High Point of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)

 

HIGH POINT OF THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

I have watched the movies and some of the television shows from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) since its inception with 2008's "IRON MAN". I am sure that many of the franchise’s fans have their own favorite movies and shows.

In my case, I have a favorite period of the franchise, which I personally consider its high point. Which is that period, you may ask? Well … I think the high point of the MCU had occurred during the spring and summer of 2014.



For me, it began with the airing of the "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." episode, (1.13) "T.R.A.C.K.S.". It continued on for the next three episodes, until (1.16) "End of the Beginning". Then came my favorite MCU movie of all time, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER", which started the MCU’s best story arc in my opinion, "The Fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.". This story continued in the superb "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." episode, (1.17) "Turn, Turn, Turn". This story arc finally completed in the series’ Season One finale, (1.22) "Beginning of the End".

Two-and-a-half months after Season One of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." ended, along with "The Fall of S.H.I.E.L.D." story arc, the MCU released my second or third favorite MCU movie of all time, "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY".

I do not think I have truly enjoyed the MCU franchise since that six-month period between February and August of 2014 that not only unveiled "The Fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.", but also introduced the Guardians of the Galaxy to the franchise’s fans. That whole period of 2014 was so enjoyable and well-written to me. And I personally feel that the MCU has never been able to recapture that consistent level of excellence again . . . even after five-and-half years.

"KNIVES OUT" (2019) Review

"KNIVES OUT" (2019) Review

Over the past seven to eight years, I have developed something of a mixed opinion of Rian Johnson as a filmmaker. I have only seen three of his films - 2012's "LOOPER", the 2017 STAR WARS movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI" and his recent film, the 2019 Oscar nominated film, "KNIVES OUT". I became a fan of "LOOPER". I disliked "THE LAST JEDI". In fact, I disliked "THE LAST JEDI" so much that I was almost reluctant to see his new film, "KNIVES OUT" in the movie theaters.

In the end, my curiosity won out and I saw "KNIVES OUT" in the theaters. Also written by Johnson, the movie proved to be an unusual mystery. Let me explain. "KNIVES OUT" begins with the Thrombey family gathering at the Massachusetts home of wealthy mystery novelist, Harlan Thrombey, to celebrate his 85th birthday. The following morning, Harlan's housekeeper, Fran, finds him dead in his private room, with his throat slit. The local police - Detective Lieutenant Elliot and Trooper Wagner - are convinced that Harlan had committed suicide. But the private detective accompanying them - Benoit Blanc - is convinced that Harlan had been murdered. It seems Blanc had been hired by anonymous party to investigate the novelist's death. When Blanc, Elliot and Wagner learn that Harlan's relationships with his family were strained, they find themselves with a list of suspects:

*Linda Thrombey Drysdale - Harlan's daughter, a real estate mogul who had started her company with his money
*Walter "Walt" Thrombey - Harlan's only living son, the CEO of his father's publishing company, whom the novelist wants to fire so that the former can forge his own career
*Richard Drysdale - Linda's husband, who helps her run her company and who is cheating on her with another woman
*Hugh Ransom Drysdale - Linda and Richard's son and Harlan's older grandson; a spoiled playboy whom Harlan had recently disowned
*Joni Thrombey - Harlan's daughter-in-law, widow of the novelist's deceased son, and a self-help guru; who has been stealing money from Harlan's estate
*Megan "Meg" Thrombey - Joni's daughter and Harlan's granddaughter, a college student whose education is threatened by the recent conflict between her mother and grandfather
*Donna Thrombey - Walt's wife and Harlan's daughter-in-law
*Jacob Thrombey - Walt and Donna's son and Harlan's younger grandson, who holds alt-right views

Blanc and the two police officers eventually turn to Marta Cabrera, Harlan's nurse and caregiver, for information on the family. It seems Marta had a close friendship with Harlan. But more importantly, neither Blanc or the cops are aware that Marta knows the true details behind Harlan's death and that it involved her accidentally administering him an overdose of morphine instead of his usual medication. Marta spends most of the film struggling to prevent Blanc, Elliot and Wagner from learning the truth behind her role in Harlan's death . . . unaware that a member of the family had set everything in motion in order to kill Harlan and benefit financially from his death.

"KNIVES OUT" was an interesting movie. And very unusual. Was it unusual in a good way or in a bad way? If I must be honest, I found some aspects of the movie rather questionable - only a few - but I can honestly say that its flaws had nothing to do with the unusual aspects of it. One problem I had with "KNIVES OUT" was its revelation scene of the story's true villain. I am not claiming that it was implausible. But . . . how can I put this? I found it a bit reaching. Just from looking at Harlan's toxicology report, Benoit Blanc was able to quickly unravel the mystery leading to the author's death. That toxicology report almost became a deus ex machina. I more than admire how Johnson used his story to examine the United States' outlook and treatment of immigrants - especially those from non-European countries. But with characters like Lieutenant Elliot and Fran, Johnson also had the opportunity to examine this country's attitudes toward race and class. And he never took it. Apparently, like Matthew Weiner and Joss Whedon, Rian Johnson can only deal with one issue at a time, even when he has the opportunity to touch upon more than one. My final problem with "KNIVES OUT" proved to be the status of Benoit Blanc in the story. I get it. He is private detective who was hired by an unknown client to solve the mystery surrounding Harlan Thrombey's death. My question is why the local police had more or less allowed Blanc to lead this investigation? Worse, the narrative bothered to explain how this happened, considering that no one - including Blanc - knew the identity of his client. According to the movie, Blanc had a high reputation as a private detective. So what? This is no guarantee that he would be allowed to lead the investigation into Harlan's death.

I would never be the first to say that "KNIVES OUT" was a perfect film. My complaints in the previous paragraph pretty much states otherwise. However, I cannot deny that this was not only a first-rate mystery, but a rather unusual one. Very unusual and very original. And I love originality in a story - especially when it is well written. Before I had even seen the film, I had assumed that its narrative would focus on the Benoit Blanc character investigating Harlan Thrombey's death. And it did . . . during its first thirty minutes or so. But when the narrative revealed that Harlan had sliced his own throat to save Marta's nursing career (and prevent her mother from being deported as an undocumented citizen) by hiding that she had accidentally given him the wrong medication, it focused on the latter's attempt to prevent Blanc and the police from focusing on the real details behind the author's death. And if I must be frank, I have never encountered such a narrative before. At least one I can recall.

Johnson also did an excellent job in conveying the politics behind Harlan's suicide and Marta's efforts to hide the truth behind his death. As I had stated earlier, Harlan feared that if Marta was punished for accidentally giving him the wrong medication, her mother, an illegal immigrant, would suffer by association. This is understandable, considering the strong anti-immigrant stance taken by many countries in recent years. What I found very interesting was Johnson's portrayal of the Thrombeys' attitude toward Marta. The older members affectionately call her "kid" and constantly remind her that they regard her as an official member of the family. Some family members like Joni Thrombey and her daughter Meg loudly beat the drum for a liberal, pro-immigrant stance. Richard expresses "admiration" for Marta because he believes her family had entered the United States "legally", revealing a passive-aggressive racism. Walt never says anything in support or against undocumented workers. He simply treats Marta as "a member of the family". Only his 16 year-old son Jacob seems openly bigoted. In a way, even Harlan belongs on this list.

Yet, despite the family's stance that Marta is "one of them", they do occasionally treat her as a servant - as shown in one moment when Richard automatically hands Marta an empty tea, assuming that she works for the family and not simply as Harlan's nurse. And not one member of the family cannot remember where Marta was born. As far as the Thrombeys were concerned, she was either from Paraguay, Ecuador and in the case of Ransom - Linda and Richard's son - Brazil. As for Harlan's Anglo housekeeper, Fran, she barely exists as far as the family is concerned. I suspect this is due to the fact that Fran is not as close to Harlan as he is to Marta. In the end, their "liberalism" is all about kissing up to Harlan in order to use him as a walking ATM. Speaking of Ransom Drysdale, he proved to be quite the dark horse. The character hardly ever interact with Marta, until the reading of Harlan's will. Following that incident, he learns about her mistake with Harlan's medicine and decides to help her deceive Blanc and the police. However, the movie eventually reveals that he does so . . . not from the goodness of his own heart. Despite being closer in personality to the mystery author, Ransom ends up proving that he is still a product of a privileged upbringing.

"KNIVES OUT" provided some very interesting performances. The solid ones came from the likes of Marlene Forte, Riki Lindhome, Edi Patterson, Jaeden Martell, and Shyrley Rodriguez. The movie also featured surprising, yet entertaining appearances from M. Emmett Walsh as Harlan's aging security guard, Frank Oz as Harlan's long-suffering attorney, and K Callan, who portrayed Harlan's centenarian mother with her eyes and one or two words. Katherine Langford did a great job in conveying Meg Thrombey's ardent liberalism and hypocrisy at the same time. Riki Lindhome gave an effective performance as Walt Thrombey's brittle wife, Donna. Noah Segan was both funny and enduring as police Trooper Wagner, who happened to be a fan of Harlan's novels. And Lakeith Stanfield gave a wry, yet humorous performance as the laconic Detective Lieutenant Elliot.

And then . . . we have those portraying the senior members of the Thrombey family. Toni Collette was very amusing, yet slightly mannered as Harlan's daughter-in-law, Joni Thrombey. Listening to her accent, I found myself wondering if her character supposed to be from Southern California. Michael Shannon gave a very subtle, yet intense performance as Harlan's younger son, Walt, who had become too dependent on his publishing company for success. Don Johnson, on the other hand, was hilarious as Harlan's unfaithful son-in-law Richard Drysdale, whose sardonic and outgoing personality hid his dependence on his wife and a bigoted streak. Jamie Lee Curtis was wonderful as the blunt, no-nonsense Linda Thrombey Drysdale, who managed to carve a successful business in real estate on her own - with Daddy's money, of course. Despite her more sympathetic portrayal, Curtis did a great job in proving that she was just as spoiled and over-privileged as the rest of her family. Christopher Plummer was marvelous as the clever, yet warm-hearted Harlan Thrombey, who seemed to have become aware that his success as an author and publisher contrasted with his failure as a family patriarch.

I am certain that many fans of Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) would be surprised to see Chris Evans in the role of Harlan's over privileged grandson, Hugh Ransom Drysdale. What I enjoyed about Evans' performance was that it was subtle, sardonic and if I must be honest, rather surprise. At one point it seemed as if his Ransom felt genuine compassion for Marta's situation . . . until he reveals his willingness to help stemmed more from his desire to get some kind of financial reward from her. I have never heard of Ana de Armas before "KNIVES OUT", yet she has been an actress for the past fifteen years or so. Many have regarded her role as the movie's heroine, Marta Cabrera, as a star making performance. In fact, she managed to garner a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Motion Picture Comedy or Musical. Did she deserve it? Uh . . . yeah! De Armas gave a superb performance as the kind-hearted, yet besieged Marta who was forced to juggle between her grief over Harlan's death, the feeling of being overwhelmed by the changes in her circumstances and her struggle to prevent Benoit Blanc and the cops from learning the truth about her patient's death. The actress' performance was balanced by a deliberately theatrical performance from Daniel Craig as the story's main sleuth, Benoit Blanc. Judging from his "Deep South" accent and French name, I can only gather that the detective came from one of the Gulf States - probably Louisiana. Now, I would not call Craig's Southern accent accurate. And I believe that he would be the first to say so. But for some reason, it matched his character's overly dramatic personality. I usually do not like theatrical or hammy performances, but there are some occasions when they actually worked. And Craig's Benoit Blanc worked like spades. With great skill, the actor managed to combine Blanc's theatrical personality with a talent for observation that would rival Sherlock Holmes. Like his leading lady, Craig managed to earn a much-deserved Golden Globe nomination - for Best Actor in a Motion Picture Comedy or Musical.

I will be the first to admit that I had a few quibbles about "KNIVES OUT". But only a few. In the end, Rian Johnson managed to create a first-rate and original mystery that managed to take me by surprise on several occasions. He did this with excellent direction and a superb cast led by Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas.

"KNIVES OUT" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "KNIVES OUT", a modern twist on the murder mystery film. Produced, written and directed by Rian Johnson; the movie stars Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas:



"KNIVES OUT" (2019) Photo Gallery

High Point of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)

HIGH POINT OF THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE (MCU)

I have watched the movies and some of the television shows from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) since its inception with 2008′s “IRON MAN”.  I am sure that many of the franchise’s fans have their own favorite movies and shows.

In my case, I have a favorite period of the franchise, which I personally consider its high point.  Which is that period, you may ask?  Well … I think the high point of the MCU had occurred during the spring and summer of 2014.

For me, it began with the airing of the “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” episode, (1.13) “T.R.A.C.K.S.”.  It continued on for the next three episodes, until (1.16) “End of the Beginning”.  Then came my favorite MCU movie of all time, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER”, which started the MCU’s best story arc in my opinion, “The Fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.”.  This story continued in the superb “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” episode, (1.17) “Turn, Turn, Turn”.    This story arc finally completed in the series’ Season One finale, (1.22) “Beginning of the End”. 

Two-and-a-half months after Season One of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.” ended, along with “The Fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.” story arc, the MCU released my second or third favorite MCU movie of all time, “GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY”.

I do not think I have truly enjoyed the MCU franchise since that six-month period between February and August of 2014 that not only unveiled the Fall of S.H.I.E.LD., but also introduced the Guardians of the Galaxy to the franchise’s fans.  That whole period of 2014 was so enjoyable and well-written to me.  And I personally feel that the MCU has never been able to recapture that consistent level of excellent again . . . even after five years.

"THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" (2019) Review

"THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" (2019) Review

After eleven years, three phases and twenty-two movies, a certain era in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) came to an end with the release of "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME". This movie became a major win for both Walt Disney Studios and Marvel Films at the box office and for fans who saw this as the culmination of the Infinity Stones story arc. 

Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" began nearly a day after the events of the franchise's previous chapter, "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". After years of searching for the Infinity Stones, Thanos managed to achieve his goal by using the stones and a gauntlet to wipe out half of the universe's living beings with a snap. Among the victims of his snap was the family of former Avengers Clint Barton aka Hawkeye. Nearly a day later found the surviving Avengers and the only surviving member of the Guardians - Rocket the Raccoon - return to the Avengers headquarters in upstate New York. The only two survivors on Titan - Tony Stark aka Iron Man and Nebula - had began their trip back to Earth and get lost in deep space. They were eventually rescued by Captain Marvel, who had earlier returned to Earth to contact the deceased Nick Fury. While Iron Man recovers from his ordeal, the other Avengers - Steve Rogers aka Captain America, James Rhodes aka War Machine, Bruce Banner aka the Hulk, Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow, and Thor - along with Rocket and Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel - track down Thanos to an unknown planet where they found him badly wounded from his use of the Infinity stones and starting a farm. The superheroes had planned to take the stones and gauntlet from him and used them to restore those who had died from the Snap. Unfortunately, Thanos reveals he had destroyed them to prevent further use. An enraged Thor decapitates Thanos.

After being trapped in the quantum realm for five years - minutes before Thanos' Snap - Scott Lang aka Ant-Man is finally freed through the intervention of a rat. He reunites with his now adolescent daughter, Cassie, and learns about the Snap. He travels to New York and meets with the Avengers with his idea on how to reverse Thanos' Snap - using time travel via quantum physics. The Avengers plan to go back in time, collect the Infinity Stones, create a gauntlet and use it to reverse the Snap. They eventually recruit both a grieving Hawkeye, who had become a violent vigilante, and a reluctant Tony Stark into their scheme, who eventually finds a way to create a time machine. With Bruce and Rocket's help, along with Hank Pym's technology, Tony builds the time machine and the Avengers go back to various periods in time to collect the Infinity Stones.

It was not difficult for me to surmise how this final plot involving the Infinity Stones would play out. I knew that the first movie would end in disaster with many characters being killed from the Snap. And I had suspected that the surviving Avengers would resort to time travel to reverse Thanos' action. I had accurately guessed this narrative, because I have seen other versions of it in other time travel movies, television shows and fan fiction. In fact, I had written a "CHARMED" fan fiction series featuring three stories with a similar scenario. Also, the D.C. Comics television series, "D.C.'S LEGENDS OF TOMORROW" had created a similar scenario in its last three or four Season Two episodes involving an artifact called the Spear of Destiny. So, I am the last person who would compliment the narratives for both "INFINITY WAR" and "ENDGAME" for being original.

There were aspects of "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" that I actually enjoyed or impressed me. Being a long time fan of the MCU, I must admit that when I saw the movie in the theaters, I had experienced something of a thrill watching the Avengers travel to different periods in the franchise's history - the Chitauri invasion in 2012's "THE AVENGERS", Asgard in 2013's "THOR: THE DARK WORLD" and Morag in 2014's "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY". The time travel sequence also featured a visit to Vormir in 2014 and another to the old S.H.I.E.L.D. base in 1970 New Jersey.

There were dramatic moments in the film that also impressed me. I enjoyed the brief scene between Scarlett Johansson's Black Window and Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, as the latter attempts to convince the latter to give up his vigilante activities and rejoin the Avengers. I also enjoy Thor's emotional encounter with his mother Frigga on the day of her death, thanks to Chris Hemsworth and Rene Russo's performances. I enjoyed the humor that evolved from 2023 Steve Rogers' encounter with the 2012 Steve as the former tries to get his hands on the Tesseract. I thought Chris Evans gave a very skillful and comedic performance in this scene. Another excellent dramatic scene featured Tony Stark's meeting with his father, Howard at the S.H.I.E.L.D. base in 1970 . . . just before Tony's own birth. I thought it was very emotional and heartfelt and featured first-rate performances from both Robert Downey Jr. and John Slattery. I also found the reunion between 2023 Nebula and 2014 Gamora very satisfying, emotional and slightly tense, thanks to excellent performances from Zoe Saldana and Karen Gillian. Why is it that when these two share the screen, they managed to knock it out of the ballpark? Also, I found Gillian's scenes with Don Cheadle very satisfying as their characters - Nebula and War Machine land on Morag to prevent Peter Quill aka Star Lord from getting his hands on the Power Stone. I enjoyed how Rhodey and Nebula discussed her struggles to overcome her questionable past with Thanos. 

Considering this is a MCU movie, there are bound to be some interesting action sequences. For me, the best action scenes featured Evans' Captain America. The first proved to be that crazy fight scene between a younger and earnest Captain America and the older, yet more jaded version inside the Stark Tower building in 2012 Manhattan. I have no idea how the special effects team managed to achieve that brawl, but my hats off to them. Another sequence that impressed me featured Captain America's fight against the 2014 Thanos and the latter's minions during the Battle of Earth, the film's final battle at the Avengers' Compound. First of all, I found it impressive. Second of all, I found Captain America's use of Thor's hammer, Mjolnir, very satisfying considering that it seemed foreshadowed in 2015's "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON". And finally, this sequence ended on an emotional and even more satisfying note when a portal opened near Steve with Sam Wilson's comment, "On your left", signalling the arrival of those Marvel heroes who had been dead for five years. Really . . . great moment. Captain Marvel's fight with Thanos proved to be mildly satisfying, but I really enjoyed Scarlet Witch's fight with the Mad Titan. I found it very satisfying that she really made him sweat before he resorted to crying for help from his minions.

"THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" had proved some satisfying moments and excellent performances. And yet . . . it was not enough. The great moments and performances were not enough to overcome my overall negative view of the movie. In the end, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" proved to be one of the most disappointing MCU movies I have ever seen. And a great deal of this disappointment centered around Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely's screenplay.

First of all, there were minor aspects of Markus and McFeeley's screenplay that bothered me. Not long after her arrival at the Avengers Compound, Captain Marvel was sent by the group to search for Iron Man and Nebula. How did the Avengers know that the pair was alive? They were the only post-Snap survivors on Titan. For all they knew, Tony had been snapped. How did Captain Marvel know where to find them? I wish the movie had provided a few more details on the development of this scenario. How was Rocket able to extract the Reality Stone (the Aether) from Dr. Jane Foster's body without alerting her in 2013 Asgard? How did Captain America return the Aether into her body . . . again, without alerting her? Was she drugged at the time? I also noticed in the sequence featuring Scott Lang's return to San Francisco, the city seemed to look trashed from Thanos' snap . . . after five years. In other words, the City of San Francisco managed to construct a "Wall of the Vanished" featuring names of those who had been killed by the Snap. But it was unable to clean up the city? I saw damaged cars, littered streets, damaged buildings not only in San Francisco, but also in New York City. Seriously? Most Humans spent those five years wallowing in the loss of lives without bothering to clean up the damage? Thanos had killed off half of the universe, not three-fourths of it. There should have been enough people around to commence upon the clean up of most, if not all, major cities. However, these are minor issues I have with the film in compare to the following.

One of my bigger issues regards Thor Odinson, King of Asgard since the death of his older sister in "THOR: RAGNAROK". One, the MCU continued its inconsistency regarding Thor's power level. There is also the matter of the continuing issue of Thor's encounters with Thanos. Since the death of his older sister near the end of "THOR: RAGNAROK", Thor Odinson has been the official King of Asgard. Which meant that at this point, he should have been powerful enough to take on Thanos in a fight. He could not even take on Thanos' minions at the beginning of "INFINITY WAR", yet with his new Stormbreaker axe, he had no trouble taking on the Mad Titan wearing an Infinity Gauntlet (with all six stones). However, in "ENDGAME", he could not take on 2014 Thanos . . . with Stormbreaker. Captain America had given Thanos more problems with Mjolnir. Were audiences expected to accept that Thor's recent weight gain made it exceedingly difficult for him to fight Thanos? As the Allfather, should his weight have mattered?

Speaking of Thor's weight gain and recent drinking . . . what exactly was he drinking? Alcohol from Earth? I doubt very much that Thor had the chance to get his hands on Asgardian booze, considering that the planet no longer existed. So . . . audiences are expected to believe that Earth-created liquor can have an effect on a powerful Asgardian like Thor, let alone any Asgardian? The movie made it clear that the recent traumas he had experienced, along with guilt for his failure to immediately kill Thanos in Wakanda, had led him to depression and alcoholism. Unfortunately, every time it seemed the movie is about to delve into Thor's psyche, the screenplay undermines the scene with too much humor. It is basically a repeat of the overuse of humor in "THOR: RAGNAROK", only in this film, McFeely and Markus constantly bombarded audiences with jokes about Thor's weight. Fat jokes. I just . . . I found it all very frustrating to watch.

Another characterization I had a problem with was Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk. Or . . . "Smart Hulk". Whatever. I had two problems with the Hulk's characterization in this film. Apparently, during the five years between the Snap and most of the film, Bruce had learned to balance his two identities - the reserved scientist and the raging green being. How did it happen? When did Bruce learn to balance his multiple natures? Inquiring minds would love to know. Unfortunately, McFeely and Markus' screenplay told audiences what had happened to him. The screenplay did not bother to show what happened. I found this very frustrating. And what made my frustration worse was that this new Bruce/Hulk balance act manifested in a new look for the character:



What in the hell? Was this ham-fisted visual image of the "Smart Hulk" really necessary? All the movie had to do was show Bruce transform into the Hulk, while keeping his emotions and intelligence in control. Would that have been too difficult for Kevin Feige and the Russo Brothers to do?

And then we have Tony Stark aka Iron Man. Most people would raise an eyebrow or two over labeling Tony's character arc as a problem. He was. At least to me. There were times when I had felt as if I was watching an ode to Tony Stark. I found this very frustrating. McFeely and Markus had allowed Tony to be the one who found the way for them to time travel. Why him? Tony was basically a weapons or tech engineer. He does not even have a doctorate. I do not know about Rocket, but I certainly believe Bruce Banner should have been the one to achieve this. The film also focused a lot on Tony's family life - past and present. And the film also allowed him to be the one to deliver the death blow on Thanos. Following his death, Tony was given a major funeral in which nearly every MCU character still alive that had appeared in the last eleven years had attended. Another Avenger had died in this film. But for some reason, McFeely and Markus thought it was not necessary to include that person's funeral. This really pissed me off. But what really pissed me off was the following scene after Tony and Nebula's return to Earth, early in the film:

Tony Stark: What we needed was a suit of armor around the world! Remember that? Whether it impacted our precious freedoms or not, that’s what we needed!

Steve Rogers: Well, that didn’t work out, did it?

Tony Stark: I said we’d lose. You said, "we’ll do that together too." Guess what, Cap? We "lost," and you weren’t there. But that’s what we do, right? Our best work after the fact? We’re the "Avengers?" Not the Prevengers, right?

Kevin Feige, the Russo Brothers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely have constantly informed fans and the media that Tony Stark had matured and developed as a character by "ENDGAME". Really? The above rant had failed to convince me. All Tony did was make excuses for his unexpected creation of Ultron and his ridiculous idea about creating androids to police the Earth's atmosphere. He also blamed Steve Rogers for Thanos' victory, because the latter "wasn't there". What I had hated about this rant is that no one had bothered to tell Tony he was wrong. His idea of an army of robots patrolling Earth's space led him to unintentionally creating Ulton. And the latter led to the whole mess surrounding the Sokovia Accords and some of the Avengers being on the run. Yet, no one had bothered to tell Tony that despite all of that . . . most of the Avengers had managed to reunite in Wakanda in time to fight Thanos' army. He was the only Avenger - past and present - that was missing at the time. Also, the rejection of the Sokovia Accords by Steve and other Avengers like Sam Wilson and Wanda Maximoff had NOTHING to do with Thanos' victory. In fact the Sokovia Accords, a useless and badly handled story arc since it was first introduced back in 2016, played no role in Thanos' victory whatsoever. What was the damn point of this scene? I eventually learned that Tony's rant against Steve was improvised by Downey Jr. If so, my dislike of both the character and the actor has greatly increased. I thought it was nothing more than an ego trip on the actor's part because he could not deal with his beloved Tony Stark being wrong about anything.

Another major issue I had with the film was its handling of the female characters. I really do not know what to say about this. I will give the movie credit exploring Gamora and Nebula's relationship a little further in this movie. But I had a problem. The Gamora that Nebula had to convince to betray Thanos was the former's 2014 self . . . the same woman who was already secretly plotting to prevent Thanos' possession of the Infinity stones even before the "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" narrative had begun. Why on earth would she be reluctant to betray Thanos at this point in her life? I was also disappointed that neither woman had played a major role in 2014 Thanos' defeat. Instead, Nebula's biggest moment was when she killed her younger self to save Hawkeye's life. Killed her younger self? Yeah . . . more on that later.

Both Nebula and Gamora had fared better than many other women MCU characters. First, there is Cassie Lang. What happened to her during those five years after the Snap? Did her mother and step-father, Maggie and Jim Paxton, also survive? Hope van Dyne, who had been killed with her parents by the Snap, returned to fight in the battle against Thanos. Basically, her role in the film was a cameo appearance . . . along with other MCU women characters like Pepper Potts, Okoye, and Princess Shuri. I was surprised to discover that Shuri had been killed by the Snap. This was never revealed in "INFINITY WAR" and the MCU kept her fate a mystery during the year between the two films. Why? I have no idea. Captain Marvel, who had received such a build up near the end of "INFINITY WAR" and her own solo film, "CAPTAIN MARVEL", was basically used as a tool to rescue Tony Stark and Nebula. She disappeared for most of the film, only to return for the final Battle on Earth. During this conflict, she briefly fought against Thanos before he stopped her with the Power Stone. Overall, I found Captain Marvel's presence in the film rather limited and disappointing. Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch was another who personally fought against Thanos. And although I found her role in that fight impressive, she was not used for anything else. Another woman character wasted. The movie provided a scene in which all or most of the MCU women played "hot potato" with the new Infinity gauntlet, resulting in one shot of them all lined up:

For me, it was nothing more than the franchise's attempt to pander at feminists and erase any charges of sexism on its part. 

One of the movie's biggest failures for me proved to be its handling of Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow. Following 2018 Thanos' death, she was the only Avenger who went out of her way to take charge of the organization and lead both old and new members like War Machine and Captain Marvel to monitor both the Earth and the universe beyond. Yet, after Ant-Man had made his time travel suggestion and Iron Man returned to the fold, Natasha immediately relinquished her role as the Avengers' leader. WHY? Was it that important to the screenwriters, the Russo Brothers and Kevin Feige that a man - whether it was Captain America, the Hulk or Iron Man - become the leader of this new operation? When the team broke up to pursue the Infinity Stones in the past, Natasha and her oldest friend, Clint Barton went to Vormir to get the Soul Stone. I am certain many knew what happened. Natasha committed suicide . . . pardon me, "sacrificed herself" in order for Clint to get his hands on the stone. At this point, I developed a deep hatred for the MCU. 

It was bad enough that McFeely and Markus changed the Soul Stone's backstory in order to provide emotional conflict for Thanos, when he sacrificed Gamora for the stone. Matters got worse when Natasha had to die . . . for the stone. Vormir had become Planet of the Fridged Women. Many fans claimed that Natasha was not fridged since she had sacrificed herself. Morons. Natasha had died so that her male colleagues could experience a few moments of grief and anger over her death. Worse, Natasha did not receive an on-screen funeral like Tony. And she died because McFeely and Markus believed that Clint should live because he had a family (sexist motherfuckers) and because they had no idea that a Black Widow solo film had been planned, let alone announced. But Feige did. Yet, he still allowed Natasha's death to remain in the movie.

Speaking of the stones, the Hulk got the Time Stone from Doctor Strange's former teacher, the Ancient One. During the Chitauri's invasion of Manhattan. It was stated or hinted that the Ancient One was at the New York Sanctum of her order in order to protect it during the Chitauri's invasion. Where was the sorcerer who should have been there? You know . . . the one who ended up being killed in "DOCTOR STRANGE". Where was he? Did the Ancient One felt he was not up to the task? 

But what I felt really sunk "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" was its portrayal of time travel in its narrative. Some naysayers had a problem with the screenwriters using time travel to reverse the deaths in the previous movie. I have enjoyed many movies involving time travel. I did NOT enjoy how this trope was used in the film. When Scott Lang first pushed the idea for time travel, Bruce Banner made it clear that one cannot change the timeline. He stated that by changing the past, one only creates an alternate timeline. I realized there is no clear rule regarding time travel. I also realized that Bruce's rule was basically a theory . . . even in real life. I also realize that this real life theory has never been proven one way or the other. However, I thought it unnecessary for the screenwriters to insult previous time travel movies and television series in order to convince moviegoers to mindlessly accept this theory. And I thought this was a shitty theory for fictional stories.

Bruce's time travel rule or theory allowed the movie's writers to evade any consequences that the Avengers might have to face from time travel . . . other than Natasha Romanoff's death on Vormir. I also noticed that this theory had conflicted with previous examples of time travel in the franchise's past productions:

1. In 2016's "DOCTOR STRANGE", Doctor Stephen Strange used the Time Stone to create a time loop in order to browbeat the villainous Dormammu into leaving Earth.

2. During Season Five of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", Phil Coulson and his S.H.I.E.L.D. team was forced into the future where most of the Earth had been destroyed. When they returned back in time to 2018, they managed to prevent this future by defeating the person responsible for this grim future, Glenn Talbot aka Graviton and save Earth.

3. In "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR", Thanos used the Time Stone to reset time and re-create the Mind Stone, which Scarlet Witch had previously destroyed, so that he can take it from Vision and place it in his gauntlet.

And if these contradictions were not enough, I also realized that the screenwriters had decided to use this new theory for the sake of nostalgia. They scattered the Avengers throughout time to get the Infinity Stones and allow moviegoers visit different moments in the MCU's history. At first, I liked it. Then I realized that this was unnecessary. All they had to do was go back to a specific point in time and prevent Thanos from getting his hands on the first Infinity stone that he had managed to grab - namely the Power Stone. And that would mean revisiting Xandar. Either Rocket or Nebula (especially the latter) could have informed the Avenges on where to go. Between Thor and Captain Marvel, Thanos could have ended up dead. Instead, I found myself watching these series of messy and nostalgia-laden time travel trips, including that God-awful journey to Vormir.

Bruce's time travel theory had created another problem . . . confusion. When 2014 Thanos had become aware of the Avengers' plans to reverse his future Snap, he and his army went nine years into the future to stop them. During this confrontation, the older Nebula prevented the 2014 Nebula (or "Evil" Nebula) from killing Hawkeye . . . by killing the latter. I am still trying to wrap my head over this. Some fans have claimed that one of the two Nebulas came from an alternate timeline. Really? Which one? So . . . Thanos, his army and Nebula did not time travel? They entered an alternate timeline? Both? If one of the Nebulas were from an alternate timeline, how was the 2014 Nebula's cybernetic implant was able to link with those from the 2023 Nebula? When did one of them become part of an "alternate timeline"? 

If you thought this was messy, try wrapping your brain over the situation regarding Steve Rogers aka Captain America. Following Thanos' defeat and Tony's funeral, Steve took the Infinity Stones and used the quantum time machine to go back to the past and return them, Loki's scepter and Mjölnir from where in time the Avengers got them. I simply could not imagine how he would react to seeing Natasha's body on Vormir, let alone meeting Red Skull again. Or let alone infusing the Reality Stone back into Jane Foster's body on Asgard. But after returning the stones, the scepter and the hammer; Steve decided to go back further into time to 1945 and reunite with Peggy. Apparently, he spent the next 78 years with her before returning to 2023 as an old man and handing over his shield to Sam Wilson. 

Huh. So . . . did this older Steve spend those 78 years in an alternate universe? If so, how did he return to the original timeline . . . or universe? The movie never explained. Did Steve do anything to change "his timeline" - like prevent S.H.I.E.L.D. from recruiting the likes of Arnim Zola and allowing HYRDA to infiltrate the agency? It is bad enough that Steve Rogers would do something to regress his character development on such a major level. In the comics, he was tempted to go back in time twice. And in both occasions, he decided against it, realizing that such an act was detrimental to his personal growth. But no . . . McFeely and Markus allowed Steve to pull a Jay Gatsby and not only ruin his character arc, but Peggy Carter's as well. What makes all of this even more sad is that the Russo Brothers and the screenwriters cannot seemed to agree on what really happened with Steve.

I just realized that I had not discussed the performances in "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME". To be honest, I do not care. Not after realizing that I had spent three hours watching a bad movie. However . . . I will admit that the cast did their jobs and gave first-rate performances. I will also admit that the film featured some satisfying action and dramatic moments. Overall, I feel that "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" proved to be the most bloated and overrated movies during the 2019 summer movie season, let alone one of the most disappointing comic book movies I have ever seen. I do not think it deserved its box office success. Not by a long shot.