MCU Phase Four

I suppose this is where it all gets interesting. Not that it hasn't been interesting. I'm using the word a bit more loosely. Up to the end of Phase Three, all of the MCU was contained within the movies and could be followed linearly, pretty much. This is no longer true. Following Phase Four is going to be a more convoluted experience.

For instance, Black Widow takes place both before Infinity War and after Endgame, but it is essentially a Phase Four story. Well, sort of a prelude to Phase Four with the introduction of Yelena as a character. The new Black Widow? I suppose we'll see.

Then there is the fact that WandaVision actually takes place, in the timeline, before Spider-Man: Far From Home, possibly The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, too.

Then there's Loki... I suppose that one starts within the action of Endgame, but it's outside of time, so it... doesn't count? I don't know. I do know, though, that I love the introduction of the TVA. [I have their first appearance.]

So... like I said, interesting. And possibly challenging to keep up with? I don't know. I'm sure it will not make that big a difference overall, not if you're taking each story as its own story.

I'm looking at reviewing Phase Four as its own separate thing and leaving my other MCU ranking list as it is. Or, maybe, I'll work only the movies onto the ranking list. I don't know. We'll have to see how it goes. I am, right now, working my way back through WandaVision and should have a review of that up soon.

One personal note about Phase Four: I have no idea what Marvel is doing in regards to the overall plot arc. This is interesting to me because I knew almost right away what the first big arc was leading to. I loved being able to pick up the clues as they went along. There's some speculation that the new arc is going to have to do with the Beyonder and Secret Wars and, I suppose, that makes some sense, but I haven't seen what I would take as actual evidence of that yet. At any rate, I'm not out scouring the interwebs trying to figure it out. I'm okay just going along for the ride and finding out as I go.

Also on a personal note: I love that they're bringing in Black Knight and Moon Knight. Those were two of my favorite characters back in the 80s. I can't wait to see what they're going to do with them.

All of this to say to be on the lookout for reviews of the various Disney+ series. But not the Netflix shows, which I suppose are being incorporated as canon now that Disney+ is airing them. Of course, we've already seen Matt Murdock and Kingpin in canon shows, so that all makes sense, too.

I'm excited to see where Phase Four is going.

Thor: Ragnarok (a movie review post)

 

MCU #17

It appears that I somehow missed reviewing this one the first time it came out. How did that even happen? I have no idea. It's not the first one I missed doing but, by this point, I thought I was getting all of them (until Black Widow, but we'll get there when we get there).

Ragnarok is my favorite of the current Thor movies. There are a couple of things I find interesting about this:
1. The Thor movies have gotten better as they've gone on. Generally speaking, this is a thing with the MCU movies, Iron Man being the exception.
2. The Thor movies, with the possible exception of Ant-Man, are the most comedic of the MCU movies, which is surprising because they are also the most tragic. But maybe that's why they have all the comedy. You need that comedic relief to keep from falling apart during the movies.

With a new Thor movie on the near horizon, I guess we'll find out if these things hold true.

I'm going to kind of nutshell my review of this one, because I have something else of interest, at least to me, to talk about. Related but not specifically about the quality of the movie.

Ragnarok is great. A lot of fun. It has one of the best openings of all of the MCU movies, with Thor's soliloquy about being captured and stuff, then the whole spinning on the chain as Surtur tries to... what? threaten him? Intimidate him. It's a great and unexpected opening.

Anthony Hopkins has his best moment in any of the movies as he plays Loki playing Odin.

I'm not sure there could have been a better Hela than Cate Blanchett. There could have been different Helas, but I don't think better. She was magnificent.

Karl Urban was unsurprisingly great as Skurge. I wish he was going to be back for more, but I doubt Skurge is a character we'll see again.

All of the regular cast was as spectacular as you should have come to expect at this point. And, hey, Hulk makes a significant appearance, too.

Speaking of Hulk, when we watched Civil War, someone tossed out the idle question, "Why aren't Thor and Hulk in this?" To which I responded, sort of jokingly but not really, "Because then it would be an Avengers movie and not Captain America." Ragnarok is where we find out where Thor and Hulk were during Civil War. Also, you have to have Hulk and Thor be somewhere else for it to be a real fight for everyone else.

Something else of interest:

I was talking with my buddy Squid the other day about a big crossover event in Marvel back in the 90s that he is currently reading, and I was remembering when those issues were originally coming out and how it seemed like it was a big deal and how it was going to change the Marvel Universe and all of that. At the time, that story seemed important and significant. And, yet, the state of the Marvel Universe is much the same today as it was back in the 90s. Or the 80s. Or the 60s. Sure, there are more characters, but, other than morphing the universe to keep up with society, the state of the characters is much the same as it has always been.

And that's fine, you know. It's really what the readers want. They want to have big events with huge climaxes and, yet, for everything to remain the same at the end of it. So Captain America can't stay assassinated. Superman can't stay dead. Wolverine must get his adamantium back. The character has to stay the character.

But this isn't true for the MCU. At all. Nothing will, or even can, stay status quo. The characters are too tied to the actors, and there just isn't the mass of material to allow for the MCU to revert to the way things were. It seems to be a living universe, and I like that. Tony Stark is dead. As is Steve Rogers. I don't expect to see them come back.

Thor seems to be the series that has shown the most change. Frigga died. Odin died. Thor lost his eye. And his hammer. The Warriors Three are dead. Asgard is destroyed. It's a lot. And I expect things to stay that way. Changes will be ongoing with new characters in as old characters fade out. It's dynamic. I like it.
That's all. Just my interesting thought about a fundamental difference between the Marvel Universe and the MCU.

Now I suppose we should do some ratings (because I know people can't wait to know how I slam Edward Norton this week):

1. Captain America: Civil War

2. The Avengers
3. Captain America: The First Avenger

3. Spider-Man: Homecoming
5. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
6. Iron Man

7. Doctor Strange

8. Ant-Man

9. Thor: Ragnarok
10. Thor: The Dark World
11. Thor

12. Guardians of the Galaxy

13. Avengers: Age of Ultron

14. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
15. Iron Man 3
16. Iron Man 2
17. Incredible Hulk (Norton's ego could be the Grandmaster's champion. No one can defeat it. Well, except Disney, I guess.)

Thor: The Dark World (a movie review post)

 

MCU #8

So it seems that my general feelings about the Thor movies may have changed over the years. You can read my initial reaction to this movie here. Actually, I'm sure any shifting in feelings about the movies has to do with my feelings about the MCU and how it differs from the MU, which is fine and good. It's a much different time and place now than it was in the 60s when these characters where first being born, and the MCU should be reflective of that, not trying to force a forgotten (except by Boomers) culture on us. Back when these movies were being released, I was still reconciling the difference.

Basically, that means I have come to like the Thor movies, overall, more than I did upon their releases, at least these first two. I love Hemsworth in the role and can't think of anyone who could do the job better than him.

That said, I think I still prefer The Dark World to the first Thor movie and the reason is, simply, Loki. Loki is much more... Loki... in this one, which is as it should be. Also, I don't know of anyone who could do Loki better than Tom Hiddleston, though, thinking about it, I wouldn't mind an Owen Wilson interpretation of the character. I guess they provided the next best thing by having Wilson in the Loki TV show.

Anyway... The Dark World.

I think Natalie Portman is better in this one, which, for me, isn't saying a lot. She's the weakest part of the Thor movies for me. I don't know why, but I have a hard time with her as Jane Foster. Or maybe it's the way the character is written. She gives off a very damsel-in-distress vibe that I find off-putting.

On the other hand, I love Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgard, so there's that.

Jaimie Alexander doesn't get enough props for her performance as Sif. Sif, in general, doesn't get enough attention. She's a great character, and Alexander is wonderful in the role. For Dark World, in particular, the looks she shoots at Foster are gold. And, yet, when she's called on to save Jane, she does it without hesitation.

The biggest change for me upon looking back at the Thor movies is that I have changed my position on the Fandral situation. Possibly, it's due to my general feelings about Zachary Levi working in my subconscious over time, but I think he's much better in the role than Josh Dallas. Of course, the part calls for Cary Elwes but, then, they would have had to kill Fandral in much the same way that Shakespeare had to kill Mercutio.

The only real failing of Dark World is the dark elves. I think that the white masks are supposed to be sinister. Or, maybe, creepy. They're too close to the comical line. I don't understand the reason for the masks. Maybe they're part of the source material; I don't know, but there's no reason provided for them. Then there's Eccleston as Malekith... Fortunately, the role doesn't ask for more from him because the level of acting provided there is about all he's got.

Speaking of the dark elves, why do they have eyes? This has nothing to do with the movie: It's just an errant thought that went through my head as I was thinking about the masks. They are a race born in darkness, before light even existed: Why do they have eyes? No, see, if they had been eyeless, that would have been freaky. Nightmarish, even.

Final analysis is that I thoroughly enjoyed The Dark World. You get not only the Loki-est version of Loki, but you get to see Thor really coming into his own. A Thor who will stand up against his own father, which is no small thing when your father is Odin, to do what is right and is willing to take the consequences for those actions. It's a complete reversal of the Thor we see in the first movie, a Thor who is rebelling against his father for his own glory and is pissed off that there are consequences.

The new MCU rankings!
1. The Avengers
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Iron Man
4. Thor: The Dark World
5. Thor
6. Iron Man 3
7. Iron Man 2
8. Incredible Hulk (Maybe he's dropping in rank just because he's so much heavier than the other heroes? Norton's ego does weigh a lot.)

The Avengers (a movie review post)

 

MCU #6

First, I did previously review this movie when it first came out, but I don't actually suggest you go back and re-read it. I didn't say much of substance in the review. I was obviously in the midst of exaltation over the movie and had no real thoughts other than "that was amazing!!! that was fucking amazing!!! that was amazing!!!" I was not wrong. But the review doesn't do more than say that in various ways without offering anything of actual substance other than a very brief mention of Mark Ruffalo.
Let's dig a little deeper this time, shall we?

And let's start by dealing with Joss Whedon since we didn't know back in 2012 that Joss Whedon is an asshole and maybe a bit of a racist. It doesn't change the fact that The Avengers is probably the best work he's ever done, but it sure does put a bitter taste in my mouth that it had to be him. But it's an amazing script, especially the dialogue, and he is the sole credited screen writer, so...  yeah. But I can't help but wonder how he would have treated Chadwick Boseman if Black Panther had already been introduced.

We also need to talk about Scarlett Johansson. Johansson shone in this movie and, now, I want this Black Widow back. The spy Black Widow, which I think everyone has forgotten about. Remember, that's how she is introduced in Iron Man 2, as a SHIELD plant to keep an eye on Tony. Her opening scene in Avengers is one of the best in all of the movies, her interrogation scene. Not to mention her later interrogation of Loki. This Black Widow is an extremely interesting character, and I'm bummed that Marvel didn't take the leap with a solo movie for her back when they could have done a spy movie. It's one of the genres they haven't delved into yet.

Speaking of Loki, Tom Hiddleston is fantastic in this movie. Which, actually, highlights that he was also fantastic in Thor. The change in the character is... so satisfying. From sullen prince just trying to stir up mischief to the true God of Mischief. If you had asked me way back when, after I saw Thor for the first time, if I thought Hiddleston was capable of playing Loki as he is in Avengers, I probably would have said no. He really embraces the role, and, really, I can't imagine anyone else as Loki at this point.

Then there is the aforementioned Mark Ruffalo. He is a delight as the Hulk, which may be an odd word to use to describe Hulk, but it's true. I never would have thought finding someone to play Bruce Banner would be so difficult, but it turns out Hulk was almost as difficult to cast as Batman. (And DC is never going to succeed there until Warner Bros gets its head out of its ass and figures out how to make super hero movies.)  Ruffalo succeeds where Norton failed in that he plays Banner as someone you could never conceive as someone with a rage monster inside, much like Bill Bixby back in the 70s. He's terrific, and it's so good that Marvel let Norton walk away in his Hulk-like fit of rage.

Everyone else is as good as ever. Everyone shines in this movie. Except Jeremy Renner. He's fine. He's Jeremy Renner. He just does his Hawkeye thing, but it doesn't standout in this movie over his general performances of Hawkeye elsewhere. 

Really, there's so much more that could be talked about from Avengers, but I probably would never stop. Things worth mentioning, if only in passing: the classic superhero brawl when the heroes first meet, the introduction of the SHIELD council, Loki being the threat the heroes come together to defeat (as in Avengers #1). It is, in many ways, a perfect movie. I had forgotten how much I loved it, so I am really glad to have re-watched it. 

In fact, it creates a conflict for me in my MCU rankings, because I think Avengers has to go to #1. It lacks the warmth and touching moments that Captain America has, but I can't think of anything negative to say about Avengers, and Captain America does have that GI Joe moment and, well, Hugo Weaving did not make the Red Skull the villain that Hiddleston makes Loki. So... 

The new MCU rankings!
1. The Avengers
2. Captain America: The First Avenger
3. Iron Man
4. Thor
5. Iron Man 2
6. Incredible Hulk (this drop through the rankings is rather like Hulks drop from the helicarrier)

Thor (a movie review post)

 

MCU #4

I believe Thor may have been the first of the MCU movies I reviewed on here, back when my movie reviews were less movie reviews and more... I don't know. Commentary on experiences? You can go back and read it here if you're so inclined. It seems even then that I had some kind of beef against the Hulk movies.

Of the trio of Avengers origin stories, I think Thor is the weakest. I say this based purely on the fact that both Iron Man and Captain America present origins that are very close to their comic book origins. Thor, however, diverges from his. I am much more easy with that, now, than I was a decade ago. Thor's actual comic book origin is too... I think it's a bit of a wish fulfilment. Too Arthurian. But I'm not going to get into that right now. [But I think it must be related to how many Boomers I've known for whom Thor was... not just their favorite super hero, their only super hero: "Do you read comics?" "No, but I read Thor." It's fucking weird, man.] The movie origin is... I'll just say it: better. It makes more sense and certainly fits into the context of the MCU in a way that the comic origin would not have.

I hadn't heard of Chris Hemsworth before this movie, but he was a great choice. I don't know of anyone who would have been a better choice, in fact, so, you know, just pointing out Marvel's excellent casting choices again. And Anthony Hopkins... well, I think there were probably other choices for Odin, other actors who could have done it with just as much... authority?... as Hopkins but, if you can get Hopkins, get Hopkins.

Then there's Tom Hiddleston... You know, he's rather understated in this movie. I don't know if he just hadn't worked himself into the skin of Loki yet or if the writers just hadn't realized his full potential. At any rate, it's a little weird looking back and seeing him so much in the background. But still fully a manipulator. Hiddleston is good in this movie. Maybe very good? Later, he becomes great, and I can't imagine anyone else in the role, now, but, at the time... Look, clearly, he didn't make much of an impression on me when the movie came out. I didn't mention him at all in my original review.

I love that the Warriors Three and Sif have such a big role in the movie. Other than Josh Dallas, as Fandral, the casting is good. Dallas was popular at the time, but that role should have gone to Cary Elwes; I don't care how old he is. I'm not really an Elwes fan; I don't think he's a good actor, but he has particular roles he can play, and this one should have been his. 

Also, Kat Dennings is awesome as Darcy. She was certainly a surprise, and I'm glad Marvel has kept her around.

Then there is Natalie Portman... She is my point of ambivalence in this movie. I think she is a really good actress, but... I don't know. There's nothing wrong with her performance, and she has good chemistry with Hemsworth. It's just... her. 

Anyway...

As a character in the MCU, Hemsworth as Thor is one of my favorites. His range is one of the broadest of the various characters, called on to be both goofy and deadly serious. And a wide range in between. Thor was an excellent start to that.

Current MCU rankings:
1. Iron Man
2. Thor
3. Iron Man 2
4. Incredible Hulk (Hulk is seriously just going to visit a new number every week. Thanks Norton.)

Das Rheingold (an opera review post)

Let's start out be stealing a quote from a completely unrelated story:
"...this, like any other story worth telling, is all about a girl."
Or, in this case, three girls.
At least, that's where it starts.

Das Rheingold is interesting in that it was the last part of the story Wagner conceived. Actually, he worked his way backwards, having first thought of the arc's ultimate climax, then filling in the required backstory as he wrote. Das Rheingold is considered a prologue, so it's not entirely necessary to the rest of the arc, but it does provide some pretty interesting background.

The opera opens with the three Rhine maidens cavorting in a river, which, I suppose, is what Rhine maidens do. Their actual task is to guard the Rhine gold, but that seems to be a rather boring and thankless task, so they spend their time playing games in the water. This is what Alberich finds them doing when he stumbles upon them.

This is a recipe for conflict from the very beginning. See, Alberich is a dwarf from Nibelung, which is to say that Alberich is not handsome. That doesn't stop him from being smitten by the scantily clad water sprites playing in the river, and he decides he's going to catch one and make her his own. To say this is in direct conflict with the desires of the maidens is an understatement. Not only do they not wish to "be caught" by him but, upon noticing him and how ugly he is, they decide to have some "fun" with him, which is to say that they decide to torment him with their beauty.

There's a good analogy here for today's incel movement. Putting aside the fact that the maidens are deliberating torturing him through their flirtatious ways, Alberich has already decided that he deserves to have them. Or at least one of them. How they feel about it doesn't matter to him; he feels that he has been denied something his by right because none of the three want him.

But that would have been the end of it except for the Rhine gold.

The Rhine gold is not like normal gold. It has magical properties that can allow the possessor of the gold to forge a magic ring that will give him absolute power. The only catch is that, to forge the ring, the smith must curse love and forsake it forever. After his treatment at the hands of the maidens -- or his lack of treatment at their hands, if you know what I mean -- Alberich decides that's not such a bad deal, curses love, and steals the gold. Besides, once he's become king of the world, he can compel them to have sex with him, no love required.

This, also, sounds like the men of the incel movement. And here's where I point out that Alberich is the villain in this story. Or, at least, a villain. These guys are not heroes, no matter how wronged they feel they've been.

All of that is just the beginning, maybe the first 25 minutes or so, which is way more synopsis than I usually like to give, but I wanted to make a point. Needless to say, much of the rest of the action revolves around the Ring that Alberich forges.

This particular production was great, even better than the one I mentioned that we watched on dvd. The staging was better. The actors were better. The sets were better. In particular, the character of Loge (Loki) was better. I'm sure, at least in part, this was due to the actor, Stefan Margita, who is wonderful, but it's also choices of presentation of the character by the director, Francesca Zambello. Loge is definitely my favorite character in Das Rheingold. Greer Grimsley, as Wotan (Odin), is also a step up from the other production and is pretty amazing.

But, then, the San Francisco Opera can generally be counted on for delivering great performances.

If he be worthy... (of pop culture)

Star Wars amazes me with its ability to continually evolve our culture. Everyone, well, most everyone, acknowledges the deep impact that A New Hope made when it was released in 1977. Many, though, would believe that that is where the impact ended. I say thee nay! The Phantom Menace, also, made many lasting changes in our (pop) cultural awareness and created many changes within the movie industry, not the least of which was Lucas' insistence that TPM only be played in theaters with digital sound. That was the reason for the price hike in tickets when TPM was released as theaters scrambled to update their sound systems and cover the costs out of someone else's pockets. However, TPM is responsible for creating another cultural phenomenon: the midnight movie release.

And let me just say: "I'm getting too old for this sort of thing."

It's been a couple of years since I went to a midnight show, and, last night, I remembered why. And it's not just because I don't have the same stamina that I had a dozen years ago when TPM came out and I still wasn't 30, because I handled it better than the not-yet-30-year-old friend I went to the midnight showing of Thor with. I mean, I don't have that same stamina, and I'm feeling the lack of sleep today in a way I wouldn't have a dozen years ago, but, really, that's not the issue.

When TPM came out, -everyone- went to the midnight show. I don't mean that in the sense that everyone went, but Star Wars fans of all ages went. There were kids there. There were teens there. But, more importantly, there were adults there. Real adults. Not just college students. People in their 20s, yes, but also people in their 30s, 40s, and, even, 50s. It was calmer. More civilised. Not random and clumsy like midnight showings are today.

There has been a slow devolution to the crowd at these midnight things. People my age just, really, don't show up for them anymore. It's all kids, now. It's like some surreal kegger with no alcohol. Not that I've ever been to a kegger, but, you know, I've seen them in movies. People jumping over the seats. Throwing things. Being loud. I remember thinking all of this a couple or few years ago when Spider-Man 3 came out. How I was never going to another midnight show again. Ever. But midnight last night ended up being the only available time I'd have to go see Thor with my friend this weekend (it's a very busy weekend), and we wanted to see it this weekend, so we went to the midnight show.

Around 11:20 a guy comes in dressed as Thor. It wasn't a bad costume. He was the only one dressed up, but there is always, at least, one. The theater management chased him down and awarded him with 12" Thor action figure. We know, because he talked about it very loudly. He was, by far, the loudest person in the theater, in fact. And he proceeded to sit down right behind us. Him and his buds. Of which, one was a girl. Also quite loud. He and the girl proceeded to open the action figure and play with it and complain about the fact that it came with a sword. Not that the hammer wasn't there, but there was also a sword. I'm thinking "bonus" but they went on about the inclusion of the sword at some length.

Then... then it got really good. The guy started translating the runes on the hammer. You know, because he's an expert at that sort of thing. He determined that they had spelled some of it incorrectly. Not the runes, he said, but the English. Yes, they misspelled the runes so that the English came out wrong. And he knows, because he's an expert. And an English major. He stated that several times. I'm guessing because that gives him an extra ability to translate Norse runes.

I really, really wanted to laugh. At him. Not with him. But I was good, and I didn't. Because I do have a degree in English. A finished degree. Not an in process degree. Not that that makes a huge difference, but I do, amazingly enough, remember being 20 and being, well, full of myself. But I keep telling myself I wasn't that bad. I wasn't! For one thing, I'm sure I was never that loud. Of course, I'm not the kind of personality that dresses up for those kinds of things, either. Even when they're Star Wars.

Finally, the movie started! Mostly, they shut up. Mostly. At least, we were able to tune them out once we got involved in the show. Up until the point where the film went out of alignment during the climax, and they started yelling about it. Of course, they weren't the only ones yelling, at that point. It took the theater personnel almost 10 minutes before they fixed that.

Despite all of the... technical... difficulties, the movie was good. Not Iron Man or Spider-Man good, but good. Certainly better than The Dark Knight although I'm sure that that will be a very unpopular opinion (but seriously, have you ever tried to sit through Dark Knight a second time. If you can't sit through something on a second viewing... well, that just drops the rating). And Hemsworth was an excellent choice for Thor. I was impressed. I'm going to have to consider not allowing my wife to see the movie, since he does parade around sans shirt at one point. Ray Stevenson, also, was excellent. It was good to see the Warriors Three in the film.

Asgard has a great look. It's very Jack Kirby. Stan Lee makes his traditional cameo. There's a nod to Journey Into Mystery, the comic book in which Thor makes his first appearance, if you're paying enough attention to catch it. And it was good to see Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) get more play. Even Hawkeye makes a brief appearance, which was also great. Anthony Hopkins filled out the role of Odin perfectly, and he probably didn't even break a sweat doing it. Although he did lose an eye.

None of this to say that the movie didn't have some faults. There were some changes made to Marvel cannon that I can't bring myself to approve of. The main one, on the surface, was made for "story" reasons, but it wasn't necessary. If you're not a comic person, a Thor person, specifically, you'll never know, but it's one of those things that, as a fan, I have to wonder what they were thinking when they did that. Yes, it bothers me. But it doesn't affect the movie itself. The main flaw with movie is a bit of waffling with the character of Thor. He vacillates between being confused about Earth and seeming to not know where he is or what's going on to being very wise about Earth and the ways of man. It's like they couldn't decide which way to play the character and so used either of the extremes to fit the mood they wanted at any given moment. It would have been okay to have started at confused and ended at wise, but going back-and-forth doesn't really work.

I do wish I had gone to see it in 3d, though. Some of those scenes looked like they would have been amazing in 3d. But they keep jacking up the price difference between the 2d and the 3d, and they finally jacked up to where I'm not willing to pay that difference. At least not until The Phantom Menace hits theaters in 3d next February. And, possibly, Cars 2 this summer, because that's how my kids will want to see that.

At any rate, Thor shouldn't have the issues that Marvel has had with the Hulk movies. It's enjoyable. It's not deep, but it is a good romp. It places another piece of the puzzle for the upcoming Avengers movie, and it lays the groundwork for a sequel that should be able to go a bit deeper and do a bit more, so I think it was a great start to the franchise. Yes, I say franchise, because I will be very surprised if we don't get word soon that there is another in the works.

I hope you all enjoyed this pop culture edition. Remember, it stays crispy in milk!