"BLACK WIDOW" (2021) Review

 

"BLACK WIDOW" (2021) Review

Scarlett Johansson made her Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) debut as Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow in the franchise's 2010 movie, "IRON MAN 2". Despite spending the next decade as a major character within the MCU, Johansson never received her own solo film as the former Russian assassin-turned-S.H.I.E.L.D. agent until the release of the 2021 movie, "BLACK WIDOW".

During those intervening ten to eleven years, many fans have either demanded or pondered over whether Johansson would receive her solo film, pointing out the MCU's lack of a female-led movie. Ironically, Johansson was not the first MCU actress to receive her own solo film. That honor went to Oscar winner Brie Larson, who ended up starring in the 2019 movie, "CAPTAIN MARVEL". In fact, MCU showrunner Kevin Feige had decided to make the Captain Marvel film the MCU's first female-led film in 2014. I found this decision rather odd, considering that Johansson had been with the franchise for at least four to five years at that point . . . and the actress had already proved she was capable of being the lead in such a film. Johansson had to wait another three years before Feige finally decided to give her a shot at a solo film. Four more yeas would pass before "BLACK WIDOW" would finally make it to the big screen and Disney's streaming service.

What made the situation regarding "BLACK WIDOW" even more odd were two developments - the MCU had finally set about making the film after the Natasha Romanoff character had been killed off in the franchise's 2019 film, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME"; and the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, which first broke out in December 2019. I understood why the pandemic had both delayed and eventually limited the movie's theater release. What I could never understand was why Feige had decided to green-light a Captain Marvel film three years before doing the same for a Black Widow film. Especially since the latter had been a part of the MCU since 2010.

"BLACK WIDOW" began in 1995 Ohio where Russian super soldier Alexei Shostakov and Black Widow Melina Vostokoff work as undercover agents, posing as an American family with Natasha Romanoff and Yelena Belova as their daughters. After stealing S.H.I.E.L.D. intelligence, the quartet flee to Cuba where their boss, General Dreykov, has Natasha and Yelena taken to the Red Room for the Black Widow program training. In the following years, Shostakov ends up imprisoned in Russia, while Romanoff and Belova become successful Black Widow assassins. Romanoff eventually defects to S.H.I.E.L.D. after helping Clint Barton bomb Dreykov's Budapest office. The incident apparently kills Dreykov and his young daughter Antonia.

The movie jumps to 2016, following the events of "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Natasha has become a fugitive for violating the Sokovia Accords. After fleeing from U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross and his forces, Natasha ends up at a Norwegian safehouse in Norway by a former S.H.I.E.L.D. contact. Meanwhile, Yelena kills a rogue former Black Widow ,but comes in contact with a synthetic gas that neutralizes the Red Room's chemical mind-control agent. Yelena sends antidote vials to Romanoff, hoping she and the Avengers can free the other Widows. Natasha unknowingly drives away with the vials in her car. Red Room agent Taskmaster attacks her before Natasha makes her escape. She eventually realizes that the vials came from Yelena in Budapest. There, Yelena reveals to her that Dreykov is alive and the Red Room is still active for present and future Black Widow operatives. Both come to the conclusion that the Red Room needs to be shut down for good. The pair seek and recruit help from their former colleagues, Alexei Shostakov and Melina Vostokoff.

I cannot deny that "BLACK WIDOW" had its virtues. The movie boasted first-rate performances from its four leads. David Harbour gave an entertaining performance as ebullient super soldier Alexei Shostakov, who had maintained deep affection for his former colleagues. Rachel Weisz did an excellent job in conveying the ambiguous nature of the veteran Black Widow agent, Melina Vostokoff. Florence Pugh's performance as Black Widow agent Yelena Belova proved to be just as ebullient and entertaining as Harbor's. She also managed to add a touch of competition in Yelena's relationship with the main character. Scarlett Johansson gave one of her most poignant and subtle performances during her time with the MCU franchise as Black Widow agent and Avenger Natasha Romanoff. I was very impressed at how Johansson effectively conveyed Natasha's emotional vulnerability following the breakup of the Avengers and her outrage and anger at how the Black Widow program used drugs to coerce its operatives. Also, it was easy to see that all four leads proved to have great screen chemistry together. I found it easy to believe how anyone would view their characters as a loving family.

As for the film's other performances, they struck me as either solid or at best, questionable. I thought Olga Kuryenko did a decent job as the unrelenting and dangerous Red Room agent Antonia Dreykov aka Taskmaster. O-T Fagbenle proved to be mildly entertaining and witty as former S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and Natasha's ally, Rick Mason. However, I cannot say I felt impressed by William Hurt's portrayal of Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross or Ray Winstone's portrayal of General Dreykov. Hurt seemed to be going through the motions for what proved to be a cameo appearance. As for Winstone, I think he tried to make Dreykov interesting, but I suspect that screenwriter Eric Pearson's creation of a very bland villain may have defeated his purpose.

There are three or four major aspects of "BLACK WIDOW" that I disliked. One, I disliked how Pearson nearly allowed the Yelena Belova character to dominate the movie. Some claimed that Pugh's performance made it possible for her to overshadow Johansson. I do not agree. As I had earlier stated, I believe Johansson gave one of her best performances during her decade with the MCU. Yet, Pearson allowed Yelena to be the one to serve as the catalyst for the movie's plot with her discovery of the Red Room mind-control agent. And the movie seemed hellbent upon showcasing Yelena's skills . . . to the point of nearly shoving Natasha to the background.

Another aspect of the movie I disliked was Kevin Feige's decision to delay this film after the events of "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" that included Natasha Romanoff's "fridged" death. Honestly, I thought it was a stupid decision to make on his part and insulting to Johansson. Feige and Disney should have made this film at least half-a-decade earlier. Which leads to the film's third aspect that I disliked - namely to set it after "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". I mean . . . why? The MCU could have set this film later - at least during the five years between "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR" and "ENDGAME". Or . . . the MCU could have allowed Natasha to survive the 2019 movie and set "BLACK WIDOW" around 2023.

I also disliked a good deal of the film's action scenes. Two of them - Shostakov's escape from prison and the final action sequence at Red Room facility - struck me as ridiculously over-the-top and in the end, simply bored me. Natasha's fight with Yelena at Budapest struck me as nothing more than another attempt to showcase the latter's fighting skills and nothing else. Why? Because I found their fight very unnecessary to the plot. The only action sequence I found interesting was Natasha's initial fight against the Taskmaster in Norway.

Finally, we come to my number one issue with "BLACK WIDOW" - namely the Red Room and the Black Widow program. According to the MCU canon and this film, the Black Widow agents had originally been psychologically conditioned to become spies and assassins. Around the turn of the 21st century, the Russians used a mind control agent to control and coerce their Black Widow operatives. I realize this new development came from Marvel Comics, but it seemed like a plagiarized version of the Winter Solider program that Bucky Barnes had endured. Whether drugs were used in his case, I do not know. Nevertheless, I wish the MCU, Pearson and director Cate Shortland had not used this aspect of the Black Widow program in the film's narrative. It just seemed so unoriginal to me. And I believe it undermined Natasha's own decision to defect to S.H.I.E.L.D. and struggles to face her bloody past. Nice going, MCU! Not. The movie ended with a mid-credit scene featuring Yelena visiting Natasha's empty grave a few years later and encountering her new boss, Valentina Allegra de Fontaine, who informed her that one Clint Barton aka Hawkeye, was responsible for Natasha's death. This little scenario played out in the DisneyPlus series, "HAWKEYE", so I will not go into it.

"BLACK WIDOW" featured some excellent performances from its four leading characters and perhaps one or two decent action scenes. But if I must be honest, there were too many aspects of this movie that I found unappealing, including unoriginal writing, some over-the-top action sequences and really bad timing. In the end, I believe this movie proved to be a disservice to its star, Scarlett Johansson.

"BLACK WIDOW" (2021) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 24th Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movie, "BLACK WIDOW". Directed by Cate Shortland, the movie starred Scarlet Johansson as Natasha Romanoff aka the Black Widow:



"BLACK WIDOW" (2021) Photo Gallery

"HUGO" (2011) Review

"HUGO" (2011) Review

To the surprise of many, the top two contenders for Best Picture of 2011 featured on the history of film in the early 20th century. One of them was the Oscar winning "silent" film, "THE ARTIST". The other turned out to be Martin Scorsese's latest endeavor called"HUGO". 

Based upon Brian Selznick's 2008 novel, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", "HUGO" told the story of a 12 year-old boy named Hugo Cabret, who lives with his widowed father, a clockmaker in 1931 Paris. Hugo's father, who is a fan of Georges Méliès's films, takes him to the theater on many occasions. When Hugo's father dies in a museum fire, the boy is forced to live with his alcoholic Uncle Claude, who is also a watchmaker at the railway station, Gare Montparnasse. After teaching Hugo to maintain clocks, Claude disappears. His body is later found in the Seine River, drowned. Hugo lives between the walls of the railway station, maintaining clocks, stealing food and doing his best to avoid the attention of the tough stationmaster to avoid being shipped to a local orphanage. 

He also becomes obsessed with repairing his father's broken automaton - a mechanical man that writes with a pen. Convinced the automaton contains a message from his father, Hugo steals mechanical parts in order to repair the automaton. However, he is caught by a toy store owner, Papa Georges, who takes Hugo's notebook from him, with notes and drawings for fixing the automaton. Hugo follows Georges home and befriends a girl close to his age named Isabelle and the latter's goddaughter. When Hugo is finally able to repair the automaton, it produces a drawing straight from a Georges Méliès film. Thanks to the drawing and a film historian, Hugo and Isabelle discover that the latter's godfather is the famous filmmaker, now financially strapped and forgotten.

When I first learned about "HUGO", I heard that it was based upon a children's book. And I found it unusual that Martin Scorsese would make a film for children. As it turned out, "HUGO" is more than just a story for children. It eventually turned out to be a peek into another chapter in film history, slowly focusing on the work of Georges Méliès, who was responsible for early silent films such as"A TRIP TO THE MOON" (1902) and "THE IMPOSSIBLE VOYAGE" (1904). I noticed that Scorsese utilized his usual formula in unfolding the movie's plot. As in most of his other movies, he slowly introduced the characters - both major and minor - before setting up his plot. And while this formula worked in such films as "GOODFELLAS", "THE AGE OF INNOCENCE" and"CASINO", it did not quite work for "HUGO".

For me, "HUGO" suffered from two problems. One, the movie lingered just a bit too long on the introduction of all the characters - especially those who did not have any effect on Hugo's situation or with the discovery . And because of this, the pacing in its first half dragged incredibly long. In fact, it dragged so long that I almost lost interest in finishing the film. It was not until Hugo managed to repair the automaton and continue his and his father's love of films when life finally breathed into the film. From the moment the automaton produced the drawing of the moon from "A TRIP TO THE MOON", I became increasingly interested in the film."HUGO" soon became a interesting trip into the world of early French filmmaking. And it ended as a poignant story about how a boy's love for his father and movies allowed a forgotten artist to be remembered by a new generation of filmgoers. I found myself practically on the verge of tears by the last frame.

If there was one aspect of "HUGO" that truly impressed me was the movie's production design. Thanks to the legendary Dante Ferretti, it is truly one of the most beautiful looking films I have seen in the past few years. The movie's visual style was enhanced by David Warren's supervision of the movie's art direction, and cinematographer Robert Richardson's recreation of the Multicolor process - which he also used in the first half of "THE AVIATOR". Although I was mildly impressed by Sandy Powell's costume designs, it was Francesca Lo Schiavo's set decorations, especially for the re-creation of the Gare Montparnasse station circa 1931, which really impressed me. In the end, the movie almost conveyed a Jules Verne visual style that I suspect seemed appropriate for a film about Georges Méliès. I could comment on Howard Shore's score. But if I must be honest, I have no memories of it.

The film's other real strength came from the cast led by young Asa Butterfield's poignant portrayal of Hugo Calvert. He was ably supported by Chloë Grace Moretz, who gave a charming performance as Hugo's friend Isabelle, and Helen McCrory's skillful portrayal of Méliès's supportive wife. Performers such as Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Michael Stuhlbarg, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Frances de la Tour and Richard Griffiths gave solid, yet brief performances. But aside from Butterfield, the most impressive performance came from Ben Kingsley, who was superb as Méliès. Kingsley conveyed every aspect of Méliès's personality and life experiences. I am still astounded that he was never given any kind of acting nomination for his performance.

I cannot deny that "HUGO" is a very beautiful looking film. And I also cannot deny that I was mesmerized by the film's second half - especially when it focused on Hugo and Isabelle's discovery of Méliès' past as a filmmaker. The movie also benefited from a first-rate cast and especially from superb performances from Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley. But Martin Scorsese tried to create a small epic out of a story that was part children's tale/part film history. Which is why I believe "HUGO" fell short of becoming - at least in my eyes - one of the better movies of 2011.

"HUGO" (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from Martin Scorcese's adaptation of Brian Selznick's 2007 novel, "The Invention of Hugo Cabret". The movie stars Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz and Ben Kingsley: 

"HUGO" (2011) Photo Gallery

"INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL" (2008) Review

"INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL" (2008) Review

As much as I enjoyed this 2008 installment of the INDIANA JONES saga - "INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL", I had originally found myself perplexed by it. There was something about its tone that did not strike a similar chord, in compare to the other three movies. It took a second viewing of the movie for me to understand not only the movie’s story, but its entire atmosphere. And it had a lot to do with its setting. 

”INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL” is set in 1957, in which Colonel-Doctor Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) leads a convoy of Soviet troops, dressed as American soldiers on a mission to infiltrate a military base in the Nevada desert called "Hangar 51". Spalko and her men force Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) to lead them to a crate holding the remains of an extraterrestrial creature that crashed ten years before in Roswell, New Mexico. When Jones attempts to escape, he is foiled by his old partner, George "Mac" McHale (Ray Winstone), who reveals that he is working with the Soviets. Jones then escapes on a rocket sled into the desert, where he stumbles upon a nuclear test town and survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator. While being debriefed, Jones discovers he is under FBI investigation because his friend Mac is a Soviet agent. Jones returns to Marshall College, where he is offered a leave of absence to avoid being fired because of the investigation. As he is leaving, Jones is stopped by Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) and told that his old colleague, Harold Oxley (John Hurt), disappeared after discovering a crystal skull in Peru.

Like ”LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD” of the previous year, I had harbored some serious doubts on whether George Lucas and Steven Spielberg could relive the old magic of their previous three Indiana Jones adventures of the 1980s. Needless to say, my fears proved to be groundless. Like the Bruce Willis movie, this fourth installment ended up being very entertaining. And although it had some of the old magic of ”RAIDERS”, ”TEMPLE OF DOOM” and ”LAST CRUSADE”, it had a tone that made it different than the other three. It took a movie review by someone named Lazypadawan and a second viewing of the movie to not only notice the difference, but to eventually appreciate it.

The main problem I originally had with ”CRYSTAL SKULL” was the presence of a spaceship at the end of the story. The City of Gold that Indy, Spalko, Oxley and others wanted to find, ended up with something to do with . . . inter-dimensional beings. One might as well call them aliens by the look of them. Or it. This is something that has never been seen in an Indiana Jones film before. And of course it has not. The other three movies had been set in the 1930s. It would be only natural that they had a feel of a 30s B-serial adventure. But I had made the mistake of expecting a 1930s serial adventure in a story set in the late 1950s. What I should have realized – and what Lazypadawan had pointed out in her review – was that ”KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL” was not supposed to be a 30s serial adventure set in the 1950s. It was supposed to be a send up of the 1950s “B” movies. And what are the elements of a “B” movie from the 1950s? Here are just a few:

*atomic power
*the presence of Soviet troops or spies
*science fiction
*horror
*hybrid of science fiction and horror
*conflicts between biker hoods and high school/college jocks
*the “Red” scare
*Soviet (and American) interests in psychic paranormal activities and UFOs

”KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL” had most, if not all elements in the film. I had just read a review in which someone had complained that the movie seemed like a rip-off of a cheesy B-movie. I had made that same mistake when I saw the spaceship sequence near the end of the movie. But now I know better. Lucas and Spielberg had every intention of the movie being a “rip-off” of 1950s B-movies. Like I had said before, it would only make sense.

Someone else had mentioned that Harrison Ford had not seemed this animated in years. I am not surprised. Indiana Jones had always been amongst his favorite characters. And it really showed in his performance. It is also nice to see that after 27 years, his chemistry with Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood) seemed as strong as ever. By the way, she was great. And I was very impressed by Shia LaBeouf as Marion and Indy’s love child – Mutt Williams aka Henry Jones III. As much as I liked his performance in ”TRANSFORMERS”, I have always thought it seemed a bit too frantic for my tastes. I much preferred role as Henry III (I’m sorry, but I cannot bring myself to say – let alone write – “Mutt”). Like Ford, I could tell that Cate Blanchett really enjoyed her role as the villainous Soviet Colonel-Doctor Spalko. She was as obsessive and ruthless as the past Indy villains. But Blanchett’s performance had a verve and theatricality I have not seen since Amrish Puri’s portrayal of Mola Ram in ”THE TEMPLE OF DOOM”. And John Hurt filled Denholm Elliot’s role as friend/mentor of the Jones family quite beautifully. But unlike Marcus Brody, Harold Oxley had a good reason for his loopy behavior. I also enjoyed Ray Winstone's performance as Indy's treacherous old friend and colleague, McHale. In a way, he reminded me of the Elsa Schneider character in "LAST CRUSADE". But as much as I like Alison Doody, I must say that Winstone's take on a very morally ambiguous character had been handled with more skill.

Is there anything about ”KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL” that I disliked? Well, I was not impressed by John Williams’ score. There was nothing original or memorable about it, aside from moments of the old Indy theme being rehashed. Rather disappointing. Nor was I fond of the movie’s heavy-handed style of action and special effects. However, I could honestly complain about the same in regard to the other three films. But the one thing that really irritated me was the sequence featuring the villain’s defeat/destruction. In the end, it was not Indy who defeated the villain or set her destruction in motion. It was the inter-dimensional being. This is the one major fault I have noticed in two other Indiana Jones films. And it tends to give the films - at least in my eyes - an anticlimatic feeling that I find disappointing. In”RAIDERS”, the opening of the Ark of the Covenant set in motion Belloq and the Nazis’ deaths. Both Indy and Marion were tied to a pole, unable to do anything except keep their eyes closed. In ”THE LAST CRUSADE”, Elsa Schneider turned out to be responsible for the main villain’s death and the destruction of his men through her handling of the Grail Cup. Perhaps Lucas and Spielberg were trying to convey some message about humans being too arrogant to take heed of things/beings that are more powerful or more evolved than mankind. But that same message had been conveyed in”TEMPLE OF DOOM”. Only in that particular movie, it was Indy’s actions – invoking the power of Shiva with the Sanakara stone – that led to Mola Ram’s destruction. Perhaps this is why I have always found the 1984 movie’s ending a lot more impressive than those of the other three movies.

But despite my initial confusion on what Lucas and Spielberg were doing with the movie’s 1950s theme, along with my disappointment of the score and the handling of the villain’s defeat, I found ”KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL” very enjoyable. It was great to see Indiana Jones back in action, again. And even more satisfying was his marriage to his lady love, Marion Ravenwood, in the end. After 30 odd years, those two finally got it right.