Movie Review - Captain America Civil War: Marvel's Latest Benchmark-setting Masterstroke

The most surprising thing about this latest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is not how successfully it juggles a huge ensemble cast of heroes. Neither is it in how it feels relevant and timely to real-world politics. The biggest surprise is how Captain America Civil War, with its epic scope and superhero battles, is the most intimate and affecting of their movies so far.

Yes, the set up is on a grand, international political scale: Captain America (Chris Evans) continues to lead the Avengers against powerful threats, but when a mission ends in tragic loss of life there are calls for the team to submit to UN oversight. The film takes in America, Europe, Africa. There are some weighty political ideas underpinning all this: is power without impunity right? But should the ability to react to a threat be without limitations?

But for each character in this film, the decision whether or not they fall in line and submit to these 'Accords' us not a simple political one; in fact several of them make their choices from purely emotional perspectives. Take Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) - with the consequences of his actions in the films leading up to this weighing heavily on his conscience (and impacting on his personal relationships), it is easy to understand why he would be calling for the Avengers to submit to the Accords.

Team Cap are ready to fight...

On the other hand, Steve Rogers, whose moral ideals were shaped growing up in the simpler times before WW2, has struggled to find a place in a world of political espionage and intrigue; just look what happened to SHIELD. When he argues that, if the UN doesn't agree with the Avengers taking action when they deem it necessary, their hands are tied - especially if it's the other way round.

Straightaway there are so many nuances and shades of grey to the set up - both points of view are absolutely correct. When the issue is clouded further by the reemergence of Rogers' long lost friend Bucky, now brain-washed super-assassin The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) in the midst of a terrorist atrocity, the emotions behind Stark's and Cap's choices are key to igniting - and sustaining - the civil conflict that follows.

With the main character's motivations so well defined, you'd be forgiven or thinking that the cast of supporting 'Supers' are just there to make up numbers, that they're relegated to the background, with no plot or character development of their own.  Well, you'd be wrong - in this film every member of the Avengers, every character that pops up to aid either Cap or Stark, go on their own journey.  Some are greater, and have more weight than others - but at no point does any of the characters feel wasted or under-developed.  And considering this film introduces two significant new characters to the MCU - Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spiderman (Tom Holland), that is a genuine achievement -compounded by the fact that both of these characters are handled outstandingly well.  Black Panther is given the greater arc of character development, and Boseman is assured in the role, giving T'Challa an understated yet palpable sense of regalness, humility, grief, and righteous rage.  By the end of the film such is the journey his character takes, and such is the effectiveness with which he is portrayed, that if this was to be his only film appearance, only the most die-hard Black Panther fan would feel unsatisfied with the portrayal.  (Thankfully, it won't be and his forthcoming solo film is an even more enticing prospect after watching him in this one.)

The introduction of Black Panther (Boseman) to the MCU is handled exceptionally well in this film.

And then there's Spiderman; I welled up and shed a tear at four points during this film, and one of those moments was his introductory scene, where we meet a teenage Peter Parker and his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei).  This scene is so perfectly, beautifully handled, that it is easy to forget that this is the third incarnation of the character; without regurgitating the same lines - the famous ones - everything that he says communicates everything you'd hope to see, expect from the character. You know exactly what he has been through to become Spiderman without him mentioning Uncle Ben, or the responsibility that comes with etc etc.  Then when we see him in action, he brings such joy and humour to the movie - not that it is something the film needs - but it feels completely on point for the character.  If they continue to portray Spiderman as effectively as this film has, then Holland's portrayal may end up being considered the definitive one.

...as is the introduction of a certain wall-crawling, web-slinging hero...

I mentioned this film brought me to tears - as I said, despite the political context that brings about the narrative, despite the action (that, once again, sets new benchmarks for the depiction of superheroes on film - especially during the spectacular Airport confrontation), I wasn't prepared for how emotional this film is.  Grief, guilt, anger, revenge - all play a part in the motivations that lead to the events of the narrative.  Because of this, there are no clear right or wrong decisions - some actions are more defensible than others, but all are understandable from different points of views.  Even the villain, Zemo (Daniel Brühl), eschews the stereotypical mustache-twirling or psychopathic megalomania that these type of films usually portray.  His quiet, unthreatening portrayal admittedly is at risk of getting lost in the bombast of the film's action - but is central to the movie's most devastating scene as it draws to a close.

Apart from a couple of plot points that feel a little convenient, rushed maybe; and the occasional wobbly bit of digital compositing; this film is blockbuster movie making at its most effective and exciting.  Directors the Russo Brothers bring the same feel of veracity they brought to 'The Winder Soldier's' action scenes, and handle the massive cast with such assurance that it's easy to forget just how miraculous it felt when Whedon pulled off putting 6 superheroes in 'Avengers Assemble'.  With its story that feels pertinent to real-world global politics; nuanced handling of complex issues, morality and emotions; and confident top-tier film-making, Marvel once again raises the bar of what is possible with not just Comic Book movies, but action-blockbusters too.  It is hard to see how they, or any other studio, will match their achievement with this 'Civil War'.

What 'Star Wars The Force Awakens' Got Right (...and what it didn't)

I was born in the second half of the 1970's, so it goes without saying I grew up watching the first trilogy of Star Wars films, and that - like so many of my generation - those films hold a very special place in my life.  After the Prequels I approached the news of new Star Wars films with some trepidation - until the first Trailer landed just over a year ago, and this was replaced with a sense of cautious optimism.  Now the film is here, and it has been the subject of such intense hype and fervent anticipation.  So how is it?  Well, generally the consensus is positive, and it looks set to annihilate Box Office records.  Here's my perspective, as a fan of films, and someone who still remembers the joy of seeing those first films as a child.

Please note - this will be a really, really in depth analysis, and as such it will contain just about every SPOILER in the film.  So, seriously, if you have not seen it yet (and want to) I would advise you NOT to read this article until you have.  Really, genuinely, do not read unless you have already seen it, or want the whole film spoiled for you.

The poster is your last chance - SPOILERS follow..!

Still here?  Let's get to it then...

When that first Trailer hit, and we saw there were still Stormtroopers and Tie Fighters, my initial fear was that this film would cheapen the finale of 'Return of the Jedi', which saw the Emperor defeated, Darth Vader redeemed, and the Rebellion victorious.  Certainly, too, there was the fear that this would further tarnish the franchise after the Prequels.  I'm pleased to say that 'The Force Awakens' does neither of those things.  In fact, the first two acts of the film are Star Wars at its very best: fun and energetic, beautifully and evocatively filmed, with characters you want to root for and exhilarating set-pieces.  Gone is the clunky, exposition filled dialogue of the Prequels, replaced with the type of snappy and heart-felt repartee that led to many great moments in the original trilogy.

New leads Rey and Finn are extremely likable, and actors Daisy Ridley and John Boyega truly give their all - these are two star making turns, and their return for the next two films in the series will be most welcome.  Supporting characters, such as ace pilot Poe Dammeron (Oscar Isaac), villainous General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) provide brief, slightly underused, if memorable turns.  There's a cornucopia of marvellous looking creatures, aliens and droids - as you'd expect in Star Wars, but they're not just CGI-eye candy; most are practically realised, giving them a sense of character and realism not seen since, well, the original trilogy.  Amongst these lead droid BB-8, and eccentric yet charming Maz Kanata (mo-capped by Lupita Nyong'o) are, again, characters you'll want to see more of.

The new lead characters Rey and Finn (and BB8) are great additions to the Star Wars universe - I look forward to seeing them in the next films in the series

Much has been made of the return of original lead actors Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill, as well as Chewbacca, C-3P0 and R2 D2; of these Ford's Han Solo has the most screen time, and his turn is one of the film's highlights.  If Ford ever had any resentment towards the character, or reluctance to return to him, it does not show here.  He plays Solo very much as the roguish (almost anti-)hero he always was - but older, more grizzled.  Age has given him some wisdom, but not enough to make him stop being the 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of guy.  His interactions with Rey and Finn are some of the film's most enjoyable moments.  And as for Chewie - well, he's still the dependable side-kick he always was.  It is genuinely good to have them back, and their parts in this film do not cheapen or tarnish the original films in any way.

Fisher's Leia and Hamill's Luke Skywalker are essentially supporting roles (in Skywalker's case, it's just a brief cameo).  Fisher, who looks to have aged the most of the original cast, plays Leia with a sad dignity, befitting the place we find her at in this film.  She doesn't have too much to do, but does just about enough with it.  It seems a bit strange that she and Hamill are the big names over newcomers like Ridley, when their roles are essentially cameos - until they turn up, it still feels enough like Star Wars without them; having them is the icing on the cake, but it's arguable that they could have been used more.

The return of franchise icons Chewbacca and Han Solo complements the new characters perfectly; it wouldn't be Star Wars without them.

The story, which springs from the search for the missing Skywalker, is a bit like the original films - more of a platform from which the action and adventures take place.  But unlike the prequels, which had so much scope and overwhelming background detail, the progression is mostly driven by the characters and how they interact - each rash, frantic or heroic decision.  This truly makes the first two acts of the film work, and enables the franchise to recapture some of what made those first films so special.  However, although the character focus is a benefit to the story, the film manages to fudge the wider setting, in a way that not even Lucas' films did.  Say what you liked about the Prequels, but across all six other films the backdrop was clearly laid out: be it the Empire, the Rebellion, the Republic, the Trade Federation, Separatists, Sith, Jedi - you knew who each faction was, what their motives were, where the battle-lines were clearly designated.

Whilst thankfully the concept of the remnants of the Empire becoming The First Order doesn't cheapen the end of 'Jedi', at the same time so much could have been explained: why does the Republic allow the First Order to exist?  How come it has the resources for a flipping great planet-sized weapon?  Why doesn't the Republic simply go to war against The First Order, why is it necessary for The Resistance to exist?  Why isn't The Resistance officially endorsed by The Republic?  A lot of this, I guess, can be inferred: I think it's likely that, after Jedi, the conflict continued and what was left of the Empire agreed to some kind of ceasefire, but not all former Imperials agreed to or wanted to lay down arms.  Hence the establishment of the First Order, whose presence is 'tolerated' by The Republic; under the terms of the ceasefire, the Republic can't be seen to be taking arms to keep The First Order in line - hence there is implicit backing for The Resistance.  I imagine part of the reason this isn't spelled out is so that people will want to go and buy the various tie-in novels and comics that have been published and are planned, that are set between 'Jedi' and the new film.  Which is a pretty cynical move, but hey, Disney have got to get a return on their pricey investment, so it makes sense in that respect, right?  It's unfortunate though that because of this a moment like when the First Order destroys a bunch of seemingly random planets, it's not immediately clear why - and, more significantly, it's hard to feel something for their loss.

New character Captain Phasma (Gwendolene Christie) is an imposing character who sadly is given far too little to do.

It's at this point in the movie that 'The Force Awakens' problems start.  Some of my concerns about how this film would turn out were down in part to the presence of  JJ Abrams himself.  Whilst he is a director with a great sense for character, action, and bringing memorable and visually striking action sequences to life on film, he has a tendency to wear his influences too visibly on his sleeve (so to speak).  As well as this, with the exception of 'Super 8' perhaps, his films are notable for having really strong acts one and two, then kind of failing to deliver in the final act.  'The Force Awakens'continues this to a degfree - one the one hand, Abrams has kept his fan-boy tendencies in check, and though there are many nods to moments in the original these do not detract from it, and do not derail the film at all.  Until the final act, that is - and to be honest, I can't tell how much of the responsibility lies with Abrams, or with the other members of the writing team, which includes Michael 'Toy Story 3' Arndt - because, quite frankly, the plot seems to run out of steam and focus, and they resort to merely replaying the 'greatest hits' from the other films.  Only, not as effectively.  The final act boils down to 'oh they've got another, bigger Death Star - let's find the weak spot and blow it up.'  In fact, the scene where The Resistance plans this almost parodies itself, as the characters talking through it are so nonchalant about the whole thing.  So whilst we get another epic dog-fight between X-Wings and Tie Fighters, a dramatic skin-of-their-teeth victory, it's like watching a covers band play your favourite songs by your favourite band: it's good, but you know the original is much better.

This isn't the worst thing about the final act, but before I come to that I just want to discuss the most spoiler-y parts of the story.  We don't see a lot of Luke or Leia, because the story has them in a very downbeat situation.  Luke's attempts to re-found the Jedi order have failed, after his students were massacred by a group of his pupils, corrupted to the Dark Side by Supreme Leader Snopes of the First Order.  Han and Leia separated, because chief among those responsible for this massacre was their own Son, who has now been dubbed Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver).  If I'm very honest, I wasn't at all surprised that Ren turned out to be Han & Leia's son.  It was a logical story choice, and keeps the whole sagas focus retained upon the Skywalker dynasty.  I also think that having the original characters in this situation, 30 years after 'Jedi', was a bold story telling choice that I truly applaud.  For those of us who have grown up since watching these characters and looking up to them as children, seeing how things have not worked out as they (or we) had hoped will resonate with just about every 30-40 something viewer.  And how this has played out for each character makes total sense - they have each tried to run away from their pain and disappointment; Han and Leia, back to what they used to do and where they felt most at home - smuggling and military leadership respectively.  Luke has simply run away, and though it is never fully explained why, it is likely the sense of failure would be almost crushing.

Kylo Ren is menacing, but he's not as the unstoppable embodiment of evil that Darth Vader was in the original Star Wars film...

Given this set up, which works perfectly and makes sense entirely, it highlights why the most significant character death is pretty much a failure, from a story-telling point of view.  You see, when Han Solo is killed at the hands of Ren, what should be an iconic and (for my generation) heart-breaking moment merely makes you think 'what the fuck?!?!!'.  Part of the problem with this is Ren himself.  Sure, he is an imposing villain, and the fact he is struggling with not only living up to what he believes is the legacy of his grandfather Darth Vader and the 'temptation' of the Light Side of the Force, initially makes him a nuanced one, too.  But then he is portrayed as having tantrums, destroying things with slashes of his Lightsaber, and it brings to mind the characterisation nadirs of the Prequels; how Hayden Christiansen said he played one take of one scene as quietly anguished and tormented, then again like a spoilt teenager - which was the take that Lucas put in 'Attack of the Clones'.

What could have made the character more interesting arguably doesn't happen on screen - his fall to the Dark Side, leading the massacre of the Jedi trainees, and rejecting his own mother and father - plus the collapse this brings to their lives.  It's the fact this is all unseen (apart from a flashback vision that fills in a mere handful details) which robs Solo's death of the power it should have.  When he goes to appeal to his son to return to him and his mother, without having seen their previous relationship, or the extent of Ren's betrayal, it is very difficult to feel the emotion that the writers were clearly wanting the audience to feel.  Then Solo is murdered by Ren, stabbed though the heart with his Saber.  They were clearly going for a moment akin to Kenobi's death in the very first film (it plays out like it, with the younger protagonist shouting 'No!' then a flurry of blaster bolts as they make their escape).

Honestly, I don't have an issue with killing off Solo; I felt it was inevitable that at least one of the original cast would be killed off in this film, and even moreso given that Ford allegedly asked Lucas to kill the character off during the making of  'Jedi'.  But the manner in which they chose to dispatch him has left me with a very sour taste that has overshadowed my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  I truly think that it was borderline insulting to a character who is iconic in cinema, and a hero to so many children since 1977.  Solo's death is a moment that should have had every single grown man, in every single cinema, silently weeping.  This was the character every boy wanted to be in games of Star Wars in the school playground.  Solo made Ford a star, and in the original film and 'Empire Strikes Back', Solo has at possibly two of the most defining moments in cinema.

Basically, if such an iconic character was to be killed off, he should have had a truly epic send off.  He should have been mortally injured saving his friends, and the galaxy.  He should have died with Chewie, Leia and Luke at his side, with that trademark smirk on lips, having delivered one last charming, scoundrel-ish one-liner.  A death that should have been as defining as his greatest moments.  Instead, he dies without a word at the hands of a petulant brat, who would have been crushed without flinching by the grandfather he so idolizes.  It is a cheap death, one that does little for the story but give us a reason to hate Kylo Ren (because, y'know, we're all rooting for him after seeing him preside over the massacre of innocent villagers and cutting down an old man, of course...)

I'm still aghast that, whilst Abrams and the writers have treated everything about Star Wars with so much respect, they disrespected Solo enough to see him off in such an insulting manner - insulting to the character, and to everyone who ever aspired to be like him, or simply admired the portrayal of an iconic character.  This moment, coupled with the apparent lack of ideas that made the writers retread through familiar franchise story beats, unfortunately casts a shadow over what was so great about the rest of the film.

Finally, despite Abram's promises that the film would - like every other movie in the franchise that preceded it - have an ending tying up the main story, we get a frustratingly open one, that doesn't really answer any questions about what Skywalker was hoping to achieve by hiding, or that doesn't really answer why his presence was so vital to The Resistance.  Hamill doesn't get to utter a single line, and the closing shot - Rey holding out his father's Saber to him - is the most sequel-bait ending of any Star Wars film.  There are so many questions left, in fact, that Abrams has proven to be quite disingenuous with those claims.  We know that there will be two more films, so obviously there are story threads to carry on and complete - but whereas each other Star Wars film feels complete in and of itself, this one does not at all.  This is just another thing to overshadow what it does so well earlier on.  We don't even find out what significance the whole 'Force Awakening' has on the events of the film, as so much of what takes place seems to owe so little to the mystical power..!  I think, funnily enough, this film is comparable to Abram's 'Star Trek' reboot from 2009; the first two acts of that film are full of energy, fun and great turns from the new cast of actors, but that ultimately ran out of steam and ideas in the final act - going for a finale that made you wonder whether Abrams really understood Trek in the first place...

From the point of view of a film critic, 'The Force Awakens' is mostly successful, and is let down slightly by its lack of original story ideas in its final act.  From the point of view of someone who grew up with Star Wars, has been a massive fan throughout the years, the film is frustrating; when it gets to a point where it feels comfortable and safe to enjoy the film, there is a story-telling decision that is handled so poorly, the more I think about it, I increasingly feel it is more disrespectful to the franchise and to the fans than almost anything that was in the Prequels.

So it is a film that is only two-thirds great - and when it is great, it almost reaches the highs of the original trilogy, which is high praise indeed.  I can see how the next film can be even better - my hope is that story-writers will not look so much to the narrative beats of the original films, but forge new and original plots for it to follow.  The potential is there.  And they have a great set of leads, playing interesting new characters, to centre their story around.  Just please - if they decide to kill off Luke or Leia, or Chewie even, for the sake of the Force, please give them a respectful and fitting send off...

Movie Review - Fantastic Four: Not even a heroic failure, more like a failed experiment

Each summer blockbuster movie season, there has to be the whipping boy, the one film that everyone seems to want to fail, even before it has finished filming.  Since the growth of the internet, and everyone thinking their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to film making, this has become infinitely worse.  This year the dubious status has befallen the attempt by Fox and Director Josh Trank to reboot 'Fantastic Four'.  To start with, there has been a general perception that, as they couldn't get these characters quite right with the first attempts, perhaps the rights would be better back with Marvel Studios (who, in contrast, have yet to fail to find the right way to put their characters on screen).  As well as that, the two previous (and widely derided) films are still fresh in most people's minds, adding to a sense of pessimism that they'd get it right.  Side-stepping the completely dumb casting controversy, since talk emerged earlier this year of re-shoots, and confirmation that Trank and the Studio hadn't seen eye-to-eye (leading to him quitting a planned Star Wars Anthology spin-off movie), the knives have been out for this one in a big way.  But still, I went in to this film with an open mind; I wanted the nay-sayers, doubters and haters to be wrong, I really did.  I wanted this film to succeed, and give us the definitive adaptation of these characters fans want to see.  Unfortunately, while the film is by no means a disaster, it is pretty mediocre: a superhero film that wants to focus on drama, and a sense of body horror, but doesn't pull off the 'super' or 'team' part when the story needs it to.

Rather than the classic Stan Lee version of these characters, this film is mostly inspired by the post-Millennial Ultimate version, which has a younger team of scientists undergo changes, gaining super-human abilities, as a result of cross-dimensional travel.  The film starts off with scientific prodigy Reed Richards (who will become the stretching Mr Fantastic) as an 11 year old boy, telling his class his ambition to teleport a person from one place to another.  He becomes friends with Ben Grimm (who becomes rock 'monster' The Thing), whose family owns a scrap-yard, helping him with parts to make his first attempt at a teleporting machine.  The film fast-forwards 7 years, and the pair (now played by Miles Teller and Jamie Bell respectively) are teenagers, presenting Richard's latest attempt at the machine at the county science fair.  This catches the eye of scientist Professor Franklin Richards (Reg E. Cathey), and his adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara), who it transpires have been attempting to use similar technology to make cross-dimensional teleportation a reality - and Richard's machine is the key to not only sending, but bringing something back from the parallel dimension.  Joining with disenfranchised and cynical former protégé or Professor Storm, Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebble), and the Professor's rebellious son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), they successfully crack return travel between dimensions.  When the team of youngsters decide to be the first people to make the trip, before NASA takes over the project, things go wrong - Von Doom is left behind, assumed dead, and the others return with bizarre physical abnormalities.  However, the Military sees a use for their powers, sending them on covert missions, whilst promising to find a cure for their conditions.

Don't let the smiles fool you - the Fantastic Four don't seem to find much of what happens in this film particularly 'fantastic'...

It's pretty clear that Trank and the Studio had two different visions for this film, and unfortunately they don't gel.  The Director seems to have wanted a character-driven dramatic approach to the subject, whilst the studio wanted typical superhero blockbuster fayre, to set up a franchise and allow for cross-overs with the X-Men franchise.  The first half of the film, which shows the characters forming friendships as they work on the dimensional crossing, is the most successful part of the film - Trank shows the same flair for getting a believable and easy-going camaraderie out of his cast as he did in 'Chronicle'.  This aspect of the film starts to unravel once they make their fateful journey across dimensions, largely due to some plot decisions that don't really make sense character wise - but are there as a reason to give certain characters their 'powers' later in the film.  After this, apart from a couple of scenes which manage to capture the 'body horror' tone Trank was going for, the plot becomes tepid, and tragically the lead actors begin to look lost in their own film.  It is a waste of the cast - separately each actor has demonstrated in other work (films and/or TV) what they're capable of, but once they powers and special effects come in to play they look as though they are struggling to convey how they should be reacting to it all.

Speaking of special effects, they are frustratingly inconsistent throughout.  Whilst The Thing and Human Torch are well portrayed and look as realistic as possible, other parts don't; there's a terrible CGI monkey, for example.  The alternate dimension is well portrayed, if a bit on the drab side, until some pretty poor looking green ooze-stuff starts erupting.  The stretching effects on Reed Richards are inconsistent too; it's clear that Weta (who handled the effects on this film) could have done with more time to complete certain shots - but they were only given less than a year from principal photography to get them done.  The film does suffer as a result.

While this version of Doctor Doom is more powerful and dangerous than the previous take, it is still a massive failure to properly put the character on the Big Screen.

The final act proves the film's biggest Achilles heel, as it shoe-horns in an 'end of the world threat' that seems tonally out of place with what's preceded it; it relies on some characters making snap judgements that, again, aren't consistent with their previous attitudes/behaviour; and by wasting Doctor Doom.  Why is it Fox don't seem to be able to grasp how to bring this character to the big screen?  In the first half Kebble manages to make Doom seem more than a one-note, scenery chewing villain (unlike the previous films' version), but when he returns from the alternate dimension he has become the typical 'mad' villain, who wants to destroy the world as he has clearly 'gone insane'.  They manage to make him more threatening and genuinely dangerous than the last version - he actually racks up quite a body count - but considering this character is the most famous of all Marvel villains, arguably, he is given little to do (apart from, mainly, recite some pretty awful dialogue), and the threat is resolved with shocking ease by the Fantastic Four.  When the film goes for its CGI fuelled action set-piece it is almost completely weakened by feeling out of place with the tone of the rest of the film, and by dispensing with the film's only threat in an almost inconsequential matter.

Despite their best efforts, it's really clear that Fox simply do not know how to handle Fantastic Four, nor the potentially outstanding villain they have in Doctor Doom.  Marvel have shown that it is possible to capture the pulp and fun side of their characters while bringing some real story-telling heft to them.  Fox needs to embrace this aspect of the Fantastic Four, and they definitely have to embrace the almost operatic scale of Doctor Doom's story.  It's hard not to imagine Marvel Studios doing a far better job of incorporating Doom in their on-screen universe - such a big character, and significant threat, deserves to be set up over multiple films, as they have been doing with Thanos; establishing his power, the massive threat he poses, but also the tragedy in his background that motivates him.

It's not likely Marvel Studios will get Fantastic Four, and therefore Doom, back soon, as it is likely this new take on comic's 'first family' should do well enough at the box office to enable Fox to retain the film rights and proceed with a sequel.  I sincerely hope, however, that they will acknowledge the struggle they are having realising these characters, and talk to Marvel Studios for creative assistance - the same way Sony have done with Spiderman.  Whilst this film is nowhere near to being a dismal mess like 'The Amazing Spiderman 2', neither does the dramatic approach carry enough weight to give the film a slightly redeeming feature, like the heroic failure that is Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.  In the end it's a mid-level comic book superhero flick that, despite its aspirations, is on the whole forgettable.  I wanted to like this film, but it seems like it needs to be third time lucky for the Fantastic Four....

Movie Review - Inside Out: Pixar work their Movie-making Magic once again

This year has seen the usual batch of computer-animated features, and disappointingly the most high-profile of them - 'Home' and 'Minions' - have been very much aimed towards kids.  Thank goodness then that, after a two-year gap, Pixar - the greatest name in the genre - are back with a new film.  Like most of the studio's work that precedes it, 'Inside Out' is another successful marriage of their technical wizardry, impeccable design artistry, and masterful story-telling.  The film's concept is amongst the most out-there ever put to film: it portrays people's emotions as characters in their minds, controlling their reactions and putting their mark on memories that shape that individual's personality.  Pixar make this concept work magnificently, and use it to fulfill every story-telling opportunity, every joke, every emotional moment that it has the potential for.

The film's story centres on 11 year-old girl Riley (voiced by Kaitlyn Dias), and the effect moving from Minesotta to San Francisco has on her developing emotions.  In her mind Joy (voiced by Amy Poehler) takes the lead over Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Bill Hader) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling); although each has their part to play in helping Riley to learn through each important memory, Joy feels it is her responsibility to make sure Riley is as happy as she can be growing up.  Reluctant to let Sadness have more effect on Riley's memories, things start to get out of her control when she tries to keep Sadness out of Riley's emotions on her first day in her new school.  There is a mishap, and Joy and Sadness are flung from Riley's control centre (cleverly called 'head-quarters') and in to the maze of her memory, along with the key memories that make up the core of her personality.  They have to make it back there before these fall away, and her other emotions make Riley go through with a rash decision in order to get her happy memories back.

If you wanted to explain to your children how your emotions work and how they effect how you think and behave, you'd only need to let them watch this film

This really is a film that will speak to parents as much as their children.  The way the mind, and people's emotions, is portrayed makes the concept something that any child of any age would be able to understand; that includes concepts such as how memories change as you grow up, and how personalities are shaped by those.  Meanwhile, adults will be moved one moment at the portrayal of innocent, imaginative childhood play; then you will be laughing the next as they go in to the head of other characters, showing the emotions which are controlling their thoughts and memories.

Co-director Pete Docter was the person in charge of 'Up', and whilst this film doesn't have any moments as heart-breaking as that film, this film reinforces that he, and the rest of the Pixar creative team, know how to maximise the emotion or humour of each scene.  And like that film it doesn't dumb-down, or try and sanitise a potentially complex moment - such as when Riley finally confides in her parents that she misses her old home - so it feels genuine and relatable.  Similarly, when it needs to be goofy the humour is brilliantly observed and perfectly handled - the montage during the closing credits is one of the funniest things I've seen this year.

The film shows us how emotions are running things in other people's heads, interestingly different emotions are in charge - in Riley's mom's head it looks like Sadness has the lead.

Not only does 'Inside Out' mark a return of Pixar's magic form, after the moderate successes of 'Monsters University' and 'Brave', it is their best film since 'Toy Story 3', and above all cements the fact that they are simply the best at making this kind of film.  This film is a prime example of how hey can equally entertain and capture the imagination of children and adults alike, without dumbing-down or making simplistic story choices.  If you have to take your kids to the cinema during the summer holidays you will quite simply not do any better than this wonderful film.

Monthly Marvel Musings: A close-up look at 'Ant-Man'

Here's this months 'Monthly Marvel Musings' article, which will be all about 'Ant-Man' - I'll do a brief review of the film, then take a closer look at a few things which will have a bearing on what's going to be in other films.  Obviously, there will be pretty major SPOILERS!! so only read on if you've already seen the film.

MARVEL MONTHLY MUSINGS

'Ant-Man' is a small success for Marvel

At the very least you have to say that 'Ant-Man' has had an eventful journey to the screen.  It's very well publicised that, after 7 years developing the film, original Director Edgar Wright walked away due to creative differences with Marvel Studios - apparently he wasn't happy with the film having links to the MCU and wanted it to be stand-alone.  Then Peyton Reed was brought on board, and many people raised an eyebrow based on his previous films - Jim Carrey comedy 'Yes Man', 60's throw-back comedy 'Down With love', and cheer-leading drama 'Bring It On'.  The project was in danger of being written off just as filming was about to begin, simply because Wright's departure was seen as signalling the end of any chance the film had at having a distinct style or humour (as with Wright's previous films).  But attitudes began to soften when it emerged that Reed has been a life-long fan of Marvel Comics, was runner-up choice to direct 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (which has made the actual director, James Gunn, arguably as famous as its break-out cast); and he had been developing a 1960's-set Fantastic Four movie for Fox - the opening scene of which would have been based on the iconic cover of the first ever FF comic.

Now the film is here, although it is not the disaster many feared following Wright's departure, it is almost a curio in the midst of the rest of Marvel Studio's output.  It's a solid enough super-hero movie, which features many of the genre's tropes, but has flashes of some inspired comedy.  Yet at the same time it feels like it never fully commits to either being an off-kilter skewing of the genre, or a standard super-hero origins flick, or the heist movie that its structure is based off.  The story has Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), creator of the shrinking technology that enabled him to carry out covert ops for SHIELD as Ant-Man after the discovery of 'Pym Particles', who has long since turned his back on the role following a personal tragedy.  Estranged from his daughter Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lily), who still works at the company he founded, he discovers his one-time protégé Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) is about to weaponise the Ant-Man technology with the development of a suit called the  'Yellowjacket'.  He enlists Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a former con just released from prison who is trying to go straight in order to get access to his daughter, to use the original Ant-Man suit to carry out a heist to steal the Yellowjacket and stop Cross from mass producing the technology.

Douglas (Hank Pym) and Rudd (Scott Lang) are both solid and effective in their roles, though not quite at the 'star-making' level of other Marvel Studios movies.

The first couple of acts of this film do feel uneven in some ways, because the times that it looks like it is going to properly parody the super-hero genre - such as the montages where Pym is training Lang in how to use the Ant-Man powers - it doesn't go as far as it could.  It's as though it pulls its punches at the last moment when you're expecting a gag at the expense of the inherent silliness of the concept, but then it jumps back to a more straight-forward portrayal of 'superhero' training.  Similarly there are times where the plot struggles to merge the disparate genres and arcs - the corporate espionage of Pym's concerns about Cross' creation, Lang trying to keep on the straight and narrow and be a good dad, prepping for the heist, and on top of it all the 'super' powers that come with the Ant-Man suit.  The consistent thread through all this is that Marvel sense of levity, but by now we're so used to these sort of super-heroics delivered with a witty one-liner, that there are times the comedic aspects don't feel as effective as they should be - which is a genuine surprise given the film's development at the hands of several noted writers of comedy TV shows and/or films.

It's a good job then that the cast, as is usually the case with Marvel Studios movies, are fully committed and effectively portray their roles.  Douglas' portrayal of Pym as a slightly paranoid, traumatised, at times manipulative mentor/father is perfect for the role (especially if you know anything about the character's history in the comics - though don't expect any references to spousal abuse).  Rudd is highly likable as the thief with a conscience, trying to do the right thing to get access to his daughter, and learning about the Ant-Man powers with a mix of wonderment, semi-disbelief and excitement that are quite believable.  The supporting cast are solid, Lily making the most of her arc as the angry daughter who softens when she learns the truth about her mother; and Lang's ex-con associates Luis (Michael Peña), Kurt (David Dastmalchian) and Dave (T.I.) - who get most of the more effective comedy beats.  The only slight weakness is the villain Cross - despite Stoll's visible efforts to give him nuances beyond the usual psychopathic corporate madman, the script doesn't quite do enough to make his motivations convincing beyond stereotypical villainy.

The scenes where Ant-Man is miniaturised are impressively realised, and are one of the film's best aspects

There are probably still a few people that will forever lament the Edgar Wright version of this film that we never got to see.  However, whilst it is likely you'll watch this trying to spot Wright's influences on the story and script, this is far from a journeyman effort from Reed.  In fact, some of the moments that feel like they could have been from Wright actually came from Reed himself.  It is pleasing to say that probably the two best scenes in the film - montages where Peña's Luis rambles almost stream-of-conscious about 'tips' he's gotten about potential 'jobs' for Lang - feel like the sort of thing Wright would have brought to the film, as they are energetic, expertly cut, and the funniest moments in the film.  But these were actually put in from Reed's own ideas - he has put his stamp on this film very effectively.

None more so than the attention to detail and technical aspects of this film, which it has to say offer some truly impressive visuals, and mark this film as another achievement milestone in CGI special effects.  The most striking and immediately impressive is the de-ageing of Michael Douglas for the film's opening scene, set over 25 years ago - here the use of digital effects to make Douglas look like he did in his 1980's prime is the most convincing use of the technology on film so far.  As gob-smacking as that is, the other effects really deliver where it most matters, that is when Lang shrinks and we get to see the world from his 'ant-sized' perspective.  All the scenes and shots when he is in 'ant-mode' are impressively detailed and capture a realistic 'micro-photography' look.

This film will also make you look at ants with a new-found respect..!

'Ant-Man's biggest achievements are in its effects work; and in how Director Reed took what could have been a poisoned chalice or a 'Journeyman' gig and actually fashioned something that bears flashes suggesting a talent for comedy, drama and a tremendous grasp of emerging technology in effects and film-making.  In many ways the film feels as though Marvel Studios are playing safe and not straying too far from their formula - whilst it is never a total detriment to the film, there are moments you can't help but feel they could have done more to make it more subversive and genre-skewing.  That said, it is typical of the entertainment and fun audiences have come to expect and enjoy from Marvel releases, and delivers in that respect.  What at one point looked as though it might be the studio's first failure is far from it; but it will be welcome to see their films take some more risks with tone, narrative and structure in the future.

So what does 'Ant-Man's arrival mean for the MCU?

While long-time Marvel Comics fans may still lament the absence of Hank Pym from the MCU until now, and the resulting story changes (in the comics it's Pym that creates Ultron, not Tony Stark), we now have technology that shrinks - and enlarges - objects and people.  Going forward, whilst Pym himself might not be a player in future cross-over movies such as Infinity War, Scott Lang will more than likely be (he's already confirmed for 'Captain America Civil War', though I'll discuss that below).  In the comics Pym 'reverses' his shrinking technology to become Giant-man, or Goliath - given that in Ant-Man we see the technology 'embiggening' an actual ant and a Thomas The Tank Engine Toy, it's pretty safe to say that at some point Lang will apply that to himself.  There are rumours we may see this in Civil War, though it's a safe bet it will have happened by Infinity War, and if not,  during those films.

Whilst Pym isn't the controversial character he has been in the comics, this portrayal shows him as slightly paranoid, and there's something almost Machiavellian and manipulative in the way he gets Lang to enact his Heist plan.

The film also marks the first MCU of another favourite of comic fans, the Wasp, normally associated with Pym's wife Janet van Dyne.  Although we only get to see her in a flash-back, there are suggestions that potential Ant-Man sequels could feature more of Pym's escapades as the titular hero during the '60's, '70's and '80's, so we could yet see the 'classic' comic iteration of this character.  As well as that, given the first of the two post-credits scenes reveals that Pym & his wife were working on a version of the Wasp suit for their daughter Hope, it seems a bit of a no-brainer to say we'll see Wasp in the 'current' MCU too.  Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige himself has stated we'll see Wasp in another movie before the end of 'Phase 3' (which culminates with Infinity War and The Inhumans).

It seems pretty certain we'll be seeing Wasp in a forth-coming MCU movie

With regards to storylines they could incorporate Ant-Man in to, the better known ones involving Pym have tended to be those involving his stints with the Avengers, or when he creates the Yellowjacket which turns him slightly psychopathic.  Given they've used the Yellowjacket for this film, the 'evil Pym' storyline seems very unlikely.  My bet would be on the thread the film leaves open, which has agents of Hydra taking Cross's version of the Pym Particle, and them trying to put it to use (although some believe this could feature in Season 3 of Agents of SHIELD, as Hydra Agent Grant Ward has been confirmed as the main villain of the series).  Regardless, we're guaranteed to see Ant-Man and Wasp (and maybe even a Goliath) in the not too distant future - I wouldn't be surprised to see them as part of an Avengers line-up at some point during either of the Infinity Wars movies.

Ant-Man became Goliath and was part of one of the classic Avengers line-ups in the comics.

We've had our first glimpse of 'Captain America Civil War'

The second post-credits scene has been confirmed by Feige to actually be a scene from the next MCU film, one of the most eagerly awaited comic movies of next year; it depicts Captain America and Falcon in some abandoned warehouse or workshop, with Bucky/the Winter Soldier's bionic arm trapped in a vice.  It seems they're in a quandary over their apparent captive, talking about 'the accords', which is no doubt a reference to the Laws drawn up regarding superhero activity that causes the fall out between Stark and Cap.  It seems they need someone to get something covertly, and the final line has Falcon saying "I know a guy", before it cuts to black and the message 'Ant-Man will return'.

Sam 'Falcon' Wilson's appearance in 'Ant-Man' made for a fun scene, and sets out how Ant-Man could be involved in 'Civil War'

While we're used to Marvel's post-credit scenes now, some of them being jokey-punchlines to a film, others foreshadowing events of future films, this scene is a really interesting choice for Marvel Studios.  Firstly, it's not a scene which has been specially filmed for Ant-Man, but is something from a still-filming (therefore unfinished) movie (as an aside, I'd be interested to learn how Civil War directors the Russo Brothers felt about a scene from their film hitting cinemas before they'd finished making it!).  It has been dropped in without context, so though we know the vague plot upon which the story hinges, we don't know the exact events that lead to it, or at which stage of the film it occurs.  Secondly, it is not explicitly setting up any characters, events or 'maguffins' that are part of Civil War.  It's surmised that when Falcon says "I know a guy" that it is referring to Ant-Man, and this seems very likely; Feige himself stated they chose this scene for the end of Ant-Man due to this line throwing back to something Pym himself says during the film.  Also, following the fun interlude where Lang has to steal some tech from The Avengers' base, having to unwittingly take on Falcon to do so, the final scene of the film shows that Falcon is trying to track down this Ant-Man.  So this post-credits scene does some work in establishing that Ant-Man is involved in Civil War, but it doesn't fully explain why - crucially though it seems he's at least being employed by Cap's side, even if he is not explicitly fighting alongside those against whatever Law is at the heart of the conflict.

Although their first encounter ends in a fight between the pair, will Ant-Man be on the side of Falcon in 'Civil War'?

Finally, I'd say this scene is a positive move for Marvel Studios - something that 'Avengers Age of Ultron' was criticised for was the way in which there are a number of references to things which didn't really serve the story in that film but are setting up elements of future films.  Whilst there was much of this in the first 'Phase' of MCU films leading up to Avengers, I can accept the criticism - it made sense there, but now we've an idea of what things are going to happen and where the stories are going, we don't need that level of foreshadowing - just tell us the story!  Including this scene at the end of Ant-Man avoids the name-dropping of characters or Maguffins, but still indicates where the ongoing MCU is heading and how certain characters are going to be involved.  We know that the next film is a Captain America one, we know that it encompasses a great number of other characters, but it is important that it still continues the arc established in Cap's previous films involving his friend Bucky.  This scene suggests that Civil War is going to be a lot more personal and intimate, in terms of key character stories, than we may be anticipating based upon the cast and the comic story which it is partly taking inspiration from.

It wasn't just this scene that pointed towards the future of the MCU without waving Maguffins around or introducing new characters - one moment at the end of 'Ant-Man' very cleverly sets a precedent for an element of Marvel comics which is likely to be very important during Phase 3...

Our glimpse of the 'Quantum Realm' is the first step in introducing the 'weird' to the MCU

In order to defeat Darren Cross and his 'Yellowjacket' suit, Scott Lang has to break the most important rule of being Ant-Man - he turns off the regulator that controls how far he can shrink, and eventually goes sub-atomic before entering the 'Quantum Realm'.  It's described by Pym as being a place where the laws of physics - or at least, our capacity to understand them - are no longer applicable.  This scene, as well as being visually stunning and offering a an exciting finale that doesn't rely on something falling from the sky, is arguably the first step for the MCU in to the realms that are going to be a key part of next year's 'Doctor Strange' movie.  That film will see 'supernatural' threats being addressed, a staple of the comics, but something that so far is beyond the hard(ish) sci-fi underpinning much of the MCU thus far. Feige has suggested that there will still be some scientific basis to the threats faced by Doctor Strange, so as to lend them a sense of plausibility - and Ant-Man's trip to the Quantum Realm is arguably the stepping stone towards this. 

In order to defeat villain Darren Cross, Lang takes us on a journey to a whole new area that the MCU will explore in future films...

Although not explicitly stated, when Ant-Man goes to the Quantum Realm it is strongly implied the technology has crossed him in to another universe or dimension that is beyond our current scientific knowledge and understanding.  Multi-dimensional travel is a staple of the comics, where there are parallel universes, or far stranger places.  If this scene establishes there are these universes or realities beyond our current scientific understanding, there is a basis to introduce Doctor Strange, his mystical abilities, and the threats he takes on - and not have it seem like a stretch for audiences to accept.  What if, for example, the inhabitants of one of these alternate universes, dimensions, etc already have the knowledge and technology to cross in to our universe - and these are the beings that Doctor Strange - and the Sorcerers before him - have been keeping at bay?

Doctor Strange will hopefully take us to even more bizarre and weird places than the 'Quantum Realm'...

This is a thread that will enable Marvel Studios to introduce this element from the comics and not have it seem, well, ridiculous and far-fetched, even in a universe including alien invasions and super-science.  It will also be an important thread that would enable stories allowing Fox and Marvel Studios to collaborate in bringing the Fantastic Four or even the X-Men in to MCU movies (which I've already talked about previously).  As well as that, I wouldn't be surprised if alternative dimensions, universes and realities feature in the Infinity Wars movies.  Either way, Ant-Man's journey to the Quantum Realm is a fascinating and exciting glimpse of an important part of future MCU films.  Going on how trippy and weird and visually amazing this scene was, it sets a high bar for Doctor Strange - which hopefully will be the weirdest and most unique film that Marvel Studios will make.

That's it for this month, next time I'll be examining the 'rivalry' between the Marvel and DC movies, and most likely having a look at Fantastic Four and any other exciting Marvel movie related news.  Thanks for reading!