in arguably the best work of his career here. I'm not quite ready to promote his Oscar hype train, as many believe he deserves, but I can say that he is fantastic, and Caesar has never been such a magnetic character. The internal struggle with his morality, the tragedy and loss he faces, the burden of an entire races' survival that he bears, is all seen in his eyes, and the combination of Serkis' brilliant work and state of the art mo-cap make Caesar so compelling, and more easy to root for than ever before. Woody Harrelson does a good job as the antagonistic Colonel, a human being devoid if practically all human virtues. He is perfect as the figurehead for humanity in this film, encapsulating the desperation and hopelessness of the situation, but also the rage and fire within the soul that would fuel mankind in times like these. The stakes are never more apparent in this trilogy than in War, which chooses to resolve the fate of mankind with a more personal and allegorical approach than action packed.

With Matt Reeves at the helm, War is a near perfectly directed movie, with beautiful shots and extremely impactful visual story telling. While there is a slight lull in the momentum as the film heads into its home stretch, War is consistently engaging and enthralling. The new stand alone Batman flick, which Reeves is signed on to direct, seems to be in very capable hands. War for the Planet of the Apes is a film that succeeds where many others could have failed if in different hands. Reeves, Co-Screenwriter Mark Bomback, and Serkis are so passionate about this world, almost having a personal stake in it as if it were real. Carefully crafting a near perfect trilogy that saves the very best for last and packs a very emotionally impactful punch. War for the Planet of the Apes is a must see. 

A

"Spiderman: Homecoming" Review

Spiderman: Homecoming is the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the third Spiderman reboot/franchise. Ever since the second Sam Raimi Spiderman films, which featured Tobey Maguire in the titular role, the character has been subject to much worse films. Spiderman 3 has more value as an unintentional comedy than a viable action movie, while the Sony reboot with Andrew Garfield did more to insult Spiderman fans than entertain them. So now here we are, andMarvel's ever expanding universe has gotten its hand on one of cinema's earliest and most popular heroes with hopes of turning him into an Avenger or something. Tom Holland is the latest to take up the mantle of the titular hero, and he is flanked by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Michael Keaton getting to play Birdman for real this time. 

This movie is actually pretty good. Much better than I expected. While it may not have the same freshness and charm of the first two Raimi films, it does rank fairly high in the Spiderman movie hierarchy. Homecoming has a different approach than practically every Spiderman movie before it in that it decides to forgo the "origins" of the character, such as the spider bite, Uncle Ben's death and pretty much every other beat that has been hit before by previous entries. It doesn't try to rehash the character's history in different ways than its predecessors, opting to skip it entirely and focus on a version of Spidey who already has a firm grasp on his abilities. Holland's Spiderman is not a finished product however, as he is supposed to be just fifteen years old and has a lot of growing up to do. Homecoming is more about Peter Parker growing up and learning about the responsibilities of becoming a hero, and the emotional fortitude and mental strength required to do so. As a result, the film is better for it. The film focuses more on what it means to be Spiderman and how he can evolve into a great hero, not on how he became the hero in the first place like the previous franchises. Homecoming also benefits from Holland's appearance in Captain America: Civil War, or Avengers 3 which is basically what it was. Spiderman was called upon by Tony Stark to help him fight against Captain America, and the web slinger proved his worth and held his own with Marvel's greatest heroes. A teenage kid got to fight with the world's finest heroes and was then sent home to his normal life in Queens. Homecoming recaps this with a very clever and entertaining opening sequence and it does a great job of putting us in Peter's mindset for the film: a boy determined to prove himself in terms of character, not extraordinary abilities. Holland does a great job of capturing the nerdy gleefulness of the character, but also Spiderman's desperation to prove that he was what it takes to be a hero. 

As we all know Marvel can't let us ever forget that all of their films are connected, so Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man, essentially the face of the MCU, is ever present as Spiderman's mentor. He is the one who Peter most respects and seeks the admiration of. As always Downey Jr. is great as he operates as Stark in cruise control at this point,  and he does help serve as a key motivator for Peter. Michael Keaton also gets to don a Bird Costume for the first time since 2014's oscar winning Birdman, though it is much less meta this time around. Keaton plays The Vulture, a disgruntled former head of a salvage company, turned alien weapon's dealer who has personal vendettas against Stark and the Avengers. As Spiderman's main antagonist, Keaton thrives as he  sheds a relatable light on the villain and also plays the role with his natural charisma. 

Spiderman: Homecoming is serviceable. It provides a fresh take on Spiderman but doesn't reinvent the super hero film wheel. Holland is great as a much younger Spiderman, and Keaton and Downey Jr. are very good as well. Homecoming provides moments of comedy sprinkled in amongst the well done action. The plot is small scale enough, befitting the teenage hero, and also not too bogged down in Marvel world building, to be somewhat believable. Overall, a pretty solid, perfectly enjoyable comic book movie.

B+

"La La Land" Review

La La Land is a dazzling, retro musical set in Los Angeles starring Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Gosling's Sebastian is a struggling jazz pianist with dreams to open up his own club, but is hamstrung for money and takes boring background gigs in dingy bars to make ends meet. Stone's Mia is an aspiring actress working at a studio coffee shop serving lattes to the A-Listers she aspires to be like. Damien Chazelle is at the helm of this whimsical and beautiful romance that tackles deep themes with an irresistibly catchy soundtrack and gorgeous visual splendor. 

Following up 2014's Whiplash was always going to be difficult given the quality and rewatchability that movie has. Whiplash was Chazelle's breakout as a director, as he showed off his undying love for jazz and slick style. If Whiplash is a punishing ode to the strict, unflinching nature of the musical genre in terms of technical precision, then La La Land is a spiritual sequel that stresses freedom and fluidity in the genre, while also boasting an expanded focus in terms of theme. La La Land is a film that literally sings LA's praises, but also makes scathing criticisms of Hollywood's shallowness. Stone's Mia endures countless auditions where casting directors are portrayed as snobby, self-absorbed gatekeepers who are disinterested and rude. Hollywood success is first treated as an idea, an abstraction or an unattainable goal that can beat you down and crush your confidence, yet the film glorifies the idea and paints LA a in a vibrant and gorgeous color palette. La La Land is wonderfully shot and also features beautiful music composed by Justin Hurwitz, Chazelle's roommate at Harvard and prior collaborator on Whiplash. The music is ambitious yet restrained, as it caters to the fact that Gosling and Stone are actors before singers and allows them to thrive without being too challenged. It lends to realism as far as musicals go and authenticity as we see the main stars actually sing and dance their numbers. I for one am not a fan of musicals, generally speaking they are my least favorite genre. However, La La Land boasts memorable sequences that are visually stunning and emotionally potent. 

"La La Land is a film that literally sings LA's praises, but also makes scathing criticisms of Hollywood's shallowness"

Despite Chazelle's fantastic control of the narrative and Hurwitz music, Gosling and Stone are the real stars here. Gosling is fantastic as the driven and charming jazz pianist Sebastian, a role that required Gosling to learn how to play the piano very well. While it isn't the signature Gosling performance I've been waiting for, he's still very good. Besides from 2006's Half Nelson, Gosling has consistently ranged between a stoic, brooding action star or a slick womanizer. Gosling still brings it here, but he's yet to truly wow me. That's not to say that I don't enjoy him as an actor. After all, you could probably argue he's hitting a no-hitter in the 2010's considering that his string of recent projects include The Nice Guys, the underrated The Place Beyond the Pines, The Big Short, Drive, Crazy, Stupid, Love, Blue Valentine, and the upcoming Blade Runner sequel. He's basically one great, range-expanding performance away from being the top actor in the business. Stone is fantastic and probably carries more of the weight from a musical standpoint, she earns top marks here. 

La La Land is without a doubt my favorite movie to come out in 2016. It's a beautiful and fun movie, but isn't afraid to dig deep and tackle complex themes. The gorgeous back drop of LA serves as a canvas for a colorful and passionate love story with great acting and music. La La Land is a film the walks the tight-rope between reality and our dreams, making the viewer be challenged in analyzing what it has to say about sacrifice and compromise. Jazz music itself can serve as a metaphor for what this film is trying to say, and Gosling's Sebastian passionately delivers his view on the power of the music and what it brings out of people. La La Land is a story about the trials and tribulations of achieving success, and more specifically, its emotional cost. Putting a modern and relatable spin on a dated genre, while also daring to be bold in its thematic implications, La La Land is very impressive and the best film of the year. 

A

"Rogue One" Review

Another year, another Star Wars movie. This is something to be expected every year for decades to come, most likely. Disney's four billion dollar acquisition of Lucasfilm seems to be one of the biggest coups in the history of the entertainment industry and will be the gift that keeps on giving for the foreseeable future. Disney CEO Robert Iger pulled off purchases of Pixar and Marvel at prices that now look like robberies. Last year's The Force Awakens has already surpassed five billion dollars in just merchandise, not accounting for the film's massive gross. Making FOUR billion dollars look like chump change after one movie is monumental. Financially speaking, Star Wars is probably the single most profitable entity in all of film and that won't change anytime soon. However, drowning in wads of cash hasn't exactly propelled the franchise forward creatively.  The space opera's "new" direction still draws upon fervorous nosetalgia from its loyal fan base to draw in new fans. The Force Awakens is in many ways a carbon copy of the original Star Wars, and Rogue One's plot circles back to the times leading up the the film that started it all. The prequel ties up loose ends and introduces a disposable cast of renegades who are barely fleshed out and very poorly realized. 

Rogue One is a visually stunning movie that dwarfs the CGI heavy, messy look of George Lucas' disastrous prequel trilogy in every way. It stacks up a ways below the franchise's original films, but is more than a notch above the trilogy that nearly emasculated one of cinema's most iconic villains by portraying him as a whiny, useless dweeb with some of the worst lines ever written. Gone are the days of Hayden Christiansen's cringe worthy interpretation of what Darth Vader was in his formative years, but characters are still the major issue here. Rogue One follows Jyn Erso, played by Felicity Jones, as she and a team of fellow rebels go on a suicide mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, which her estranged father designed. She is flanked by Riz Ahmed, Diego Luna, and Donnie Yen as the scrappy group of under-developed characters attempting the daring mission, and succeeding as we all know. The beauty of prequels is that we already know how it all plays out, so the least they could do is craft a compelling narrative and take risks, maybe even put an interesting spin on past events. Rogue One does that, stretching a simple concept into a decent script that deserves a movie and only adds to the Star Wars lore in a positive way. However, this movie could have been much better, and probably should have been. 

Every single one of these characters is so poorly realized that caring for them becomes difficult. We as audience members are supposed to really feel their pain and joy, to relate to their struggle, or at the very least find them compelling. This isn't the case, as limited back stories and non-existent chemistry between all of the leads prevents the audience from truly latching onto anyone. These characters are unfortunately all forgettable and the movie almost feels this way as well. If not for the entertaining and suitably over the top performance by Ben Mendelsohn as an Imperial general/admiral/villain guy, or the brief but glorious screentime of Darth Vader, this movie would truly have no human connection to it's audience. Awesome effects and some well designed action set pieces are where Rogue One really excels. It feels like a real war movie that shows the nastiness and ugliness of war and what it brings out of people, even the "good guys". Its darker tone and commitment to self seriousness actually work in making Rogue One really feel like a high stakes drama at times with real consequences for our heroes, only our heroes aren't nearly interesting enough to make it captivating.

The best character in the history of the saga is relegated to cameo duty in what could have been another starring act. Darth Vader is perhaps the most versatile character that Star Wars has in its treasure trove of narrative paths and opportunities, as long as James Earl Jones' hauntingly awesome voice is available to echo across pop culture. A masked character who has been played by numerous actors over the decades should age well and be used as much as possible given the ease at which he can be incorporated without sacrificing narrative continuity. Even Peter Cushing's less iconic Grand Moff Tarken was thrown into the film using motion capture and CGI to compensate for the fact that the actor died over twenty years ago. Rogue One sort of fluffed the little things and blew chances to be much better. The film's ending is near perfect but that can't make up for the characters' lack of development and ability to coax empathy out of the audience. 

C+