Captain Marvel

I don't usually see films on their release date. I don't actually see many films in the cinema any more (sorry Into the Spiderverse, I'll watch you some day) what with working at least 36 hours a week and looking after a toddler most of the rest of the time. Fortunately me and my husband had some time off both work and parenting when Captain Marvel came out. Yay!

This film is so much fun! The action is good, with the plot trotting along pretty nicely. The characters are strong, especially the way they relate to each other and the way trust is built between the 2 main characters. The story isn't a continuation of a previous MCU film, hopefully making it fairly accessible to those who aren't serious fans. It's about extraordinary things happening to an ordinary person, but an ordinary persopn who worked hard as an air force pilot and who has gone through a lot. It's also about someone whose true potential is always tamped down, and told her emotions are a problem, finally realising that they aren't and she's more than any of her official superiors gave her credit for.

It is sort of an origin story, but not just for the title character, for the MCU. Set in 1995 it takes before all the other MCU films, except Captain America. In terms of Captain Marvel herself, the story inverts a traditional origin story, by showing someone who already has powers, but who also has a lot of questions and whose background needs figuring out. Along the way there's exploration of loyalty, of friendship/found family, of overcoming what you've always been told about yourself in order to become who you truly are.

I really enjoyed the soundtrack. I get that some people might see it as a bit cheesy, but it's rare that I watch a film where I recognise and remember most of the songs from around the time they came out (I mean the 80s has been a pop culture obsession for aaaages, I guess maybe it's the turn of the 90s now?). The soundtrack is used in a lot of fun ways. There's one song, which starts at the same time as a major fight, that had me burst out with joyous laughter.

Also a cat is a pretty big part of the film, and given this is the internet you're probably good with that.

Overthinking Frozen

Perhaps unsurprisingly I am watching more kids stuff now. My toddler is kinda obsessed with Muppets at the moment, which is both nice and a bit irritating. It's good that he wants to watch something we already like, but a bit irritating when he starts plaintiavely whining about "Muppies!" wherever we are.

It may be apparent that I can be a bit of an overthinker, but so are many people. Even when I'm watching something simple/cute with my kid I can't turn off my brain's and tendancy to ask irrelevant questions and posit theories. I've decided to lean into this and so here is my overthink of Frozen.

I'm so Angry at the Older Generation
I get that the King and Queen were scared by what happened, Elsa did seriously damage Anna, but locking their daughter (and heir!) away for most of her life was never a good plan. Telling someone they have to go to their room until they stop being magic/a mutant is not a good option. How did they expect her to develop the necessary skills of statecraft, diplomacy or socialising that are surely needed by a monarch? It seemed like each day they hoped it'd all just go away, or maybe gloves would somehow fix the problem, and everything could go back to normal. Except when it has been years and a situation is getting worse you've got to plan for what happens next, instead of trying to pause the lives of children.
Locking Elsa away, while cruel and stupid, makes a lot more sense than locking Anna away too . She had no powers and presented no danger, there was no reason to keep her away from everyone. She was this active, excited child and they just left her to wander about by herself, who does that? Well, these jerks obviously. If they wanted to keep the sisters apart (advice which they took to extremes) then why cloister Anna alongside -but ever separate from- Elsa? If Elsa isn't going to be in a position to go out and represent the royal family, then encourage Anna (the spare in 'heir and a spare') to act in her stead. She could have been the social, outgoing one who was seen by the people and did the social stuff that Elsa wouldn't be able (assuming you subscribe to the nonsense that Elsa couldn't go outside). Instead it seems like they just forgot Anna, gave her no useful training and left her eager and naive, easy prey for manipulation.

This is clearly not working

I feel like Grandpappy Troll needed to give more advice about dealing with Elsa's powers. He scared everyone and didn't give them a practical way to handle the situation, so the toxic situation above developed. Also the trolls in general needed to be less pushy about Kristof's lovelife. I think it was supposed to play as embarrassing, but it came off as intrusively pushy, especially when they encourage him to pursue Anna after they learn she's engaged to someone else.

Arendelle's Constitutional Crisis
It was 3 years between King Bad-Dad's death and Elsa coming of age, who was regent? Where are they? If no regent, who was running things?  Did Elsa just have brief meetings with the people who ran stuff and then hid away again. I mean hopefully she was taught something about running a country during the 10 years she was sent to her room to dwell on her continued failure (still not over it). The fact that the royals can just disappear from public life with limited ill-effects to the country (so far as we know) suggests there were other people around actually getting stuff done.
When Elsa is crowned things are probably expected to be more settled, a new Queen and a new start. But after the coronation she reveals scary powers and runs off, so is she the Queen still? The legal status of people with magic isn't clear, and it is mostly a foreigner who reacts badly. Then the heir to the throne goes off too and leaves a foreign prince in charge. Except there's no official status for Prince Hans, because Elsa (head of the royal household) didn't approve the engagement. He goes around being seemingly useful, and everyone's suddenly troubled by all the snow in the world, so I guess the people who usually run things were just glad for the help. Not sure who those people are though, dignitaries seem to be clustering together to discuss things in the few days that this is all happening, but only one of these characters seems to be from Arendelle. Where are the folks who were running things during Elsa's minority? Shouldn't they be involved until whatever is happening with the royals has been resolved?


For all that he is a horrible person and trying to grab a kingdom by manipuative and murderous means, Hans does seem to have a good handle on disaster relief and how to get things done. Is this just a ploy? Or would he have been a useful leader even if he is a shitty peron? I mean he presumably had more interest in/experience of statecraft and diplomacy than either of the 2 royal women. Having said that, Hans claimed to marry someone without providig a witness and said she'd died when she was still alive. I mean she was dying, but still he's presumably not the only person with a key to that room, so someone might well have found her. Not good planning/villaining there.

Ghostbusters (2016)

I was going to do a more general film catch-up post, but it turns out I have a lot to say about this film. I saw Ghostbusters a while back when it was in the cinemas and I very much enjoyed it (I didn't go to the loo during the screening even though I was pregnant). It's one of those rare films where the more I think about it the more I like it and notice stuff that was clever (usually it's the opposite way round and reflecting upon a film exposes its flaws).


The film is a fun, action-packed summer blockbuster, with lots of humour and great chemistry between the characters. There are strong themes of friendship, which feel very solid and some of the performances are incredibly fun, the portrayals of Holtzman and Patty especially. I loved the characters, and even though the comedy was goofball at times I always enjoyed it (goofy stuff can be kinda hit and miss for me). The only thing I didn't enjoy so much was how much Kevin was mocked for being stupid, and how his stupidity got very over the top at times, but that's a minor niggle and I know that that characterisation was included for a reason. Plus it looks like Chris Hemsworth is having a lot of fun with the part and that does shine through. The film absolutely works on this fun, entertaining level, but it also does more than that if you want to look deeper.

The story is about a group of scientists (and a colleague without a science background) struggling with credibility who discover that ghosts are real and then work to capture them both for their own research and to help the people of New York. Put like that it is similar to the original film, and features a lot of nods to the originals with loads of cameos, in fact there were more references than I was expecting. What I want to talk about though is the differences, because I found them very revealing.

There are some spoilers below, but I'm talking about themes more than plot points.

First off, the main characters are all women, that this was a point of contention shows just how messed up some things still are. In fact the way women are treated becomes a massive theme in the film, in both subtle and obvious ways. The first act feels a bit choppy in places, like it was heavily edited, and there were reshoots to include scenes which poke fun at some of the real-life, misogynistic detractors. It's a funny and creative reaction to awfulness. Erin is terrified of her past indiscretion -publishing a book about ghosts being real- destroying her serious, academic career, which it absolutely does. While a male academic who's close to tenure might well be as nervy and awkwardly eager to please, depending upon his personality. But would he have his entirely-appropriate outfit choices critiqued by a superior? Almost certainly not! This is just the setup and background for Erin's character, but it occurs to me that she's in a precarious position that perhaps a man in her position wouldn't need to worry so much about. She's made sure to fit in and stick to what is mainstream and ignore her past findings/research/belief in order to get ahead.

"Too sexy for academia?"

Secondly, I've heard people say that the villain isn't very epic, which is true. He's just an angry little man who's disappointed in his life, got obsessed with ghosts and enacted a plan to destroy the boundaries between worlds in order to make himself feel big (both physically and emotionally). The thing is, women have to deal with small-minded men all the time, the reaction to this film just existing is proof of that. Maybe they aren't fighting a gribbly, extra-dimensional being because their time and energy is filled by the enmity of an angry guy and they have to deal with that before they're able to get much else done. Also Rowan isn't shown to be specifically a misogynist, he's generally unpleasant because he has no joy. His life didn't turn out the way he felt it should and he decided everyone else must be to blame and therefore deserved punishment. Patty is the only character who is nice to him early on. She doesn't mock him for being weird and off-putting towards her, and though that is a requirement of a public-facing job (believe me!) Patty is very genuine in her interactions. We see that she tries to be friendly to everyone even though she's ignored and rebuffed she doesn't let it get to her (she's like an anti-Rowan). Later on the Ghostbusters try to save Rowan from himself and the sad thing is that he actually shares a major interest with them and was inspired by Erin and Abby's work. In fact he probably took it more seriously than anyone, so even in the execution of his plan he's inspired by/relying on the work of these women. Had they met under better circumstances the Ghostbusters would have probably seen him as a valuable collaborator.

The other big difference in this film is that although the authorities (the Mayor and the FBI especially) believe the Ghostbusters and already know that what they're saying is true, they absolutely will not acknowledge this publicly. Compare this to the reaction towards the original Ghostbusters team, the respect they receive, and the difference is massive. A PR lady from the Mayor's office makes very clear that all attempts to publicise their work and the existence of ghosts will result in them being derided and called crazy. All they are offered is the opportunity to continue their work discreetly and give the results to the authorities, who will of course disavow them while benefiting from their research. Basically doing useful and important work entirely for others while receiving no credit and being mocked in the process. Hmm, I wonder if this is based on real things that have happened?

While characteristion is a big factor within the story I found that parts of the plot stem from these differences in the character's status, respect and the treatment they received. IIRC the original Ghostbusters were laughed at, these ones are threatened and suppressed. It's a great example of how taking an existing story and changing significant things about the main characters can give you a very different tale and one that examines more things.

I just hope that the sequel moves the story along from here, expanding the ideas and letting us really see what these ladies can do.

X-Men: Apocalypse

We have been burned by X-Men films in the past (my husband still prefers to pretend Last Stand doesn't exist) and so we restrain our excitement and go without high hopes, which has mostly worked out well. X-Men: Apocalypse has some cool stuff in it, and is reasonable entertainment, but did not blow me away. It's very definitely a sequel, but because the two preceding films didn't mesh well parts were a sequel to one, and parts were a sequel to the other and it didn't feel like it all gelled. The story seemed to rely on knowledge of (and clips from) the previous films, but the X-Men franchise has not been anywhere near as consistent as the MCU for example (though I appreciate it pre-dates it), so too much harking back seems a little foolhardy. Though I guess they got to reuse a few set designs. Plus in many ways things being a bit confusing and not making much sense with what went before is very appropriate to the source material (my husband has explained portions of the Summers family tree to me, several times).

Those characters who were given much to do had reasonable plot lines, although they were often pretty standard and some were downright cliches. Bringing in new/old characters at different ages is hardly a novel trick for X-Men at this point, but it all feels a bit superficial when they haven't sufficiently aged the older new characters. Some new characters were not given much in the way of backstory or motivation, and while everyone can't get equal screen time it seemed like there was a lot of focus on established characters whose backstories are already known to us. Though bizarrely much of this examination of the previous characters didn't really fill the gaps so much as explain to us what we had already seen. Passing the baton is a tricky thing to navigate, but I think there was too much caution in this area, as though the younger/newer characters couldn't be trusted to engage our attention. There were some moments of meta, that were kind of amusing, but also seemed ill-advised and cockier than I feel is deserved. Overall it was fine, but I think they have to do something pretty different or particularly good to impress me at this point.


Spoilery Random Thoughts in list form - this is a thing now.



How much sand and grit and dirt does Psylocke have in her swimming costume? It occurred to me at Auschwitz and I could not stop thinking it in Cairo. It is unhygienic and she must be super itchy.

So that mother and daughter were always going to get fridged so hard. Did they have names? I don't recall. I mean they were obviously going to die so who actually cares? It is kind of tedious. Plus why is Magneto a family man working in a Polish refinery? Sure tell us all about that thing in Washington we already saw, but don't explain what happened between the films by any means. Why did he stop being Magneto, I mean that was the main thing he had any interest in?

Charles is happy and being a professor again after that period of drug abuse and self-pity in the 70s, which has left him curiously unravaged by time. I don't remember why he was sad in the first place to be honest.

Hank is at least pretty consistent, while also looking curiously young. Perhaps he has been experimenting again because if there's one thing this sequence of films has established about Dr Hank McCoy it is that he's very concerned by his looks.

It's cool that Mystique is some kind of icon for mutants. She's had the main surprising and different storyline in this half of the franchise, so good on her.

Are there female teachers at this school? Should two male teachers be wandering into a teenage girl's room at night. I mean I know Prof X is the only one who can help Jean, but shouldn't there be a lady there to chaperone or something?

So how many timelines are there now? I know they don't want me to think this, but tough it happened. I figure there's got to be at least 3 because bits of this tie up with some previous films, but none of it works with all of them. I mean if Kurt, Scott and Jean had all been there before then the events of X2 make no sense, but I don't think this can be in that timeline at all.

Yay, Nightcrawler! I do like Nightcrawler, glad he is there. If people say BAMF online my first instinct is always that they are saying Nightcrawler's teleporting noise, which can be confusing because I know it means something else.

Scott did not irritate me here, it may just be a matter of time but I find I'm never that bothered by Cyclops.

Moira McTaggert is back, yay! She didn't slap Charles when she found out what he had done to her, boo!

Seriously though it has been twenty one years since First Class and ten years since Days of Future Past, so a comment on how Moira's hardly aged a day doesn't cut it, especially as she has no mutant powers to explain it (not that most people's powers do). Stryker also looks pretty similar, and not like that guy with the beard at all. Quicksilver should look properly different, or should have been an actual teenager in the last one. Magneto manages to look a bit tortured, so maybe that helps. It's not like there aren't make-up effects that would do the work.

On a similar point how much older is Havok than Cyclops? Havok was a teen in the 60s and Cyclops is a teen in the 80s, so that's a fair age gap really, even though Havok somehow still looks like he's only a few years/a decade-maybe older than Scott. Their powers don't explain this.

I like that Charles doesn't realise he's lost his hair yet when he battles Apocalypse. From the trailers I thought it would get burned out by Cerebro. I expect that was a surprise, shame we didn't see it.

Quicksilver's sequence was good again, one of the better bits as beefore. His sequences show a lot of invention, which is cool. Why doesn't Quicksilver tell Magneto who he is? It's just kind of left there.

Sophie Turner's version of Jean is good (I'm not always that bothered by Jean as a character either). I quite liked her and thought it was cool that she got some proper fire. Though she can presumably remove Magneto's hat and then mind control him, so she's already better than Prof X.

Jubliee did not get much to do.

Why does Psylocke do anything that she does? I don't really know her at all, but sympathise for all the sand and dirt she'll be washing out of herself for weeks. Other than that I got no feelings about her.

Storm had some stuff to do at first, but then not so much.

Angel/Arcangel didn't have much to do either, and I thought he was supposed to be rich. Now I don't know much about him in this either, so maybe he was. Angel can be well used to show how mutant prejudice can affect someone from a privileged background, but here I guess he was just an American cage-fighter in Germany.

I'm not that bothered about Apocalypse. He is a fairly boring villain all things considered. I don't really understand why he disliked things so much considered the time period he lived through was pretty much when things were invented and popularised by humans.

Oh look, it's Wolverine again, for no real reason, except that he has to be there, I guess.

Captain America: Civil War

I was afraid this could be a bit of a hot mess after Age of Ultron, I mean that had less people involved and was quite overstuffed. I'm pleased to say that my expectations were exceeded. This wasn't as much of a pleasant surprise as Avengers Assemble (mostly because we all feared that'd be dreadful and then  it really wasn't and we didn't even know such a thing could work), but it was in some ways better as a thing because there's more background and complexity for the characters.

I didn't take a side (I can be that way sometimes, I haven't picked a side in the British Civil War either despite that my A level history teacher insisted that we would) and I felt that the viewpoints and motivations of most characters were given space and explored. This is nice because it could easily have been more on Cap's side (it's technically his film, and I understand the comic story line has Stark as a right jerk). The story made sense from a character point of view and the tension was built by the knowledge that there was more to the situation and we (or the characters) knew. It was cool that there were a few times when Steve and Tony almost sorted things out, but then something would happen or something would be sent that made it all worse. The action was exciting and interesting, groups of people using their powers and skills for fighting while mostly not wanting to properly hurt anyone else. There was room for surprises despite all the trailer clips and there was variety to the action that's different to what we've seen before. It's nice that Marvel have realised that you don't have to have a city in danger or something in the sky at the climax of a superhero film. A conflict can have tension and impact and be dramatic without trashing buildings and creating loads of collateral damage. I think this is one of my favourite Marvel films.


The Return Of The Random List of Spoilery Thoughts
Again this won't make sense if you haven't seen the film, plus it's probably going to be spoilery for previous Marvel films, so you were warned.



How did the Dean get a job at MIT? Seriously, he could barely run a community college.
Maybe they didn't want me to make this comparison, but they should have put a wig or beard or something on him. I am easily confused by people having different hair, so if I spotted it was the same man they couldn't have been trying hard to hide it.

Ma Stark has a name and a face and a voice!
I've been waiting for this for years! I mean she's only there so Stark can avenge(r)* his mum's death (what else are superhero mothers for?) but at least she's acknowledged as a person after 5 films with Iron Man and 2 films and a TV show featuring Howard Stark.

Maria Stark, about damn time

No! They killed Peggy! How could you! I mean it was obviously coming, but still, sadness. I pulled a sad face at my husband in the cinema. And then the 3rd series of Agent Carter isn't happening. Further sadness!

Sharon does not replace Peggy. At all! Don't try this Marvel. I know she's good at her work and helps Steve loads, but seriously that doesn't mean they've gotta kiss. Is it kissing as a reward? Not that I feel Steve would do such a thing himself, but plot-wise that's how it feels to me. She's been helpful so she gets to kiss Cap, I mean it's a gender-switched version of a trope, but it turns out I still don't like it. The problem is that there's little background or build up to this kiss, just Nat suggesting he ask her out a few years ago before he knew she was surveilling him. Plus the whole Peggy connection makes it feel weirder. Though the MCU has no history of good romances, in fact that's main place where they do badly, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised they've fluffed this. Or maybe it was to counteract the weight of all the Steve/Bucky online shipping, but this opposite-sex chemistry-free kiss does not convince that this pairing is better.

Vision's outfits! My first reaction to Vision was that he was so otherworldly compared to the rest of the characters, now his preppy-looking outfits are totally incongruous.

Vision and Wanda are kinda cute. They're the two most powerful (with Thor and Hulk absent),  but also in many ways the most mysterious. I wonder if things will be going in the same direction as the comics? At least if they do there's some build up here, rather than a seemingly arbitrary decision about which two characters are attracted to each other. Part of me thinks that a version of the Gillon/McKelvie Young Avengers run would be awesome (gay teenagers smooching on the moon!), but in all honesty the backstory/origin of Wanda's kids is all a bit too weird for film.

Spidey is great, really enjoyed him, but I am judging Stark so heavily for involving a child in this. Him not doing that kinda thing was the main thing that made him less of a jerk than Batman.

Ant Man was just happy to be invited, cos it's so cool. Plus he's a bit anti-corporate and anti-Stark, so it makes sense.

No one explains why Hawkeye does what he does, and I'm not that bothered.

Black Panther was very cool and his putting aside of revenge was the most sensible and mature action here.

No Marvel ending, they're doing a different thing, finally. Nothing in sky. No city in peril. Just three people with massive emotion stakes in the situation beating the shit out of each other in a bunker.

Stark shouldn't have had Wanda held, not cool. Why didn't he just ask her to stay put, explain why he wanted her out of the way for a bit. Using Vision that way wasn't great, I guess he still has vestigal butler reflexes. Having done that to Wanda he probably shouldn't have told Cap. Stark's not the best team player and I think he doesn't entirely get that the others aren't his employees. Not that he's treating them that way on purpose, but I think he has limited ways of interacting with people and assuming he's in charge is one of his main social strategies.

Falcon has totally imprinted on Cap. His hatred of Bucky is understandable and hilarious.

It makes sense they had to fight among themselves as Loki's the only compelling villain they've done so far (they're almost as bad at villains as they are at romance) and he's Thor's issue. Plus this works so well because we care for and have history with most of these characters while also wanting to discover more about the newer ones.


*Not sorry.

Superman Vs Batman: Dawn of Justice

Catching up with blogging? Or cunningly waiting until most people have seen the film?

As the main story after the release was that this film wasn't very good I wasn't expecting much going in, and so I was reasonably satisfied with what I got. It wasn't a bad film, it was fine. Of course at the moment it seems as though if something isn't brilliant that means it's terrible automatically, polarised opinions, blah blah blah. Plus I suppose this film came with a lot of baggage and the way studios are trying to chain films together meant that it had more riding on it than whether it entertained people for a couple of hours.

I quite enjoyed Man of Steel when it came out, and felt the version of Superman was continued here successfully. This guy zipping around saving people seemed the same as the guy doing occasional super-powered good deeds while he was travelling. I liked Ben Affleck's performance as an older Batman, one whose seen some stuff and has already got the whole Bat-thing down. I didn't get why people were so freaked out by Batfleck a couple of years ago and I think he did well here even if there were issues. I thought the way the two characters were brought together as men and as superheroes was OK. I thought Lex Luthor was an interesting, modern take on the character, though I'm not sure how off-putting he was meant to be. I think it would have been better if his overall plan hadn't been so weird, bits worked and bits really didn't, though it at least it wasn't yet another weird real estate plot like in previous Superman films. In fact plot-wise some stuff worked and some stuff was just really strange (especially the last act), but I can see the reasons why all of it was there even when it didn't gel. As in the previous film I liked Amy Adam's Lois Lane, though she didn't get lots to do but in an ensemble piece that was to be expected. I really liked Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, she struck me as fun and also as the only character (with the arguable exception of Lex Luthor) who seemed to know what she was doing. She was a bit skinnier than I'd pictured Wonder Woman (but hey, that's Hollywood I guess),  but I suppose the point is that with her powers it's not about size so much.

And now to go into more detail on specifics...

A Random List of Spoilery Thoughts
Spoilers below in case you hadn't guessed, plus a lot of this won't make sense if you haven't seen the film.


It's cool to see that the events of Man of Steel shown from ground level and that there are repercussions for all that violence, though it's taken long enough to show that. I didn't really comment on it here after I watched the previous film, but the fight scenes and destruction were too big and took too long. Nice to see some aftermath. Also cool that Bruce Wayne runs towards the danger.

Why is there a horse in the chaos? After the film my husband said that was a 9/11 reference. Grr.

Why are the people in Bruce Wayne's Metropolis office waiting until he gives them permission (in person?) to leave. There are aliens having a giant fight outside, I think you can run away regardless of what the CEO says. Also who was that older guy? It seemed like he and Bruce had some strong connection that never got explained. Though I might be confused because I thought Bruce was calling him "Dad" initially.

You know what I think we all know how Bruce Wayne became Batman. I think that is a thing with which we are all familiar, you do not need to show us, even if it's a quick flashback. I mean I get that this film is full of this odd dream 'n' vision quality, which I don't object to per se, but there could have been less of this thing we know already. I also get that his mum's name is important, but they could've done that with the name on the grave alone. After my comment about fathers in Man of Steel it's good that mothers have more weight here, admittedly they play a mostly symbolic role, but they're present.

Lex Luthor (I'd totally forgotten his name is Alexander) is clearly supposed to be a massively entitled dick who's a bit manic and socially inept, which works very as a villain concept. Though I feel like the film has not realised how big a dick he is and also wants us to feel admiration of him in some way, which I will not. Of course that could be me reading into things. The way he manipulated stuff to do with people and organisations and power structures was good. Anything to do with him and Kryptonian stuff made no sense at all and was deeply stupid. (It's possible Jesse Eisenberg is a perfectly nice chap but -like with Chris Pine- I've never seen him play a character I didn't want to slap.)

Seeing Lex Luthor and Batman in the same film made me think very strongly that they're really just two sides of the same coin. I know people say Batman should be admired because he did it all himself and he doesn't have super powers, but extreme wealth basically is his super power. Both Wayne and Luthor have looked at the world, seen something they'd like to change/do and used their ridiculous wealth -combined with extra-legal methods- to do as they please regardless of how authority/society views them. This leads to an interesting line of thought about how much they get to judge each other...

This Wondermark strip makes an excellent point in this matter and cracks me up.   Weird car!

Speaking of people judging each other... it seems a bit like Superman can't judge Batman for what he's doing too much. I get that Superman is primarily saving people (oh look there's that saviour imagery from Man of Steel, alright Snyder, we get it - at least there's less this time) and Batman is branding criminals, but neither is exactly official or registered. I understand Batman's motivation more what with Supes destroying a large part of a city and being a terrifyingly powerful alien.

Yay, more Clark! He was kinda missing in previous film, maybe it's because my Superman background comes from The New Adventures, and Smallville to a lesser extent, but I always feel Clark should be as much of the story as Superman. It's so cool that Clark can hear Batman's comms. I'd never considered that before! Superman would be very hard to spy on, I want to see a thing where someone tries. Say what you will for these films they are doing things with Superman's abilities that I've not seen on TV/film before (see also how young Clark adjusts to his hearing and vision powers).

If I hadn't seen someone mention it on Twitter I probably wouldn't even have seen that hip in bed with Bruce Wayne, though it served so little purpose. It's more subtle than most films that demonstrate that a character has sex with random ladies who have nothing to do with the story/the character's life, but I don't think that's required at all and so doing it this subtly is just confusing. My assumption was that this type of thing was also done for eye candy, which it didn't do and that's just added to my confusion.

I like that Batman's older and worn in and experienced. I liked that there are hints to the stuff that's happened before and that he and Alfred have been doing this a while, even though Alfred's obviously a bit dubious about some stuff Bruce does. I do like the traditional posh Alfred (more butlery one feels), but of the recent Alfreds I like Irons better than Caine - I mean Caine's Alfred is nicer, but he just never felt like Alfred to me. (Plus I kept thinking he was about to launch into an explanation of how magic tricks work which Christian Bale didn't need as he and his twin were already obsessively committed and... that's a different film.)
Also my short story My Guardian's Guardian, published in the Guardians Fox Pocket mini-anthology from Fox Spirit Books deals with stuff in this area. I don't normally plug things, maybe you can tell.

As I said above I liked Lois Lane in this film and the last one, but she felt oddly used here. She's kind of bait really and that irritates a bit and I wish she had been able to show more anger at being used as she is. I do think it's cool that she and Supes rescue each other (sort of) and both are shown helping each other out of the water at different points in the film. It seemed at one point like she was going to be a lot more important in the plot and then she didn't get a lot to do.
 
Speaking of which water seems to be an important element/image for Superman in these films, noticed it strongly in Man of Steel too. It's here as well, though less prominent.

What's with the Elseworld scene? I get that it's a wider continuity, but it just made it seem like the film was leading to this really interesting, weird thing that never actually arrived. I've since heard people say that they can't do an end credits scene cos that's Marvel's shtick, which I totally get, but I was largely confused and it just kinda added to the fact that Lois isn't really that important here after all.

Yay, Holly Hunter is doing things and taking no crap and trying to get stuff sorted. No, she got exploded.

Why couldn't Batman and Superman just talk things through like people? I mean there's all this squaring off and fighting, and it wasn't needed. Again I get what Batman was doing more, he was afraid of someone dangerous and powerful, probably a new feeling for him. But why didn't Superman just hover nearby and explain that this terrible guy kidnapped his mother to force a fight, and hey you seem pretty resourceful, maybe you could help with that.

Yay Wonder Woman! When she sees the TV on the plane (do they show news on planes, idk I've never been on the posh bit of a plane) you can just see her thinking she's gonna have to sort out someone elses mess. Then Supes and Bats assume she's with the other and it's like, no dudes this lady is here on her own terms. Plus it's amazing the casual way she says she's dealt with creatures from other worlds before. It's like these guys have no clue how clueless they even are.

She has the best theme music! It is so amazing. When Bruce is looking at her photo there's the thing with the drums and I thought that was pretty cool. Then when she shows up in full outfit, OMG! The drums and the guitars and the awesome! I don't run, but if I did run, I feel like that would be excellent music to run to.

So Doomsday and Lex Luthor's plan, WTF? Nothing in that spaceship made any sense whatsoever, which means much of Lex Luthor's plan doesn't make sense. I get that there needed to be some implacable threat to bring Bats and Supes together, but couldn't they have come up with something that wasn't immensely nonsensical?
Why does splashing some human blood into a pool with a dead Kryptonian General create a big monster?
Why would the human whose blood it is be able to control the monster? That's not how blood works.
Why would Lex even think this is a thing he could do?
I get that the film probably didn't show the timing very well, and maybe he was doing a lot of really thorough research and not just going paddling with a dead alien, but still. Up to that point I'd been impressed with his scheming, but after it I was not on board.

Seems a bit early to do Death of Superman. I'm not that invested in the characters yet, but I suppose it goes back to the weight of subsequent films so I get why it happened. Also it seemed a bit weird that Batman was so sad and acting like they were such good friends, when actually they hated each other up until the end bit, and then they were allies during one fight that seemed like it was about half an hour. Don't start telling people they've got to this and that in the name of your friend when you only knew him for half an hour, ok Batman.

Why did they shave Lex Luthor's head when he was in prison? That's not how prison works. (I feel the timing of him even being in prison was a bit quick, but films often do this sort of thing.) You lose your liberty, but you can keep your hair. I mean if he was joining the army I'd get it; I don't know if that's a real thing in the US Army, but it's a trope I've seen before - and those guys do hate extra hair. If he was shaving his own head or tearing his hair out that'd seem like it made more sense. Maybe being as he's small and white he figured he'd go skinhead for protection, but that's not what we're seeing. I know many famous incarnations of Luthor are bald, but if he wasn't bald from the start I don't see why it happened randomly at the end.
Also, does Batman have Alfred flicking the light switches in the prison? Doesn't seem safe.

Others People's Icons

I've never considered myself to have been born at the wrong time (I like history but I'm not big on idealising other time periods), but it does sometimes occur to me that my age and the circumstances of my childhood left me in a bit of a gap as far as pop culture (especially geek culture) is concerned.

I don't remember the 80s, I grew up mostly in the 90s and there was very little geekiness in my family (my dad reads SFF, but is not involved in fan stuff - in my experience there are a lot of people like that and I don't know that they get talked about much).  I didn't realise I was a geek until my late teens and didn't really explore what was out there until university. What this means is that a lot of my friends, acquaintances and people I follow on twitter have these cultural touchstones that they are very invested in. I have picked up a lot of the lingo and references, I have often seen the stuff in retrospect, but not really experienced the feels that others have.

I grew up in the Doctor Who gap. As a child I remember we had some knowledge of Doctor Who, we could identify a Dalek or the TARDIS. I remember when I was 6(ish) a group of kids running around holding rulers and saying "Exterminate" in robot voices. Scarves were also important somehow and hiding behind the sofa. I never saw Doctor Who on TV, I wasn't aware of any of the fan-made stuff, the novels, the audiobooks. To me, as a child, Doctor Who was something that used to be on TV. I enjoy Doctor Who now, to a variable extent, but it's not part of my childhood. My Doctor was the guy from the Knock-Knock joke.*

Also I've never seen E.T. all the way through, but I do mostly remember that alien from the BT adverts (it really was the perfect campaign for them when you think about it). It's probably a little sad that a lot of other people's icons are my marketing devices.

Nowhere is my growing up in the gap more evident than Star Wars and this year I've really noticed it. I first saw the original trilogy all the way through on telly when I was 17. I already knew the basics just from consuming pop culture, the references are all over the place. I seem to recall thinking it was OK, but I had no real sense of wonder or excitement. I had always lived in a world where all this already existed. I was not bothered about The Phantom Menace, I expect I saw adverts but I wasn't involved in geek culture of any kind so the whole thing passed me by. The only Star Wars film I have seen in the cinema is Episode III, because my then-boyfriend (now-husband) had a traditional of seeing the midnight screenings (I agree with my friend Greg that George Lucas was clearly trying to blind us all with that film, an effect heightened by having been awake hours longer than usual) and my Dad also wanted to see it. 

I've been trying to stay away from all the Star Wars hype this year, just gleaning bits of info from social media and podcasts. If I hear too much about it all I will be sick of it before it even comes out. Though I did hear it mentioned months ago on the store radio when I was in ASDA, the hype has escaped geek spaces and there's no real way to entirely avoid it. I don't want to seem curmudgeonly, I appreciate that others like Star Wars on a level that I'm unlikely to ever feel myself and that's fine. If anything I guess I have an advantage in that I'm not so invested as to feel anger or betrayal if it is done wrong - whatever "wrong" is. 

I don't think I have an equivalent of Star Wars or Doctor Who, something from my youth I feel that deeply about. I have things I really enjoy of course, many of them seen or read after the fact. I'm not so ignorant as I once was, and my husband has ensured that I've seen the Alien and Matrix films I missed before. I've never considered myself part of a specific fandom, but that may be because for all that I am a geek I don't think my personality leans towards that so much. Also I can be a little standoffish, wary of giving myself to people or groups. Perhaps that's something I should change? For now though it's nice to see others enjoying things so much, and even if I don't feel it myself I like to see my friends' joy and enthusiasm.


* If anyone is unfamiliar with the knock-knock joke feel free to ask.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Half the internet has been talking about this, but generally politely enough not to be spoilery in public places. I shall try and keep to this admirable trend and will put a spoiler warning before revealing anything outside the trailer.

Like most of people I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy and thought that Marvel and Sean Gunn did an excellent job introducing a little-known ensemble to the Cinematic Universe and broadening it's cosmic side. It also feels like this would be a good starting point for people who have not watched the rest of the Marvel films, as the bulk of it is entirely new.

The film is a lot of fun and uses humour well, mostly creating funny dialogue and moments through character interactions and situations, rather than laughing at them or mocking them. There were other emotional beats that worked very well and had impact without feeling as though the film was purposefully playing with your emotions. Initially I wondered whether the film might not have a bit too much background detail with different groups and their agendas being introduced, but actually after the set-up it works well and you're pulled along for the ride.

SPOILERS

The central characters all work well together, becoming a team and friends almost in spite of themselves. Groot is both terrifying and adorable (even before the bit at the end), and I kinda want to see him fight the Hulk. Rocket is excellent, the humour not being because he's a talking racoon, but because he's a cynical, sarcastic person. And it makes sense that's he's that way when he's the only creature of his kind in existence. Gamora's background could have been fleshed out more as it relates to the central conflict, but she gets some really good scenes and lines and I didn't notice her being used specifically as eye candy.

Drax wasn't put in the trailers much, probably because most of his lines are hilarious but only in context. Having a literal character be everyone's straight man works well. I did feel it was a bit bad when he called Gamora a whore. I see how the joke worked there, but since he doesn't understand metaphor it doesn't make sense he'd call her that (bitch would've made sense, or y'know a non gendered insult). Other than that brief moment though he worked really well, his motivation was pretty standard but he fit well into the weird group dynamic.

Star Lord's backstory is kinda sad and he's grown up as a bit of a space rogue while somehow maintaining a strong vein of childish naivete. He steals and runs with smugglers, but he also believes he can save the day and loyally looks out for his friends. I think my favourite moment was Ronan's face when Star Lord started dancing at him.
Also, although his grandfather was only on screen very briefly, I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. That actor normally plays unsympathetic rich guys in things I've seen, but here he seems to be a good normal man. He obviously stood by his daughter, who got pregnant and claimed an alien did it (in the late 70s - early 80s). The loss of her and his young grandson in the same night must have been terrible. If Star Lord ever returns to Earth I hope we see him again. It's a small detail but one that stuck with me.

The soundtrack was good, even though I wasn't familiar with all the songs. I really liked that the soundtrack had such a link to the story and was more than just incidental music. I also loved that the build up to the big battle and the start of the fighting was to Cherrybomb.

The main link with the rest of the MCU is Thanos, the baddie revealed in the after-credits scene of Avengers. There's also the Collector, who appears in the after-credits scene of Thor the Dark World. This shows that all the cosmic craziness is linked to Asgard (the most mythic/magic of all the Marvel franchises), even if it doesn't seem to be part of the Nine Realms. Thanos mostly appears as a terrifying force in the background, his role stepped up from that of Loki's mysterious backer in Avengers. The real antagonist Ronan is not fleshed out much, he has little more backstory than Christopher Eccleston's angry dark elf* in Thor the Dark World, he wants to destroy all the things, for reasons. The trailers and publicity suggested that the main baddie would be Nebula, however she is not particularly well-used in the film and mostly has the role of chief minion. It might have been interesting to explore more about her relationship with adopted-sister Gamora and their messed up family.

The scenes with the Collector signal a bit about where the wider MCU arc is going. My husband has been mentioning Infinity Gems and the Infinity Gauntlet to me since the tesseract appeared in Captain America, here we actually get told outright that these things are linked and that someone at some point is going to have a very powerful shiny glove. 

The only bit that wasn't great was probably the after-credit scene. As this is a franchise starter and separated from the other bits of the MCU it makes sense they didn't drop hints about another franchise (at least I hope they didn't). Still, I think there's sufficient dislike/ignorance of Howard the Duck that including him at the end did them no favours. Bit disappointed by it if I'm honest, I'm used to being amused or intrigued by the after-credit scenes and this one didn't do that.


* Eccleston's Dark Elf King was really just a version of his two dimensional Rider character in The Dark Is Rising (a terrible adaptation of a good fantasy book) except with more makeup and a spaceship instead of a horse.

The Amazing Spider-man 2

The Amazing Spider-man 2 opens, as the first did, with the events surrounding the flight of Richard and Mary Parker. This time we see things from a different viewpoint as Richard has to destroy his research, before recording a video about it then dropping young Peter off with May and Ben. This time we see why Ma and Pa Parker never return, though the secret they are protecting is not entirely lost. Then we cut to Spider-man and his present-day adventures. Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey are having an on-and-off relationship, mostly due to Peter apparently guilt-dumping her on a regular basis. Electro turns out to be a really sad-sack version of Syndrome (from the Incredibles) who goes crazy with power. Harry Osborne returns to New York in time for his father's deathbed scene, and is reunited with childhood friend Peter. Then he finds out more about his friend and the projects his dad had in the basement. The Rhino also turns up a bit.

There are mild spoilers for Amazing Spider-man 2 (and mention of Iron Man and Man of Steel, because comparisons).

I liked the character of Spidey more in these films than the Raimi ones, as I said when I reviewed The Amazing Spider-man 1. We still never really see Peter and Gwen having a normal relationship, there's clearly been, and continues to be, a fair bit of breaking up and getting back together. Saying that I really liked the way Gwen handled things in this film. She takes action to protect herself emotionally, makes advances in her scientific career, doesn't let Peter push her to one side for her own safety. In fact at one point she yells at him that it is her choice whether she endangers herself for him. Something that has been sorely lacking from traditional superheroic relationships. I also liked the uneasy relationship between Peter and Aunt May. Both are grieving for Ben, and both are keeping secrets from the other. I liked this because Aunt May clearly has her own life and her own things going on, plus she feels protective of Peter when it comes to his parents. After all she's the one who stuck around and raised him.

Ah yes, Spider-man's daddy issues. Those are back. In fact there's a plotline with Peter finding out yet more about what his father was working on and how that affects events now. Not much was done with the info discovered in this film, the focus at the end being on fighting the villains, but I feel that a picture is slowly being built across the franchise. Though as Aunt May asks, why does Peter still idolise the father who abandoned him? I concur, and have to ask, what about his mother? Mary Parker also left her son in order to help her scientist husband with his great work, but there's little sign Peter is bothered about her absence or reputation. I can't help but draw parallels with Lara-el (Superman's mother) from Man of Steel. She too endangered herself to help further her scientists husband's work, painfully giving birth to their son (which was a weird thing to in their culture) and she didn't get any holographic life-after-death like Jor-el. Still at least Supes and Spidey have mothers. Much like fellow billionaire-tech-brat Tony Stark in the MCU, Harry Osborne apparently doesn't have a mother. There's some talk between Peter and Harry about how they bonded as children in grief, suggesting Harry's unnamed mother died, which is more mention than Ma Stark has ever gotten.* The eventual fate of Harry holds up a dark mirror up to Tony Stark, and both own similar looking buildings with their names on.

There were lots of little things in the film that worked quite nicely, comedic moments and stuff that gains significance later. For example Spidey saves a small boy from bullies and later the kid's faith in Spidey makes him magically appear (OK, it doesn't, but that's kinda what it seemed like). Peter desperately offers to do laundry in order to hide the Spidey suit and Aunt May does the same to hide her nursing scrubs. Gwen slapping her hand over her mouth after shouting "Peter!" at Spidey when he races off in the middle of an argument. It's just such a natural thing for her to do. A brief email from the still-unseen JJ Jameson. I also found it amusing that when Gwen is going to an interview for Oxford University (which aparently has an embassy in New York?) Peter is entirely unable to talk normally to British people. Made all the funnier because Andrew Garfield is British.

The main issues with the film were perhaps in the villains. I could see very quickly what Electro's story-arc would be and it was predictable as it was diminishing to the character. The Goblin was alright, but like Electro he went eveil really quickly for no particularly good reason. The Rhino is introduced but little used, but at least his motives were clear and made sense. The fights looked impressive and had actual damage and weight to them, without being ridiculous slug-fests full of destruction, of course Spidey is a smaller scale hero when it comes to that sort of thing.



* For all the info the MCU gives us Tony Stark could have gestated in the thigh of his father, a la Dionysus.
What's more likely is that Howard Stark was an older father (based on the timeline I quickly figured out in my head while watching Captain America), and as all good fictional millionaires are also playboys (because reasons) it's likely that Tony's mother wasn't even a Stark. Though respectability politics will presumably disallow this too, meaning Ma Stark is conveniently gone and entirely forgotten.

Hugo Nominations

I'm going to WorldCon this year because it's happening in London and that's a lot easier to get to than a whole different country. I'm not sure what to expect as I've never been to such a big convention before, but I've been told its worth doing at least once. Plus plenty of friends are going, so that should make it good.

I realised that being a member of LonCon 3 gives me nominating and voting rights for the Hugo awards. The Hugos are big SF awards, though they usually seem somewhat US/North America-centric (then again so does WorldCon most years). If I have the opportunity to vote for something I usually feel that I should exercise that right (except for TV phone-ins which are clearly for making money and usually about stuff I don't like anyway). In this case it is something I care about and have thoughts on so I've been doing a bit of research and thinking. Some of the voting categories are a little confusing, but this was quite useful in explaining them.

What surprised me when I started thinking about the categories was how little fiction I could think of. I consider myself primarily to be a reader and would have thought those categories would be the ones I was most au fait with, especially novels. As it happens I read hardly any new books last year. I heard about plenty I want to read, but didn't get round to reading most of them. This year I'm gonna try and catch up a little and also try to read some of the new stuff people talk about. Once I finish what I'm currently reading there are 2 eligible novels I could nominate.

I read short fiction, mostly in Interzone and also bits and pieces online or in anthologies. I also listen to PodCastle, but those are all reprints (respeakings? rereadings?). However this year there are only a few stories that really stick out to me. Again looking back on ones I remember as getting to me they are seemed to have been published the year before. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, again there are a lot of sites I hear about but don't get around to reading. Or perhaps it just happens that I haven't been grabbed by much this year. Category-wise I find the short story/novelette split confusing. I don't remember if things I've read are more or less than 7,500 words, I didn't count.

I have a lot more opinions about TV and film, which probably isn't surprising if you look at the contents of this blog over the last 12 months. I know Doctor Who does well in these awards, and the 50th anniversary was a big deal, but I can think of other things that are deserving of praise. Film-wise I can think of a lot of big, US films that got attention, I'm also trying to think of UK stuff too. Since WorldCon is in London there's likely to be more Brits in attendance than usual.

I didn't think I'd have many opinions on fancasts, fanzines, semiprozines, editors or best related work. However when I started to think about it I realised that in the last few years I've become a lot more aware of fan stuff and how the publishing industry works and have formed opinions on these things. This is another area where I can think of a lot of British people who I would like to nominate, though there are a fair few US podcasts and sites that I also enjoy.


I must confess I don't know a whole lot about SF art. I see things, I like some of them, I get how book covers work, but I honestly don't feel that that qualifies to make any judgements or suggestions in the art categories. This may be something I should educate myself in going forward.

Thor the Dark World

Thor the Dark World was better than the first Thor film. The characters and world are already established so there's more depth to the story and we get to see bits of the nine realms we didn't get to see before. There are various good character moments and interesting use of the science/magic/alien tech that was introduced but not much explored in the first installment. Thor has developed, he's grown more thoughtful, plus he's less of a fish out of water on Earth. Odin seems pretty much the same, which is kind of a problem. Jane Foster and Darcy seem to be pretty much the same characters, which is no bad thing, especially with Darcy. Jane and Thor's relationship develops, but in pretty much expected ways. Loki is imprisoned for his crimes, but then his unique skills are needed by Thor. Dr Eric Selvig went crazy in the aftermath of the Avengers, but that's no surprise and his sciencing is still important. Also there are dark elves and their leader wants to turn the universe to darkness.

There are two end credit scenes. One halfway through and one at the very end. I personally felt one was better than the other.

Beware, there are spoilers below.

There are some new characters, in the slightly hapless blokes that Jane and Darcy encounter. Ian and Richard are clearly there for comedy purposes, but that works well enough and means that Chris O'Dowd is in a couple of scenes, which is no bad thing. We also see a lot more of Frigga, Thor and Loki's mother, who turns out to be kinda awesome, so its sad that she's killed before we get to see much of what she can do. It is clear that a lot of the illusions and stuff Loki does are things he learned from her, rather than anything to do with being born a frost giant (in fact the whole frost giant thing is never really touched on, it's more about the fact he's adopted).

It's easy to forget how menacing Christopher Eccleston can be, he does a good line in scary bad guys. Of course as Malekith, ruler of the Dark Elves, he looks pretty creepy to begin with and Eccleston's presence backing it up. The premise is that Dark Elves were around before light came to the universe and want things back the way they were, it means there doesn't have to be any character development as far as the villain is concerned (I was reminded of Eccleston playing the Dark Rider in The Dark is Rising - a bad film in which he plays a character with basically the same motivation, but no reason for it). This isn't a bad thing as there's plenty of character development in just about every other part of the film, and of course Loki's position is complicated by not being the antagonist, but not being trusted by the protagonists either.

Loki is less the evil, murdering bastard of the Avengers and more the moody, untrustworthy trickster he started as. What became clear to me is that despite of the lack of genetic link Loki is very much Odin's son, I'm fairly convinced Odin used to be a right bastard, and his gruff, disapproving way with his sons is a real problem. There's tensions between Odin and Thor because Odin, despite his earlier speech to Loki about humanity, is entirely dismissive of Jane Foster as a partner for an Asgardian prince. I reckon Odin might as well allow Thor to have some fun with his human woman, I mean she'll be dead before century passes, but Odin just doesn't want anyone deviating from what he wants. Loki might try to distance himself from his adopted father, but even he points out that he hasn't really done much that Odin wouldn't do, which is fitting given the twist at the end. That is something they will have to explore more in later films.

I liked the scenes in London, partly because (like in Skyfall) the city wasn't glamorised, it had grotty bits and the weather also seemed realistic. I liked the weird gravity/spatial anomalies and how people played with them. That was also something I liked a lot about the big fight at the end. The gravity distortions and random portals had a real impact on the action and were used in ways that made sense and were also comedic. The film balanced its serious bits quite well with the mostly lighthearted tone.

The first end credit scene is clearly a nod to the wider Marvel film plan, and also made Marvel boy (my husband) squeak with excitement as the macguffin of this film is sent to a really dodgy-looking bloke to be guarded - Asgardians lack healthy suspicion it seems. The second shows Thor and Jane properly reunited.

Overall it's a good continuation of the Thor franchise and fits nicely into the overall Marvel film universe.

Films 2013 - Part 1

I have seen quite a few films so far this year. Some years I only see a few, but already I've seen at least 4 and I'm planning on seeing yet more.

There will be spoilers.

Iron Man 3

I've already written my thoughts here, but to recap... Iron Man 3 was far superior to Iron Man 2. It made sense as a sequel to the Avengers, continuing the story of one character from that film by focusing on him as an individual. It couldn't have topped Avengers for scale, and trying would have been foolish. Instead it showed the psychological damage Tony Stark suffered in the aftermath of New York, and was positive in that what Tony is going through is shown as understandable and as a person he is not lessened because of it. That Tony doesn't sensibly deal with his issues is fitting with the character and the lack of definitive resolution to his mental state is realistic, because things like that don't magically go away.
Pepper wasn't in the film quite as much as I expected, but she was shown positively in most of the scenes she was in. I think that her role in the wider universe could have changed due to the events of the film. It's not been made explicit however it's an option that could be explored going forward.
The villains made sense (more than I expected they would) and a certain reveal worked really well and was very amusing. Plus the attitudes of the various henchman were funny and showed them to be more than faceless goons quickly and efficiently.
There were some plotholes, but they were the kind you think of after seeing the film and didn't dent my enjoyment of it.


Star Trek Into Darkness

I didn't enjoy this as much as the 2009 film. It was very action-packed and looked good, it was exciting while I watched. I remember laughing quite a bit, though not just at bits that were meant to be funny. You see Kirk is not a likeable character, he's an arse really, so I found myself laughing whenever he got injured. Possibly not how one is supposed to react to the leading man. Spock was far more likeable, though I was confused about why he and Kirk were so friendly, because Kirk's an idiot and Spock must see that. While having Leonard Nimoy is stuff is cool it rather seems that young Spock gets his marching orders from old Spock (in fact that literally happens in this film) and the reason he likes Kirk is because old Spock said he should.
There were some cool moments with Simon Pegg (Scotty), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Checkov) and Karl Urban (Bones), but I felt that most of them were underused. Especially Anon Yelchin, who was given very little to do for an actor who was almost the only redeeming feature of Terminator Salvation.
Also it seemed a shame to me that they decided to remake Wrath of Khan, rather than doing something new and original with the rebooted franchise. When I thought Khan was going to be treated as a more sympathetic character, possibly even a good guy, I figured that was an interesting way of doing it. Then old Spock turned up, gave young Spock his instructions, and that was that. I was kinda amused that they swapped the classic lines around, but in the context of this film I later realised that it didn't make a lot of sense within the context of this film. At one point I was sitting in the cinema remembering out the order of the original Star Trek films and trying to figure out if those were going to be the road map for what came next. Now I don't have strong feelings for Wrath of Khan, but it seems that a lot of other people do (turns out there was more to it than someone shouting "Khaaaaaaaan!") and they were put out and though I didn't feel it personally I can see why others were bothered.


Man of Steel

I liked Man of Steel. It was an interesting reinvention of the character and one that had a different feel to
other versions. I liked that there was focus on Clarke being an alien and the difficulty of adapting to Earth and the tensions a family has to go through when raising an alien baby. I also liked that Clarke found coming into his powers painful and frightening, because it's all a bit to easy and perfect in other versions of the story. Or else the process of Clarke/Kal-El learning and changing is skipped over until he's all perfect and shiny. I didn't like Jonathan Kent so much in this version, he seemed harder than in other versions I've seen. However I think that the version of Superman shown in this film makes perfect sense based on what we see in the flashbacks to his youth, it's internally consistent. I liked that once he learned to fly it was so much fun for him, that sequence was wonderful. It was nice for him after all the super-sense problems he'd had.
It was interesting to see more of Krypton (which kinda made me think of Asgard from the Thor film) as some kind of science fantasy place. It was good to see Kal-El's mother, Lara, a bit but of course Dur-El was more important because in Hollywood films fathers just are.
Zod was a good villain, one who had an overriding purpose rather than just being evil. I've heard criticism for the death of Zod, but I feel that made sense. Zod made clear that he'd kill every human in order to restore Krypton, so Clarke didn't have much choice. The references to Lexcorp were good, noticeable but subtle and hopefully a sign of things to come.
Lois was brilliant, even if she wasn't in the film as much as I'd expected. I hope there'll be more of her in later films because Amy Adams did great things with the character. I'm glad she actually investigated him and found out who he is, that makes more sense than having her constantly being duped. The romance felt a little quick, but films often do that. I liked that the film ended with him becoming Clarke Kent. I like Clarke as a character because he's actually a person (and also maybe it's to do with Dean Cain somehow).
The saviour imagery was a bit irritating in places and I do wonder why both his dads were putting so much pressure on him to be great rather than happy or safe. At times it seemed like they'd both seen a prophecy that they couldn't reveal but were desperate to see fulfilled.
I also noticed a distinct lack of steel.


Pacific Rim

 The only original film I've seen so far this year (though I'm hoping to see more). I really enjoyed Pacific Rim. I lied how the establishing narration at the start of the film covered what could be the events of a dozen monster movies. I liked the way the world of Jaegers and Kaiju was imagined. I'm not normally too fussed about combat scenes, but I felt that they worked really well in this film. I could tell what was going on most of the time and the giant robots all looked like separate, constructed machines. Also I actually cared about what happened to the machines and their pilots. For a film with a lot of character tropes it worked surprisingly well emotionally.
The characters were thin (the white pilots were pretty much interchangeable) but I liked that Mako got more backstory than most of characters - even if it was a bit cliched. I also liked that there was apparently no male gaze, but there were moments of female gaze when Mako first meets Raleigh. I had assumed that her attraction to him would be brought to the fore when they started piloting together and sharing their minds, but if anything romance became less of a concern. This is good, because female characters are often just there to provide a romance element where one is needed (and sometimes doesn't even make much sense) and that didn't happen here at all. I really like that they never kissed, because in the end that wasn't what their relationship or that situation was about.
I liked the scientist characters, the way they interacted. They were clearly designed to be oddball comic-relief, but I thought that worked fairly well. Idris Elba's leader was engaging to watch and no more cliched than most of the other characters. However in a story about the fate of humanity, with giant fighting machines, the concerns of individual characters are going to seem less significant.

Iron Man 3

I actually saw this a few weeks ago, but figured I'd leave my review until more people had the chance to see it (I wouldn't want to be accused of being topical). This post contains spoilers.

I really enjoyed Iron Man 3, it is definitely better than the second film, and possibly better than the first. The first film successfully launched the character into the mainstream consciousness, which is quite a feat so this one was building on that foundation. On the other hand the first was by necessity an origin story, and so was constrained by that, though it worked in such a way that those constraints weren't clear. As the first Marvel Studios film post-Avengers (Assembled *sigh*) it was going to be interesting to see how the hero would fit back into his own story after the expansion of the heroic universe. It was also necessary to prove that the Iron Man franchise could rise above Iron Man 2, which was only OK and clearly something of a placeholder. I'm pleased to report that Iron Man 3 managed to do these things and more, not only being better than 2 (which was my base expectation), but in fact being really good.

The story is more intimate, which makes sense as it could hardly be, or even try to be, more epic than  Avengers. Bringing the focus back on Tony Stark as a man, and how that man copes with being a hero, was a good choice. For a time Tony is forced (more or less) to rely on his own wits and must rebuild Iron Man the suit, in the process he realises that he truly is Iron Man. while I suspect he was not quite as cut off as the film would have us believe, I think that getting Tony away from his established workshop were he could constantly tinker (and the climax shows just how much tinkering he was doing) was good because it gave him focus and reminded him of his own abilities.

The interactions with the small-town child were pretty good. Adding children to a film that's not about family and has an adult main character can be iffy, as they easily come across as annoying to adult viewers. In this case the kid actually worked really well. Tony never talked down to him, and the kid didn't give Tony any quarter either, so their scenes seemed much more equal than such interactions usually are.

I liked that Tony was profoundly affected by the events of the Avengers film, but that the specific events were only mentioned briefly. What's important is the effect those events (most particularly almost dying after going through a wormhole/portal and seeing massed ranks of aliens*) had on him. I think the portrayal of Tony's panic attacks is well-handled and an excellent example of a sympathetic portrayal of mental health issues. Tony is not treated as lesser because this is happening to him, it is framed as an expected consequence of what he went through. Even a questioning child is simply curious and displays no judgement of him. The person who seems most annoyed by and judgemental of the panic attacks is Tony, which is fair enough as he's the one having them. He even acknowledges that he should get help, albeit quickly and in an off-handed way and then admits that he probably won't. This fits the character and again is not treated with judgement. These are complex issues and they're dealt with quickly but not clumsily. I've noticed that some people seem dissatisfied that the panic attack storyline was not resolved in the film, but frankly it would have been a cop-out if it had been.

The villain was handled very well. There was an understandable level of concern over using a villain called the Mandarin who was basically written as 70s yellow peril, how could that possibly play out well? They managed it, and in hindsight I'm quite impressed that the secret stayed unspoiled. The reveal that terrorist leader, the Mandarin is in fact Trevor Slattery, a junkie actor from London who plays the role for cash, was brilliant. I'm also impressed not only by Ben Kingsley's performance (which could have gone badly wrong in the hands of a lesser actor) but also in what he said in pre-publicity. I read an interview in which he talked about how theatrical the character was and how he manipulated his image, it just ties in so well with both what the character was and how he was used in-film.
I also liked the henchmen. Rather than being faceless goons they did appear to be actual people. There was some great comedy derived not only from the guard's amusement at Stark's unlikely and increasingly manic threats, but also from the henchman who immediately pleads for his life and says how much he hated his job and weird his bosses were. Why don't more henchmen do that?

Again Pepper saves the day, as she did in the first film (I don't think she did in the second, but I don't remember the plot too well). This time definitely taking the real villain out herself, and I thought it was interesting that she ends up having being super powered where Tony isn't. I think that could be an interesting dynamic going forward, but the ending doesn't make clear how much that situation will remain. I also like Pepper's attitude throughout most of the film, she seems to be the only thing keeping Tony connected to reality, and though that in no way stops him from doing stupid stuff she makes sure he knows how stupid it is. I kinda liked that the main villain wants Pepper for his own creepy reasons, but even he is ashamed enough to baulk from saying it bluntly. It makes clear just how repellent it is, and suggests that he still holds her in enough esteem to want to pretend that's not going to be the arrangement.

I like that Tony has a fandom, and is able to use that to his advantage without harshing the squee of his fan, even if the guy was a bit OTT. Actually the slightly amateurish-but-recognisable tattoo made me think of the science brothers fandom, which I'm bemused by but ultimately think is a good thing. So that was already in the forefront of my mind when Bruce Banner appeared at the end of the credits. I'm sure the science brothers fandom were greatly pleased by that.

The things I didn't like are just niggles, mostly do to with the final big action sequence.
I never felt as though Pepper was in any real peril. I knew that she would pretty much be immune to physical harm so didn't feel emotionally invested when she seemed to die.
All the suits at the end were a bit confusing, as they were just a series of flashes and movement. I couldn't tell what they were all for or how most if them were different. It also seemed a contrived that when Tony needed a suit he could simply fall into one, unless the plot was better served by him being unable to do so.
As I say, niggles really.



* I believe that of all the Avengers featured in the film, Stark was the one who would have been most profoundly affected by that sight. He's the only entirely human civilian on the team, and is also a man with a superiority complex who's used to being top-dog. It would have been a bad experience for anyone, but Stark had the least preparation for such a sight.

Films I Haven't Seen

I haven't seen a lot of films.
Sometimes you almost don't need to see the film. If it's popular enough then clips and quotes and pop cultural references can do the work for you. 


Saturday Night Fever
John Travolta is a groovy guy walking confidently down the street to Staying Alive by the Bee Gees. Later he goes to a disco (with an obligatory disco ball) in a sharp white suit. There's a lady in a red dress. It is presumably a Saturday night.

As far as I can tell from popular media this is what America looked like in the 1970s, except that there were also cars, afros and drug dealers.


Jerry Maguire
Tom Cruise plays the title character, who wears a suit. He shouts down the phone and asks someone to show him the money, he is very excited about this. Renee Zellweger and Cuba Gooding Jr are also there.

I have yet to ascertain whether anyone does in fact show him any money.


Citizen Kane
There is a citizen, his name is Kane, and there is something about newspapers. He holds a big conference with speeches and banners, it's probably political. A man with a moustache whispers "rosebud" and a snow globe is dropped, it turns out this is the answer.

I don't know what the question is, but I sense it is not about gardening.


Deliverance
Banjo music: di-di dee dee dee dee dee dee deeee, di-di dee dee dee dee dee dee deeee.
Something unpleasant happens out in the back country. (That's almost certainly a euphemism.)

I don't actually have any images associated with this film, as far as I know.


Spartacus
The Romans want the massed slaves to identify Spartacus. In a touching show of solidarity they all stand up and say "I'm Spartacus!"
Brain Blessed is not actually there, despite what youtube would have me believe.

My (considerable) knowledge of Romans suggests that many of those slaves were killed.
My knowledge of film suggests that's not the narrative they went with.


Breakfast at Tiffanys
Audrey Hepburn likes Tiffanys, which is a big shop. She has a long black dress, a long black cigarette holder, a sparkly tiara and a large string of pearls. She has breakfast, presumably at Tiffanys. A man is no doubt involved somehow.

Decades later the band Deep Blue Something would record a song examining how kinda liking this film is not really a basis for continuing a relationship gone sour.