Avengers: End Game (5/5 Stars)

A victory lap is the perfect description of Avengers: Endgame. It is a good enough story on its own, but is not afraid to tack on much earned nostalgia. If Lord of the Rings: Return of the King garnered a Best Picture Oscar in part because it was the culmination of a gorgeously executed triology, I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to Avengers: Endgame which is the perfect culmination of ten years and twenty-two movies of Marvel storytelling

Leaving off where Avengers: Infinity War and Ant-Man and the Wasp ended, half the life in the universe has been snapped out of existence by Thanos and his Inifinity Guantlet. The Avengers not snapped out of existence conveniently include the original assembly: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, The Hulk, and Hawkeye. Captain Marvel shows up almost immediately after and they all get in a spaceship and track down Thanos. Unfortunately by the time they get to him, he has already destroyed the Infinity Stones. It's over. What happened cannot be fixed.

Then the movie jumps five years. It is a ballsy move and cements a feeling of reality over the events of Avengers: Infinity War. Usually comic book movies don't have dramatically acted scenes, but this one contains a particularly good bit of acting by Robert Downey Jr, as Tony Stark/Tony Stark, who excoriates Chris Evans, Steve Rogers/Captain America, decision several movies ago in Captain America: Civil War which broke up the Avengers and made Thanos harder to stop.

There is a catch of course as there must be. It comes in the form of Ant-Man who was stuck in the quantum realm when the Snappening happened and comes back five years later. (There is an emotional scene where Paul Rudd, Scott Lang/Ant-Man, finds his name on a memorial for those who died during the Snappening and when he reunites with his daughter.) Scott shows up at the Avengers headquarters with an idea that has to do with time-travel through the quantum realm. Much exposition is needed in this movie and quite a bit of it is people explaining things to Ant-Man who hasn't been around in the last five years. Most of it is quite funny.

Alot of this is quite funny. Some characters' arcs are rather dramatic like Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow. But other characters are firmly in the camp of comic relief. Two characters that have completely hit their stride are Hulk, who is now Professor Hulk, a big, green and unangry Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo). Then there is Thor. What happened to him over the past five years is the stuff of comedic legends.

The question here isn't if Avengers: Endgame will reverse the outcome of Infinity War. We know it must simply due to sheer amount of marketable product that was snapped out of existence. The question is whether how this is accomplished is too predictable or too confusing. It isn't predictable and it generally makes sense (in a comic book science sort of way). A few times in the movie I was sitting there wondering how they were going to accomplish what they had set out to do and then how they did was quite satisfying.

Without giving away too much of the plot, the Avengers actually visit previous movies. Three in particular: The Avengers, The Dark World, and The Guardians of the Galaxy. The team splits up into groups to go back in time and retrieve what they need from those films. It is always when you have many full formed characters and then mix and match teams so people who have not really met or interacted before are doing so for the first time. Thor's interactions with the Guardians of the Galaxy is great in particular. Captain American fights himself and that is satisfying too. There is a lot of good stuff all over the place here. One particular moment, where Captain America finds himself standing alone in front of an evil army, and the moment right after, garnered cheers from the audience that I was in. I felt like cheering too. I really like these guys.

Following the example of other great culmination of movies, the last hour of Avengers: End Game has a lot of goodbyes in it. I believe the movie earned these moments. I look forward to the next twenty films.

Captain Marvel (3/5 Stars)

I guess it would be impossible to churn out great movies forever. Phase Three of the interminable Marvel continiuum of movies saw it hit peak Marvel with four great movies come out in a row: Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War. (I liked Ant-Man and the Wasp too). Captain Marvel, merely a good movie, is a bit of a comedown. It is another prime example of the notion that the more powerful a superhero is, the more boring they become. Captain Marvel has something akin to Superman powers. At one point she is flying through space and shooting photon blasts from her knuckles. In a situation such as this, the other powers of the universe can only retreat, which they end up doing once they slowly realize they are outmatched. When a superhero's powers get so strong that they make all fights boring and predictable, there needs to be some human drama that will spice up the storyline and create suspense.

If you can recall, Marvel had the exact same problem with Thor. The first two Thor movies were orverwrought and boring and presently scrape the bottom of the barrel of Marvel's 20+ movies. Then Marvel realized that Chris Hemsworth was a talented comedian, and instead of taking this God of Thunder so seriously, completely reworked Thor: Ragnarok too take advantage Hemsworth ability to play the clown. Here Captain Marvel is played by Brie Larson, who is no doubt a talented dramatic actress (Oscar Winnning!), but I'm not sure she can play funny. If she could, the way this movie frames her and her character severely hampers any ability to do so. You see, Captain Marvel is a woman and Marvel really really wants you to know that they are sufficiently progressive for modern times. It's their first superhero to be played by a woman after (that is if we exclude Black Widow and Scarlett Witch or any of the female X-Men, which I think we are). This liberal guilt complex at times can be a bit too obvious. The use of the word "cockpit" comes to mind or the repeated advice that Captain Marvel needs to control her emotions.

There is a line when a movie makes choices that seems less to do with story and character than politics. One of my favorite examples occurs in a little movie from 1997 called Titanic. Rose, played by Kate Winslett, is taking a guided tour of the upper decks of the boat and she comes to this realization. Why, she says, I've counted all the life boats and it does not seem you have enough for everyone. Now, the movie needs to establish to the audience that there aren't enough lifeboats, but they have chosen to have Rose, a young woman, make this calculation off the top of her head. Not some employee, or some engineer, or some other guy who has been on the ship for longer than a couple of days. This woman brings it up without prompting. Not only that but she understands the importance of Picasso, and can drink a beer, and well, what can't she do? Meanwhile, in stark contrast, what hubris and arrogance of all the other men except, of course, the one who falls in love with her at first sight and would die for her within a week's time. (Titanic, I'm giving a pass too because at the end of the day it is not about real people. It is a utterly shameless 200% pro woman fantasy. The extent of its commitment to that fantasy and the expertise to which it is brought to pass is among its great pleasures. I do admit the movie is great.) But let's be honest. Rose wouldn't know how many fucking lifeboats the boat needed. That scene is preaching to the choir. Playing to the base as they say.

Historically, women are greatly oppressed. But again there is line when it comes to storytelling. Other great movies that feature women as action heroes don't seem to come close to it: think anything with Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster, or Noomi Rapace. Or this can be brought up with subtle humor to great effect: Wonder Woman did a very good job at that. The pitfall to going past that line is not a political one. It has to do with unintentionally creating a one-note character, someone whose purpose seems to be to only exist in opposition to something or somebody else. That is, an antagonist in the role of a protagonist. Captain Marvel would likely work better as an evil villain. Anyway, we shall see if Captain Marvel gets more interesting in later installments. Here she starts off cool, remains cool, recovers her memory and realizes she was always cool, and then becomes even cooler. But hey, she's a woman. Points, please!

Captain Marvel otherwise contains a leap forward in special effects. For the past twenty years, movies have been making stop-and-start progress on creating artificial humans from digital effects. Robert Zemeckis did a rather poor job of it Beowolf. David Fincher tried to bring Brad Pitt back to his most handsomeness in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. He didn't quite make it and the scene is much helped by a dimly lit room. But now we have Samuel L. Jackson's performance in Captain Marvel. Samuel L. Jackson plays agent Nicholas Fury, who you have seen in many Marvel movies in a supporting role. But Captain Marvel takes place in the 1990s and Samuel L. Jackson necessarily needs to lose about twenty five years. This cannot be done with makeup. So Marvel has done it with digital effects. The job they do is so complete that it is hardly noticeable. It's incredible really. Sam Jackson does not look exactly like he did in the 1990s. Presumably Marvel wasn't trying to make a mirror image of him, but he looks like a person. There is no uncanny valley. I'm not sure where we can go with this, except I think someone at some point is going to start bringing back old movie stars and start inserting them into movies with Andy Serkis doing the acting. Or actresses known for their hotness are going to start remaining perpetually young. We shall see.

Goose is cool. I like Goose.

OSCARS 2019

Noone Hosted. No picture of host then. My picks below. 2018 was a great year for movies.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Cynthia Erivo, Bad Times at the Old Royale
2. Olivia Colman, The Favourite
3. Amy Adams, Vice
4. Emily Blunt - A Quiet Place
5. Zoe Kazan - The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Best Supporting Actor

1. Jeff Bridges, Bad Times at the Old Royale
2. Timothy Hoult, The Favourite
3. Steve Carell, Vice
4. Richard E. Grant, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
5. Josh Hamilton, Eighth Grade

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

1. Black Panther
2. The Favourite
3. Vice

Best Costume Design

1. Black Panther
2. Bohemian Rhapsody
3. Crazy Rich Asians
4. The Favourite
5. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Best Production Design

1. Black Panther
2. Isle of Dogs
3. Sorry to Bother You
4. Annihilation
5. Crazy Rich Asians

Best Use of A Song in a Movie

1. Acoustic Take on Me, Deadpool 2
2. Shallow, A Star is Born
3. He’s a Rebel, Bad Times at the Old Royale
4. Jazz Singer Scene, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
5. Wedding Scene “I Can’t Help Falling in Love”, Crazy Rich Asians

Best Sound Editing and Sound Mixing

1. Black Panther
2. Avengers: Infinity War
3. A Quiet Place
4. Bohemian Rhapsody
5. Roma

Best Visual Effects

1. Black Panther
2. Ready Player One
3. Avengers: Infinity War
4. Annihilation
5. Mission: Impossible - Fallout

Best Film Editing

1. Avengers: Infinity War
2. Can You Ever Forgive Me?
3. Mission: Impossible - Fallout
4. Roma
5. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Best Cinematography

1. The Favourite (Robbie Ryan)
2. Lean on Pete (Magnus Nordenhof Jonck)
3. Mission: Impossible - Fallout (Rob Hardy)
4. Roma (Alfonso Cuaron)
5. The Battle of Buster Scruggs (Bruno Delbonnel)

Foreign Language Film

1. Roma

Best Animated Feature:

1. The Incredibles 2
2. Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse
3. Ralph Wrecks the Internet
4. Isle of Dogs

Best Actress

1. Lady Gaga, A Star is Born
2. Catherine Weisz, The Favourite
3. Emma Stone, The Favourite
4. Melissa McCarthy, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
5. Yalitza Aparacito, Roma

Best Actor

1. Steve Buscemi, The Death of Stalin
2. Ethan Hawke, First Reformed
3. Lakeith Stanfield, Sorry to Bother You
4. Christian Bale, Vice
5. Steve Coogan, Ideal Home

Best Adapted Screenplay

1. Armando Iannucci, The Death of Stalin
2. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, Avengers: Infinity War
3. Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
4. Andrew Haigh, Lean on Pete
5. Alex Garland, Annihilation

Best Original Screenplay

1. Wes Anderson, Isle of Dogs
2. Paul Schrader, First Reformed
3. Brad Bird, The Incredibles 2
4. Boots Riley, Sorry to Bother You
5. Drew Goddard, Bad Times at the Old Royale

Best Director

1. Wes Anderson, Isle of Dogs
2. Boots Riley, Sorry to Bother You
3. Yorgos Lanthimos, The Favourite
4. Marielle Heller, Can You Ever Forgive Me?
5. Roma, Alfonso Cuaron

Best Picture

1. Isle of Dogs
2. The Death of Stalin
3. Avengers: Infinity War
4. First Reformed
5. Incredibles 2
6. Sorry to Bother You
7. The Favourite
8. Can You Ever Forgive Me?
9. Eighth Grade
10. Roma

Best Use of Cultural Appropriation

1. Black Panther - African/Science Fiction Makeup, Costumes, and Production Design
2. Isle of Dogs - Wes Anderson/Japanese Language, Style, and Mythos
3. Bohemian Rhapsody - Farokh Bulsura’s (aka Freddie Mercury) Persona and Music
4. Crazy Rich Asians - Chinese covers of American pop songs
5. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse - The many cultural iterations of Spider-Man

Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (4/5 Stars)

Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse war written in part by Phil Lord. This man has been instrumental in bringing to prominence a very 2010s subgenre of movies. Previous examples of his work are 21 Jump Street and the Lego Movie. What these movies have in common is a consciousness of previous source material that goes beyond being meta and continues into a weird quirking of the "suspension of disbelief". These movies are insisting that a fake universe is real to its characters and that the fake reality rules should apply instead of real reality rules. A good example is Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, whereby the characters are sucked into a video game and realize the world they inhabit is not governed by physics or biology but video game rules.

You wouldn't think that should work in a dramatic sense because when anything is possible, there should be no stakes or suspense. But the rules have kind of changed in the last twenty years, in part by gamer culture (which I will speak of later) and in part by a TV show named Community. (Obviously there are a million different threads that produce culture, but I do feel this show must have been instrumental). Community introduced a character named Abed who was so ingrained in the workings of genre storytelling that he could seemingly predict what would happen in the very TV episode he was in. Other characters would chide Abed that reality wasn't like a TV show, but they would generally be proven wrong becuase they were characters in a TV show. Over-time, Community became less a TV show about what characters did in certain situations, and more about how already established characters would react if they found themselves in a completely different TV genre. That is the situations didn't change in Community. The TV show's genre, and thus the cliche genre rules, changed.

This type of storytelling probably wouldn't be possible without something like gamer culture. By that I mean, the ability for an entire audience of people to have spent more time studying the rules of a fake universes to the point where it might make sense for a story to be using different rules of realty. I guess you could trace this back to J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the enormity and details of which were so developed that the place became real in the imagination. Nowadays, vast landscapes of fantasy come out every couple of months. Much of this can be crowd-sourced, with different people contributing their own stories. Think of the expansiveness of the Star-Wars Universe. These are not simply movies. There are dozens of novels and several 30-50 hour video games. Wookieepedia, the StarWars encyclopedia has granular descriptions of various races, planets, languages, specifications of different weapons and vehicles. There are historians of these fake universes who curate online encyclopedias and obsess over what is canon, a mind-boggling absurd notion that tries to differentiate the fake-actual events from the fake-fake events of a completely fictional storyline.

But amazingly, if the universe becomes detailed enough, its reality can become something approaching real and drama/pathos/humor can be derived from it. Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse is such an example. Now you know this story as this movie will explain to you at least six separate times. Peter Parker was an unassuming teenager from Queens, New York. He was bitten by a radioactive spider and became Spider-Man, a friendly neighborhood crime-fighter who works as a photographer for the Daily Bugle and falls in love with his highschool sweethear Mary Jane. He has a particularly good origin story that involves a beloved uncle that counsels him the "with great power comes great responsibility" and whose death occurs because of Peter's inaction. The original Spider-Man story has been told three times already in the last twenty years, first with Tobey Maguire, than with Andrew Garfield, and currently with Tom Holland in the main role. (As a NY Times critic pointed out, Spider-Man's defining characteristic is his youth, thus he must remain forever young, and thus the many reboots). Over the last sixty years, there have apparently been many spinoffs and satires of this story. In this movie, all of those universes merge.

The science is hazy but goes something like this: Every version of Spider-Man that has been created in any comic book or movie lives concurrently but in different universes. A bad guy named KingPin is creating a big machine underneath Brooklyn that will meld this multiverse. Spider-Man (the original Peter Parker) tries to stop him but gets sucked into the machine. This sucks the other versions of him into the original universe. Now instead of one Spider-Man, there are at least six.

I had no idea how out-of-hand this universe had become. Apparently, none of these characters are original to this movie. But we've got Miles Morales, teenager from Brooklyn. Gwen Stacey, best friend of Spider-Man who becomes Spider-Girl after Spider-Man's death, Peter B. Parker the middle-aged version of Spider-Man recently divorced and out of shape (voiced by Jake Johnson), Spider-Man Noir a black-and-white private detective Spider-Man from the 1930s (voiced by Nicholas Cage), Penni Parker, an anime japanese school-girl from the year 3100 who utilizes a Spider-Man robot, and finally, the one and only Peter Porker, Spider-Ham, a cartoon spider who was bitten by a radioactive pig, works for the Daily Beagle, and can float through the air while smelling a delicious pie (voiced by John Mulaney).

Visually, the movie is very impressive as it utlizes all of the different animation styles from the various Spidermen in the same movie. Animation, especially computer animation, makes for great action sequences, and this movie is very impressive in that capacity too. The heart of the story belongs to Miles Morales who we see gaining his powers, going through the tribulations of high school, and losing his beloved uncle. Certain stories are special to us. "If it was never new, and it never gets old, it's a folk song" says Llewyn Davis in Inside Llewyn Davis. This too applies to Spider-Man.

Green Book (4/5 Stars)

There alot of interracial buddy movies out there. The genre was essentially born with In the Heat of the Night in 1968, the first interracial buddy cop movie, which seemed to spawn a different iteration every couple of years (a few examples 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour). Green Book belongs with the best of them and in a way is more than that. Other interracial buddy movies focus only on the race aspect of the buddy relationship. Green Book does more than that. The characters here are also separated by class and just as importantly, if not more so, their ideas about individualism.

The plot is disarmingly simple. It is based on a true story that took place within the space of a few months in the early 1960s. The Dr. Don Shirley, the celebrated concern pianist, is embarking on a cross-country tour, including the deep south, and has hired Tony "Lip" Vallalonga as his driver/bodyguard. Dr. Don Shirley is black and Tony "Lip" is white. But as I said, there's more. Dr. Don Shirley is upper class. Tony "Lip" is working class. And most importantly Dr. Shirley is an individual. He has eclectic tastes, has no family or close friends, and is not simply a good piano player but one of the best. Tony "Lip" on the other hand, is Italian. He's from the Bronx.

They mostly get along. Tony "Lip" may harbor basic 1960s prejudice against black people, but does not seem to apply them to Dr. Shirley, who has obvious class and money and will pay him a good wage for his work. Dr. Shirley appreciates the usefulness of Tony's skills and personality attributes even though he clearly does not want them for himself. They travel through the segregated south, but the hardships that prevail upon them there are never more interesting than how these two interact with each other. Most of it pretty funny in an odd couple kind of way, Tony "Lip" being the sloppy easy-going guy and Dr. Shirley being the neat uptight man. Tony "Lip" introduces Dr. Shirley to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr. Shirley helps Tony "Lip" with the letters he writes to his wife. By the time the movie was ending and Tony "Lip" was hurrying back to make Christmas dinner with his family, I was happily being reminded of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. This is an enjoyable movie. Is it one of the best of the year? (It has been nominated for Best Picture). I don't think so. I think it lacks the sort of ambition a Best Picture nominee should have. But I'm not unhappy with its presence.

What is a racial stereotype? It is a belief about the typical attributes of a type of people. If you would agree that there is such a thing as a type of people, than it follows that there exist racial stereotypes about them that are true. At one point in this movie, Tony "Lip" offers some fried chicken to Dr. Shirley. Dr. Shirley refuses it. What's the problem, says Tony, you people are suppposed to like fried chicken. Dr. Shirely takes offense. What's the problem, says Tony, if someone told me all guineas like spaghetti and meatballs, I wouldn't get offended. Now, we all know why Dr. Shirley would get offended. Perhaps a better question then is why Tony "Lip" wouldn't get offended. The answer is not a question of race, it is a question of individualism. Let's put it this way: The racial stereotype that black people like fried chicken is not offensive to Dr. Shirley because he believes a liking of fried chicken is inherently bad. It isn't. Nobody thinks that. Dr. Shirley is offended because he is being automatically placed into a group based on his race, when he, as an individual, does not share those characteristics. Tony "Lipp" on the other hand does not identify as an individual, or not nearly as much. He is an Italian. He grew up and lived his entire life in one neighborhood in the Bronx. He is not offended by the idea of a person telling him Italians like spaghetti and meatballs because he does not have a problem with being grouped with Italians and having others assume Italian characterisitics about him. When told a group of stuck rich guys won't like his last name, he says, if they don't like it, they can shove it, I'll wait outside. It's only a problem to Dr. Shirley to not be accepted or allowed to be something different from Black. Tony "Lip" is content with being Italian and does not want to be anything else.

America has a long history of promoting individuals and individualism like that of Dr. Shirley. Our culture say far less about the merits of being part of a group. The pitfalls of being part of a group are well known: less room for vanity, less chance of fame, and you have to suppress certain aspects of yourself that the majority believe are not beneficial or simply don't like. But what about the benefits? Everyone in Tony "Lip" neighborhood knows and respects him. His Christmas dinners are attended by a large amount of family and friends. Whether or not he needs it, his relatives show up to provide support. Contrast this with the situation of Dr. Shirley. He receives lots of applause for being an outstanding pianist, but he has no close family, he lives alone, his best friend might be his butler. This is not a result of his race. He has chosen to put himself on a pedestal apart from other people. His concerns about racial stereotypes are not always a blow against racial prejudice, sometimes they are an exercise in vanity. He wants other people to believe he is exceptional. To the extent that he is exceptional, he deserves that consideration. But this is unrelated to whether it is okay to assume a black person likes fried chicken. If most black people like fried chicken, and liking fried chicken is not a bad thing, it isn't offensive to say or assume so. It is at least not racially offensive. Individuals may be offended for being lumped in with a group and a lot of what seems to pass as racism nowadays can fit squarely within the latter category. Not being able to vote or sit in a restaurant. That's racism. Microagressions, I'm afraid not.

This movie was directed Peter Farrelly without his brother Bobby Farrelly. There is probably a story there. The Farrelly brothers were responsible for some of the best comedies of the 1990s (Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, There's Something About Mary), but have not been doing that great since. This is a good change of pace.