Avengers: Endgame

SPOILERS

Steve Rogers: You know, I saw a pod of whales when I was coming up the bridge. 

Natasha Romanoff: In the Hudson?

Steve Rogers: There’s fewer ships, cleaner water.

Natasha Romanoff: You know, if you’re about to tell me to look on the bright side, um, I’m about to hit you in the head with a peanut butter sandwich.

Steve Rogers: Sorry. Force of habit.

How do yo review only an ending? It would be like reviewing only the last 45 pages of a Robert Jordan book that's in the middle of The Wheel of Time series? Is that even possible?

Oh and that quote, I like it, but, it broke my concentration on the film because as far as I know whales can't live in freshwater like the Hudson. I checked at least 3 sources on the internets...I know, I know, not authoritative...and searched for distinctions between fresh and brackish water as the Hudson is a tidal estuary in places, but no where did anyone say that whales can live in freshwater.

Endgame was satisfying for those who were invested and seen all the other parts, enjoyable for those who are casual observers, and a remarkable production feat. And yet here's me not impressed by a stunning achievement; breathtaking in its scope, unsurpassed in its planning, meticulously written for each and every actor/character. I loved every second in the theater. There's even a MAC grad featured heavily #HeyMAC. But after consideration, I look for more in a movie. (And, of course, more MAC grads #HireMAC) 

Very little is wrong with Endgame and I am the one who is flawed...but such is the way of reviews.

My critiques:

1. By knowing they are going to win, we diminish the cathartic release. 
1. There was a trailer for the next Spiderman movie as a trailer.
2. I know that's basically impossible to keep a secret...but without even the attempt everything seems to be going through the motions for me as the audience....excellent acting, writing or production aside. 
2. I hate to sound like a SLATE writer, but the girl power assemble montage moment felt forced.
1. Force may be necessary to break through the feelings of a mass audience which includes me...and I approve of the tactic....but the indelicate nature of the moment overshadowed any impact. -feel free to apply a discount rate to my opinions as you see fit given my age, gender, socio-economic status, race, anything else you feel. I won't mind. 
3. I'm not sure that I noticed a greater theme beyond sacrifice. 
1. In the Infinity War, The Avengers were incapable of sacrifice. Over and over. In Endgame they were. Over and over. If that is the lesson to take from the combination, I have to ask; is that it? 
1. I maybe and most definitely am jaded, but I find that telling a large audience that the ability to sacrifice makes the difference between victory and defeat, morally simplistic.
1. I agree with the thesis statement, but without making concrete illusions to ways in which the thesis can be applied by the millions seeing Endgame is a bit of a waste. It will certainly have positive impact. Alerting people to this strategic moral position is a net benefit. But the lack of Call to Action -even if subtle- matters.
2. I once had a vision of someone running for President with the tagline of #Sacrifice.  I like it. Probably not a vote winner. 
4. Time Travel has been foretold....told...told...told. 
1. I love a good time travel movie.  I love even a bad time travel movie. Endgame was doing its best to not be cliche in the use of time travel, while still benefiting from it as  magical solution for the writers. Audience can only go fly into the past so many times before it's not old or new or new, old or old old or old, new; it's just been done.
1. On the plus side, Endgame did make a point of refining how audiences think about time travel in the future because time travel debates are a favorite of theorists and fans everywhere. 
2. On the minus side, the justifications for how it works were paper thin and no attempt was made to overcome that. 
1. I guess I and other audiences don't need explanation, just time travel. 
5. The entrance of Capt. Marvel was jarring
1. I think they just took for granted that you saw the post credit sequences of both Infinity Wars and Capt. Marvel. Which is a reasonable assumption, I guess. But for those who hadn't, her introduction was from out of no where. Just, boom, Iron Man is saved. And then she wasn't properly introduced. 
6. I absolutely got Battle Fatigue
1. There are ways to make a battle continuously interesting on film. So as to not become monotonous. The final battle sequence pushed into the fatigue stage with me. Only a little, but it was still enough. I had the chance to look up and around, crack my neck and think; "Their still fighting..". 

My little nitpicks don't matter. And not being able to illicit fundamental positive change in one's audience is an insurmountable standard. That I even held out hope, should say all you need to know about the quality of Endgame. 

Avenger Endgame, gave us the heroes everyone wanted. It just so happened that I wanted the heroes I think we need. 

3.8 out of 5 stars

  

Margin Call (2011)

"There are 3 ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat" -John Tuld

So I may be on a bit of a 2008 financial crisis kick, but it felt strange to not watch a counterpart to Too Big to Fail. They both came out in 2011. They both revolve around the amoral quandaries of business.

To start, without question Margin Call is superior to Too Big to Fail; acting, writing, pacing, dialogue, drama, directing, everything. I tip my cap to Zachary Quinto.

So for one thing, I appreciate at the care of the writers to abandon the "true story" aspect of the financial crisis.  Ken Burns will do the definitive documentary of the financial crisis some day and I look forward to it, but until that time my preference is for unrestrained art from writers.

At its core I took Margin Call to be about the amorality of strategy and money. In 2019, it's a little strange to be getting that message from Kevin Spacey, but it was 2011 and it works. The problem here isn't that the company survives...in fact that's the goal...it's that the moment they KNOW that what they are selling is toxic, it's immoral to sell it to someone else, especially without warning them of its putrescence. It's an abdication of culpability to the whole. -which is often a byproduct of "good" business strategy.

And it's in the grappling with the fundamental change of asset to liability of a given product that Margin Call delivers drama. "What should we do?"

3.68 out of 5

Too Big to Fail (2011)

Michele Davis : [horrified]  The *whole* financial system? And what do I say when they ask me why it wasn't regulated?

Henry Paulson : No one wanted to. We were making too much money.

In an otherwise blah affair that was recapping the financial crisis of 2008, a spark of joy was to be found. William Hurt as Henry Paulson.

As a business person, I see a lot of potential for drama in the financial crisis. But that may be a minority opinion. The drama is there if one is willing to be creative and truthful to the point of the your story.  But if you feel that you have to be truthful to the timeline, the players that people have heard of due to the recency of the events, then much that is worthy of good acting etc. must be sacrificed.

Such is the fate of Too Big To Fail....I  kept thinking of 2 Fast 2 Furious and wondered if anyone else was thinking they had similar titles that might confuse a certain percentage of potential viewers. -Aw man where are the cars?!  2B2F ultimately had too many cooks, too many known actors that needed screentime, and a time budget that was not made for a feature film viewing.

I know this because, characters were introduced with overlays of type for their name. Bill Pullman, James Wood, Paul Giamatti, Tony Shalhoub, Topher Grace, Cynthia Nixon, Ed Asner, and more. I was Paul Giamatti won the SAG award for his Ben Bernanke, but in my eye William Hurt was a cut above.

If you don't understand the mechanics of the 2008 financial crisis there are much better, simpler, stories out there. If you wanted more drama from a story about the financial crisis, there better, more poignant tales available.  All in all 2B2F is a middling middle of mediocrity with capable actors and a exceptional William Hurt.

3.0 out of 5 stars

Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

"I really hate Paris." -Gellert Grindelwald

In a rare feat, a sequel is better than the original. It's an even more remarkable because both films are atrocious. FB:CoG is better than FB:aWTFT -fight me.  But they are both horrible.

I was on a plane and it seemed like the time.  That is my excuse.

In this contest of ingrate siblings, no one wins. Not even Harry Potter fans.

Crimes of Grindelwald debuted 5+ new characters, went a into story that didn't make sense regarding a character briefly mentioned in the first Fantastic Beasts, wasted all the would be joy of magical Paris in 1923. It also butchered the Anakin and Padme level romance between Queenie (who I have no particular reason to hate...but I do) and Jacob. *He's a muggle. I don't care that I'm an American and have to use the trashy "No-Mag" nomenclature. pbhhhhh*

The creatures I didn't find interesting, the larger plot was purely for the long con, and basically all perfomances were wooden. It is the definition of a slog. I looked at my watch and my surroundings often. -and I was on a plane.

To JK Rowling:  I've read all the HP book several times and got happily lost. Thank you for them. Without maligning or disrespecting your talent, I think a book treatment of these stories was in order before any movies. Without books they're just ghosts of what we loved done with the minimum we required to be interested.

2.1 out of 5 stars

Dumbo (2019)

V. A. Vandevere: Is that a monkey in your desk?
[Medici opens his desk drawer, a monkey is holding a drink flask]
Max Medici: Just for emergencies.

If Tim Burton is involved, it's high percentage, I'll see it.  No one else quite masters the visual, the grotesque, the comic, the opaque, and the bizarre like Tim Burton. I sort of wish that other people payed me to exorcise my demons on screen too.

And for Tim, -and yes we are on a first name basis-  Dumbo presented a unique challenge. It's a remake. It's also a film with the hero, villain, and director of Batman Returns.

Normally, I harp on remakes. They generally do not appease. They are unnecessary. New statements should be make rather than hashes. Yada yada yada. But, in the case of Dumbo, I am willing to entertain that this cover is unique from the original while being faithful. Which is high praise.

Dumbo is a sad movie.  And thus, I am perfectly content that it remained a sad movie. It's about ostracization, group think, family separation, empathy, animal cruelty, and racism. These are not happy topics. Even the circus is not actually a joyous place -in today's society.

I am not huge fan of allegory, but even I couldn't help but see the connection between V.A. Vandevere and Walt Disney. (This is not coincidently a  Walt Disney Production.) Breaking with many of the outlandishly racist parts of the original, Tim had to take the story elsewhere, and his choice was to bite the the hand that feeds him. To make it seem as if Disney stifles wonder in favors of power, luster, money, and fame.

1. I am surprised that Disney let this happen. It's a not every company that release critique of itself. 
1. I wonder if this is Tim's response to Marvel and the internalizeing of Pixar etc. 
1. When one suckles at the teat of conglomerates, how is one to shine light on their flaws? 
2. Maybe Disney meant to do this to deflect criticisms. "Yeah...sure Tim....go ahead and make an allegory portraying our magical founder and parks as hollow, poorly run illusions, that distract from the truly magical." All the while knowing that they would get respect for allowing it rather than criticism for their practices. 
1. I doubt it, but that would be diabolical.

So, I recommend Dumbo for the following reasons. 

1. Time Burton letting a sad cruel movie be sad and navigating homage with individualism. 
2. Danny DeVito
3. *and this strange to me* Collin Farrell -wonderful job
4. if you wanted to pay Disney to stick it to Disney. 
5. Pink elephants go on parade!

3.83 out of 5 stars 

Vertigo (1958)

Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton: Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere.

John "Scottie" Ferguson: How about a drink? -or some variation over and over.


Jimmy Stewart looks better in black and white. He just does.

I'm hesitant to lavish praise on what is widely considered a classic because I don't think there is much I can say that hasn't already been said by critics, students, professors, bloggers, etc in the 61 years since its release. At this point, my pronouncement of its worth is lost long before I write it. Suffice it to say, Vertigo is worth the watch.

 But, I would be remiss if I didn't remark on the effect it has had on my thought process. It got me to think about legacy, temporal truths vs self-evident ones, and mostly obsession.

A hypothetical question: how would you want an audience or a critic to react to you on screen 60 years from now?  Is it even worth it to try and meet a vague future's expectations? If you do that, what about the views of the present?

A quick trip to Wikipedia on Vertigo told me that it barely broke even on initial release. So, then why are we all so obsessed with it? It's returns were meh..and 1958 audiences felt the same.  Well one answer could be that the audience changed between release and its revival. Hitchcock may have been trying to connect with his present but hit the bullseye on a future Zeitgeist.  The question is was it intentional?

So why did the audience feel differently about male-obsession in the mid 1960s then they did in 1958?  Which is closer to how we feel now? I don't know. My first thought is simply that the 1960s and feminism, changed the landscape of critics and the audience. The proliferation of violence and young obsessive behavior merited a reevaluation to Hitchcock's understanding of it.

My last thought was that it's far easier to follow through on obsessive behavior today than in 1958.  We all should know. It's called social media. In 1958, you had to work at it hard and it showed that you followed through. Now you just follow their instagram.

You know it's a dark entry when Hitchcockian hallucinations are our reality.

4.2 out of 5 stars.