Review PLUS: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"

Up to the point of Thor: The Dark World, the current incarnation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has been, almost entirely, pop entertainment. Awesome pop entertainment, yes, with some wonderful character arcs and relationships, but anything that transcends beyond? Not much. 

The one aspect of the series that has been challenging with regards to modern society and politics has been S.H.I.E.L.D. - the organization that out NSA's the NSA. The organization's director, Nick Fury, is so shadowy and ethically questionable, he rides the fascism line HARD. Dealing with such a group must be a trial even for someone as strong as The Hulk.

The star spangled hero Captain America, a man left over from the WW2 generation, is especially uneasy with this group, and even more so with a world that accepts it as necessary. THIS is what he fought for?

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Cap has reluctantly joined with Fury's team with the goal of serving his country (when life throws a lemon...). He has concerns, but swallows them for the greater good - this struggle is read not just on his face, but in the way he walks when not on the job. The dejected disappointment and tragic trudge of someone who is basically superhuman makes for quite a performance, and Chris Evans gives it his all.

Soon, a conspiracy within the ranks confirms and exceeds Cap's suspicions. Instead of spoiling what happens, here's a quote from William Burroughs:

You see control can never be a means to any practical end. ... Control can never be a means to anything but more control ... like junk.

The transcendence of this movie comes from the deeper questions posed by the villains. It's a statement on where we've been, where we are now and where we could end up. Government surveillance, preemptive strikes, borderless wars, and even hacktivism are covered. In The Dark Knight, Batman was presented as being forced to use super surveillance tech to capture a mad man. If seen as commentary, you could take it as the U.S. "not wanting" to do this, but having "no choice", which is B.S. In The Winter Soldier, Captain does an epic amount of dismantling, which some real life politicians might call treasonous. Talk about REALLY having "no choice".

Part of accomplishing this progressive move was the choice of filmmakers. The Russo Brothers were previously known for directing TV shows and You, Me and Dupree. To perfectly tackle the feat of a comic book movie with an espionage thriller edge and non intrusive direction was a happy surprise to see from this duo. There's a confident command going on here, without the need to show boat - very much in common with Captain America himself. Simple execution but not generically textbook. And the one element executed expertly? Suspense.

Tension is thick here. The dilemma and crisis Captain confronts might be the strongest a superhero has faced since The Dark Knight. In that movie, it was Batman's personal code and soul at stake. In The Winter Soldier, it's what the Captain represents - the high standard that he has put on himself, for his country and fellow man. Both conflicts were traumatic turning points for these characters, and the conclusions are more bittersweet than anything. The difference between the two? Captain has no time for brooding and self doubt - there's a mission to accomplish.

Marvel's Phase 1 was pop, and Phase 2 has been a time of change - not just for The Avengers but the creative talents picked to helm these projects. Many chances are being taken, and rightfully so. This is a sequel that, I hope, will be copied and piggy backed for years to come. Hail MCU.

5 / 5 *s

PLUS - When Simple Beat Style: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" vs. "Man of Steel"

An article on ScreenCrush came to my attention recently. In it, the author made the argument that it was only after watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier that his opinion on the handling of Superman in Man of Steel went sour. It came down to Captain *spoiler* choosing not to finish off Bucky vs. Superman snapping Zod's neck. One was an affirmation of a character's code, and the other an out of place moment.

While I still contend that Man of Steel was a good take on Superman (though I might knock a star off in hindsight), the article's comparison made me think about what else The Winter Soldier may have done better - this time, with the language of cinema. I submit to you the following examples:

Superman = Jesus

There are two "infamous" shots in Man of Steel that floored many a critic, and made many an audience member laugh. The first was in a church, where Clark Kent seeks advice from a young priest. It's a well written scene, and makes sense for the character to reach out in this manner, considering the problem he faces. However, our hero is framed in front of a glass portrait of Jesus Christ. THIS IS TOO OBVIOUS. It's almost film school level framing, actually. Now, looking more closely at it, it seems that Jesus is on his knees in that portrait, meaning to express Clark's doubt in a deeper way. That spec of detail almost forgives the childish attempt at depth, until...

... Superman floats away from the Kryptonian ship, arms extended from his sides, with music playing that makes you think about church. This character has always been compared to Jesus and other religious figures, and there's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA. There are other ways to get across this similarity than the superficial.

Captain America and his feelings

In the review above, I touched on the performance of Chris Evans, and how, early on, he carried on his shoulders the weight on Captain America's emotions, all without moping. There was some great body language, sure, but there was more at play here to establish tone, atmosphere and feeling - all to connect us with our hero.

For starters, the sequel feels far different from the first movie. The First Avenger was stylistically designed to have classic cinematography and color schemes. No matter what we all thought of the overall film, the mood was set to give us an old school FEEL. In The Winter Soldier, we have some very modern camera movements and colors to match what's happening in the portion of the story we're watching. Ironically, this too is film school like, but appropriately so. It's textbook in technique, but creative in execution.

There is a feeling of cold detachment to the first act, which makes sense because of Captain's thoughts on the world at the time. He feels alone, so the environment should reflect that to make us experience that. His apartment looks sterile, clean and clear, so we FEEL that way too. His trip to a museum exhibit on his past exploits is shot in a sweeping and slow manner, giving us time to absorb the images, think on them and FEEL what they mean. And, by feeling, we understand without having to be beaten over the head.

What does the tone and atmosphere say about a film? How about of the filmmakers? In Man of Steel's case, it tells me that it's a bit impatient to get information across, slightly clumsy and that Zack Snyder gets lost when trying too hard (despite being a tad restrained). In Captain America: The Winter Soldier's case, it tells me that underestimating the audience's intelligence is wrong, cinema is a universal language that ALL can UNDERSTAND, and The Russo Brothers know how to engage without being obnoxious.

So, in this way, yes, Captain America beat Superman. And he didn't have to snap a neck to do so ;)

If you liked this review, feel free to leave a comment below and visit patreon.com/neauxreelidea to learn how you can support my film criticism efforts.

Review: "Man of Steel"

For me, one of the most striking images after 9/11 was on a local news report. The reporters did a regular feature on paintings and drawings made by Elementary School kids, based on current events. One child, after witnessing the terrorist attacks on New York, drew a crayon colored picture of Superman, stopping one of the planes from crashing into one of the towers, having arrived just in the nick of time. Sad that there is no real superhero in our world, but hopeful because potential for good exist within all of us. This meant more to me than President Bush standing on top of rubble, calling for payback.

You see, Superman is about doing the right thing, even in the face of unimaginable horror. He doesn't give in to senseless rage, nor does he use his powers for selfish reasons. Well... except for when he turned back time to save Lois Lane. And does breaking a man's neck count as rage if done to save a group of people?

It's hard making such decisions, especially when you can do almost anything. But, that's part of what makes the character so compelling. In his latest film adaptation Man of Steel, we get an origin story laden with this.

Before he was Clark Kent, he was named Kal-El, the first and last naturally born child of the planet Krypton. Knowing the destruction of that world was imminent, his parents launched him into space, sending the craft to Earth. There, he is raised by a kind hearted Kansas couple. He spends his youth struggling to do what comes naturally to him (saving the day) and trying to keep his abilities a secret (what his Earth parents want). Eventually, after years of drifting from place to place, he discovers a relic of his home world and learns his true destiny, just when we need him the most.

At first glance, this movie is merely a feast for the eyes. From Russell Crowe riding a dragon to a New York like Metropolis falling apart building by building, the level of visual candy and destruction is absolutely overwhelming. Punches, kicks, sonic booms and explosions are louder than in any superhero film I've seen recently. Leaving the theater, it felt like Director Zack Snyder out did his own style to the point of detriment. "A Superman movie for a new era" this was called. Fine, but what does it say of this era? Bigger is not necessarily better. They tried a slow moving drama with Superman Returns, and people complained that it lacked action. Well dummy, now you got it.

At second glance and after conversations with colleagues, I realized the enormous visuals distracted me from what was under the surface. Themes of self discovery, doubt and making difficult choices are strewn throughout. Clark spends many years learning just who he is exactly. He finally uncovers the truth (and his suit), and goes home to tell his mother, still confused as to what should happen next, but momentarily happy to have some answers. When General Zod, a Kryptonian with ties to his birth family, threatens Earth, Clark is given the reality check of a lifetime. Sometimes, the only way to get someone out of an existential rut is to shake them out of it.

From there, Clark puts on the suit, tries things out for the first time, and learns along the way just what he is made of. We don't get many scenes of dialogue expositing lessons learned, but we do get to see them as they happen. At one moment, he is forced to do an act he'll hopefully never have to do again, and gets emotional afterwards (you'll know it when you see it). He didn't do something as grand as turning back time, but it was just as jaw dropping to witness, and may haunt him for some time. This Superman is not yet whole as an individual, but is finally ready for the next phase of his life. Is the world ready?

Thrown headfirst into the dilemma of fighting against people of his past, to protect the people of his present, Clark's internal problems have become external, for everyone to see. He experiences one nightmare, only to wake into a real one. Using all of his powers to their fullest capabilities for the first time, he wings the situation, learning as he goes. Sure, it all comes naturally to him, and he is no longer holding back, but you get the sense that he may be uncertain (and possibly afraid) as how to win the day. Where Captain America is confident and steadfast, this Superman is powerful yet doubtful. He flies through the air with heavy emotion on his face, like someone rushing to complete multiple food orders (maybe more dramatic than that). He WANTS to save everyone, but doesn't really know HOW. It's the coming of age story of a lifetime, when you think about it. It's not going to be easy Supes, but just know we're all behind you.

In preparing this review, I doubted not only my rating of this movie, but also that of Star Trek Into Darkness, which I think shares something in common - both are big, loud, and on the surface deviate from the source material. It might appear that spectacle trumps smarts, but brain and brawn work side by side in both (to varying degrees). Still, what I would give for a 1970's style sci fi flick. We can handle it, Hollywood! Give me a depthful crayola drawing over a shallow photo op any day.  

4/5 - 5/5 *s, depending on how I feel at a given time.

He Didn't Care for "Superman Returns"

Just the other day, Roger Ebert announced the formation of Ebert Digital, a new venture “devoted to the creation of new digital products that build on the lifelong work of the world’s preeminent film critic.” This was planned to include a newly formatted RogerEbert.com, where the man himself would serve as editor, nurturing a handpicked slew of reviewers.

Since that announcement, the contact information for this project has been displayed in a tab on my browser. It’s there, waiting for me to use it.

I’m in a constant state of hesitation; would I get a response? If so, from who? And what will they say? I’d like to think that my writing is good enough... A couple of deep breaths are needed here. It’s just an email. Sure, it’s a big deal, asking to take part in a website run by the king of your craft, but it’s not the end of the world if nothing comes of it.

After all, this is the guy that didn’t like Superman Returns.

When I watched the Bryan Singer Superman film at my local theater’s midnight showing, I was over the moon with pure joy. Getting to see a character I had long related to finish an arc that had been started with two movies from decades ago, sent chills down my spine. I wrote a review where I said that “Superman represents the best in all of us, and all we can become” or something to that effect. I sent it in an email to the editor of a local paper, hoping to land a gig out of the blue. A lot of effort was put into that review, and I don’t believe I heard back.

This was a depressing time in my life; out of school, unemployed, crushed by a crush, etc. Luckily, I had on DVD the complete box set for The Critic to get me through. As a kid, I looked up to Jay Sherman (the cartoon critic), and thought that doing what he did would be a dream. In one episode, I was introduced to Siskel and Ebert. At first, I thought they were just characters, but I soon realized they were as real as that moustached afro guy from The Today Show (Gene Shalit).

This can be a real career? Seriously? I had kicked around many fantasies for work throughout the years (from Astronaut to Superman himself), but I always kept coming back to film criticism. It’s hard to describe, but it just fit with my sarcastic, observational and analytical nature. My cousins would even refer to me as Siskel simply because I would comment on the details of a movie we’d be watching. Maybe I should make a go of this...

...but what did Mr. Ebert think of Superman Returns? 2/4 *s.

He wrote “This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating” and “when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?”

Whoa, I thought. How could this be? This is the man that enjoyed 1 and 2 as much as I did - HE SHOULD HAVE LIKED THIS MOVIE TOO! I spent a good amount of time, sitting at my desk, thinking hard on this.

I read through my review, feeling like I got my point across. Then, I reread his, this time with a clearer mind. And I realized something; my view wasn’t as fully realized as his was. What I wrote was, more or less, just gushing about a character in general, no matter the movie surrounding him. What Ebert wrote was a descriptive and well elaborated expression of what he felt about the movie as a whole. He used examples from previous versions of the story. He provided observations that were spot on. And he didn’t let his fanboy-ness take over.

No wonder the editor of that local paper didn’t get back to me.

So, I spent the next couple of years going from dead end job to dead end job, reading as many reviews by as many critics as possible. How were other people writing about movies, and what could I do to better myself? After much prodding from my mom, friends and eventually myself, I started up this blog.

And here I am. My browser still has a tab open with Ebert Digital contact information. My gmail inbox is open, waiting on me to compose a message. If I had written something just a little earlier, I would’ve thanked Mr. Ebert for giving me the motivation to be a critic. For helping me understand how I could come up with a style that was effective and very much mine. And, like how Superman made us believe a man could fly, that he made me believe a pale, OCD kid could turn his wide eyed love of watching and talking about movies into a career.

I’d like to imagine at least an auto response would’ve appeared after hitting refresh.

“Oh, my...” - Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek: Generations