Avengers: Endgame

Considering the scale of the Marvel films, the mind-boggling number of superheroic narratives Marvel's crafted since Iron Man was released in 2008, the billions of dollars it's made, the bold ways it's used them to pursue social justice, Marvel's still never seemed arrogant, or reckless, or condescending, or unhinged, as if it plays its role in the cinematic continuum with as much wild-eyed innocent wonder as its characters radiate in its films, generally aware of its remarkable capabilities, but constantly challenging itself so they never grow stale, likely afflicted with the same doubts that confront many successful professionals, without letting them take control, without allowing them to dissuade and plunder.

I suppose I often write about how often Marvel releases films, or how many of them there are, but loads of comedy and drama and horror films are released every year; if one fantasy/sci-fi/adventure/action studio is bold enough to expand its boundaries far beyond those ever conceived by its rivals, while delivering generally well-crafted products, perhaps overload transforms into melody, from novelty to pest to pastime, changing the fantasy genre in shocking unprecedented ways, without hubris or controversy, with old school hard work, humility, and commitment.

I've come to love many Marvel characters and it's incredible how many of them there are.

Trying to write a script that includes most of them and still respects their characters is a monumental undertaking overflowing with risk and chaos.

And I thought screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (is that a real name?) did a great job integrating diverse Marvel personalities in Endgame, Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) conversing with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Rocket (Bradley Cooper) boldly telling it like it is, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Quill (Chris Pratt) batting heads without much fallout, Nebula (Karen Gillan) sternly arguing with herself, Thanos (Josh Brolin) not saying much but delivering powerful lines, Captain America (Chris Evans) and his motivational speeches, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) keeping the team together, different characters analyzing time travel, a fierce determined Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) proclaiming, and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) emitting concerned humble brilliance.

Others as well.

The dynamics of time travel, or the logical repercussions of the mission the Avengers find themselves on in Endgame, are beyond the scope of this review, but I'll write that Endgame's clever and entertaining from the dismal beginning to the ________ end, with so many cool little moments and only a side of deflating cheese.

In Star Trek, it's always cool when Sarek shows up. How many films and series include Sarek? Yes, Mark Lenard originally played a Romulan.

In Avengers: Endgame it's cool to see around 30 cool characters show up, to highlight what I was getting at earlier.

"You're only a genius on this planet," says Rocket to Iron Man.

"There's beer on the ship," says Rocket to Thor.

Rocket's cheek is pacified after a Captain America speech.

Nebula would have made a great terminator.

The scene during the final battle, when all of Marvel's heroines line up to charge, was really cool, so many different personalities, so much compelling character.

Trying to take all of these characters and situate them in a narrative where the franchise moments are endearing rather than sentimental is a herculean task that seems as if it was handled with ease.

Possibly not handled with ease.

3 hours of endeavour that ties 22 films together.

That's never been done.

Who knows if it will ever be done again.

I even saw it twice.

And loved the poetic final moments.

I guess the series keeps going and this film wasn't released three years later and there's plenty more action to come but no more _________.

That's a huge let down.

Realistic, but still a huge let down.

Be cool to see _______ show up in some Indie films though.

There's no doubt ______ still got it.

And ______ may be sick of playing ye olde action ________.

A spoof would be great too.

How come no one spoofs these films?

There's plenty of material.

Spaceballs was very good.

Overload. Can't compute. Overload. Can't compute.

What a spectacle.

A truly incredible milestone.

It was even better the second time.

Too much, just enough, too little?

I still prefer Star Trek and X-Men.

But Marvel's made some great films.

Which are so much fun to watch.

Is it better to have grown up where Marvel is the norm or to have become accustomed to it after having known a different time?

I can't answer that question.

Crazy time for fantasy films though.

Crazy how much things have changed.

Avengers: Infinity War

Seeing this film made me wish I had been around 7 years old when the first Iron Man movie was released.

And I had been allowed to watch it.

I still loved watching Avengers: Infinity War, and there were moments when I looked on with the uncompromised emotional intensity that rapturously flourished in my youth, but if I had watched every Marvel film with commensurate innocent intensity and then suddenly sat back to watch Avengers: Infinity War around the age of 17, the film that brings them all together, unites them with wild improvised spontaneous universal synergies, the energy from a star even harnessed within for manufacturing purposes, I think it would have seemed like 149 minutes of pure unadulterated joy, even if so much distress accompanies its beloved characters.

I don't mean to argue that there isn't a lot of brilliant television out there, or series is perhaps a better word to use these days, I love The Frankenstein Chronicles, Star Trek: Discovery, and Myths & Monsters for instance, and I'm hooked on Zoo and Frontier, but television is usually trying to be as good as film, whereas exceptionally bad films seem like they should have been released on television, creative mixes of the 2 mediums notwithstanding, Netflix currently attempting to bridge the gap.

But it's like the geniuses at Marvel asked themselves, "what if we create multiple films, always bearing in mind that we're creating films specifically, yet envision their totality like an incredible television series, patiently stitched together over the course of a decade?

That might bear ecstatic fruit.

And simmer the ultimate cliffhanger."

To be young and see so many cherished characters packed into one epic syntheses may have been both shocking and overwhelming, but would it not have also been mindbogglingly awe inspiring, like having millions of recordings from around the world available on your computer for $9.99 a month?

Perhaps I misjudge the intensity of the theoretical emotion.

I'm looking back and imagining what it would have been like if the pop cultural coordinates of the early 21st Century had been superimposed on the late 20th, but if they had been alternatively superimposed before I had acquired knowledge of both timelines, I may not have noticed a difference, and may have assumed frequent loosely unified instalments from a thoughtfully orchestrated pyrotechnic colossus were as natural as Sam falling for Diane, or George moving back in with his parents, since I wouldn't have known that I was taking an alternative timeline for granted, and therefore would have assumed my foundations were unilaterally temporal.

If Marvel is like Star Trek squared, what the heck is Star Trek cubed?

Avengers: Infinity War, if Orwellianly titled, malheureusement, worked for me.

There's the inevitable cheese associated with bringing so so many distinct characters into one film, but the cool smoothly devours it, grates it into an exhilarating intergalactic artisanal soirée.

I especially loved how Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) immediately decides to just stow away on an alien spacecraft in order to surprise attack the universe's most threatening villain.

Classic amelioration.

Star-Lord's (Chris Pratt) ideas also impress.

As do those of the Wakandans.

Not to mention the inherent self-sacrifice built into the script.

And pairing-up Thor (Chris Hemsworth) with feisty Rocket (Bradley Cooper).

I'm sure there's a plan for the intervening years, but Infinity War boldly erases billions in profit in order to make a more realistic film.

That's damn commendable.

I've been watching a groundhog eat grass for the entire time I've been writing this.

It keeps running back to his hole when people walk past.

And then comes back shortly thereafter.

He'll probably be shyer in Summer.

So I'm lucky I chose this spot for today.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

The bourgeoisie surreptitiously asserts itself in Marvel's new Spider-Man: Homecoming, as competing potential father figures sternly challenge wild teenage convictions.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) offers fame and fortune.

He nurtures young Peter (Tom Holland) with august olympian tragedy, but isn't there to provide sought after guidance when the perplexities of crime fighting overwhelm as bewilderingly as they undermine.

His approach is school-of-hard-knocksy and Mr. Parker is none too amused.

Thus, he sees Mr. Stark's world and that of the Avengers as too ornate, too disassociated from that of the common person, and even though he wholeheartedly seeks to become an Avenger, like Henry Carpenter, he prefers to keep his feet on the ground, since he's unable to balance avenging rewards with communal sacrifices.

Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) on the other hand presents a successful self-made entrepreneurial gritty streetwise contrast to the illustrious Ironman.

He doesn't hobnob with politicians and plutocrats and geniuses and royalty.

He's an intelligent hands-on formerly honest businessperson who was forced into a life of crime by insensitive shortsighted unapologetic bureaucratic greed.

Choosing to keep his house and to save the jobs of the workers he employs, he adapts to his unfortunate circumstances and finds ways to controversially endure.

He's still a criminal though, and Peter's right to attempt to stop him from selling highly advanced weapons to bank robbers and thugs (he could have found other applications for his salvage), but when Peter sees the effects his actions have on his friends at school, he can't help but wonder if he's made the right decision.

He's caught between silver spoons and heavy metal, uncertain as to where he fits in, naturally gravitating towards Mr. Stark, who is a good person and can't be accused of being self-obsessed after the ballplaying actions he takes in Captain America: Civil War, but Pete still can't help but wonder if there's a dark side to his illuminated heroics, a dark side that leaves people like Toomes and his family stricken, as he prepares for another year of high school.

In hearty bourgeois style.

I doubt critics who lambasted the bourgeoisie for decades thoroughly contemplated a Western world where there was no bourgeoisie and a serious lack of honest professions for intelligent hard-working University grads.

Not me. J'aime mes emplois.

I may have done that too.

Before entering the real world.

The internet does provide ample opportunity to set up a business though.

Or your own newspaper.

It makes sense that traditional news outlets would vilify self-made electronically based independent journalism for trying to broadcast news online because they can realistically put them out of business, a threat major news sources didn't have 15 years ago.

Monopoly contested.

If they won't hire you, and you want to be a reporter, just keep reporting online while utilizing commensurate principles of honesty and integrity.

If they call your news fake afterwards, you'll know you've been noticed.

If you are just making stuff up out of thin air and not adding a humorous element that makes it obviously seem ludicrous, then major news sources are justified in labelling your outputs fake.

Oh man, too heavy.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is an entertaining thought provoking comedic yet solemn examination of contemporary American society crafted from hardy adolescently focused momentum.

Parker's struggles to fit in, to get Mr. Stark to listen, to prove himself avengefully, to impress the girl he likes (Laura Harrier as Liz), etcetera, aptly reflect the struggles of so many youthful reps, who likely also possess incomparable super powers.

Peter's friends and family, along with his teachers and adversaries, and Toomes and his squad, persuasively expand the Marvel universe's exceptionally diverse cast into cool and quizzical alternative realms, complete with the potential for amorous arch-villainy, possibly in a sequel that builds on Peter's conflicted yet contending earnest yet withdrawn middle-class symbolism.

With that theme in mind, the next Spider-Man film could rival Captain America: Civil War in terms of groundbreaking action-based sociopolitical commentary, streams crossed and minds melding, to keep things fresh and pyrotechnically strewn.

Perhaps Peter will be strong enough to hold the boat together in subsequent films?

That's what the middle-class does when it doesn't overstretch itself.

Steady as she goes.

Classic 20th Century Canada.

Captain America: Civil War

Infused with regenerative contemplative crucibles, Captain America: Civil War reflectively considers its own mortality, reinvigorating its lifeforce thereby, with abundant earthen pyrotechnic implosions.

Like Mad Max: Fury Road, Civil War doesn't focus primarily on one or two characters, preferring to simultaneously develop several of its bracing recruits, while introducing new additions and a brilliant mild-mannered villain (Daniel Brühl as Zemo).

The super villain is usually larger-than-life, obviously enough, and it was nice to see this tendency altered with a subtle human touch.

Vision (Paul Bettany) points out how the activities of the Avengers have served to encourage antithetical tyrannical histrionics, the challenge of defeating them too irresistible for megalomaniacs to ignore, power mad lunatics who might have remained inert in their absence, inimically keeping themselves in check.

Makes sense.

But Civil War is mainly concerned with civilian casualties (like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice), with decision making and oversight, Falcon (Anthony Mackie) reminding Captain America (Chris Evans) that the wicked are shooting at him too, the United Nations stepping in to neuter their independence.

It follows the Captain America storyline closely as Cap continues to try to save his old friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan), but I'd argue it's the 3rd Avengers film. Some of them are missing, but Civil War examines the dynamics of the Avengers much more closely than Captain America's, slowly breaking down their chummy conviviality, as Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Cap bitterly establish opposing factions.

The UN believes the Avengers should be held accountable for their future actions and seeks to establish a committee to decide when and where to deploy them should the forces of evil contend.

Generosity not being solely an impulse of the guilty, Stark still feels regret for the innocents who have died on his watch, and agrees that the Avengers's actions should be legally sanctioned to prevent further loss of life.

Captain America disagrees, thinking their startling efficiencies will be unnecessarily disillusioned by bureaucratic finagling and polemical delays.

The Avengers consequently divide and even battle one another as immediacy demands their intervention once more.

When they do intervene, do they do so too quickly, without applying enough thought to the side-effects of their engagements, ignoring local, national, and global laws as they save the world from imminent destruction?

Are they justified in responding instantaneously, since their enemies are usually universally threatening?

Early on in the film, a split-second decision almost releases a deadly biological agent into an urban environment, which would have likely killed thousands.

They are capable of managing such scenarios, but a slight miscalculation and they would have been responsible for the deaths.

Yet if Loki invades again with another bloodthirsty army intent on enslaving the planet, then it makes sense that the Avengers should charge in head on.

If a committee was responsible for authorizing such a defence they most likely would if they were indeed thinking clearly.

But as the aura of the Avengers intensifies and their enemies expand exponentially, how will they deal with concurrent attacks launched from different locations around the world?

Does it make sense that they each train their own specialized forces to be ready to defend different domains at the same time, the United Nations providing their counterstrikes with a centralized governing authority, with members of the Avengers advising them as needs be?

But HYDRA has undoubtably infiltrated the UN (and are perhaps working with Loki in a Vichyesque fashion) and would likely attempt to use its influence to frustrate the Avengers therewithin.

If the Avengers are guided by the UN it clears their conscience of responsibility, unless they're prevented from acting which may augment crushing pangs of guilt afterwards (I'm thinking Superman II).

The Avengers have entered the political realm, wherein most actions are polarized, no matter how many times you apologize, and a resultant stoic ambivalence enables its representatives to constructively cope with the fallout.

The best Marvel film thus far, making good on its Empire Strikes Back reference (the audacity), Captain America: Civil War cerebrally moves the franchise forward, sacrificing sensation for revelation, spry self-aware matriculation.

The action's secondary to the thought.

Big time character development.

Scenes that could have been cut are left in to the film's advantage.

It's more like solid drama than fantasy.

Blown away.

Note: sarcasm is often employed by intelligent people but watch for the person who isn't intelligent yet picks up on the fact that if you respond to something someone says sarcastically you can often win over the crowd without having to explain why you're responding sarcastically. Some people realize that all you have to do is employ the sarcastic tone without offering further explanation to win arguments without ever actually saying anything. It's just repetition. A troublesome bunch.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Avengers: Age of Ultron starts off slowly, even if it begins with a battle between the legendary conscience and HYDRA.

It was too immediate, like there's an unbroken link between every Marvel film, and rather than redefining and reasserting their image to once again furiously combat evil, that image is taken for granted, melodramatically spliced to relax the inchoate tensions I generally look forward to.

Not much of a problem, I just wasn't assuming the harmonious links uniting the Avengers were still intact, and introductory preparations for the battle may have been tedious and unnecessary.

In fact, what I was looking for comes to pass as the film progresses and distrust infiltrates their cohesive chummy ranks.

A crack in the crystal, a disintegrating view.

Throughout the film, however, I never really felt unsafe, like Ultron (James Spader) could possibly defeat them, even if his artificial intelligence did fittingly mimic a hydra.

But the film's much more than just another superhero extravaganza.

It adds a lot of depth to its multiple characters as they continue to comfortably revel in their traditional larger-than-life roles.

Weakness and doubt cripple them for a time, as spells are cast which complicate their pursuit of victory, and they change and grow as the horror affects their fortitude.

Love's intricately interwoven as well, and unlike some of the other aspects of the film, its subplot never seems cheesy.

Not too cheesy, bit of cheese though.

I don't see how you can pull off an Avengers film without being cheesy, you'd have to instil a pervading sense of helplessness and dread and keep the confident team of global/universal law enforcers off balance for more than two hours, limited pats on the back, underdogged bold castration.

Like The Hunger Games films.

Ultron sets up a devious duality early on, claiming the Avengers seeks to maintain the status quo, like Feyd-Rautha railing against the righteous in David Lynch's Dune, through their acts of heroism, and that he represents those who seek change, evolution, providing a social democratic aura to the Avengers, a hypercapitalist dimension to Ultron, the Avengers acting like an elite group of intellectual warriors safeguarding the interests of the unconcerned, whom they physically take care of at the end of the film through battlefield evacuation initiatives, a battlefield which Ultron turns into a terrestrial warship meandering through the sky, but, note that one mistake the left occasionally makes is to recruit brilliant thinkers to its ranks who take it upon themselves to solve the world's problems without actually consulting the people they intend to shepherd, their methods often becoming so abstract and celestial that they're difficult to follow, and they punish people who choose not to follow, thereby nullifying the affects of their intentions, which plays into the right's hands as they present themselves as practically as possible.

Include the people in conversations about governing the people and actually listen to what they have to say even if they don't possess advanced University degrees.

It leads to better results.

Hawkeye's (Jeremy Renner) the key to the film.

It takes a chill break from the action as the Avengers hide out at Hawkeye's pad, and we meet his hidden family, the unacknowledged crest that keeps him alert and active.

Nick Fury's (Samuel L. Jackson) there too.

I guess these aren't dramatic films, but still, look at what Robert Downey Jr.'s (Iron Man) doing, it's impressive.

Expansive discussions of familial longing then diversify the Avenger's dynamic, domestically explaining why they care so deeply about those whom they protect (they sacrifice such comforts to ensure others can enjoy them).

Hawkeye has the best line too, his sudden betrayal of the absurdity of it all, with a clear reference to his bow and arrow, reminding me why I love these films.

There's a cool scene where Vision (Paul Bettany) just hangs there checking things out for a while, plus his "born yesterday" line is hilarious.

Wanted to try Thor's thousand-year-old Asgardian fuel.

Love how Captain America (Chris Evans) holds things together.

The first film's stronger, but Avengers: Age of Ultron has a lot going for it that isn't present in the original, including plenty of Hulk (Mark Ruffalo); looking forward to part 3.

And the intervening films.

The Avengers

Prominent Marvel characters begrudgingly unite in Joss Whedon's The Avengers to battle the tyrannical intentions of the recently freed Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Loki travels to Earth in order to commandeer the Tesseract from S.H.I.E.L.D for the Other (Alexis Denisof) who promises him an army of Chitauri warriors in return (with whom he can launch an invasion).

The Tesseract is an extremely powerful and seemingly limitless source of energy.

The overt film's explosive enough, as superegos convincingly clash and physically exhibit their prowess. Their introduction's are concise and pinpointed, their initial meeting contentious and energetic, their conversation's confident, inquisitive and challenging, their commitment during battle self-sacrificing and unwavering, and so on.

Approaches and tactics are intently scrutinized before the necessity to act demands a united counter assault.

Much like any given Sunday.

This business of naming the overarching villain The Other is quite troublesome, however, insofar as this can be viewed as external difference financing and supplying Loki's imperialistic ambition.

Which is xenophobic.

And sucks.

After a nation engages in imperialistic activities a degree of underlying cultural paranoia is retroactively generated which can be thought of as manufacturing a subjugating unspoken psychological incision, an example of this incision's profusion being even more excessively manifested in A Song of Ice of Fire.

The Avengers themselves are exceptions overflowing with otherness as is S.H.I.E.L.D and the film's final confrontation takes place in New York.

These are local irreplaceable others, however, produced on planet Earth, apart from Thor (Chris Hemsworth).

As these special local others combat the 'extraterrestrial' forces of the Other in a metropolitan other the military's solution (the closest possible [ludicrous] representation of the people's voice in this film) is to send in a nuke and unabashedly obliterate all forms of difference.

But the narcissistic techno-other who cannot be somnambulistically subdued by Loki's sceptre catches that nuke and directs it into space, thereby using his 'idyllic' individualistic entrepreneurial ingenuity to simultaneously crush the threat of colonization and prevent a government sponsored homeland nuclear disaster.

He is then saved by brute force as he helplessly falls back to Earth (there's a disturbing image for labour relations [corporate fiefdoms anyone?]).

Thus, not so pleased with what's going on behind the scenes in The Avengers.

Thor does chastise Loki for considering himself to be above his potential subjects.

Thor who is from another planet.

Nice to see Harry Dean Stanton nevertheless.