Daniel O'Connor

Captain Marvel (2019) Review

3:15 PM

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Although Captain Marvel does not explicitly bridge the gap between Infinity War and End Game, it does introduce the MCU's most powerful character yet. Unlike last summer's Ant-Man and the Wasp - a fun but uneventful filler film - End Game wouldn't be able to happen without Captain Marvel. The character is set to have a crucial part to play in defeating Thanos, so her introduction is a fitting next chapter. Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is unstoppable; if I was Thanos, I'd be scared.

At the beginning of the film, Carol Danvers (or Vers) is confused by her identity: she keeps having visions of a former life. It isn't until she crashes down to Earth and begins to investigate Skrull infiltration that she stumbles upon some answers. Carol discovers who she is, both as a hero and as a person. After Black Panther and Spider-Man: Homecoming - introductory films that did not focus on the character's origin - it is weirdly refreshing to see the MCU revert back to its tried and tested origin story formula. While this choice will be divisive - some will be tired of Marvel's generic and unoriginal narrative structure - I found it fun to be taken back to the style of the MCU's Phase One movies.

There was one scene that stood out as the film's most profound: it wasn't an action sequence, it wasn't the reveal of a plot twist, it was a quieter moment between Carol and her best friend Maria Rambeau (Lashana Lynch). Carol's visit to Maria's home in Louisiana brings back vague memories. This confuses Carol even more as she becomes overwhelmed by the perplexities of her past. Maria empowers Carol by reminding her of the person she used to be: a great friend, a second mother to Maria's daughter Monica (Akira Akbar), a fearless and selfless pilot. Lynch and Larson have excellent chemistry. From this one scene, they convincingly build a picture of a lifelong friendship. This scene, and its embrace of sisterhood and camaraderie, is moving, poignant and more potent than any of the film's action scenes. Carol's visit to Lousiana concludes with a touching interaction with Monica. Not only does Monica get to choose the colour scheme for Carol's suit, but Carol gives her some inspiring advice. Captain Marvel truly excels in its quieter, character-driven moments.

Aside from struggling with comedy (she nails some of it), Brie Larson is excellent (I'll refrain from using 'marvellous'). Her nuanced performance subtly carries the entire film. Larson's spunk and sass is never obnoxiously overt, and her character's empowering and emancipated moments are rarely preachy or patronizing. Captain Marvel is a great addition to the MCU. She's formidably powerful (maybe a little too overpowered), competent, altruistic and relentlessly determined. Throughout her youth, she has failed and has been told that she is incapable of doing the things she loves. This makes the third-act match-cut montage of Carol getting back up after being knocked down all the more exciting. The character is also labelled 'too emotional' by many of the men she encounters. While the film does not explore this as well as it could have (there is no pay-off), it was a relatable nod to how women are expected to act.

'Feminism', 'Politicisation' and 'Identity Politics' are all phrases being thrown at Captain Marvel to try and derail its success. My response to this controversy is, wouldn't we rather have films with strong voices than ones that switch our brains off? For the most part, Captain Marvel is the latter. It's never explicitly political or 'Captain Feminist: The Movie', as some are calling it. It's a generic entry into the MCU that happens to be led by a woman. However, there were some political undertones amidst Mar-Vell's (Annette Bening) secret plan. The Skrull's are battling an unwanted war with the Kree, so Mar-Vell was building a ship that could hold and relocate the entire Skrull population to a safe new home. Could this be interpreted as a commentary on the refugee crisis? The Skrull's, villainized and misunderstood, seeking refuge from the Kree oppressors. As well as tackling female empowerment, Captain Marvel has the intellect to implicitly tackle real-world issues.

Despite the stigma surrounding the politics of Captain Marvel, there are some strong male characters that should not be overlooked. Jude Law's Yon-Rogg was blatantly an antagonist from the outset. Anybody who knows superhero films will suspect this twist from early on. It was, however, interesting how Yon-Rogg captured and brainwashed Carol to believe that she was a member of the Kree. He even convinced her that her name was Vers! As he becomes more prolific, Law is becoming quite the one-note actor. His performance in Captain Marvel made me appreciate his performance as Dumbledore in The Crimes of Grindelwald even less. On the other hand, after playing what felt like the same character in Rogue One, Ready Player One and Robin Hood, Ben Mendelsohn finally delivers a performance that feels fresh. It probably helped that he wasn't actually playing a villain this time. There's also the ever-charming Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). It was great to see Fury back in action, and the answer to how he lost his eye was unexpected but felicitous. That answer? Goose the Cat (or Flurkin): Captain Marvel's loveable and hilarious scene-stealer.

Finally, Captain Marvel is a beautiful ode to Stan Lee. From the opening credits, Lee's legacy reigns over the film: a compilation of Lee's iconic cameos makes up the Marvel logo. His cameo in this film is one of his best. Before Carol starts to kick-ass on the train, she brushes past a smiley Stan Lee. Larson returns a warm and knowing smile that should touch the hearts of all viewers.

"We'll be back for the weapon. The core? The woman", says Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) after witnessing Captain Marvel unleash her powers to destroy his bombs in the film's third act. A third act that isn't overly inventive but enjoyable nonetheless. My point is, Captain Marvel really is the MCU's secret weapon. It's a film that introduces the exciting possibilities of the Skrulls, another compelling and extraordinary Avenger, and the superpowers that are strong enough to defeat Thanos. Although it might follow a generic story structure, Captain Marvel is an incredibly significant film, both as an entry into the MCU and as a step forward for representation in Hollywood.

/100

featured

Alita: Battle Angel (2019) Review

5:10 PM

An Angel Falls. A Warrior Rises?
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Had Dr Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) allowed Alita (Rosa Salazar) to wear the metallic armour that she found in the abandoned ship, the narrative would have been able to progress without detouring to pointless action sequences. Alita retaliates by becoming a hunter-warrior. Her new peers are unwelcoming and, when confronted by a terrifying mechanic monster, do little to help her. Instead of donning her desired new body, Alita has to be savagely attacked for Dr Ido to fulfil her request. This is just one example of Alita: Battle Angel's script favouring spectacle and exposition over genuine narrative and character development.

After the overwhelming success of Avatar, James Cameron offered his second baby, Alita, up for adoption. Cameron picked Robert Rodriguez, whose most legendary film is Spy Kids, to raise his child. James Cameron is an auteur so it is hard not to wonder what Alita would have been like had he retained full control over the project. A James Cameron-directed version of Alita would have likely told a delicate, focused and well-paced story. In contrast, Robert Rodriguez's take on Cameron's vision is messy, incomplete and relies heavily on setting up a sequel. It shouldn't have been too difficult to tell an origin story about an ex-warrior cyborg, but Cameron and Rodriguez's screenplay suggests otherwise. How did one of Hollywood's greatest storytellers sign off on such a tangled script?

ThroughoutAlita, characters are constantly talking about and playing motorball (rugby meets basketball on roller skates). It became blatant that the deadly ‘sport’ was going to be intrinsically linked to Alita. Unsurprisingly, the film’s villain Vector (Mahershala Ali) manipulates Alita’s boyfriend Hugo (Keean Johnson) into encouraging Alita to compete. Without any training, Alita is unbeatable – she is able to defeat some of Earth’s most-wanted scumbags. Like a lot of Alita’s action, the motorball game is thrilling and visually impressive. It also demonstrates Alita’s position in society – an insignificant girl who has the bravery, courage and skill to take on some of the world’s biggest monsters. However, Alita never completes her game of motorball. Instead, she leaves at a pivotal moment to rescue Hugo from the hunter-warriors. This is yet another frustrating example of the script sacrificing Alita’s story in favour of needlessly increasing the stakes.

This exposes another of Alita’s problems – the characters (especially the villains) are poorly defined, and their motivations are foggy. Vector wants Alita killed but is also secretly stitching Hugo up too? Chiren (Jennifer Connelly) is cold and moody until she conveniently succumbs to her maternal instincts in the third act? These abrupt changes in characterisation highlight the script’s incoherency. When describing her character, Jennifer Connelly has homed in on Chiren’s battle with grief. Neither Connelly’s performance or the film’s script explicitly accentuate this undertone until the character’s final scene. It looks like Connelly, Cameron and Rodriguez have tricked themselves into thinking that Chiren is a three-dimensional character. Mahershala Ali’s Vector also spends a large part of the film seeming futile despite a solid performance. Vector is essentially Chiren’s chauffer until she decides to take a backseat. Ali has a great moment when his character dies while simultaneously being possessed by Nova.

Alita’s compelling titular character is one of the film’s redeeming qualities. She might not be the inspirational and powerful heroine that James Cameron is dubbing her, but she is likeable enough to engage the audience. Firstly, Alita is an outstanding visual creation. Her interactions with the ‘human’ characters are seamless and her warrior past allows for some exhilarating, inventive and kick-ass action sequences. Secondly, Rosa Salazar delivers a strong performance. It must have been difficult to convincingly convey emotion through a motion capture suit, but Salazar succeeds. Thirdly, Alita represents strength and resilience. She is a selfless girl with a big heart. When a stray dog is murdered by one of Zalem’s machines, Alita marks her face with its blood before fighting back. This moment epitomises who Alita is – a warrior for the underdogs, a fighter for the minority. She stands for unity and ends the film as a symbol of resistance and a leader of a rebellion. It is unfortunate that this film will likely never get a sequel (predicted to be a box office bomb) because it only tells the beginning of Alita’s story.

Did James Cameron make the right choice when he decided to dedicate all of his time to the Avatar sequels instead of towards the launch of Alita? In short, yes he did. Not only is Alita: Battle Angel predicted to fail at the box office (its $200 million budget doesn't help), it lacks originality and substance. Luckily for Cameron, he will easily be able to bury his association with the project and blame the failure on Alita's bad foster parent Robert Rodriguez. Although it has impressive visual effects, Alita fails to capture the same magic, immersion and creativity as Avatar did in 2009. There isn't anything new about the origin story of a cyborg warrior set in a dystopian future.

Alita: Battle Angel is a derivative and convoluted sci-fi epic that greedily expects audiences to pay for a sequel. Dua Lipa might argue otherwise but Alita: Battle Angel sings its own swan song...at least she goes out fighting.

/100

Box Office Report

UK Box Office January 18-20 2019: GLASS smashes, MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS is inferior

9:47 AM

featured

Glass (2019) Review

5:11 PM

featured

Mary Queen of Scots (2018) Review

4:45 AM

Bow to No One.

"She'll be here soon", says Bess (Gemma Chan), informing Mary (Saoirse Ronan) and the audience that the highly anticipated scene that discloses the secret meeting between Mary and Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie) is about to commence. It was the promise of this scene that kept Mary Queen of Scots engaging and watchable; it was the scene that was going to finally allow Ronan and Robbie's acting forces to collide and stun. Unfortunately, the scene's best lines and most memorable moments were already shown in the film's advertising. Aside from this, Josie Rourke's directorial debut is incoherent, dull and overstuffed.

Based on the book "Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuart" by John Guy, Beau Willimon's (House of Cards) screenplay is where this film falters: During the reign of Elizabeth I, Mary Stuart's rise to the Scottish throne threatens the Queen of England's power. Elizabeth and Mary's rivalry heightens as they fight to hold the most power. After all, there is only room for one Queen. Willimon turns a compelling and poignant historical tale into a jumbled and overloaded Oscar-bait period drama. Willimon attempts (and fails) to tell two different stories in the same film: 1) the life of Mary Stuart and 2) Mary Stuart vs Elizabeth I. Sadly, Willimon focuses predominantly on the former and sidelines Elizabeth I (she has occasional appearances throughout the film that disjoint the narrative). Mary Queen of Scots could have been a tense drama about the unspoken rivalry between Mary and Elizabeth (i.e The Favourite), but Willimon's script barely explores these gripping themes.

Despite Josie Rourke's best efforts, Mary Queen of Scots would never have been a brilliant film because of its weak script. While it is great to see another film from a female director, Rourke's glamourous yet raw execution is overshadowed by Willimon's preachy and blatant feminist script. Mary has many lines about sisterhood and the power of women that are more obtrusive than they are empowering. Mary is also represented as a very progressive and accepting woman - she tells a homosexual man that he should not be afraid to be himself. It's always great to see LGBTQ+ representation, but an accepted gay man in Tudorian times? Bonkers. One thing that both Rourke and Willimon have in common is naivety. Rourke depicts a rather diverse Tudorian monarchy: there are people of many ethnicities working for the Queen. I'm sure that Rourke and Willimon had good intentions, but a period drama set during the 1800s probably wasn't the best way to make a political message about today's society.

Willimon's convoluted script has some pacing issues, particularly during the final 30 minutes. Mary Queen of Scots begins with Mary's execution before rewinding to tell the story of how that became her fate. As Willimon wanted to structure this story cyclically, Mary's execution is also the film's final scene. However, this finale isn't as dramatic or as moving as it should be. Just minutes prior to Mary's death, Elizabeth promises her that she will be safe in her captivity. The film then cuts to black and informs the audience of what happened over the next few years. This would have been a crucial point in Mary's life that the film fails to depict. Instead, the film rushes to its conclusion, erasing any built-up emotion. Editing is the one area that Rourke needs to work on; there are too many abrupt cuts to scenes that do not align and disrupt the film's flow (David Tennant’s rallying quickly became tiresome).

Although Mary Queen of Scots has some serious issues that detract from the film's enjoyment, Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie's performances are almost strong enough for these to be overlooked. Both ladies landed fresh Oscar nominations last year for their work in Lady Bird and I, Tonya. Their performances in Mary Queen of Scots may not be competitive enough for nods this year, but they are a reminder that Ronan and Robbie are two of Hollywood's most formidable and reliable actresses working today - even if they are speaking Old English jargon. Ronan's Mary Stuart is a feisty feminist who is determined to succeed Elizabeth I. Mary has everything that Elizabeth desires: beauty, youth and fertility. However, Mary's overconfidence in herself ("I shall produce an heir, unlike her barren self") does make the character slightly unlikeable, especially when Robbie's performance is so sympathetic. Mary is faced with a lot of trauma throughout her life (sexual assault, the abrogation of her child), but it is Ronan's performance that carries these key moments as the script does little to heighten emotions. Robbie's performance of Elizabeth I is understated - she isn't allowed to truly shine until her final scenes. As she did in I, Tonya, Robbie nails another fake smile - as Elizabeth makes her way to Mary's execution, the character has a brief breakdown that shows her vulnerability. Robbie's Elizabeth also has a sweet moment when encountering a newly born foal. Without Ronan and Robbie, Mary Queen of Scots would have been a nonstarter.

As soon as Saoirse Ronan's Mary Stuart connects with a young girl as she passes her on horseback in an early scene, I knew I was going to bow down to Mary Queen of Scots even if it was succeeded by a ghastly film. Josie Rourke's directorial debut lays the foundations for a great film - the costume design, hair and make-up and production design are faultless - but Beau Willimon's script is full of imperfections. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie's talents are undeniable; they hold the entire film together. The strength of their performances is more empowering than Willimon’s moralistic script. With a different writer, Mary Queen of Scots could have been draping in Oscar gold come January 22nd.

/100