You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category.

EDIT: Here’s a recorded version with blurbs for each of the movies and some of the extra shit I usually say when I do one of these:

https://soundcloud.com/evan-mccoy/top15recording

Hopefully I never have to do that again, because:

Fucking WordPress ate the four hours of work I put into this. I’m disgusted because there’s no fucking reason why hitting “publish” should publish a post but with no text in it, which is exactly what happened. Maybe I should switch platforms. So anyway, here’s a way truncated version:

15. Wonder Woman
14. Baby Driver
13. War for the Planet of the Apes
12. Dunkirk
11. Thor: Ragnarok
10. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
9. John Wick: Chapter 2
8. A Ghost Story
7. The Killing of a Sacred Deer
6. GotG Vol 2
5. It
4. Blade Runner 2049
3. Get Out
2. Mother!
1. Three Billboards outside Ebbing Missouri

Honorable Mentions:

Super Dark Times
Creep 2
Wheelman
Okja
The Big Sick
I, Tonya
The Lego Batman Movie
The Little Hours
Ingrid Goes West
Marjorie Prime
Gerald’s Game
Wind River
Brigsby Bear
T2: Trainspotting
The Lost City of Z
Free Fire
Colossal
Logan Lucky
Kong: Skull Island
The Bad Batch
Spiderman: Homecoming
The Girl with All the Gifts
The Florida Project
Logan
The Void
Dave Made a Maze

Movies I Didn’t See:

Coco
Phantom Thread
The Post
The Beguiled
The Shape of Water
Molly’s Game
Murder on the Orient Express
Darkest Hour
Downsizing
Professor Marston and the Wonder Women
All the Money in the World
Call me by Your Name
The Foreigner
Song to Song
Wakefield
Detroit
Good Time
Stronger
Battle of the Sexes
Happy Death Day
Mudbound
The Hero
Roman J Israel, Esq.
Hostiles
Personal Shopper
Jungle
Loving Vincent
The Square

 

 

Advertisements

I’ve never done a list for games any previous year I’ve done year-end lists (which have always been strictly for movies). I don’t follow music closely enough and honestly, I don’t really follow games closely enough either. At the same time, so many games get released every year that I definitely play enough new ones (and more or less complete them) in a given year to do a small year end list. Some people have asked me to do one for games in the past, too, but I never have. I do periodically review games, such as this massive piece on Mass Effect: Andromeda (spoiler: it’s not on my best list) but have not reviewed any of the games on this list so what I have to say about them here will have to do it. This “Top 5 Games” list should be a bit of a tasty appetizer, I hope, before I get into the movie lists. This is the seventh consecutive year I’ve done them on WordPress, by the way. I’ve been doing them for over ten years if you go back to old Livejournal posts (but let’s not).

Some housekeeping: This list won’t feature some of the really anticipated games, partly because I won’t include games I have played but not beaten (like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild) but also because I’ll be leaving off Early Access games as well. I’d like to include Ark: Survival Evolved, since it’s great and probably best-in-class for its type of game, but it would feel a bit disingenuous to do so since I’ve been playing it for like two years and haven’t really gotten into it for a while, which includes all the new content they’ve been doing for the past year and since it finally went full release. There’s also that some of my favorite gaming experiences this year (Darkest Dungeon, Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun and Owlboy stand out) came when I was catching up on last year’s games. And no, I still haven’t played Undertale. Other disclaimers? Well, there’s always the fact that some games are considered “new releases” on particular consoles which can be a problem for a list like this in that I’m not even sure if I failed to include certain games I technically could due to the platform I played them on. And, as always, there’s the disclaimer that this list is subjective and more about me categorizing my favorites than trying to make a case for why everybody’s list should look like mine (which they should not and do not).

Remember, folks: this shit is just for fun. Read the rest of this entry »

MV5BMjQ5ODM5OGUtNzZmNi00MWVlLWFkOTctYzljYzYxY2QwYzU3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAzMTY4MDA@._V1_

Dianne!

I’ve got to try and knock this one out quickly because this movie will not make my end of year list and I have this feeling I’m going to get slapped over it even though the reality is that no one is gonna care. 2017 is too good a year for this perfectly fine and occasionally poignant coming of age story to break into my list. It’s on a lot of other peoples’ and that’s totally cool. I’m not here to say it’s a bad movie but I definitely have some issues with it that I needed to write about. That stuff is more likely what’s going to get me into trouble with people who really loved Lady Bird and likely did not see in it what I saw.

In one sense, I found it underwhelming because it’s a movie that I’ve basically seen before. And so have you. Its emotional honesty is a little more pronounced, its set-ups and pay-offs a little truer to life and ambiguous, and its specific angle of observation is so specific that a certain category of viewer is going to feel like this movie is speaking directly to them. I like that about it and I think that’s the stuff that is most directly responsible for how well this film is being received. But there’s another reason it’s doing so well and this is because, thematically, it is essentially validating the perspective on youth that people who are not young tend to have.  There’s a way to read this film as being totally about growing beyond your past, but I think that’s disingenuous and requires taking the film on faith when too much of the text is devoted to examples of people’s attempts to be forge their own identities, whether its piercings or nicknames, being trivialized and walked back in favor of convention and reinforcement of boundaries.

I think writer-director Greta Gerwig might be the kind of millennial who’s totally cool with having to cover up her tattoos and she has, intentionally or not, made a movie steeped with that kind of lame, superficial social conservatism. As a result I think that as much as it might be true to life in some of its observations of what being young was like in 2002, it’s still a film about young people but for older people. Personally, I think that’s kind of disappointing especially in a coming of age story about people who are my age and what life was like, very broadly, for us. I identified with living my dumb little dramatic teen life with the War on Terror as a backdrop, but there was very little else in this film that spoke to my experience. As a result, my criticisms may seem too specific to my own biases to really be objective and I’m okay with that. You may see a very different movie than I do in Lady Bird and I think my critical approach is less about trying to convince anyone that it’s overrated and more about explaining why I didn’t love it. It feels like we have to look to the nerdy, fantastic, and escapist to find reflections of actual rebellion, transgression, and radical change. Did Lady Bird need to be those things? No. But I’m a bit tired of stories that want us to go back to the way things were when we really need to find a way to move on. Read the rest of this entry »

BRIGHT_Unit_10265_R3_2040.0.jpg

These two do all the heavy lifting. They have a lot of chemistry without which this movie wouldn’t even work a little bit.

Bright is, in its own weird way, as divisive a movie as The Last Jedi. But kind of in reverse? General audiences seem to like it but critics fucking hate it. Well, I don’t hate it. I think it’s pretty great for what it is, but what it is seems to bother some people that don’t want to meet it on its own terms. I don’t really blame them, the way I might with other films, but it is worthwhile to point out that many of the criticisms are misguided. For one thing, can you blame this movie for being derivative of David Ayer’s own earlier work if that was entirely the point of the exercise? You can’t ignore that Bright basically remakes/recycles parts of Training Day and End of Watch and mixes in elements from a host of other movies and games, including Alien Nation and Shadowrun. It’s a big ol’ stew and it is frequently messy, but is that in itself bad or dumb? I say no. At the same time, I get why it might result in a lot of skepticism and impatience for viewers.

Max Landis wrote this movie for Ayer to direct (he also rewrote it) precisely because the concept was a mash-up of Ayer’s best cop movies and what is best described as “fantasy shit” (there’s a little more to it, but just a little). I’m not saying this makes it a good idea, or a good result, but it’s also kind of dumb to ignore where this movie came from when there’s no way it should ever be viewed as this independent self-contained thing. It’s not even a self-contained story. One of the more reasonable criticisms of it is that it feels more like a two-hour pilot for a TV show than it does a movie, especially with its ending. After watching it, I definitely wanted to hang out in this world more (and with these characters) and I’m not surprised that Netflix immediately green-lit a sequel. This project just feels like the start of a bigger story, rightly or wrongly. Landis and Ayer are both divisive figures themselves. They’re both white dudes who have gotten into trouble for speaking for non-white non-dudes in the wider discourse if identity politics and representation. They both seem to essentially mean well but have difficulty getting past their own privilege and the way it informs the way they talk (about race especially). Landis is viewed by many as a douchebag millennial poster-boy whose main talent is nepotism (his dad is John Landis) and occasionally clever remixes of other peoples’ work. He occasionally earns those opinions, but I think his work has been mostly good. Channel Zero and Chronicle are legitimately good things. Dirk Gently seems okay, American Ultra was okay, and Mr. Right was like an alt-version of American Ultra that is better, lesser known, and fairly underrated. Ayer, on the other hand, seems to shit out gold in one hand and… well, shit out shit in the other. This is a guy whose last two movies were Suicide Squad and Fury. To say he has a range in quality is an understatement. Even before that he seemed to be making one good movie out of every two, though I’d argue that both Sabotage and Harsh Times (his weaker ones) are head and shoulders better than Suicide Squad. Get these guys to make a movie together and the hope is that it combines what both of them are best at. I think on that level, we’re mostly getting just that but what your reaction is will depend a lot on whether you’re even here for whatever Max Landis and David Ayer are doing.

Though I thought it was a fun movie that had some dramatic and thematic legs, I can’t argue against the fact that Bright doesn’t really work when either of the two halves of its make-up is examined on its own merits. Bright is too derivative of its director’s own earlier work to stand up as a cop movie. Its world-building and fantasy elements are similarly familiar (derivative) for people who’ve seen or read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings. So your mileage on this whole crazy thing is going to vary depending on whether this fusion can work for you. Tropes and iconography can be referenced in a way that is meant to do all the work for the audience to buy into a world, which was one of the biggest problems with Suicide Squad. Landis is maybe better at that stuff than Ayer and I would argue that the litmus test for enjoying what Bright is doing is whether you think he/they pulled it off here. Bright expects you to understand the iconography and tropes enough to roll with what it’s doing, the hope being that the fusion will add some depth to what are too fairly shallow halves. That depth of world is necessary to buy into it enough to roll further with the movie’s themes, which are really about power, class, and race relations. This is the real meat, because this movie is very political. It’s not a super deep dive on any one of these points, but there is something to be said for the fact that the movie doesn’t treat race, class, and power as separate issues, instead drawing connections and pointing at the things “SJWs” have been saying since before there was a dismissive and ironically shitty acronym to describe people who stand up for other people. I think that identity politics and progressive messages (representation, tolerance, etc) are the kind of thing you have to re-iterate from as many facets and angles as you can. That didn’t used to be the approach. Stories that talked about race or class tended to ignore the other side of the coin, failing to make necessary connections between the ways these social issues are linked. There’s also that privilege makes people stubborn so maybe this movie’s orcs will be what finally clicks race and class intersections in street gang culture for some white boy watching it on his computer, one tab on Netflix and the other on InfoWars. Maybe seeing orcs in Crips drag is what does it. I doubt that’s expressly what Ayer or Landis are trying to do, but it isn’t lost on me that the more narratives (and types of narratives) speaking to these issues the better. The dudes who are very predisposed to watching The Last Jedi or Bright may not be the same dudes who watch Selma or Get Out or even Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri but all of these movies are saying some things in common that they, maybe more than anyone, need to hear. Read the rest of this entry »

1486530893923.png

Don’t get much more confrontational than that.

Holy fucking shit.

Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri is something special that almost never comes along. It effortlessly explores the lives of characters that could so easily be vile or heroic, in the reductive but entertaining way cinema favors, and humanizes just about all of them. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a film with a truer to life portrait of the scummy ways humans behave toward each other tempered by the compassion that can redeem us if only we can find it. Even so, Three Billboards never runs the risk of being preachy or dry. It’s always infused with the effortlessly meaningful and entertaining dialogue for which Martin McDonagh (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) has become known. Instead of being forced or distracting, the stylized dialogue reflects and enhances the humanity of the story. It splits you open and makes you laugh in equal parts as you listen to it and find the characters and their inner lives through it.

I knew that this one was getting a lot of praise and positive notice for months before it went wide enough for me to finally see it. But in no way did I expect it to be as good as it is. Every time you think that the film is going to take a cliched, well-worn route through its drama it just doesn’t. There’s always a surprising angle, and each one is more witty, sharply observed, and gut-punch poignant than the last.

I was a little disappointed in Seven Psychopaths after the masterpiece of In Bruges but maybe that movie warrants a reappraisal because it’s hard to watch Three Billboards and not wonder if it’s you that missed something from McDonagh, who is firmly establishing himself as a contemporary of the Coen Brothers. He’s a genius of dark, misanthropic humor but I think his track record for being extraordinarily naked and earnest with the emotional damage of his roster of entertaining assholes sets him apart and dodges the easy comparisons, which are unfair but somewhat understandable given the way these filmmakers all seem fascinated by the absurdity and pervasiveness of human darkness.

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW. BEST TO GO IN BLIND. Read the rest of this entry »

dark-tower-trailer-image-39-600x252

Nice try.

This is a tough one. In order to be a good critic, I have to get my biases out of the way. The Dark Tower books are pretty personal for me, so this movie was always going to be personal for me. I first read The Gunslinger when I was thirteen, pulling it down off the shelf to be my first Stephen King book, because the back cover said “fantasy” and the book seemed thin enough to get through quickly if I didn’t like it. I was living in a small town in Saskatchewan, halfway through what would be a pretty terrible year there. A year where I needed frequent escapes from bullying, poverty, and the brewing frustrations and confusions of puberty. I needed something like The Gunslinger, much like Jake Chambers maybe, and the series delivered. I followed it since, waiting for King to hurry up and finish with ten times the anticipation and fear than I could ever feel about A Song of Ice and Fire. I always knew that a movie version of The Dark Tower was inevitable, and that it would be a difficult sell (especially now) as is. I followed the production of this movie with a lot of trepidation but always a little bit of hope. As it neared release, article after article came out to talk about how troubled its production was, how compromised and messy the movie would be, and I settled down to very low expectations. And yet, this movie surprised me by how truly awful it is. I haven’t seen a movie this bad since Assassin’s Creed and it’s bad in almost exactly the same ways.

I’m not a megafan of anything, seldom letting fandom get in the way of what I like to think is an honest and critical appraisal of the stories and media I engage with. That said, there are two basic approaches to a movie like The Dark Tower. There’s approaching it as an adaptation and approaching it as a movie like any other. People generally conflate their reactions, especially if they don’t have a vested interest in film criticism as a craft, and so you’re gonna see a lot of reactions that blur the lines between reacting to how The Dark Tower fails as an adaptation and how it fails as a movie. But it does fail at both. If it was just a bad adaptation, I would be far more forgiving. I’m cool with adaptations that beat out their own path or try to present another take on a thing. My critical history is full of remarks to this effect, so I don’t think anyone could say that I don’t like The Dark Tower just because it’s a “bad Dark Tower movie”. Most of this review will be about how it’s just generally bad, but I will also talk about it as an adaptation. ‘Cuz I have to at least a little bit. I owe it to that kid who walked through Mid-World and beyond with Roland’s ka-tet.

Brass tacks is that The Dark Tower is exactly the kind of gutless, cut to death, and misguided genre movie that is cynically trying to ride the coattails of other genre hits. Particularly, in this case, the recent wave of “YA” movies, some good and some bad, which are made from “YA” books, some good and some bad. The Dark Tower puts minimal effort into every single distinguishing element until the result is boilerplate and meaningless. It casually name-drops bits of lore from the books like its trying to win a #nocontext contest and its few characters are underserved, inconsistent, and rushed through a movie that is probably thirty minutes too short. The result is incredibly rushed, messy, incoherent, and probably mostly frustrating for people who didn’t read the books but actually like fantasy and lore and shit. Those people will have precious little to grab onto here, as almost nothing is explained or presented in the movie meaningfully.

To try and summarize it in a sentence: imagine looking forward to Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings and getting Eragon instead. That, on every level, is what The Dark Tower is like.

SPOILERS, SAY THANKYA Read the rest of this entry »

valerian2.0.jpg

They just can’t quite carry it.

So I was very in for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. There’s a bunch of reasons, but foremost among them is that I fucking love this kind of whiz bang, go for broke science fiction. Throw me all the weird tech and weirder aliens. I am down for the French comic book sensibilities, especially the ridiculous fashion, and I’ll even put up with the clunkiest dialogue this side of a Syfy Original. This is my kind of movie and if there’s any kind of nested audience for the Valerians of the world, it’s me.

However, this is no Jupiter Ascending situation. It’s safe to say that if you didn’t like that movie, you will loathe this one. In most ways, they are dissimilar, but it’s hard to not be reminded of the slightly more serious but also more coherent and well-plotted Wachowski Sisters’ foray into manic space opera. The same genre DNA gave birth to both films, though Valerian is a direct adaptation of a seminal French comic while for Jupiter, the comic Valerian and Laureline was just one of many influences it wore on its sleeve. Many might also compare this one to the Guardians of the Galaxy films, but I’d caution against that since kicking this movie while its down (it really bombed) to that extent just seems cruel.

If you like imaginative space opera and come for just the visuals, world-building, and literally hundreds of weird and wonderful aliens, you may be able to put aside this movie’s narrative problems and enjoy it. I mostly did. Valerian is dizzyingly ambitious, so it’s tempting to brush aside that it doesn’t really work. And while the story is nothing special, it plays out in an offbeat way and is packed to the brim with worthwhile diversion. There’s hardly a frame in the first half of this movie that won’t light a scifi fan’s mind up. It has that same special quality Jupiter Ascending had where every five minutes, there’s a new idea that you could make a whole movie out of. For example, the concepts and mechanics of Big Market, a virtual bazaar in another dimension, are just a set-piece here, but the whole of the upcoming Ready Player One will deal with somewhat similar ideas. Valerian has imagination to spare but suffers from an overindulgence in its own poorly executed dramatic core, which aggressively sucks, and also fails to trust its own plot enough to avoid a third act recap sequence that, frankly, was where the movie really fell apart for me. I love Luc Besson, even when he makes a bad movie (Lucy) and while I might summarize Valerian as “The 5th Element for kids” and while that might sound good… it’s only really two thirds good. That said, the opening ten minutes are straight up wonderful and honestly worth the whole movie. Read the rest of this entry »

maxresdefault

This looks like just another war scene, but it’s threaded with horror. That’s this movie in a nutshell.

I was pretty conflicted about Interstellar and I’m kind of conflicted about Christopher Nolan in general. I, to an extent, agree with most of the criticisms that dog his work. But I also think Inception is one of the best movies ever made, with his Batman movies being some of the most overrated. To say I had low expectations for Dunkirk would be disingenuous because I had no expectations for Dunkirk. Good or bad. I was curious because it was a wartime event that hadn’t been covered in a huge movie, at least as a focus piece (Atonement has Dunkirk-related scenes). I was also curious to see what Nolan would do with a war movie, since he’s been doing high concept genre stuff for almost his whole career. On some level, I suspected that Dunkirk was about the safest move Nolan could have made after Interstellar failed to light the world on fire. I was wrong about this being a safe movie, but my lack of expectation was rewarded by one of the most pleasant and arresting surprises I’ve had in a theater for a super long time.

“Pleasant” is not really a word that you’d associate with this movie except maybe in the way I just did, where I’m really talking more about the feeling of surprise. Dunkirk is not so much aggressive as it is relentless and that energy, an almost constant rising action toward a very rewarding climax, is mostly steeped in the emotional resonance of horror even as it is delivered with familiar tropes of the war genre (duty, courage, banding together, grandiose and personal heroism, and so on). So while this is definitely a war movie, it’s also the second best horror movie of 2017. It is intense and it’ll make you squirm in your seat. A lot. All this while being one of the least violent, but loudest, war movies since Saving Private Ryan changed the game. What helps is Nolan’s mostly unsentimental point of view. This movie is not full of the customary jingoism and sentimentality of the American war film (these elements are present sparingly, and are mostly earned), but nor is it political in the sense of having a clear message about “war” except perhaps that it is something you survive rather than win.

There have been criticisms that there’s no story or characters here, but I think it’s interesting that Nolan stripped down his usual reliance on plot, exposition, and high concepts. He has the most trouble with plot and theme across his work, and these things are less important in Dunkirk than is the craft of telling a story through moving pictures.  There’s very little dialogue, so character comes across subtly through facial expressions and the few important choices that are available to each person. Dunkirk has a small, intimate cast, and approaches the historical events with a clever and almost seamless editing conceit of showing events at different points as if they are happening all at the same time… until they are. Dunkirk is a tremendous movie, and one that deserves to be seen at the best theater you have access to.

KIND OF HARD TO SPOIL THIS MOVIE, BUT FAIR WARNING ANYWAY Read the rest of this entry »

gallery5-gallery-image.jpg

This movie is more tightly focused on a small cast of characters than the marketing would indicate.

Without much fanfare or celebration, the new Planet of the Apes movies have quietly become one of the best blockbuster and/or science fiction franchises we have right now. While Rise focused heavily on the issues of our treatment of intelligent animals and the practical ramifications of their personhood, Dawn began both a post-apocalyptic fable of the collision of diametrically opposed civilizations (a First Contact fable) as well as a tight civil rights allegory with two influential apes taking on the roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, struggling for the soul of the rising Ape nation and how it would deal with the dwindling but still threatening human oppressors (very similar to how Xavier and Magneto intersect in the X-Men comics and movies). The wrestling match between hate and love, vengeance and mercy was a critical piece of Dawn‘s thematic content. Now arrives the closing chapter of the trilogy with War for the Planet of the Apes, a movie that continues parts of the civil rights allegory (and adding some contemporary dimensions) while also adding a broad swing for the mythic, with elements of the movie recalling Biblical stories and the foundation myths of several cultures.

It’s important to note that War is not the gigantic humans vs. apes war movie that the marketing promised, but neither was Dawn. All three movies played up the warrior apes stuff in their marketing. I remember the trailers for Rise heavily relied on the Golden Gate Bridge battle. Dawn had more war scenes and action than War does. But that doesn’t mean that War for the Planet of the Apes is disappointing or somehow not a war movie. It’s both extremely satisfying as well as being a pretty unflinching and bleak war/anti-war movie. The thematic struggles of Dawn are still present, with the specter of Koba (Toby Kebbell) and his vengeful hate haunting both Caesar (Andy Serkis) and the events of this film. But instead of big battle scenes, War emphasizes the personal and there’s a lot of dialogue, most of it the hybrid ape language of vocalizations and sign language. Stopping to appreciate that this is a huge movie where tons of the dialogue isn’t English and most of the characters are CG apes is sort of obligatory at this point, but it’s no less impressive here than before. They keep managing to up the ante and making these characters even more lifelike and believable.

Though it is a pretty bleak and emotional movie (hoo boy), there probably more humor and comic relief here than in the previous two films. The tonal mix is potent and very well handled by Matt Reeves, who has really built magnificently on what Rupert Wyatt and his team began with Rise. This movie is also more gorgeous even than Dawn, with shots that are just jaw-dropping as well as many iconic tableaus with the apes especially. There’s also all the world-building, attention to detail, and believability that we’ve come to expect from this series. What’s perhaps lacking is the scale promised by the trailers, but I think by the time the movie starts to kick into gear, most viewers won’t mind the movie we got, even if it comes at the cost of the (potentially more shallow) movie we seemed to be getting. Read the rest of this entry »

maxresdefault

This is Spider-Man.

I once wrote a blog post singing the praises of casting Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He had something I liked for it (one of my very first blog posts, so be gentle) that Tobey Maguire did not. I also really dug the first Amazing Spider-man movie (don’t know what happened to the second one that it was so very bad) and have always been pretty lukewarm about the Sam Raimi trilogy. I think I’ve cooled on TASM and am considering a reappraisal of the Raimi trilogy, but even back when they came out, I liked them but I was never into them. I feel like after five tries, though, it’s kind of reasonable to expect that basically everyone and their uncle understands how to make a decent Spider-man movie. One that will please just about everyone by getting all the most fundamental parts of the character right while changing things up just enough to be fresh and exciting. And so, now we have one.

That may sound like I’m underselling here, and I don’t mean to. Spider-man: Homecoming is a greatly entertaining movie and it has a little bit of depth even though a lot of people are talking about how shallow it is. How formulaic. How Marvel. I have some issues with a few choices they made with the movie and with how muddled its messages are, but I don’t think any of it hampers the enjoyment of the movie itself. I think at most you could say my misgivings are a direct result of the MCU’s usual insistence on playing it safe even when they’ve definitely earned the right to take larger risks. Not so much with big game-changing events like character deaths as I don’t really agree with the people clamoring for that and I’m comfortable with the incremental storytelling the MCU specializes in. More like I think there’s a little too much here that’s on the nose, that shows a lack of trust in the audiences to “get it”. I chose the title quote not only because it’s a good line, but because it is brought in twice and the second time is definitely one of those moments where we don’t need it. It’s this movie’s “with greater power comes greater responsibility” and it’s probably not a great idea to remind the audience how much weaker a statement it really is. To say nothing of the fact that, in the end, the “suit” cake is had and eaten too.

I think if you are one of those folks who is tired of the MCU or superhero movies in general, Homecoming is unlikely to sway you. It’s easy to see many of the exact same problems in it that are well-documented par for course with the franchise overall (less for female characters to do, underdeveloped romance), but it’s also true that Homecoming sidesteps one or two of them (bad villains, clunky greater universe connections). Still, it’s a breezy fun time and it’s delightfully confident even when it sort of stumbles.

FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPOILER WARNING

Read the rest of this entry »

Categories

Previous Posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers