Black Panther (a movie review post)

 

MCU #18

It was a little bit difficult returning to Black Panther what with the death of Chadwick Boseman. It just made me sad. You can look back at my previous "review" here, which was less a review and more of a discussion of the cultural impact of the movie.

Four years later: What is the cultural impact? It's a little difficult to say. We've had the death of Boseman and a pandemic, which may or may not have affected the way people go to movies for all time. That's also difficult to say. We have had both Shang-chi and Eternals since the release of Panther. Would we have had those without the overwhelming success of Panther? Eternals, maybe; Shang-chi, certainly not. It's true that my prediction about the movie may have been lofty, but it's still too early to tell. And the death of Boseman and the pandemic have certainly changed things. I'll know more when the next Panther movie comes out at the end of the year.

I'm again not going to really review this movie, but I will talk about some things that stood out to me this time.

1. Why is Martin Freeman given such a prominent role? Don't get me wrong, I like Freeman, but I don't understand, exactly, how or why he ended up with the role he has in this movie. He gets to be the hero of the "space battle," and I'm not really sure why.
2. Speaking of the "space battle," I realized that Black Panther has the classic Star Wars finale:
-- Jedi Battle (in this case between Panther and Killmonger)
-- space battle (where Ross has a dogfight and shoots down the weapons supply ships)
-- ground battle (where the... you know, where everyone else fights)
I was a little bit surprised when I had this realization. I mean, this is such a Star Wars thing that one of the Star Wars CCGs adopted this as their playing format. Now I'm wondering if any other movies have used this format. Does it pre-date Star Wars? I've never really contemplated this before and am vaguely curious. Probably not curious enough to do any research about it, though.
3. Monarchy. For such an advanced society, why is Wakanda still stuck in a hereditary monarchy model? And, on top of that...
4. Leadership by combat? I mean, that is the absolute worst. I'm actually having a hard time, now, with the idea that T'Chaka was able to hold onto his kingship into his old age. Or maybe that trial-by-combat thing was only once, unless challenged by a blood heir, but still...
We saw how that worked out.

I'm kind of hoping that the next Panther movie will introduce some governmental reforms, but I'm kinda doubting it.

Don't get me wrong, I get that it made for a good movie. Lots of tension and action and all of that stuff but, as a working model of government, Wakanda needs some help.

All of that said, the movie still holds up. It was great fun to watch. I love Boseman. And am sad. I love Serkis' Klaue. He is possibly the most fun villain the MCU has had. The scene where he runs out of the club yelling, "That was awesome!" is kind of priceless. Forest Whitaker is in a second role with Disney in which he sacrifices himself. Well, the cast is stellar all around.

Of course, now I have to work it into the rankings which is a thing that keeps getting harder and harder to do. Not to mention needing to come up with a way to slam Norton. But here goes...

The rankings!

1. Captain America: Civil War

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

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

7. Black Panther

8. Doctor Strange

9. Ant-Man

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

13. Guardians of the Galaxy

14. Avengers: Age of Ultron

15. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
16. Iron Man 3
17. Iron Man 2
18. Incredible Hulk (Norton's ego is stronger even than vibranium.)

(You may notice that the #3 spot is no longer a tie. I feel that Captain America is slightly stronger as a movie despite my love for Spider-Man. That said, if I could put the Sony Spider-Man movies on here, Spider-Man would make the top three, for sure. Man, I need to watch that one again.)

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (a movie review post)

 

This is not a free-use picture but, as far as a can tell, it's supposed to be usable for reviews.

Since this is a review, I'm using it.

Is there a way to legitimately talk about this film without dealing with the death of Chadwick Boseman? I don't think so. Boseman's performance was, of course, stellar. It would have been stellar for a healthy man. Chadwick Boseman was dying. Though, honestly, he did most of his work while receiving treatment for his cancer, and who knows for how long it was affecting him prior to 2016. He was an amazing talent by any standard but that he did it while also undergoing cancer treatment is just mind blowing.

On the surface, the conflict of the movie is between Levee (Boseman) and Ma Rainey (played by Viola Davis), the conflict between the new and the old and those who refuse to change. [Look, I'm resisting the urge to point out that Ma Rainey and her refusal to change with the times is just like Republicans... oh, wait...] Also that Levee is flirting with Ma's girl, and Ma doesn't appreciate that, either. These are the conflicts that supply the emotional tension of the movie. But...

But before I go on, let's talk about Viola Davis. She was unrecognizable in this role. Ahead of seeing the movie, I had forgotten that she was in it and, so, wondered, more than once, as we were watching, who it was playing Ma Rainey. Thus I was surprised when we got to the credits to find out that it was Davis. She was amazing. The number of actors who can submerge into their roles so that you can't see the actor at all is very small, and most of those guys are fucking weird (Sacha Baron Cohen, Daniel Day-Lewis). Davis doesn't seem to suffer from any weirdness with her ability to... become.

What I'm saying here is that the acting in this film was extraordinary, and Davis and Boseman both deserve Oscars for their performances.

Though I don't think the film itself is Best Picture-worthy. Nomination worthy, certainly, but it's not quite Best Picture material, I don't think. Mostly because it's, basically, a filmed play. It's a very good play, but I'm pretty sure that when you turn a play into a movie that you should turn it into a movie and not film it as if it's a play. Maybe that's just me.

However, it does deal with an ongoing problem in American culture, the exploitation of the talent of African Americans for the benefit of fucking rich white men. That's the true conflict of the movie and part of Ma's resistance to change. She has achieved a slice of power within music culture and is desperate to retain that small amount of power she has. It's exemplified at the beginning of the movie when Ma's driver gets into a fender bender. The (white (do I really need to say it?)) police officer is ready to throw Ma in jail for her attitude: He doesn't know who she is. But Ma is "rescued" by her white agent, because the crash was in front of the recording studio, who exercises his whiteness on behalf of Ma, just so that Ma can then press him under her thumb with ridiculous demands. But she makes the studio a lot (a LOT, evidently) of money, so he's really responding to the money, not to any respect he has for Ma.

One of the more interesting aspects of the movie is the difference between the relationship that Ma has with the studio and the relationship that Levee has with it, because Levee wants to be the next big thing. And that's about all I can say about that without getting into spoilers. At any rate, it's definitely a movie worth watching. And I have to admit that I was more than a little skeptical about watching the movie to begin with. I'm not a blues fan, and the title... just isn't very inviting. Which is not to say that it's not appropriate, because the song is what the conflict is centered around. The performances alone make it more than worthwhile.

A Study in Super Heroes: Part Two -- Civil War (review)

Captain America: Civil War is a complicated movie full of complicated issues, but the main conflict centers around individual freedom. How much of our personal liberty, our personal right to make choices, should we give up for the well-being of the whole, for society? Should that ever be compelled?

That's a tough question in these days of border walls and religious exclusions. There is something to be said for providing protection and safety for society, but how much of our freedom should we give up for that? How much should be required and how much should be by choice?

But the actual question is, "Is the movie good?" That's not a tough question, though it does have a complication. If you've been following the Marvel movies, this movie is great. Incredible. It has everything in it you could want and Spider-Man! (And Spider-Man was amazing (Pun totally intended).)

The complication is that if you haven't been following the Marvel movies (and why haven't you!?!?), this is not the place to jump in. It's not enough to have just seen the Captain America movies or just seen the Avengers movies, you need to have seen all four of those to really understand what's happening in this movie. And, so, while I can understand that being frustrating for someone coming into this without the background, it's so very satisfying to see a complex story come together like this, and, honestly, in a way that I'm pretty sure has never been done before.

I'm tempted to break the movie down and walk through it, but I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so I'm not going to do that. Also, there's no real reason to talk about the principal actors. All of them gave the kinds of performances you've come to expect. Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. are incomparable. And I love Anthony Mackie as The Falcon. I think he's tremendous.

However, let's look at the new guys:

Chadwick Boseman: The Black Panther has never been a character I've followed all that closely. Wakanda is interesting, but it's never been sustainable as a setting for a comic book series much like the ocean has never been sustainable as a setting for a Namor series (or an Aquaman one, for that matter). Inevitably, they have to bring those characters into "our" world, and they have never, at least back in when I was reading comics, managed to successfully integrate those characters in a way that made them interesting as primary characters. I hope that changes, because Boseman was excellent as the Panther. He brought just the right amount of gravitas to the role.

Tom Holland: Spider-Man, on the other hand, is a character I've followed closely. Since I was, like, four or five. Maguire's Spider-Man has remained one of my top three super hero movies and portrayals. He really just nailed the role. Holland seems to have returned to that mold, the geeky high school student, something never quite believable from Garfield. To cut it short, Holland was perfect. I have been ambivalent about another Spider-Man re-boot, but I'm now quite looking forward to Spider-Man: Homecoming (and not just because of the ties to this movie).

Emily VanCamp: Okay, so, technically, she's not a new-comer, but she steps up her role in Civil War, so I'm going to treat her as one. She's good. She's good opposite Evans, at any rate. I'd say I need to reserve judgement to see what they do with the character, but it's not clear there will be any further development for the character. At any rate, I'm satisfied.

Daniel Bruhl: Ah, now, this one could be controversial, because the Zemo of the movie is certainly not the Zemo of the comic books. I'm okay with that. The movie universe is not congruent with the comic universe. I'm okay with that, too. And it's probably better that Zemo wasn't running around with a purple hood on his head. Bruhl does a great job in the role. He's convincing. And that's really all anyone can ask of an actor: Did he make you believe?

It's fair to say that I'm biased in favor of these movies, but I think it's safe to say that my bias has somewhat negated by how successful they've been. Marvel has not just made flashy super hero movies; Marvel has made good, even great, movies. They just happen to have super heroes in them.