"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.

"THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", the twenty-first entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The movie was directed by Anthony and Joseph Russo: 



"THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME" (2019) Photo Gallery

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Review

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Review

Have you ever watched a movie on DVD or cable that you regret not seeing in the movie theaters? I have. In fact, I have seen at least three films nominated for Best Picture . . . after they had been released on DVD. One of those films was the actual Best Picture winner, "SPOTLIGHT". 

Directed by Oscar nominee Thomas McCarthy, "SPOTLIGHT" told the story of The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative journalist unit in the United States and its investigation into cases of widespread and systemic child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests. The story began in 2001 when a new editor named Marty Baron is hired by The Globe. During a staff meeting, Baron brought up the subject of a Boston priest named John Geoghan, who was sexually abusing children and nothing was done - by the Church or the city's law enforcement - to stop him. Baron urged the "Spotlight" team to investigate. Initially believing that they are following the story of one priest who was moved around several times, the "Spotlight" team eventually uncovered a pattern of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests throughout Massachusetts and an ongoing cover-up by the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law.

After watching "SPOTLIGHT", I easily understood why it had received a good deal of acclaim and award nominations. It really is a first rate movie. Due to the fact that the movie focused on a newspaper investigation team, it allowed moviegoers to enjoy the team's step-by-step investigation into the priests and their victims in the Boston area. I might as well say it. The movie reminded me of the 1975 Oscar nominee, "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" . . . and in a good way. I have not seen a really good movie about investigative journalism in a long time. I also have to commend director Thomas McCarthy and his co-writer Josh Singer for conveying the "Spotlight" team's discoveries via interviews and records in a well-paced manner. McCarthy did not rush the"Spotlight" team's investigation, but he did not drag it as well. In the end, the investigation itself struck me as a fascinating mystery that developed into a horror story that left me feeling appalled.

"SPOTLIGHT" not only received nominations for McCarthy's direction and the screenplay that he wrote with Singer, it also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Mark Ruffalo and Best Supporting Actress nomination for Rachel McAdams. The pair portrayed two members of the "Spotlight" team - Michael Rezendes and Sacha Pfeiffer. I will admit that both gave first-rate performances. The movie also featured excellent performances from Liev Schreiber as Marty Baron, who started the whole thing in motion; John Slattery as Assistant Managing Editor Ben Bradlee Jr.; Brian d'Arcy James as reporter Matt Carroll; Jamey Sheridan as Catholic Church attorney Jim Sullivan; and Billy Crudup as attorney Eric MacLeish. 

Ironically, my two favorite performances in the movie did not receive any Academy Award or Golden Globe nominations. One came from Stanley Tucci, who portrayed Mitchell Garabedian, a sharp-tongued attorney who represented many sexual abuse victim. I enjoyed Tucci's sardonic, yet understated performance and how his character pointed out how many Boston officials cooperated with the Catholic Church to cover up the abuses. I also enjoyed Michael Keaton's ambiguous portrayal of editor and the team's leader, Walter "Robby" Robinson. Keaton did a great job in not only conveying his character's leadership, but also his knowledge that The Globe had learned about the abuses years earlier, but had covered it up. It seemed a shame that he did not receive an Academy or Golden Globe nomination.

As much as I enjoyed "SPOTLIGHT" and was impressed by it, a part of me feels that it should not have won the Best Picture award. I think the Academy had awarded the film its top honor simply based upon its topic. The problem for me is that "SPOTLIGHT" simply lacked any real artistry. One might accuse me of being shallow. Perhaps I am. But I would prefer to choose a movie that not only provided a great topic, but also first-rate writing . . . and artistry. I can think of two other films that were also nominated the same year as "SPOTLIGHT" that provided all of those features. Someone once pointed out that if you take away the movie's topic of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, "SPOTLIGHT" would come off as a solid, paint-by-the numbers film by a first-time director. And you know what? That person was right. There were times when McCarthy's direction for "SPOTLIGHT" seemed a bit amateurish.

Even though I feel that "SPOTLIGHT" should not have won the Best Picture Oscar for 2015, I cannot deny that it is a basically an first-rate film. I believe that this is due to its fascinating subject, the film's approach to the topic as a mystery and the excellent cast led by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.

"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2015 Best Picture Oscar winner, "SPOTLIGHT". Directed and co-written by Thomas McCarthy, the movie starred Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber: 



"SPOTLIGHT" (2015) Photo Gallery

"THOR: RAGNAROK" (2017) Review

“THOR: RAGNAROK” (2017) Review

Until last fall, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has released three films each for only two of the franchise’s characters - Iron Man and (allegedly) Captain America. With the release of “THOR: RAGNAROK”, the God of Thunder became the third character to end up with three solo films. 

Directed by Taika Waititi, “THOR: RAGNAROK” told the story of Asgardian prince Thor’s efforts to prevent the destruction of his world, Asgard, from his aggressive and more powerful sister, Hela. The movie is the franchise’s version of a similar story featured in one of the Marvel Comics titles for the Thor character. Screenwriters Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost also used elements from the 2006 Marvel story, “Planet Hulk” to include the Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk into the movie’s plot.

Set four years after the events of “THOR: THE DARK WORLD” and two-and-half years after the events of “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON”, this film begins with Thor as a prisoner of the fire demon Surtur in Muspelheim. Thor had went there to search for the remaining Infinity Stones. Surtur reveals that Thor’s father Odin is no longer on Asgard, and that the Asgardian realm will soon be destroyed in the prophesied Ragnarök, once Surtur unites his crown with the Eternal Flame that burns in Odin’s vault. However, Thor frees himsel, defeats Surtur and claims the latter’s crown, believing he has prevented Ragnarök aka the Asgardian version of the Apocalypse. Upon his return to Asgard, Thor discovers that his adoptive brother Loki has been posing as Odin. He also finds that a warrior named Skurge has replaced the all-seeing Heimdall as the Bifröst Bridge’s sentry. Thor forces Loki to help him find Odin on Earth.

With assistance from the sorcerer Dr. Stephen Strange, the pair finds Odin Norway. The latter explains that he is dying and that his passing will free his ambitious firstborn child, Hela the Goddess of Death, out of a prison in which she had been sealed. When he finally dies, Hela appears on Earth, destroys Thor’s hammer Mjolnir and demands loyalty from him and Loki. Instead, the two brothers attempt to flee via the Bifröst Bridge. Unfortunately, Hela pursues them and forces them out into space to die. Hela ends up in Asgard and violently assume control of the throne. Thor crash lands on a garbage planet called Sakaar. There, he is captured by a bounty hunter, whom recognizes as a Valkryrie named Brünnhilde, and forced to participate as a gladiator for the planet’s “Contest of Champions”. He also discovers that Loki has become a companion of Sakaar’s leader, the Grandmaster. And that Bruce Banner aka the Hulk has been a champion gladiator on Sakaar ever since his disappearance, following the Sokovia battle over two years ago. Thor not only needs to survive a match against the Hulk, but also escape from Sakaar and prevent his sister’s complete control over Asgard and her plans for expanding the realm’s empire.

“THOR: RAGNAROK” had received a great deal of praise from film critics upon its release. In fact, the movie went on to become a box office hit. In a way, I could see why. The basic narrative for “THOR: RAGNAROK” struck me as a rare thing for a MCU solo film - an epic in the making. Thor facing a possible apocalypse for Asgard, a gladiator match against a fellow ex-Avenger, and more family drama from the Asgard Royal Family. “THOR: RAGNAROK” had the potential to be another “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER”.

There was a good number of things I really enjoyed about “THOR: RAGNAROK”. One, I enjoyed director Taika Waititi’s use of the Led Zeppelin tune, “Immigrant Song” around the film’s beginning and near the end rather effective. I was also impressed by Joel Negron and Zene Baker’s editing for the film. Their work seemed especially impressive in the scenes that featured Thor’s chaotic arrival on Sakaar and his gladiator match with the Hulk. I also found Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography very colorful … almost outstanding. Hell, there was one scene featuring Hela’s past conflict with the Valkyries that reminded me of Larry Fong’s work with director Zack Snyder: 

Much has been said about the humor that permeated "THOR: RAGNAROK", thanks to the screenwriters and especially Taika Waititi's direction. I cannot say that I had enjoyed all the humor featured in the film. But there were a few scenes that I found particularly funny. One included Loki's play about Odin's grief over his fake death. This scene featured Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill portraying Loki, Thor and Odin respectively. Brünnhilde's first appearance in the movie, in which she is drunk as a skunk, struck me as rather funny, thanks to Tessa Thompson's performance. Another scene I found hilarious was Thor and the Hulk's first meeting inside the Sakaar arena, along with Loki's fearful reaction to seeing the latter again. But the funniest scene - at least for me - featured Thor forcing a reluctant Loki to play a "Get Help!"trick (something from their childhood) on one of the Grandmaster's minions.

The movie featured some first-rate performances. Chris Hemsworth gave his usual first-rate performance as Asgard's crown prince, Thor. Tom Hiddleston was equally impressive as the mischievous and self-absorbed Loki. Cate Blanchett chewed the scenery in grand style as Thor and Loki's power hungry sister, Hela. Tessa Thompson gave a skillful performance as the ambiguous former Valkyrie, Brünnhilde, who used alcohol to runaway from painful memories. Mark Ruffalo was excellent as both the mild-mannered Dr. Bruce Banner and his alter ego, the Hulk; who seemed more happy as a worshiped gladiator on Sakaar than as a wanted fugitive/Avenger on Earth. Jeff Goldblum was his colorful self as the Grandmaster; the gregarious, yet tyrannical and self-absorbed leader of Sakaar. Idris Elba provided much needed gravitas as Asgard's former gatekeeper, Heimdall, who found himself the leader of the realm's refugees from Hela's reign. Karl Urban was surprisingly entertaining as the boastful warrior Skurge, who would do anything to survive Hela's reign. The movie featured two cameos. Benedict Cumberbatch made a solid cameo appearance as the arrogant sorcerer, Dr. Stephen Strange. However, Anthony Hopkins' cameo as the dying Odin struck me as poignant and a lot more effective. 

Despite all of the above, despite the critical acclaim, "THOR: RAGNAROK" proved to be rather disappointing for me in the end. What went wrong?

One problem I had with this film was its treatment of certain characters. Remember Lady Sif and the Warriors Three? Thor's closest friends who had traveled all the way to Earth to find him in "THOR"? And who helped him defy Odin and leave Asgard with Loki and Dr. Jane Foster in order to remove one of the Infinity Stones - the Aether - from the realm and the Dark Elves? Well . . . Lady Sif never made an appearance in this film. One would assume that actress Jamie Alexander had scheduling conflicts with her TV series, "BLINDSPOT". Then why not hire another actress to portray Lady Sif . . . as they had did with Fandral? But not only was Lady Sif missing, she was not even mentioned in this film. That was quite a head shaker for me. Another head shaker were the fates of the Warrior Three - Fandral, Volstagg and Hogun. Both Fandral and Volstagg were immediately killed by Hela upon her arrival on Asgard. I found that so disappointing and a waste of both Zachary Levi and Ray Stevenson's time. At least Tadanobu Asano's Hogun was able to speak more than one line and engage in a brief fight with Hela before she eventually dispatched him. But what made this so damn annoying was that Thor was never told about his friends' deaths on screen. Audiences never got a chance to see him react to their deaths. 

Believe it or not, I also had a problem with the Hulk. Well . . . I had a problem with his ability to form near complete sentences. How did that happened? Aside from uttering the phrase "Hulk smash!" in the 2008 movie, "THE INCREDIBLE HULK", I do not recall him ever speaking any sentences - complete or not. Not when he was portrayed by Eric Bana, Edward Norton or Mark Ruffalo. What I found even more puzzling was Thor's lack of surprise over the Hulk's conversational skills. Odin's death was handled in an equally questionable manner. First of all, from what did he died? What caused Odin's death? Being away from Asgard for so long? If so, the movie's screenplay was very vague in conveying this. And why did Odin's death lead to Hela's appearance on Earth? If she was in a prison, why did she not appear in Asgard upon her father's death? That made no sense to me. Movie audiences learned that Thor and Dr. Jane Foster finally had their breakup, following his departure from Earth two years earlier. I am already annoyed at Kevin Feige for hinting that Jane was not worthy of being Thor's love interest. Not worthy? Why? Because she was not a skilled fighter with or without super strength who wielded a sword or gun? Fuck Kevin Feige and his sexist bullshit. What made the news of the breakup even worse is that the news of Thor and Jane's breakup was treated as comic relief. Thor's breakup with a woman with whom he was in love for four years . . . was treated as a joke? Natalie Portman was right to dump this franchise.

If "THOR: RAGNAROK" was about the God of Thunder's attempt to prevent Asgard from experiencing Ragnarok (or an apocalypse), why in the hell did it focus on Thor's activities in Sakaar for so damn long? Why did the movie stay on that damn planet for so long? Once Thor and the Hulk's gladiator's match had ended, I figured it would not be long before Thor would have left Sakaar with the Hulk, Loki and Brünnhilde. Instead, it nearly took them FOREVER to get off that planet. It was sheer torture watching Thor trying to convince the Hulk and Brünnhilde to help him get off the planet. And I found Loki's backstabbing shenanigans not only unoriginal, but lame. Come to think of it, I found Loki's presence in this film rather lame . . . except in the movie's last twenty minutes or so. He more or less became a punching bag for Thor and everyone else, than the dangerous and tricky villain he used to be. Once "the Revengers", as Thor called himself and the others, arrived on Asgard, it was . . . eh. I just did not care at that point. Their final conflict with Hela and Thor's decision to kick star Ragnarok (using Surtur's crown and the Eternal Flame) just could not lift me from my apathy toward this film. 

But what really sank "THOR: RAGNAROK" for me was the humor. I do not mind the occasional use of humor in an action film like this. I do not even mind when there is more humor than usual - especially in films like "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" and "ANT-MAN". But what I could not deal with was a barrage of humor in a narrative that featured the possible apocalypse of Asgard, the deaths of familiar characters and the further drama of the Asgardian Royal Family. Nearly everything was transformed into a joke - from Thor's discovery of Loki's impersonation of Odin, Brünnhilde's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTS) over the deaths of her fellow Valkyries, the reason behind the Hulk's longing to remain on Sakaar, the revelation over Thor and Jane's breakup, the Sakaarians' decision to rebel against the Grandmaster, and Hela's revelations to Skurge about hers and Odin's murderous creation of the Asgardian Empire. These were all plot points that should have been treated with a good deal more gravitas. And I could not believe that Waititi forced moviegoers to watch Thor argue with the Hulk's S.H.I.E.L.D. Quinjet over who was the most powerful Avenger. I mean . . . really? The Hulk actually went out of his way to program the jet's computer to acknowledge him as the most powerful Avenger? That scene was so unfunny that in the end, it became sheer torture to watch.

Hela's constant complaints about her father's failure to appreciate her only reminded me of Loki's petulant man pain in "THOR". Only her carping was punctuated by jokes and witty comments. Worse, this barrage of humor prevented the screenplay from exploring Hela's revelations about Asgard's imperial past. The overuse of humor also transformed Thor's character. Everyone made such a big deal about Chris Hemsworth's comedic talents in recent years that I suspect that Marvel had decided to exploit it in this third Thor movie. Well, it turned out to be too much, as far as I was concerned. I have been aware of Hemsworth's comedic talents since "THOR" back in 2011. But Marvel picked the wrong movie and the wrong director to exploit that talent to an excessive degree. Hemsworth came off as some semi-witty California surfer than the Asgardian God of Thunder. Between the characterizations, the dramatic moments robbed for the sake of humor and the barrage of jokes, it was just too much. 

Unlike many film critics and MCU fans, I have always enjoyed the franchise's Thor films. Well, I certainly did enjoy the first two featuring Chris Hemsworth. But I cannot say the same about this third film, "THOR: RAGNAROK". It both annoyed and disappointed me on so many levels. Although I found the cast led by Hemsworth rather first-rate, I was disappointed by some of the film's characterizations and the plot holes. But I was especially disappointed by the film's use of humor. In the end, Kevin Feige, Marvel Films, the movie's screenwriters and Taika Waititi took a potentially epic comic book movie and transformed it into a long, goddamn joke fest. By the time I left the movie theater, I felt disgusted.