Prior to seeing Captain Marvel I read some spoiler free reviews for it (most of which considered it an average superhero film), and spent time covering the controversy about it. Given that, my expectations for it were quite low and upon seeing it I was pleasantly surprised (my reaction reminded me of when I saw Ant-Man, a film which had horrendous trailers leading into it). I'm going to do my best to be spoiler free with my comments, but if you haven't seen the trailers and want to know nothing about the film ahead of time, there are spoilers below.
Captain Marvel was a lot more fun than I expected, as well as being far less preachy than alarmists have tried to make it out to be. The plot device used to tell the story (Carol Danvers can't remember her past) is a unique choice for the MCU and added an interesting angle to what could have been a tiresome origin plot (one fascinating thing about reviews I've read is how many seemed to want a by-the-numbers approach). I particularly enjoyed the early parts of the film (which some reviewers couldn't follow and most thought dragged), wishing there was far more Starforce in the film (the entire supporting cast shines). The Skrulls were also well done, although both alien groups could have used a bit more development (there's also a moment of pathos that was laid on a bit too thick for me--reminding me of the clunky speeches in Germany in The Avengers). Nick Fury is excellent--his best MCU role since Winter Soldier. It was good to see Coulson again, but he wasn't given much to do (the de-aging CGI on Fury is amazing, but a little less so for Coulson). I expected Maria Rambeau to be a plot device, but she is given a chance to shine even if she ultimately lacks depth. As for Captain Marvel herself, I was quite worried going into the film because she came across fairly poorly in the trailers, but her performance is fine--the comedic beats are well done and she has great chemistry with Sam Jackson. The only criticism I have of Larson is that she doesn't project anger particularly well (not that Carol comes across as an angry person). I thought that Larson's portrayal as Vers is more interesting than once she knows who she truly is (which is when the film boils down to a by-the-numbers series of explosions which, for whatever reason, reviewers enjoyed most). Goose the cat, as expected, was fantastic (with, perhaps, just one scene coming across as a bit ridiculous). I would have liked to see more of Carol's brother Steve (seemingly the only positive part of her family), but he only has one meaningful scene before being forgotten (I missed, or it's never said, what happened to him). We get no substantial flashbacks, just quick cuts that very directly make a point and then move on.
As for the villains, the film doesn't truly have a central foe. The various antagonists are all backed by excellent actors, giving them a lot of gravitas (I wanted more Jude Law). The only underwhelming performance comes from Annette Bening, whose version of the Supreme Intelligence was incoherent. I think the intent was to have her be a very intellectual character (either coldly or filled with emotion), but the performance is so flat that she never comes across as a threat (or, even, very interesting).
The 90s setting is mostly played for humour--it also adds context to the fairly limited elements of chauvinism depicted (themselves all from the 80s)--other than referencing that female pilots weren't allowed to fly combat missions at the time (a restriction lifted in 1991), the film goes very light on specific issues women faced in the military at the time. The setting doesn't really add anything (by which I mean, if this movie was set 10 years later it would make no difference to the plot). The CGI was better than Black Panther (which had a pair of scenes that simply didn't look right). The musical choices were an attempt, I think, to imitate Guardians of the Galaxy, but it doesn't quite hit that level (there's only one spot where I thought the juxtaposition of song and events in the film fell flat--"I'm Just a Girl" doesn't punch hard enough for the scene that it's used in). I also thought it was odd that in what seemed like an attempt to have songs by all female artists that they included Nirvana [and also REM].
I don't have any major criticisms of the film, but a concern is that once Carol fully controls her power nothing is a threat to her--where this happens in the film means its not a crippling flaw, but it did rob the final fight of tension. Carol also doesn't (yet) have any personality flaws/quirks to battle through--this isn't inherently a negative (Superman doesn't either), but it does put a lot more pressure on the writers to make both she and her supporting cast likable enough to provide that tension.
Both post-credit scenes are great (I have thoughts about the Endgame tie-in that I'll save for another post). Some didn't like the Avengers easter egg late in the film--it is a bit cheesy, but it's in the same spirit as the retcon of Iron Man 2 that made the kid in that film be a young Peter Parker, so I was okay with it. How Fury loses an eye is funny and it certainly subverted expectations--it works, albeit his reaction to losing it is perhaps a bit too understated.
Where does the film stand among other solo intro movies? First let's eliminate both Black Panther and Homecoming from that discussion since both characters were fully introduced in Civil War. With those out of the way, here's the list in chronological order:
- Iron Man
- Incredible Hulk
- Thor
- Captain America: The First Avenger
- Ant-Man
- Doctor Strange
As an appendix to the review I want to complete my coverage of the controversy over the film by wrapping up what it has done to a YT channel I used to quite like (which will serve as an explanation for where I think all of this hostility comes from and why).
The Struggle of Confirmation Bias
I've mentioned previously that I'm a fan of Midnight Edge and its entertainment news editorials. It's sister channel, After Dark, has poor content and never managed to gain much of a foothold. Andre, who runs both channels (but generally ignores the latter), has never focused much on the MCU and I think that's due to a lack of interest (for instance, from the end of July until mid-February, there was just one MCU video on the main channel). However, there is only so often you can go back to the well of covering the backlash over both Star Wars and Star Trek (for which there is intense competition), and there's nothing more popular than than MCU right now, so how to tap into its huge potential audience?
Like a gift from the gods enter the Captain Marvel 'controversy.' I put the word in quotes because I believe all the videos about it (from Andre and others) are entirely cynical ploys to excite an audience still angry about entirely different properties (as I mentioned when I first covered it). Why? Because the comments that are the basis of the outrage were made in the summer and at the time no one complained. All the channels currently screaming about the film were still soaking in the views about The Last Jedi (I think Red Letter Media put the final nail in the coffin about the film with their video that came out in late August). As the TLJ hubbub began to die down there was still Star Trek: Discovery to get agitated about, but one can only beat that dead horse for so long since the Trek fanbase is much smaller.
Andre always stood out from the crowd because he's generally been pretty reserved about drawing conclusions when presenting his case. This has slipped badly when it comes to Captain Marvel. In his initial video his entire argument was that Larson's comments were causing a drop in interest in the film, basing that on one early prediction versus later predictions. This is a weak argument that was subsequently proven false (remember this argument is about projections, not the actual take). As this narrative fell apart suddenly the discussion became about Rotten Tomatoes and some sort of conspiracy between corporate enemies Comcast and Disney (the same Comcast that fought the Fox acquisition and refuses to work with Marvel over the properties Universal owns). Despite having moved the goal posts, the argument remained the same--the RT change was a sign of declining interest, but again, none of the actual evidence supported it. The follow-up video is even more ridiculous, with Andre peddling the narrative of a Reddit poster who claimed to know that there are two cuts of Endgame--one with Captain Marvel heavily featured, and one where she isn't, with the idea being they will pick which cut based on how Captain Marvel does at the box office. This is preposterous--no Redditor, even if they worked at Marvel, would have access to that kind of information.
I want to outline the timeline just to illustrate how problematic all of this is, especially coming from someone who hitherto was so fact-based:
June 13 - Brie Larson receives an award and makes her speech about more representation among critics
June 14 - Larson clarifies she wasn't attempting to exclude anyone with her comments
January 11 - Box Office Pro projects the film to make 150 million domestically
February 7 - Larson is interviewed by Marie Clare and makes similar statements
February 14 - Variety and other sites predict an 80-100 million domestic opening
February 18 - the initial Midnight's Edge video (and their first MCU video since July 21st)
February 21 - Larson once again clarifies her views in a paid-for Fox 5 interview
February 25 - Rotten Tomatoes makes minor changes in response to review bombing
February 26 - Forbes projects 150 domesticMarch 5 - Deadline echoes those projections
Given the above we can debunk the following: that her initial comments upset anyone (an eight month gap makes that clear), and that declining box office projections were caused by those comments. The idea of a corporate conspiracy is ridiculous, as is some Redditor having complete access to Endgame plans. These are all objectively false, so we can move on from them (none of this, incidentally, says anything about the quality of the film).
To sum up: what is a serious person like Andre doing making these videos? I believe it's for views. His sister channel (After Dark) is dying and his own channel had largely stopped growing. Beyond that, however, and the reason I gave this section the title it has, is I think he's suffering from confirmation bias. Andre, unfortunately, is surrounded by people who all share the same point of view--smaller YTers whose channels depend on the culture war--people who have a desperate need to keep their small audiences agitated to maintain their support. Having people like that around him in addition to needing something big to cover is the perfect synergy for these videos. Attacking Captain Marvel is good for business--there's no question about it--although the views still aren't as high as his usual fodder (as you can see on Socialblade), nor is it really sustainable with Endgame arriving so soon. The downside for him is that those of us interested in good journalism now have to question his material in a way we never have before. It's highly unfortunate for me, because there's so very little comicbook commentary that is even remotely similar.
This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)
No comments:
Post a Comment