What If... the Red Guardian Stopped the Winter Soldier?

 "Horseradish! I am no fool!"

This week the blog will be a little different as Little Miss Llamastrangler is with me. I don't usually blog the same show night after night, but I'll be blogging What If? between now and Friday as the episodes are short and it works logistically. 

After that I'll try and get back to some sort of "normal" schedule. And somehow fit in Squid Game Season Two...

Anywayy, this is a nice, light-hearted little romp, and a real joy. Yes, the "What If" is straightforward... but the episode is really about showcasing the Red Guardian as the truly fun character than he is- a bit of a blowhard, yes, but straightforward and honest. And while he's a communist, at least he has a genuine ethical system, although surely he's the only true, non-cynical Soviet communist left by 1991.

Of course, it helps that he's played by David Harbour, a rather prominent actor these days, hence the prominence for the character. But this episode, by giving him a real bond with the brainwashed Bucky, really humanises him. And it's great that the other main hero here is Bill Foster, or Goliath, another obscure hero even if Laurence Fishburne is hardly an obscure actotr.

This kind of thing, exploring small scale eventualities with underused characters, is exactly what this series ought to be doing more of.

What If... Peter Quill Attacked Earth's Mightiest Heroes?

 "Bummer. I thought you were the dude from Van Halen."

Yes, I know. I'm doing so much telly at the moment, and it's a struggle to keep up. I blame all the new telly. There's this, there's Fool Me Once, there's Echo after this. I fear that Twin Peaks and the Batman movie serial may have to take a very temporary back seat, but they're very much ongoing. Same with Robin of Sherwood.

Anyway, I enjoyed this. There's character stuff with PeterQuill as a kid with Ego as the main threat. There is, perhaps, an overly neat resolution. But it's fun seeing an Avengers team form in 1988. We get a young Hank Pym, Bill Foster, and the fortysomethings are represented by T'Chaka... and both Peggy and Howard must be nearing retirement age. Peggy isn't aging bad. The Winter Soldier is well handled, though, and Thor is fun. 

One complaint, though: the United States has many fine ales and a proud brewing traditiob. But its bottled "light beers" are unfit for human consumption. Thor and T'Chaka endorsing "light beer" is the most unrealistic thing in this episode.

Predators (2010)

 "This planet is a game preserve. And we're the game."

So continues my ploddingly slow viewing of all the Predator and Alien films in release order, and this time... well, obviously this isn't going to be an all-time cinematic classic, but for a sequel of a sequel of a sequel of a sequel, sort of... it's actually not bad. 

It's not very well shot, admittedly. As one might expect from a music video director, it looks like a music video. Soulless CGI, boringly flat cinematography, texture and lighting. But despite this the script is pretty good, with very decent characterisation for this sort of film. The cast is good, too. Not exactly full of A listers but solid character actors. The likes of Walton Goggins and Mahershala Ali always add quality. And Laurence Fishburne's extended cameo is mesmerising.

The plot is simple enough: predators select and transport hand-picked humans to a planet they use as a game reserve to hunt and kill. Yet the characters are a gemuinely interesting bunch with real quirks, from the extremely disturbing Stans, taken from Death Row, to the stoic and dignified Mombasa. There are nice little twists and turns along the way in a film that manages to do more than simply carry out its high concept premise. And, I must not neglect to add, there's plenty of Predator action, although these are the moments where the CGI soullessness is at its most dismal.

What raises this film above its premise, though, is that it is about something bigger than action and IP. Our two main characters, Isabelle and Royce, are themselves hunters, who enjoy the thrill of the kill... and it is this, in the end, that counts. Yet can they use their hunting natures to survive while retaining their humanity? This question is examined quite excessively, a big part of why I was far more impressed with this film than I expected to be. Pretty good, in the end.

The Matrix (1999)

 "There is no spoon."

This film, by its very cinematography, may well sinply ooze the essence of the late '90s. But it is timeless.

Obviously, this is a truly great film. The fact that a film so drenched in philosophy and wonder can be such a blockbuster hit is a testament both to the genius of the Wachowskis and to the openness of humanity to ideas. And the fact that the "red pill" has in recent years been adopted by thenow thankfully dated alt-right is as meaningless as the alt-righ themselves,  along with everyone who doubts that Trump is a wannabe dictator or that Brexiteers are all Putin's bitches. These people are sad, hateful virgins, while this film is full of joy.

The point is not that this film posits a reality in which our lives are not only but a dream but are simulated realities while we are farmed horribly by AI's resulting from a singularity that looks worryingly as though it may happen within my lifetime, competing with global heating in the fear stakes. The point is, on the one hand, that this film has such a bloody good soundtrack (Rob Zombie, he whose "Dragula" was ubiquitous, and rightly so in late '90s rock clubs, and, er, Marilyn Manson, a genius who may possibly also be an abusive bastard). On the other, though... yes, this is an action sci-fi film with sci-fi protagonists. Yes, it uses its premise to mimic the martial arts visuals on the popular martial arts films of the time. Bjut it means something.

There may well be a religious subtext. If so, it's refreshingly subtle and not preaching uselessly to the converted. There may, as chronicled in recent years, be a trans subtext, endorsed by the Wachowskis who have both transitioned. But subtexts naturally abound with a subject matter so deep as the nature of reality and the ethics of living in a comfortable simulation vs. harsh reality. Should we pretend that there is a spoon?

And yes, I noticed: said bent spoon was in the real world, not the matrix. This film is awesome.

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

“Anyone see a southern gentleman carrying a building?”

We have Disney Plus now, so it’s time to go back and fill those few remaining gaps. The oldest film I haven’t blogged (but have seen) is Captain America: Civil War, but I’ll get to that soon. This is another Marvel triumph, if anything better than its predecessor, and the perfect blend of comedy, heist antics and superheroics. Paul Rudd is again superb, with excellent comic timing, and the whole plot fits together like the perfect farce. This is the comedy corner of the MCU, and it’s a fun place to be. 

There’s also plenty to satisfy my inner geek. Scott’s antics with “Cap” have had severe consequences. The first post-credits scene links things very firmly with the events in the more serious films. And we have a new female version of Ghost- whose father is Egghead, a nice touch. We also meet Bill Foster- played superbly, as ever, by Laurence Fishburne. Let’s hope he’ll be Goliath once more the next time we see him. Michelle Pfeiffer may be very much at odds with the Janet Van Dyne from the comics, but she’s good. It’s good to see her and Hank Pym get their happy ending- sort of.

This film mixes stapstick humour, wit, superhero action, car chases and quantum trippiness to give us a concoction that may not aspire any higher than to be a fun little blockbuster, but it does that very well. Any film with a building that can be wheeled along like a briefcase has to be cool.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

“ Ding dong, the god is dead.”

 I'm struggling to think of any film I've ever seen that's worse than this two and a half hours of empty, cynical, pointless drivel. The only consolation is that I have this blog and at least I get to put thid film over my knee and give it a sound spanking. I pity those who had to see this film without such an outlet.

So why so execrably awful? Well, there’s the obvious things which have often been pointed out- unlike Marvel, who carefully nurtured all the main characters in their individual films before bringing them all together in The Avengers, DC saw fit to follow the flawed but ok Man of Steel with this- a continuity-heavy crossover with a Batman we haven’t properly met, no soul and a music video sensibility of scene following scene at a bewildering pace without slowing down so we can get to know and care about the characters.

Then there’s the direction from alleged pervert Zack Snyder- technically well done, competent, but devoid of any individual style or personality. But worse than any of this is the message of the film. We expect Hotham, and the world of the Batman, to have a certain darkness, although branding people is a bit much. Yes, it’s nice to have an older, veteran, perhaps cynical Batman from the start. But Superman should be a contrast yet he’s depicted as a self-doubting throwback to less cynical times, a throwback to liberal times who is stranded in that godawful year 2016. But that’s lazy; the character of Dioetman is essentially the optimistic creation of two idealistic Jewish youngsters in the far darker days of 1938. The character of Superman has seen off much bigger bastards than Trump and Brexit and I hate the implication that morality and liberalism are outmoded values in these right wing, nativist days- and yes, those placards held by the anti-Superman protesters outside Congress are very anti-immigrant- where the simple fact is that we liberals can, and will, smash their stupid faces in. To suggest otherwise is not only to misunderstand and disrespect the character of Superman but send a very cynical political message that nothing matters and there’s no point. “No one stays good in this world”, says Superman.

So, yeah, I hate what this film is saying. But that’s not all; it’s over-complicated, confusing fanwank where all the attempts to make you sympathise with the characters fail both because of the clinical style and the fact that we’ve yet to get to know these characters- the only character here who is actually likeable is Laurence Fishburne’s delightfully quotable Perry White. Oh, and Luthor. I love Jesse Eisenberg’s witty, fast-talking Luthor, an eccentric Nietzchean, er, “superman”. But the film is full of good actors who are either woefully miscast- Jeremy Irons and, yes, Ben Affleck- or playing shallow, badly written characters. It’s a terrible script, a terrible film and a terrible basis for a cinematic universe. Even Justice League is not quite so bad as this.

Man of Steel (2013)

"What are you smiling about, Captain?"

"Nothing, Sir. I just think he's kind of hot."

Usually I'd write a review based on the general premise of the film in question being good, bad, or indifferent. That's a rather challenging thing to do here. I mean, yes, ok, the film is good. It works. It's a solid start to the DC universe. But there are flaws, real flaws. The film gets away with it, in no small measure because of a solid script by the ever-dependable David S. Goyer and, interestingly, Christopher Nolan and the inspired casting of (thankfully moustache-free) Henry Cavill. But...

Here's the thing. Zack Snyder is technically a superb director. The whole thing is well shot in the extreme, even if it's CGI'd to death. It looks amazing. But it all feels (Russell Crowe as Jor-El aside, oddly) not quite persnal enough. There's just enough charm to get away with, but no more. And the direction: yes, it's clever. But at the expense of the storytelling- not enough to damage the film, but I'd say Snyder needed to watch it if not for the fact that #MeToo seems to make any such advice irrelevant.

There's a lot to praise, though. Traditionally dull Krypton is given CGI alien beasts of burden, an internal politics and a genetically caste-based culture against which Kal-El's birth is a rebellion in the name of freedom. I like that. I also like the characterisation of Zod here; he isn't a moustache-twirling baddie but a general, with his fanatical followers, who only wants to save Krypton. At the expense of our little human species, naturaally.

Lois Lane is presented well here, as a tenacious journalist who figures out who Clark is early on, saving us an awful lot of tiresomeness. Perry White is a bit more nuanced. Jimmy Olsen, er, isn't in the film. But it's a well-done and thoughtful approach to Superman's origins and the ideal first film for the new DC Cinematic Universe. They need to run  with it, so what next. Batman? The Dark Knight? No, those are both taken. So how about Batman: The Dark Knight? Yes. Colons are good. And the next film is in no way going to be a disaster. Right?

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

"The bastard son of a hundred maniacs."

Well then. You can tell from the staggering number of years since I blogged the second film in this series that, as I said at the time, I was less than enthused by. I'm now far less likely to wait so long until the next one. This was bloody good.

We get lots of splendid visual horror from the start, well directed and making you jump, and this continues all the way through. But what really makes the film work is a solid plot based around a mental institution and fear of sleep and, in a film where Freddy Krueger is ever-present but appears surprisingly little- a successful formula- but the only disappointment here is that nasty Dr Simms doesn't die. And likeable characters do.

So what are my highlights? A very young Patricia Arquette? An early appearance by a young Laurence Fishburne? A rare Hollywood example of D&D being played? The delightfully '80s metal soundtrack by Dokken? The skeleton of Freddy Krueger resisting burial by means of stop motion? Probably the latter, but there are many. And the plot is actually quite gripping, and as twisty-turny as it is suspenseful.

Fellow Doctor Who fans: I believe that this is the earliest Hollywood film credit of one Rachel Talalay...?

Apocalypse Now (1979)

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning..."

 I may have waited until I was forty but at last I can claim to have seen this troubled yet magnificent and iconic film, and now at last I know where the phrase "Charlie don't surf" comes from. But there#s so much more, and not just the well-known set pieces with eccentric warfare, surfing chat and Ride of the Valkyries.  No; this modern take on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (which I read long ago, in Florida, when I was nineteen) doesn't just transplant the events from the Belgian Congo to Vietnam but imparts added meaning. There's far more going on in this film than a single viewing can pick up, but there's the barbarity and ethics of warfare, misogyny, mortality and so much more, and it all feels so much more profound for the extraordinary skilled direction from Francis Ford Coppola.

It doesn't feel over-long; yes, Kurtz (a magnificent Marlon Brando, always filmed in some degree of shadow as metaphor for the character's ambiguity) is held back to the end, being built up slowly until his final, iconic appearance, but the film is equally about the events that happen to Willard (an extraordinary and very young Martin Sheen) along the way, alongside such characters as Chef, Clean (a teenage Laurence Fishburne) Dennis Hopper's nameless fawning photojournalist and the unforgettable Colonel Bill Kilgore. There's more than a hint of Aguirre: Wrath of God in how the journey along the river is shot, but the characters feel real and human; this isn't some aloof art flick.

There's a surprisingly small part for Harrison Ford but the cast as a whole is magnificent and entirely worthy of what must surely be one of the finest films ever made, however difficult it's creation.