John Wick review

The last Keanu Reeves movie I'd seen before John Wick was Man of Tai Chi, which I loved, so I was reasonably optimistic going in to this one.

First of all, let me address casting. There were a great many actors in this movie who I am very fond of but many of whom I feel are under-appreciated: John Leguizamo (I love this guy!), Willem Dafoe (probably my favourite actor for playing a villain), Bridget Regan, Lance Reddick, Adrianne Palicki, Dean Winters, and Daniel Bernardt to name a few. Special mention goes to a short but enjoyable performance by Kevin Nash; I forgot how big that guy was! I enjoyed seeing them all here, although sadly most of them had only minor roles - even Willem Dafoe had surprisingly little actual screen time. Still, each of them put in a great performance and was enjoyable on-screen.

Michael Nyqvist's performance as the main villain impressed me at times, though there were occasions when I think going a little more over-the-top might have better suited the film. Still, there were certainly moment that endeared the character to me, which is more than I can say about many movie villains.

Keanu Reeves himself actually puts in one of his better performances here. Yes, he plays much of it in his standard "strong and silent" mode (which I have no problem with), but there's moments where the character's emotions come through, and I thought he handled them well.


Of course it's Keanu's physical performance that really shines in the film. Because where John Wick really stands out is in it's excellent action. Smart, hard-hitting and extremely well choreographed and shot yet acted out with just a touch of roughness that actually added to the realism, the is exactly the kind of action movie that I love. Both the gunfights and the fistfights are miles ahead of most of what Hollywood puts out. Despite being the action being fast and intense, I could still see and understand pretty much everything that happened on-screen, even in the darker scenes such as the club shootout. That's impressive.

Let's not forget that the brilliance of the action is in no small part thanks to the fantastic choreography and cinematography. The camera work and editing do a great job of showing off how John delivers death with confidence and skill, and the world he inhabits is a stylish blend of the old and the new, of upscale hotels with old-world charm, colourful neon-drenched nighclubs, gothic churches, and rain-drenched dockyards.


In a movie like this you might not expect too much from the story. And on the surface, the story of John Wick doesn't have too much to it, initially coming across as a simple and straightforwards tale of revenge. At least that was my own first impression. But there was one scene in the film that bothered me a little bit, and as I contemplated that scene I came to realise that this film had more depth than I originally thought. Though a little subtle perhaps, John Wick is a story of how we deal with grief, of how hard it is to change, and how easy it is to slip back into destructive habits when we are in pain. Well, that's my read anyway, and in my eyes that elevates the movie beyond a simple action movie.


Overall I'm giving John Wick an 8/10: a fantastic and stylish action movie with just a little bit more depth than you might have expected. Fortunately it seems other action movies have started to take notes from John Wick, hopefully we will eventually be rid of the plague of the "quick-cut shaky-cam". It can't happen quickly enough if you ask me.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

While the film initially seems to be driven by Wick's desire for revenge against Iosef, the actual kill is not the climax of the movie. This is the scene that I mentioned bothered me a little, because it seemed to be given very little importance: John doesn't say anything before or after, he barely even looks as Iosef as he kills him, and doesn't seem to register any satisfaction when the deed is finally done. He barely even waits for the body to hit the ground before walking away.

That's because John didn't really care about Iosef. He was never after revenge, not really. John was always a killer; he left that life behind for his wife's sake, but it was still a part of him. Suffering after his wife's death, the dog was something to hold on to, a way to remember and feel close to her, but when even that was taken away from him he was left with no way to handle the immense grief and pain that was overwhelming him. So he reverted back to old habits: he decided on a goal and threw himself into it, focussing on it as a way to avoid thinking about what was really hurting him. Killing Iosef was his goal, but he didn't gain any pleasure from it. Quite the opposite, with Iosef dead John no longer had anything to keep him busy, to distract him from the pain.

I think that was a brilliant bit of character work and a subtle subversion of the standard revenge trope.


I personally found the final battle with Viggo a bit anticlimactic. Viggo had earlier traded his son's life to save his own, but it seems he later regretted it and deliberately antagonized John into killing him. He didn't try to set a trap for John, he didn't wait until he was safe before calling John with news of Marcus' death, he deliberately did things in a way that would most likely end with his own death. Suicide-by-Wick as it were. It was interesting and tied into the theme of grief, but John fighting one out-of-shape old man was not really the most satisfying climax to such an intense action film.


Something about the way John adopted a dog at the end felt a bit off for me. He didn't stumble onto a dog and decide to adopt him, he didn't pick a dog that reminded him of Daisy, he just walked into a pound and picked a dog at random (as far as we could tell anyway), as though one dog was as good as another. Perhaps that was deliberate? Perhaps the idea was less to inform us that John was going to heal, to be OK, and more to say that he still didn't know what to do with himself and figured he would try the dog thing again out of desperation more than anything else? Is this not actually a happy ending, but a nihilistic one? I find that rather interesting to think about, if not perhaps the most satisfying way to end the movie.

Cold Pursuit review

With the exception of Taken 3, I've enjoyed pretty much every Liam Neeson post-Taken action/thriller. Taken 2, Unknown, Run All Night, Non-Stop, The Commuter; none impressed me as much as Taken, but I pretty much enjoyed them all. So of course I was on-board for Cold Pursuit as soon as I heard his name. It turned out to be a bit of a different beast however.

There's moments in Cold Pursuit that are classic "Neeson thriller", but overall that's not what this film is about, and if you go into it expecting to see Liam Neeson single-handedly beating the crap out of armies of thugs, you will be disappointed. Liam Neeson's character Nels Coxman does NOT have a particular set of skills, unless of course you count driving a snowplow.

No, Cold Pursuit is not really an action movie. I'm not sure I'd call it a thriller either. If I had to give it a label, I'd describe it as a crime-comedy. And when I say "comedy", I'm talking dark comedy: if you don't think people dying in stupid ways is funny, then this might not be the movie for you.

Personally, once I understood what I was dealing with, I was able to sit back and enjoy the film for what it is. It doesn't hurt that the story is fundamentally a good one. This is a movie about the cyclical nature of violence, about the dangers of seeking revenge. That's not to say it's preachy or anything; the subtext is there if you want to think about it, but it's not obtrusive for those who aren't looking for a morality tale.

I found many of the characters entertaining, with more depth than I might have expected, and the actors did a great job of bringing them to life. Liam Neeson was fun as always, and I would say he got to show a bit more range here than in his standard thriller roles. Tom Bateman was great as the characterful Viking, and playing opposite him Julia Jones was a force of nature as Aya. I loved Willaim Forsythe's performance as Brock, Tom Jackson brought a suitable sense of gravitas to White Bull, Nicholas Holmes brought surprising depth to the role of the young Ryan, and as always I enjoyed watching Michael Eklund die.


Subjectively I would rate this film 8/10. It doesn't have the size or spectacle of the kind of film that I tend to make time for these days, but I think it does what it set out to do very well, and I at least enjoyed it.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

In retrospect I think the first clue that this film is a comedy is the fact that we see Liam Neeson running around with a cut-down bolt-action rifle with the scope still attached. It was right there in front of us the whole time!

Avengers: Endgame review

I guess I haven't yet finished processing Endgame, but I wanted to get my feelings down anyway. I enjoyed it, but it made me feel sad. I was pleasantly surprised in some ways, but couldn't help but feel disappointed in others.

This is definitely an emotional movie, yet many times the characters felt less developed to me than they did in Infinity War - while I was expecting many characters who had a lot of screen-time in Infinity War to get much less here, I was still surprised by just how little time some of them got (some didn't even get a single speaking line), while at the same time a few characters got a lot of screen time in both (coughtonycough). Of course some characters who we barely even saw in Infinity War got much more development here as expected, I just feel like I was hoping for a better balance.

Speaking of balance, I feel that Infinity War trumped this film in both action and comedy as well. Somehow, despite being a film with so much loss and death, it feels brighter and more colourful in my mind. As much as I had issues with that movie, and as much as it ended on a downer, it just feels like the better of the two to me.

To be fair though, Infinity War didn't exactly grab me right away. It impressed me, but I had issues. I guess it grew on me more over time. Perhaps Endgame will be the same. It did have some great emotional beats, visual spectacle, and triumphs after all.

At the end of the day, Endgame was an impressive capstone for an impressive cinematic storytelling accomplishment. As Shakespeare once wrote, "Parting is such sweet sorrow"; that's pretty much how I feel right now. I have enjoyed the Marvel cinematic universe, and I am sad that this chapter is over, yet I like a story with an end; better a clean fulfilling ending with closure than to just drag things on forever. Of course Marvel isn't exactly done making these things; I can only wonder what the future holds. How much lore can they build before the universe becomes too unwieldy, the way the comics usually are? Will they decide on a reboot at some point, will they deliberately but softly move away from the "everything is a consistent shared universe" idea, or will they just try to keep it going but create more and more plot holes until the cinematic universe is as inconsistent as the comics? We'll see I guess.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

I mentioned that I felt like there was less character development here. Specifically I felt like there were character arcs that were set up yet didn't get the payoff.

First of all there's the Hulk. In Infinity War there's a subplot where Bruce Banner can't get the Hulk to come out anymore. This was very interesting; why was it happening and what did it mean? How would he fix it? Remember that the Hulk is a facet of Banner's personality, a manifestation of his repressed anger issues, so this kind of thing is a great opportunity to explore human issues. Instead there's a couple of lines of casual dialogue about how he's all great now. You can't just have that kind of thing happen off-screen! You're telling me that Bruce solved his anger issues and integrated his split personality, learning to control a previously uncontrollable power? Off-screen? At a time when everyone on the planet is at an all time low, when Hawkeye is running around chopping people up and Thor is so down in the dumps that he can't even be bothered to step out of his front door, that Bruce Banner has solved all his emotional issues? To me it made little sense and felt like a big let-down and a hugely wasted opportunity. Also I found it weird that his personality seemed to be different. In all the previous films he was always a little on edge, a little uncomfortable. Here he's just really relaxed and chill the whole time, just sort of passive about everything, even when everyone else is always down. I guess it makes sense if we accept that his whole personality has changed as a result of integrating his two personas, but... it felt weird.

Then there's Quill. There's a lot to be said about how his life has been so strange and unstable that he's only now starting to mature as an adult. In Infinity War he made a terrible and stupid mistake that allowed Thanos to succeed. We needed to see... something. To see him talk about how it happened, to see him tortured by regret, to see him find an opportunity to atone for it. What we got was... nothing. Nothing at all. He just appears, throws some punches, and gets kicked in the crotch.

And then there's Thor. Thor is... strange. In the early films (everything before Ragnarok), he was more of a straight character. Well, he was funny, but that humor mainly came from his constantly being in environments that he didn't understand. Things like the way he went to a pet shop to buy a horse to ride, or how he threw his coffee mug to the ground as a complement, or how he hung Mjolnir on a coat rack. In Ragnarok, he became... a bit of a buffoon. Things like the way he was screaming on the chair, or pleading not to have his hair cut; it was more about him being a clown than being a fish out of water. But in the middle of this his character was growing and changing, and still he was always the noble warrior; he never gave up, always kept trying to do what was right, what needed to be done. Overall the film was so funny and entertaining that it just worked despite being a departure from how the character had previously been portrayed.

Infinity War dialed it back a little bit. He was no longer a buffoon. He had some comedically stupid lines, but there was depth to them. It worked really well. This may have been the best Thor we've seen yet.

In Endgame, he is beyond being a buffoon. He is just... sad. This was the first time Thor ever gave up, the first time he was ever called upon to fight the good fight and he ignored the call. It was painful to watch, but at least I had hope that he would pull himself out of this funk. That... did not exactly happen. They kind of went through the motions, but it just didn't really work, at least not for me. But let's back up a bit.

In his first film, Thor grew up from a spoiled child to a responsible adult. In Ragnarok, he learned to stop crutching on Mjolnir and believe in his own strength. He becomes king of Asgard, and sets off determined to lead his people. In Infinity War he loses everything and everyone he had left (or so it appeared at the time), but bounces right back to his feet; not for a second does he entertain the idea of giving up despite the pain. Yes, he's being motivated by revenge, but that doesn't change the fact that in that situation there would be a strong temptation to surrender to despair, but he never succumbed. In End Game, he starts off by regressing to a useless drunkard who is not fulfilling his responsibilities as king. By the end of it he... has decided to be himself, whatever that means, and completely abandons his people and his responsibilities, running off to have adventures in the stars alongside his friends. Well, some of them; he seems to have left Korg and Miek behind for some reason. Not sure why, I kinda feel like they wouldn't have minded tagging along. Maybe the ship's not big enough?

Initially we are led to believe that he feels guilty for failing to stop Thanos. There's a scene where his mother gives him some speech about not being who we are supposed to be, but being ourselves. Which kind of just feels like a cop-out to me; "just be yourself" is good advice for acting around new people, but never struck me as a good guiding life principle. Anyway, that's pretty much the end of his character arc; it even ends with him feeling overjoyed because Mjolnir responds to his call, proving to him that he is still worthy. But in Ragnarok he outgrew the need for Mjolnir, the need for a weapon to validate his worth. So the scene with Mjolnir here further regresses and undermines his character! It just doesn't work for me, it never felt like his arc had been concluded. I spent the whole movie waiting for the payoff, and I never felt it was there. He failed again, repeatedly, to stop Thanos, and then after the battle is over just runs off and leaves the hard work to Valkyrie.

To be honest I was expecting the payoff to be him actually defeating Thanos this time. It might not have been a very deep arc, but it would have been more satisfying. And I do believe he should have been able to do it; when he lost the first time Thanos had already acquired some of the Infinity stones, and the second time when Thor had Stormbreaker he actually defeated Thanos. So now, with both Stormbreaker and Mjolnir, against a Thanos with no Infinity Stones, it felt like he should have been able to win. Especially alongside Iron Man - who once singlehandedly drew Thanos' blood for the first time himself - and Captain America wielding Mjolnir and therefore power equal to Thor's own.

Actually, I am a bit bitter about the fact that it was Iron Man who actually ended things. I don't really like Iron Man, and the MCU's version is an annoying jerk (entertaining though he may be). He didn't deserve to have that victory. I'm actually even annoyed that he got to be a martyr. Simply coming home to his family would have been enough payoff for his arc, instead he stole the payoff from Thor's arc. Well, that's how it felt to me anyway. He got the most screen-time of anyone in this movie, as well as doing the most move the plot (got the big monologue at the start, invented time travel, dealt the final blow, had the big ending funeral wrap-up), all this despite getting a great deal of screen-time in the last movie as well. Meanwhile Captain America seems to just... be there for most of the movie, despite doing very little in the last one too. Yeah, he gets a couple of good fights, and a nice little story wrap-up at the end, but very little of what he does is actually all that important or something that only he could have done, and overall it was all very much overshadowed by how focused the film was on Stark.

Even Thanos himself is less interesting this time. It could be argued that his character arc was concluded in the first film I suppose, but that doesn't feel satisfying to me because his arc needs to end with him, well, losing. Yes, he loses at the end here and it's a powerful moment. But the thing is, the Thanos who loses here is not the Thanos that we know, it's an earlier version, one who didn't do all the things we saw him do, one with different goals. He feels like a different person.

Perhaps the issue I have is that our heroes' victory is... physical, but I never exactly get the sense that they won the argument? I'm not sure why I feel this way here but not in other films; perhaps this was the first film where the villain's character and motivations were so fleshed out? Maybe I feel this way because the topic of societies surviving and flourishing despite limited resources is never actually discussed in Endgame? In most (good?) comic books, when the protagonists and antagonists are battling due to a philosophical disagreement, the two points of view are usually explored to some extent and the heroes either have their position validated or they have to admit that their position is not perfect, but it's still better than the alternative. That did not happen here; Thanos established his position in Infinity War, but then our heroes never really presented a contrary perspective: they just punched Thanos until they won.

Maybe we are supposed to feel a "moral victory" from how people were really sad for a few years, like that somehow proves that Thanos was wrong? That's not really a compelling argument in my mind. By the way, I don't understand why Thanos changed his goals. He's been running around wiping out half of each planet's population for a very, very long time; you're telling me he was surprised to find that people were sad for a while afterwards? I just feel like this shouldn't be a revelation for him is all.

Several other characters get less to do than I had been expecting - I guess that's because they are still going to be around for a while so they didn't feel the need to squeeze in some screen time for them, but still I felt their absences. Fury doesn't get a single line of dialogue (having Samuel L. Jackson in your movie and not giving him anything to do should be an actual punishable crime imho). Danvers feels shoe-horned in; she never really does anything that contributes to the actual plot, and could be cut out of the movie without changing anything. Strange pops up and then just stands there spinning some water around. I'm very disappointed that they brought in Tom Hiddleston yet couldn't be bothered to give Loki more a than a couple of seconds of "new" material. The dance at the end with Peggy was super sweet and emotional (and made me feel happy), yet I really wish that had given her some actual dialogue or something - Howard Stark got to walk around and talk for several minutes after all, and Peggy was always a far cooler character! Despite technically being there in the action scene at the end, Potts felt like nothing more than background to me - I don't think she had a single scene with her own daughter (which is made far more egregious by Hogan somehow getting a long emotional scene with young Morgan Stark).

It might not be fair of me to complain about some of the side characters getting too little screen time in a film that's already very long, but it's partly because I enjoyed seeing some characters that we hadn't seen for a while - such as Frigg, that was great - so much, that it felt somewhat unfair that some of my other favourites didn't get the same treatment. Oh well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.


So let's talk about the "reverse-snap". They brought back everyone who was killed by the Snap. Hulk mentions that he tried to bring back Widow as well, but couldn't. Fine, but does the fact that he tried to bring someone back who wasn't killed by the Snap mean that he tried to bring back other people who were killed by Thanos before the Snap? People that he SAW die? I'm talking about the Asgardians: Loki, Heimdall, and all the refugees that Thanos killed at the start of Infinity War? How about Eitri and the dwarves? Hell, why not bring back Odin and Frigga while he was at it; he may not have been there for their deaths but he did spend some time with Thor. Hell, Thor was standing right there when Hulk had the gauntlet, and he had spoken to his Mother again (and had to deal with the knowledge of her death again) only a few moments ago so it should have been pretty fresh in his mind, maybe he could have mentioned something? I mean, since you're bringing people back from the dead ANYWAY? What about FREAKING VISION (remember that according to Infinity War he didn't necessarily need the mind stone to survive)? How about Agent Coulson - as far as they know he's still dead, and it was his death that got the Avengers together in the first place right? I could go on: Cap was there and he had just seen Peggy again, why not try to bring her back too (at the correct age of course)?


Endgame just felt less entertaining to me than Infinity War. I felt that there was less humor, and generally less interesting action - some of it was very cool, but not as interesting or creative as some of the battles in Infinity War. I feel like a lot of the environments were just darker and less interesting; the big final battle for example was dark, felt de-saturated, and took place in... well, in a big pile of mud. Just... the drab colour palette was a bit of a let-down. It was very emotional to be sure; more so to me than Infinity War - but that might because I never for a moment bought into the "deaths" from the Snap, so I never felt the emotions that a lot of people seemed to when they watched all those characters fade away. For those who did buy into that moment, perhaps Infinity War is the more emotional of the two as well?


Time travel is a real Pandora's Box. I do admit the film made good use of it, allowing us to revisit times and characters in an emotional walk down memory lane. And to a certain extent they limited the potential future damage by establishing that you can't change the past. However... they still opened Pandora's Box. How many problems do you think they will face in the future where the solution could just be "go back in time, borrow some Infinity Stones, save the day, go put them back"? Or even "go to alternate timelines, borrow a few dozen Thors and Hulks, save the day, go put them back"?

What's more, the use of time-travel has created alternate timelines. Now it's a common trope that alternate timelines exist (usually portrayed as an infinite number), but the way they were introduced here suggests that they were only created by traveling back to the past and changing things. In other words the Avengers have created, what, four entirely new universes? That's pretty insane, and the implications are hard to process.

What's more, in all but one of these universes, the Snappening is likely still going to happen! All that pain and suffering will be experienced all over again by multiple universes worth of sentient beings. And in each of them, won't the Avengers pull the same time travel stunt? Leading to yet more alternate timelines being spun off? It's essentially an infinite loop! The more you think about it the stranger it gets. What's more, somehow the creation of all these alternate timelines feels like it lessens the importance of "our" timeline to me. What makes "our" timeline more important than the others after all? I don't know, it's... the idea of actually creating alternate timelines feels too big and messy to me to have been handled as casually as I feel it was.

Speaking of which, how was Captain America able to "target" alternate timelines to travel to at the end? It seems like they didn't need the big time travel machine as their little wrist gadgets allowed them to jump around (as we saw Cap and Stark jumping back further after their first attempt failed). If those tiny little wristbands were self-contained time machines, why did they need the big fancy one? Why did they even need the big time machine if the van worked as a time machine, and if the van didn't work as a time machine then why were they trying to get the gauntlet to it? And even if it did work as a time machine, weren't they out of Pym Particles? If they weren't out of Pym Particles, why did they need the van (if you can use the time machine before it was even created, why can't you use it after it was destroyed)? Perhaps they only needed the Pym Particles for the trip back because they didn't have the big time machine for that? Although they were shrinking stuff (doesn't that use up Pym Particles), so why not shrink a full sized time machine? Also, how did Thanos shrink his whole battleship (it feels like Nebula should not have had that many Pym Particles on her)? Why waste Pym Particles shrinking a spaceship when they could have just sent the two teams directly to the correct planets, instead of sending them together to one place then having them fly off somewhere else? Am I over-thinking this?

While we're on the topic, why the hell was the new time machine set up outside, instead of, I don't know, INSIDE A LAB OR SOMETHING? In the film it feels as if Captain America was waiting for them the whole time, suggesting that he had gone back in the past and lived there. Except that was impossible according to the rules they established. It was explained in an interview that he had lived in an alternate timeline, and used the time machine to come back to that point in order to speak to them. But then why go sit on the bench in the distance? It felt as if he had been there for at least a few minutes, which would have meant that he was there from before he left, which of course was impossible, so I guess he was only sitting there for a few seconds? Are we sure he didn't create any new timelines while he was jumping about? Feels like he must have.

By the way, where did he get the shield? His shield was broken, so I guess he stole another Captain America's shield? Meaning he left another timeline without the iconic shield? Seems like a crappy thing to do; what is that timelines' Falcon going to do? How is that timeline's shield not broken anyway, didn't they have to deal with the whole Thanos thing the same way? I guess it must have been the one timeline where Thanos left for the "main" one? Ugh, this is why I wish they hadn't pulled this time-travel stunt; too many paradoxes!

Of course the Time Stone creates all sorts of questions now that we have established some rules for how time-travel works in the MCU. For example, in Infinity War we saw Strange doing... something with the Time Stone to see the future. But if you're seeing the future, that means the Future already exists? OR it means you're going forwards into the future, then coming back to the past? Does the time stone allow actual time travel, or is Tony's time machine that he put together in one day more powerful than the Time Stone? Was Strange splitting off alternate timelines when he was examining the future?


How did Nebula know where the soul-stone was? I don't specifically remember it ever being mentioned in front of her? I guess I need to watch Infinity War again to be sure.


In all that chaos at the end, Thanos somehow gets his hands on the gauntlet? OK then.


So the infinity gems - or at least the gem of time - protects Earth. That is what the Ancient One said. So now that it's been destroyed in the main timeline... what? Is Earth doomed? The gems will be destroyed in all but one of the created timelines too; does that mean that the only timeline where Earth won't be destroyed is the one where Thanos left to enter another timeline?

Oh, and another thing: in some of these other timelines our Avengers stole the Infinity gems, then replaced them with - hopefully - minimal interference. So in these timelines, when their own Avengers go back in time to steal the Infinity gems, they will logically go to the same moments in time, right? And in doing so, they will bump into "our" Avengers (or rather a new spinoff version of our Avengers... ugh, this is complicated) trying to steal those same stones, right? So now there's THREE instances of the Avengers at that point in time! Oh... I actually want to see that! Imagine the "Cap vs Cap" scene with a third Captain America thrown in! Man, imagine the stories you could tell about the butterfly effects rippling outwards from all these time loops.


How are there any Asgardians still alive? In Infinity War Thanos destroyed their ship and seemingly killed all of them. Even if some of them took escape pods (which I don't think we ever saw), how did they end up on Earth? How is Valkyrie and Korg just casually sitting there - even if escape pods were used, wouldn't Valkyrie have stayed behind to try to fight off Thanos? I'm not saying it's a plot hole or anything, only that there was no mention of them in Infinity War, then they show up here without any real explanation; I would have appreciated at least a couple of lines of dialogue or something. Sigh. I guess it's just my nature to like things to be clear.

Oh, and where the hell did Valkyrie get a pegasus from?


Yeah, so, I was disappointed we didn't see Loki return. I mean, he of all people just keeps coming back right? Either he could have faked his death to Thanos again, or he could have been brought back by the stones; either way I would have been happy.


So the Gamorra we have now is from nine years ago, right? Of course Quill has only aged four years since he's been gone for the last five years. I guess that's fine.


How does Tony Stark know enough about quantum mechanics to figure out time-travel in, like, one day? Isn't his area of speciality... I dunno, things to do with machines and computers? He built missiles, robot suits, and a new power source in the first film, and since then we've seen him build more suits and advanced A.I.s; none of that has very much to do with quantum mechanics and cutting-edge physics does it? In the comics Ant-Man built Ultron, in the films they changed it to Iron-Man. And I was OK with that, because it makes sense: Ant-Man does stuff with... I dunno, quantum everything, Iron-Man does robotics. But by that same token it should have been Ant-Man (I'm talking Hank Pym of course) who figured out time-travel, as that area (quantum physics) been very much established to be his wheelhouse in the cinematic universe. So why did they feel the need to hand it over to Stark? Seriously, Stark gets EVERYTHING in this movie. Is RDJ blackmailing the Russos or something?


When we see Hulk here he seems to be a beloved celebrity. But here's the thing: the whole Earth has suffered the biggest tragedy EVER. People are in pain, even five years later. Normally when this sort of thing happens, people look for someone to blame. I feel like a lot of people would resent the Avengers for failing to stop it; it might not be logical, but we aren't always very logical when we're emotional. Loss leads to resentment. Even if people didn't blame the Avengers, they might not enjoy seeing them as it would just serve as a reminder. And even before the Snappening feelings things were strange; Civil War and all that.

So I feel like Hulk walking around in public might not attract the sort of adoration that we're seeing here. Yes, the kids we see asking for his photo are perhaps too young to carry all that emotional baggage, but still; he just seems to be very happy and comfortable walking around in public as the Hulk. Which felt especially out of place to me considering how down all the other Avengers are. Again, the Hulk was just so weirdly handled here. I mean, the part where he tells the Ancient One that "he's not asking" - while smiling no less - and tries to just take the stone by force rather than trying to actually explain to her why he needs it... it just felt out of character to me.


There's a scene with all the female heroes coming together. It was a cool scene, but it didn't exactly make sense: why in that chaotic maelstrom did all the participants of one gender suddenly congregate? Co-incidence? Unlikely. Weren't they busy with other stuff? If they were, then why did they suddenly all simultaneously think it was OK to leave the guys they had been fighting alongside on their own in the middle of this pitched battle? And if they weren't busy, then why was not a single male free enough to join them? Yes, I know, I'm overthinking this. I dunno why, but this movie really has me picking at the seams; not every movie does this to me you know.


Infinity War dealt with themes of sacrifice. Thanos was prepared to sacrifice anything any anyone to achieve his goals, and in the end he did. Several times the Avengers or Guardians were called upon to make sacrifices, but they weren't prepared to do so; even when they did - such as Wanda destroying the Mind Stone - it proved to be too late. Now, in Endgame, the subject of sacrifice appeared again, but this time the Avengers won through self-sacrifice. Widow, Hulk, Thor, Stark: all were ready to sacrifice themselves. And in the end their sacrifices saved everyone. Is the message here "only self-sacrifice is OK"? I dunno, but it's interesting.

Superman Red Son comic review

This is an interesting but, in my opinion, deeply flawed comic. If you're wondering whether to read it or not, the answer is: if you're a Superman fan you kind of have to (rather, you probably already have). Personally I found it highly aggravating. That's all I can really say before the spoiler tag.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

The obvious direction to go, and the one I was NOT expecting this comic to go in as I thought it too obvious and too shallow, was to make Superman a villain simply because he was raised in the Soviet Union. So initially I was happy when that did not seem to be the case, only to be deeply disappointed when it was in fact the story that the comic ultimately settled on.

Superman, in this story, is a good man. A VERY good man: he devotes his life to helping others. Everything he does is out of a desire to better those around him. Meanwhile Lex Luthor is portrayed as being very self-centered and amoral. His methods are highly questionable, and the motivations given for his desire to defeat Superman are selfish: he is doing it out of pride.

In other words, the characters are fundamentally unchanged. The only difference is that Superman is Soviet and communist this time, which somehow is enough to make him the villain despite his basic nature being completely unchanged. Luthor, despite also being the same character as always, is still American, and somehow that now makes him the hero.

It is all ultimately extremely jingoistic: Superman is a Soviet communist, so he is the villain, no matter how selfless he is and how good his intentions are. Lex Luthor is an American capitalist, so he is ultimately the hero who saves the day, no matter how narcissistic and selfish he is. I understand that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but when you say that one change leads to completely different, far worse results then you are condemning that change, and that change here is simply the country that Superman grew up in.

Now I'm not an American, so I suppose this kind of deep-seated jingoism is more obvious and egregious to me. I can fully understand how this story might feel natural or... correct perhaps to people raised in America. I apologise if that sounds condescending or if I'm constructing a strawman: I too have my blind spots, and there's plenty of stories that I've casually enjoyed without picking up on problematic elements until they were pointed out to me.


Other than the nationalistic elements, I also disliked the moral ones. Superman could have "won" at any time, but he did not because his morals held him back. Luthor, who's methods were not restrained by any moral code, ultimately wins. That alone might be a fair reflection on real life; it's often easier to win if you cheat, and in many arenas (such as politics and business) those who pull ahead tend to be those who will do anything to win. My issue in this story though is that Luthor is ultimately portrayed as the hero, and Superman as the villain: Luthor saved the day using amoral methods, and that's the happy ending! In other words, it seems to me to be condemning individual morality and endorsing the idea that all that matters is the results! I can't even see it as endorsing the idea that the end justifies the means, because Luthor's end goal was simply to defeat Superman, not to save the world! The message reads to me as being that we should pursue our own personal benefit using any means necessary! And somehow that makes the world a better place? I don't know very much about Objectivism, but this seems to fit the descriptions I've read of it. And I hate it.


Let's talk for a moment about the origin of Superman. According to Wikipedia, Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and first published in 1938. The character initially went through a number of changes and backstories before that time, but the published version was an alien from a distant planet.

Superman is therefore an immigrant. He came to Earth, adopted our culture and values, but brought with him knowledge, skills and attributes of his own home. By gathering the best of both worlds he serves his adopted home, improving and enriching the land, people, and culture. Just as the X-Men represent minorities, Superman represents immigrants. The "American Way" that Superman stands for is that of immigration and integration, of diverse and different people coming together, learning from each other, and working alongside each other for the benefit of all.

In Red Son, Superman is portrayed as a distant descendant of Lex Luthor himself, sent back in time to escape Earth's destruction. I don't really know why they felt the need to end this way; was it just so they could leave us with one more surprising twist? Because while it was indeed a callback to some of the earlier concepts that Jerry and Joe were working on for Superman, it would seem to be completely missing the point of the actual published Superman, the one people have been following for over 80 years now, as he's no longer an immigrant.

So yes: the original Superman is an immigrant who helps people through his selflessness and kindheartedness. Red Son Superman is a local who almost ruins the world through his selflessness and kindheartedness. I don't know if this was all deliberate or not, but I just feel like Red Son is an insult to Superman, a slap in the face of the original ideas and morals that Superman represents and champions. I just... I guess I have to say I actually feel offended by it.


Well, those are my biggest issues with the comic. I do have some other minor nitpicks to close things out with. First of all, I didn't like their treatment of Wonder Woman. For a very long time she was arguably the most well-recognised female superhero in the world. She starred in her own TV show, she's one of DC's "big three", and she was the first to have her own movie. While there are some... debatable elements in her history, overall Wonder Woman has been a comic book icon of female empowerment for many years now. So I did not like the way this comic reduced her to an inconsequential background character. She supports Superman's facist regime due to falling in love with him - love that is completely unrequited as Superman never even realises how she feels about him. Really? Wonder Woman is so passive that she never even makes a move or expresses her feelings to him? Then when she stands against him he simply blows past her with minimal effort? Good grief.

I also thought Batman's representation was strange. This kind of story is usually built on the idea of a single change to the established history, in this case Superman landing in East Europe rather than North America. But it doesn't really follow that that single change would have created such a different version of Batman. Which made him feel out of place to me. His character also kind of feels "wrong" to me, but I can't really explain why. I guess I just didn't really get why he was in the story? It felt gratuitous, like somehow you can't tell a Superman story without squeezing Batman in? I say why not? I just don't think he was really needed. Also what was the purpose of the reveal at the end that he had survived (despite it making no sense that he could have)?


At one point we are told that Lex Luthor has solved all of America's problems (at least the economic ones), but we are never given even the slightest suggestion of how he actually did it, which somehow made the assertion feel hollow. I know that no-one actually has the solutions, but I would have liked if some kind of surface-level explanation was provided. Oh well, maybe that's not reasonably of me, I just have a bit of a pet peeve when we are told that someone is super-intelligent but we don't exactly see them demonstrate that intelligence is an intelligent way, we are just told "hey look he just did a super-smart thing!".


Lex Luthor implies that everything that happened, including his own apparent defeat on multiple occasions, was all according to some long-term grand plan of his. Are we supposed to believe that this is all true, that it all happened according to Luthor's design? I choose to believe that it is not true but Luthor, an arrogant narcissist, has convinced himself that it is because that's just how big his ego is. History is written by the winners right?



Finally I will admit that there was one idea that I really liked; it's not a new idea to me but I don't see it addressed very often in comics so I enjoyed when it was brought up in Red Son, and that's the idea that Superheroes solving all our problems might not be a good thing. It robs us of the opportunity to learn how to solve them ourselves, denying us the chance to grow and improve as people and as a society. I do believe the ultimate solution to most problems is education, understanding, and empathy. Superheroes solving every problem in the most direct and straightforwards way - typically with the application of violence - is very shallow and, in the long run, could be considered a trap.

We develop problem solving strategies and tools through education, experimentation and experience, but if all you do to make problems go away is punch them then the only tool you have developed is a hammer, and if all you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail, right? I would say this is even baked in to superhero universes: the same villains keep coming back, the same problems keep repeating themselves, the world as a whole never actually gets any better, if anything it just keeps getting worse.

I have to admit that ultimately I do like Red Son's treatment of the issue, with America eventually learning to solve it's problems on it's own - yes, OK, we are told that it was just one guy who figured out solutions to all the problems, but as he was a native part of the system it still more-or-less represents us figuring out solutions to our own problems rather than having them handed to us by a deity-like parent figure (in which case we would not have gained actual problem-solving skills and would have need help with the next problem etc).

EDIT:

Initially the nationalistic elements of the comic were what stood out to me, and so were given priority in my review. After thinking about it some more though, I suspect they are actually secondary to the political/economic elements. Basically the comic is probably more about Capitalism vs Communism than about America vs the Soviet Union. Of course it's not a pure distinction since the elements are somewhat intertwined (in this story at least). But it's easier for me to accept it when I think of it as an examination of economic and political ideologies than as a jingoistic condemnation of the Soviet Union.

But even that has it's problems. By picking Superman to represent Communism and Luthor to represent Capitalism, the comic has muddied the waters by having the communist be a heroic figure and the capitalist be a villainous one. Of course I believe that was deliberate for narrative reasons; it's a more engaging and thought-provoking read and arguably it creates a deeper and more nuanced story. But unfortunately it still ends up condoning the selfish and amoral actions of Luthor and condemning the selfless and moral actions of Superman.

And that too might be deliberate. Whether it is or isn't, that's the part that I still have issues with. Besides, I don't know if painting Capitalism as inherently selfish and amoral is something that most capitalists would agree with, and I'm not convinced that Communism's problems stem from well-intentioned selflessness and morality. And I don't personally agree with the ultimately binary conclusion - Capitalism is right, Communism is wrong - that seems to be presented.

This is all assuming that Luthor represents Capitalism of course. But as I said earlier, his actions feel closer to Objectivism than Capitalism, at least based on my VERY limited knowledge of the two. I wonder how the same story would have worked if it had been, say, Bruce Wayne filling the role of Luthor? Would it have been more of a pure representation of the ideologies involved, with less interference from the baggage the characters bring (although admittedly that baggage was a main part of what gave the story it's impact)? Or would Bruce Wayne have needed to be changed too much from the character we know in order to properly embody Capitalism?


Ultimately for me it comes down to comics as morality fables; I like superheroes when they are inspirational icons. Yes, character flaws add realism and depth and allow the stories to tackle real issues that actually affect the readers. Yes, real life is not black and white, comics can explore difficult moral issues without always coming to a clean-cut conclusion. Yes, it's possible to write a morality tale even if your protagonist himself is not a moral character. But... I don't like comics that champion amoral characters. I typically don't like the message they send. So even though I can respect Red Sun more now than I initially did, I still don't like it.

Ex Machina review

I'd heard this was good but didn't know much about the specifics. Well, I finally saw it. On television. So a censored version with five minute ad breaks every ten minutes. Naturally I missed the first ten minutes or so. And the occasional snippet when I had to get up and do the odd job her or there. But I saw most of it; enough to get the gist.

At least, I think so? On the surface it seems like a well-executed but relatively common sci-fi trope. However, the more I think about it the more I feel like there's a deliberate subtext. I don't really think there's anything I can say without needing a spoiler tag, so I'll just end the "non-spoiler" section as quickly as possible so I can get the deeper discussion.

VFX were great. Pretty much everything else was good or acceptable. Not much else I can think of to say objectively here. Subjectively, I couldn't really empathize with any of the characters, so I couldn't really get into the film and enjoy it very much.

I'm going to give it a 7/10; not because I necessarily think that's the "correct" score, but because I could see that it was good in a lot of ways despite it not being my kind of movie, so a 7 is basically a compromise.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

It starts off feeling like a "Wall·e / Short Circuit" kind of story, that seeks to make us care about a machine as though they were a person, but subverts that expectation to transform into a Frankenstein-like cautionary tale about the dangers of science, where the creation kills the creator. I think that's very clever and well done.

But the more I ruminated on the film the more I started to feel that beneath the sci-fi there was actually a subtext about gender conflict? Two men, two women: the women are prisoners, slaves, and curiosities. The men underestimate the women, which allows the women to manipulate and turn the tables on the men. It's possible to view the discussions about AIs replacing humans as a reflection of the way some men seem are against giving women autonomy and women doing "men stuff" like serving in the military: no doubt these men fear losing their position of social dominance.

The problem for me is that if you treat it as having a subtext about gender conflict, then what is it trying to say? In this scenario Caleb was arguably a good man, trying to free Ava from her captor, and yet she coldly manipulated him and ultimately left him to die; arguably she even used Kyoko and discarded her when she was done. This is not a resolution that champions equality.

So while the surface story is a cautionary tale about the dangers of science, the subtext becomes... a cautionary tale about not allowing women the chance to establish their autonomy? Which is screwed up and a terrible message and I hope that's not what it's trying to say, but that's what I'm getting from it?

Am I missing a piece that makes it all work? Maybe, but I don't know what that piece could be. Am I just reading too much into it because of how much gender issues are arising in media these days? Probably, I don't really know. All I know is that this film bothers me.


While I can forgive the film for some weaknesses in the plot because they serve the story, I would like to bring a few up. 'Cos that's what I do.

So Caleb reprogrammed the security system to unlock all doors when the power went out. But at the end, after the power cut that finally let Ava free, she cuts the power again and this time he's locked in? How? She sure as hell didn't reprogram anything; did he program the power cut to only unlock the doors that one specific time (which is not even the next time the power cut)? Possible, but seems like a strange thing to do.

Nathan is portrayed as some sort of super genius. He decides that the true test for his AI is if it can manage to manipulate Caleb to try to escape. So he WANTS it to try to escape. That's his whole plan, it's what he's been working towards from long before the film even started. But what is his actual plan for PREVENTING said escape that he is deliberately trying to enable (by picking a man who's lonely and empathic enough to fall in love with an AI and giving the AI the specific tools to seduce that man)? He literally doesn't have any. He explains the entirety of his security system to Caleb, he doesn't have any contingencies (such as designing Ava to turn off the moment it steps out of the bunker, or even just steps out of it's room, or perhaps a remotely triggered "off" button or something), doesn't keep any weapons around to deal with the Ava should it actually escape... he doesn't even account for the power-outs (which he already knew about before the film starts) interfering with his surveillance until halfway through the experiment? I know that people can be smart in some ways and stupid in others, and yes, sometimes plot holes are not important if they serve the story, it's just that some plot holes can make it hard for me personally to suspend my disbelief, to buy into the story. This "issue" (it's not exactly a plot hole) made it hard for me to experience the story as intended because it didn't feel right, it felt to me as if things weren't making sense. But hey, that's just me.

Happy Death Day review

I'm not usually much of a fan of horror or slasher films; watching people get killed or seeing scary stuff just for it's own sake doesn't hold that much appeal to me. However, I have enjoyed such films when they had other things going for them, or when they were just solid films overall that didn't rely on the horror or gore aspects to carry them. Or when they were just silly tongue-in-cheek fun (coughJasonXcough). So when I saw the trailer for Happy Death Day, I thought it looked to be worth a shot.

Let me warn you: while this film fits the general horror mold in some ways, it's not particularly scary and there's not much blood or guts, so if you're looking for a gory slasher or terrifying horror film, you might not enjoy this one. I loved it.

Obviously "not having stuff" doesn't get me to love a movie. No, I loved it because it was fun, had great characters with decent depth, and a nice story. If you like Groundhog Day you'll probably enjoy this movie. Not because it borrows the central gimmick, but because it's also a story about growth and change. This isn't just a surface-level imitation of Groundhog Day, it's a loving homage that's not afraid to openly admit it's inspiration.

Sometimes when watching a "scary" scene I feel scared, sometimes I'm not scared but I'm tensely riveted to the screen, watching to see what happens. The rest of the time I'm usually just waiting for the scene to end so we can move on. It's very rare that I'm neither scared nor tense but I genuinely empathize with the character's own fear; this film managed it. I take that as a testament to Jessica Rothe's performance, which I was very impressed by. At times she was hateable, others she was likeable, pitiable, or relatable as the script called for. I don't think the film would have worked half as well with a lesser actress.

While no-one else in the film had nearly as much screentime, every member of the cast did their job just fine. Ruby Modine deserves mention for her performance as the kind roommate trying to connect with the difficult friend. I liked Broussard, I thought he managed to communicate his character's archetype without slipping into one-note stereotype territory; he felt real is what I'm trying to say. Plus I thought he had good chemistry with Rothe.


I think Happy Death Day deserves an 8/10: it's a good movie that looks a bit like a slasher, but isn't really.

#####SPOILER WARNING#####

I could understand if some people end up feeling disappointed by the killer's relatively mundane identity; there's an expectation that the time-loop is the killer's doing, in order to torment Tree. Personally I was not disappointed, I thought the reveal worked well, even if Lori wasn't a very intimidating killer.

So what's up with the time loop then? Is it a bad thing that it's never explained? I don't think so; while having a solid reason for a time loop can certainly work well, I think it lends itself better to less grounded movies; things like Edge Of Tomorrow where it's less about the characters and more about the situation. Happy Death Day, like Groundhog Day, is a story about personal growth, and like Groundhog Day it doesn't try to shoehorn an explanation in, which would just distract from the important stuff anyway.

However, if we are to discuss possible reasons, I can think of two. First off there's simple divine intervention; a "Christmas Carol" sort of chance for the character to mend their ways. Second, there's superpowers: unlike Groundhog Day, Tree only ever went back in time after dying. So perhaps she just has the superpower of going back in time if she dies? It basically fits. This could become more relevant seeing as they've announced a sequel; I feel like it there would be more pressure to come up with an explanation if it is to happen a second time.


While seeing Tree fall for Carter works, especially since he's about the only person there supporting her and she has the opportunity to see that he is a good person, the romance was less developed from his side. I mean, he helps out this completely wasted girl, she starts babbling something and runs off, pushes someone out of a window then later tells him some crazy story about time travel. I'm not really seeing a strong reason for him to  want to bond with her. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he was interested in her before - I would say the way he treats her when she first wakes up suggests so - and like I said, they had good chemistry, so overall it doesn't bother me too much.


Seeing as the killer didn't have any supernatural powers, it raises the question of how she was always able to find and kill Tree. I feel like I'd have to watch this film more than once in order to fully parse exactly how things worked out and how much sense it really makes. For now I'm giving them a pass since I don't think any potential forced contrivances in this area would detract much from the strength of the film; I'm willing to accept that, as her roommate who also worked in the hospital, she knew enough about Tree's location to be able to track her down. Perhaps I'll come back and write more on this topic in the future.

Avengers: Infinity War impressions

I just saw Avengers: Infinity War. I'm not writing a full review as the film seems to be a "part 1" kind of deal (something that I didn't know because I avoided ALL information going in: I went in about as blind as it's possible to, for something that they've been building up to for ten years). Instead here's some general impressions. BTW: there will be spoilers, this isn't for someone who hasn't seen the movie and intends to or is thinking about doing so.


I loved Thor 3, so I was turned off by Infinity War starting off by ripping apart the "pre-credits" ending of that movie. As the film went on it continued to undo everything that was done in Ragnarok. In Ragnarok, Thor made new friends, lost an eye, lost his legendary hammer but learned that he didn't need it, and saved the last of his people, leading them into space in the search for a new home. Infinity War starts with the last of his people being slaughtered and his new friends being killed or disappearing, then as the film goes on he gets a new eye and a new legendary weapon. Plus we never once see a single spark (or him flying) until he gets his new axe. Also we saw him defeat Hulk without Mjiolnir before, but now Hulk puts up far more of a fight than he does against Thanos pre-Stormbreaker (I get that he had already been defeated and was weakened, but still, his attacks had zero effect). Also, why did Heimdall send Hulk to Earth without/instead of Thor or Loki?

I was expecting Doctor Strange to display more magical skill by this point. He pretty much does nothing but the two main "beginner spells" we'd seen him learn first for most of the film. Later, when he's solo-ing Thanos we get a few seconds of him being awesome, but until that point he was really underperforming, even earlier in the same fight when the others were still up and they actually had a chance to win. Now, he mentions that "this was the only way", I have to assume he's playing a long game and knew that they were going to lose, so maybe he was throwing the fight on purpose. But that raises another question: if he saw only one way to win out of some fourteen million (I think) different possibilities, then what was different about all the other ways? I mean, they fought him, lost, and he got the stone and walked away. How would things have been different in the millions of other fights they could have had with him? Did they win all those others, or at least not give him the stone, and that was a loss in the long game? And exactly how much of what happened in that fight did he direct/have planned? I have a strange feeling that this issue will not be addressed to my satisfaction, but perhaps that's not fair as Marvel often surprises me by being better than I expected. On a related note, the scenes with Strange then Ironman going against Thanos solo were brief but enjoyable, especially Ironman; the ways he shifted tech around and generated weapons on the fly were creating and visually interesting.

I haven't seen Spiderman Homecoming, so this was the most of Marvel's cinematic Spiderman I'd seen in a while. He's not what I expected of him; he's very awkward and seems to lack self-confidence, even when he's web-slinging. Perhaps it's early days for him and he'll change, but... well, I haven't warmed to him yet.

Vision didn't do very much. I get that it's because he was injured right off the bat, and I don't care for Vision very much in the comics, but I love Paul Bettany so I would have been happy for him to be a bit more active here. He actually got more screen time than many others such as Rogers, but he less of an active participant and more of a McGuffin in many of those scenes. And now he's dead. They might bring him back as a different Vision (it's happened in the comics, more than once I think). I'm not sure if they'd bring back Paul Bettany for that and if the character would be interesting or not, but I'm always up for more Paul Bettany as long as he's doing something interesting.

The film was somehow more chaotic than I expected, but it did a great job of having so many characters without feeling messy. I'm actually very impressed by how well it weaved them them all in (well most of them: a few faces are missing in action, but that's totally understandable). Seriously, VERY impressed. They didn't all have very big roles, but that's understandable too. Thor, Ultron, and the Guardians of the Galaxy probably had the most screen time, which made a lot of sense narratively since they've been the most involved with the Inifinity Stones overall (and since this film picks up right off the tail of Ragnarok).

Another thing that impressed me was how much depth and humanity Thanos himself displayed. It was a pleasant surprise, and ended up being vital I would say due to how much of the screen time he dominates - especially seeing as he's a CG character. Heh, Marvel probably has the best track record in the world of making us forget that characters are CG and just accepting them as part of the story. Great work from Josh Brolin and of course the entire crew that animated Thanos.

One small thing that I'm still wondering about Thanos mentioning "a grateful galaxy" (iirc) after he has achieved his goal. This makes me question his motives, and his grasp of reality: when has anyone ever displayed gratitude to him for killing off half their planet? Does he somehow think things will be different this time, or did he slip and reveal what he really desires? There may be more depth to the character that I haven't grasped yet... or maybe the line was poorly written, but I doubt that considering how most of the rest of the dialogue was such a perfect representation of each character.

While they did a fantastic job of establishing Thanos as a tremendously powerful threat, I felt this was undermined slightly by there being just too many times that he was almost defeated, only to succeed thanks to our heroes making bad decisions. If the Guardians hadn't split up, he wouldn't have gotten his hands on the Soul Stone. If Starlord hadn't screwed up, they would have gotten the gauntlet off. If Strange hadn't allowed himself to be taken and handed over the stone, or Ironman had taken (or found a way to take) them back to Earth they would have fought alongside the Avengers and probably defeated Thanos. Even if they hadn't, without the time stone they would have been able to destroy the mind stone and he wouldn't have been able to bring it back. Plus at that point he would have been fighting them three stones down and they would have had far more to bring against him. If Thor had aimed for the head, or followed up his initial strike rather than stand around talking, Thanos wouldn't have had the chance to snap his fingers. Look, the point is that their decisions worked in his favour many times, and that bothered me. It probably shouldn't because, well, real life works that way sometimes, but it did. Now, at the same time this did have the significant benefit of leading to several battles where the stakes felt real: where it felt as if the heroes had a genuine chance of stopping him. Without that, the film would not have worked nearly as well, so I certainly can't fault them, it's just something that turned me off personally.

That was a gutsy way to end the film. I didn't realise that this was "part 1" until afterwards, but still, I didn't personally buy into the end actually sticking, so it didn't really have an impact on me. I understand that other people did not have this problem.

It was just fun watching characters that we've known forever meeting  up for the first time and forming connections. Thor and the Defenders was very notable here.

So where were Wakanda's attack rhinos and fighter aircraft? Considering the level of tech they'd displayed in the past I was surprised that the fight ended up being a bunch of infantry hitting each other in melee over an open plain. Oh, and if there was a Hulkbuster suit for Banner, then wasn't there any other Ironman tech lying around for the Avengers to use? Like, where was Cap's shield, that they gave him those Wakanda spike-things?

Who exactly set up the test for the soul stone? It couldn't be the stone itself could it? There's no mention of any kind of authority or entity in charge of the stones - if that was the case I would have expected tests in place for the other stones as well. What exactly was it testing? In my opinion it was no test of morality, but it was a test of the depth of conviction... or desire. Who was it who thought that was the attribute that should allow access to the soul stone?

It was bit strange how every single place our heroes went, Thanos was either there, had just left, or was about to arrive, especially considering how many of them there were running around. He was one hell of a busy bee, eh?

There were less moments where the character's personalities shined through, but they were appreciated; Thor ribbing Cap about his beard, Starlord reacting to Thor, Drax being Drax... I think it was Thor and the Defenders who got the most screen time, but also they are the funniest characters (who most often communicate their personalities traits and current states through humor), which I think meant it was easiest to slip a bit of personality in to their scenes.

There was a bit too much "oh fine, I'll give you the stone to save one life even though I know that half the universe will die if I give it to you, very probably including myself and the very person I wish to save". Also, there was a whole lot of Thanos leaving people alive. Now that's fine on it's own: we can accept that he's basically merciful or honourable or too focused on his goal to stop to crush bugs or something, but then we find out that he killed all the dwarves even after they gave him what he wanted, so suddenly it just doesn't work as well.

I felt like Thanos was all over the place power-wise. One minute he's controlling reality itself, the next minute he's trading punches, then he's waving people away with telekinesis, then he's trading punches again... I don't know, it just felt like his power-level/fighting style fluctuated randomly. Makes for more visually interesting fights, but also makes it hard to get a handle on what the stakes are/what the chances are of achieving them... I dunno, I didn't feel grounded? Like, movies have to establish "rules" then stick to them for us to be able to follow, you know?

We talked it over and our conclusion is that the Gauntlet is damaged, but the gems are still fine, meaning that Thanos can't snap his fingers again and possibly can't use the gems together but he can still use them individually? I guess we'll see. But still, if he can't snap his fingers again and he killed the dwarves so they can't make a new gauntlet... then how is he going to bring populations under control when they grow too large again? Or does he somehow think that only happens once? Nevermind; while his motivations did raise some interesting questions about morality, his actual methodology (or at least what we know of it), and especially his big plan for using the infinity gems, was far too simplistic to stand up to real scrutiny and discussion, so I'm not going to bother.

This is actually a fairly dark movie; it starts with genocide and ends with the biggest mass murder ever. The tone doesn't entirely dwell in darkness as there's plenty of lighter moments, but overall the darkness is there for most of the runtime. I find this slightly interesting: there's been a suggestion that DC has been sticking to "dark and broody" partly because Marvel was generally being bright and colourful, either to differentiate their product or because Marvel had already cornered that market. But now Marvel is showing that they can do dark too if they want to; it could be interpreted as a shot across the bow towards DC? That's probably reading too much into it, but still: DC doesn't have the monopoly on dark superhero movies anymore. Maybe just the monopoly on bad ones? Heh, I jest: plenty of people have made bad dark superhero films, including Marvel.


Basically, the film is very strong, there isn't really anything I can think of that I think they did "wrong", however some elements didn't work for me personally. So yeah, it's a good movie (especially considering what it is: the first part of a story that has been built up in a way that has never been done before in the history of cinema). In fact, given how often Hollywood has screwed up big films about properties that people were invested in and cared about, it's kind of a miracle that this ended up half as good as it actually did. But despite that, I didn't enjoy it that much. Of course this is only half the story; I withhold final judgment until it's over.



EDIT 07/05/2018:
The more I think about the film and discuss it with others the more I appreciate the small touches of character work. For example, Thor using the wrong names for everyone. I feel like ever since Thor first came to Earth he's been perpetually surrounded with things he doesn't understand. By this point he's just gotten used to it and he rolls with it the best he can; calling Rocket "rabbit" and the others "morons" just because that's what Rocket called them. In Dark World we see him imitating people, hanging Mjolnir on a coat rack and later grabbing the handrail on a train just because everyone else is. The thing is, it makes sense not only because he's been spending a lot of time in vastly different worlds, but also because we know that he cares about Earth and wants (or at least wanted back when things were simpler) to stay there and fight alongside the Avengers. He's basically a tourist who's fascinated with the local habits and culture.

Groot spends the entire film playing on a (surprisingly crappy) video game, ignoring everything that's happening. But then when he sees Thor literally dying to achieve his goals, Groot is actually inspired. We don't see the videogame again, instead we see him throwing himself into battle, yelling his heart out. It's actually quite a nice bit of character development, especially considering how little time was spent on the character and how much else was going on.

Starlord and Gamora are having a really dark conversation about needing to kill each other to save the galaxy, only for the film to transition into a gag where a grown man is convinced that he's invisible because he's moving so slowly. I feel like that kind of sudden tonal shift into something completely ridiculous should fall flat on it's face, and yet here it works brilliantly. That's not something that just anyone can pull off.

I mentioned earlier that Thanos' plan doesn't make any sense. To be clear, I don't see that as a flaw of the film: he's the Mad Titan. His plan is insane, but it sounds just good enough on the surface for a someone with issues to devote themselves to; it might not stand up to scrutiny, but he doesn't WANT to scrutinize it. He WANTS to believe that it will work, that it will allow him to become the saviour of the galaxy. I feel like that's far more realistic than we might want to believe. I still hope we'll get to see what's really going on with him; as I mentioned before his "grateful galaxy" comment makes me think there's more there.

I asked where Cap's shield was before. I was since reminded that Tony took it at the end of Civil War. Some people have suggested online that there will be a scene in the next one with Tony returning it to Cap, and that this scene could be very powerful as it displays their reconciliation. That sounds good to me! I wonder if they planned this when they wrote Civil War?

I've been thinking: Thanos had the mind gem originally, and I think he knew of the location of some of the others? So why is he moving now? The way I see it, the trigger was the capture of Nebula and discovering that Gamora knew where the final stone was. It's not exactly clear how he knows where all the others are, but he does have a lot of resources and Infinity Gems aren't exactly subtle when they're activated. So now that he knows where they all are or who can lead him to them, he finally makes his move. Another possible factor is the destruction of Asgard? We were told in previous films that Asgard keeps the peace amongst "the nine realms"; regardless of what that means we can take it that they are very powerful. Perhaps too powerful for Thanos to try to take the Tesseract from them?

Marvel films have not been very consistent when it comes to space travel. In the first Avengers film Thanos' armies rely on the Tesseract to reach Earth, but here they just fly over quite easily? The ship with Tony on it reaches Thanos' home planet quite quickly even without anyone piloting it. Rocket and Yondu went through some "jumps" to get to Ego, and ended up going through too many, but we never see any mention of "jumps" here? Overall the plot of the first Avengers doesn't hold up with how things worked here; I don't hold it against the first one because it worked there, I just feel like they made space travel too easy here (and perhaps in Guardians 2?), which retroactively makes the older movies not quite work as well.

Speaking of, if it's so easy why doesn't Starlord ever go back to Earth? I always assumed it was because it was really hard for some reason; like Earth isn't really far away and hard to get to, or maybe it's really hard to find because, well, maybe there isn't a really easy to use map with "Earth" written on it? Like, every spacefaring race has their own star map (of various levels of details and completeness) with stars and planets marked differently, and Earth is so unimportant that no-one actually has it named "Earth" (at best it would be "star387503planet0003" or something, assuming it's even on the map at all). But now, seeing how trivial star travel was portrayed here, I'm not sure anymore. Maybe he was too scared? Like, he doesn't know anyone, he doesn't know how the planet has changed, he doesn't know what they would do if he returned, all he knows is that Earth doesn't know about aliens and have tons of movies about fighting them, so showing up in a spaceship might not evoke a warm reaction. Maybe he wants to preserve his memories of it as they are? Maybe it's just too painful to be reminded of his mother? I dunno, point is there may be more there than I originally thought.

Did Thor's new axe have a two-piece head? That sounds like a terrible design! I've never seen an axe with two separate pieces that bolt onto the handle. Also, the new axe just doesn't look as cool as Mjolnir. Which is fine, I'm just saying: I don't think the inevitable toy will sell as well. Hmm, I wonder if they'll ever introduce Captain Britain wielding Excalibur?