Image by André Santana AndreMS from Pixabay A couple of weeks ago, I looked back on the ups and downs of the Phase Four projects from Marvel Studios released in 2021. As promised, I continue this two-part retrospective and wrap up my look back at Phase Four overall by breaking down my thoughts on all nine (yes, NINE!) projects that Marvel Studios released in 2022.
So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Moon Knight (2022) Having no context for the character of Marc Spector, only one thing about Moon Knight excited me: Oscar Isaac. Despite his lackluster/disappointing appearances in X-Men: Apocalypse and the Star Wars sequel trilogy, Isaac has cemented his status as one of the better actors of the past decade from his starring turn in the Coen Brothers’ Inside Llewyn Davis to his strong presence as a supporting character in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune. So, I was more than interested in seeing him lead an MCU streaming series regardless of who he was playing. But the character he ended up playing excited me even more for Moon Knight. Simply put, the best of what this show offers stems directly from Isaac’s acting chops. While it’s reminiscent of James McAvoy’s talents displayed in M. Night Shyamalan’s movies Split and Glass, I think Isaac better understood the deeper psychological trauma and emotional turmoil inherent to accurately portraying dissociative identity disorder (DID). In every subtle twitch of the eye or movement of the hand, Steven Grant and Marc Spector feel like distinct characters with clashing motivations from the get-go. More than anything, this tense dynamic that Isaac embodies in his performance makes the first two episodes of Moon Knight a solid start. More broadly, however, the series’ first act is driven by a pretty compelling mystery about the truth behind Grant/Spector’s identity and his supposed ties to the Egyptian moon god Khonshu (voice by F. Murray Abraham). Like so many stories with a mystery at their core, Moon Knight makes for some fun and interesting viewing as it teases the audience as to how each of the main characters play into the overall story. What does Steven know of Marc, and vice-versa? How much control, if any, does Marc have in his relationship with Khonshu? What does Layla (May Calamawy) know, if anything, about Marc/Steven’s identity crisis? What is Arthur Harrow’s (Ethan Hawke) plan, and how does Khonshu play into it? These are some interesting questions. Unfortunately, the way they are answered is how Moon Knight (in my humble opinion) begins to falter. To start with episode three, “The Friendly Type,” which tries (and fails) to introduce loads of Egyptian mythology and magic into the narrative in less than an hour. Despite creator and head writer Jeremy Slater’s attempt to condense such complex storytelling devices like the Egyptian gods and the human avatar that serve them into a single episode, it simply doesn’t work. Thus, instead of provoking interesting questions about the characters I found myself asking questions about the believability and minutiae of the world that Slater and lead director Mohamed Diab were building. Are these avatars actually possessed by Egyptian gods? What are these gods, because prior in the MCU (starting with 2011’s Thor) it seemed that deities in the way that we understand them did not exist? How are these supposed gods so easily duped by Harrow’s blatant deception about his true motivations? Speaking of which, what does Harrow want to do and why? It's these questions that made the series’ second act a bit of a drag. On top of this, however, the character dynamics became somewhat less interesting. While I liked the fact that Layla ended up falling for Steven over Marc, the creative team’s seeming desire to flesh out Marc and Layla’s past came off as distracting when compared to the undeniably more fascinating story of Marc’s past trauma. This, of course, makes my investment in Layla’s journey becoming the Scarlet Scarab (virtually out of nowhere) minimal. By episode four, “The Tomb,” I started to lose interest in Moon Knight. But, with its final fifteen or so minutes, I regained some hope that the show could stick the landing when it teased the notion that everything that had happened up to this point (or, at least, the Egypt stuff) was all in Marc’s head. Simply put, the prospect of Moon Knight being a subversive comic book show that instead was an exploration of mental health was very exciting to me. “Finally! Marvel Studios can prove to the nay-sayers that these shows can be something very different and unexpected!” That was my thought going into episode five, “Asylum.” And watching the penultimate chapter, in which Slater’s writing team fleshed out Marc’s backstory and offered a satisfying explanation for his mental state, made for some of the best Disney+ content that Marvel Studios has put out to date. Turning in an Emmy-worth performance this episode, Oscar Isaac broke my heart switching to Steven from Marc upon being unable to process his childhood trauma and grieve his deceased mother Wendy (Fernanda Andrade). Despite my thoughts on the show as a whole, this episode of Moon Knight remains a standout among the MCU streaming content. If only the show stuck the landing. Unfortunately, the finale of Moon Knight left much to be desired. Considering the fact that they had never done action all that well, it was unsurprising (but still disappointing) how weightless and unimpactful the final showdown between Marc and Harrow as well as Khonshu and the evil god Ammit (Saba Mubarak) felt. Furthermore, the fact that the show turns away from a far more enticing answer to its core mystery to both have its cake and eat it, too, feels just so lazy. If not for the post-credits scene revealing Jake Lockley (Marc’s second alternate personality), the audience would be left completely in the dark about what of they just spent six hours watching was actually real or not. But, the answer we were given that was also wrapped up in a pretty boring climax made Moon Knight a significant disappointing given the show’s potential. If nothing else, I’m hopeful that Marc/Steven just shows up as a supporting hero in other stuff (Blade seems the best project given its dark, supernatural elements) rather than getting a second season directly following up this story. While I love Oscar Isaac in the role, I can’t say the same for much of anything else than we were given in Moon Knight. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) The announcement by Kevin Feige and Doctor Strange director Scott Derrickson that the sequel starring the Master of the Mystic Arts would be the MCU’s first horror movie worried me. In case you don’t know, I’m not the biggest fan of that genre. Furthermore, when Derrickson stepped down and was replaced by cult horror filmmaker Sam Raimi, I was even more nervous given Raimi’s track record with the Tobey Maguire-led Spider-Man trilogy. Thus, going into Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, I worried that it would be one of my least favorite Phase Four projects. However, after two viewings, it’s actually one of my favorites. 😊 Against my presumptions about his directorial style coming to the MCU, Raimi injects his signature vibe and approach to filmmaking in the best possible way by embracing the unique aesthetic and atmosphere inherent to the character of Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his world. The result? The film is a visual feast with some of the most creative integration of computer-generated special effects in its action sequences and some exceptionally striking horror-inspired imagery that the MCU has ever done. Some viewers felt that this movie rid itself of what the first Doctor Strange built up with regards to its action; I couldn’t disagree more. I loved the direction Raimi went with this film and would like to see him direct something else in the MCU (whether it be a third Doctor Strange film or another horror-inspired character story). In fairness, though, many fans’ criticisms with Multiverse of Madness are with its writing and story. In my humble opinion, Loki screenwriter Michael Waldron does a pretty good job wrapping a human story about regret and happiness in a web of multiversal antics. For our eponymous protagonist, Strange is given a solid throughline from start to finish involving him assessing the state of his life and figuring out what it would mean for him to be truly happy given his complicated relationship with Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) and the weight of his pivotal decision to relinquish the Time Stone in Avengers: Infinity War. Given the fact that other solo projects in Phase Four (like Moon Knight) stumble in giving us a compelling arc for the main character by the end, I appreciate that Multiverse of Madness manages to do that in a two-hour runtime. The foil to Strange’s character, of course, is that of Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) whose search for happiness propels the film’s narrative by sending Strange across the multiverse to protect Wanda’s target: America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez). With the power to jump between universes, Chavez is very much sought after by post-WandaVision Scarlet Witch who longs to start a new life with her children in another universe. Personally, I don’t understand the criticism of how Raimi and Waldron continued Wanda’s arc in this film. Given the fact that I wanted to see Wanda suffer consequences for what she did to the people of Westview, I was grateful that she (a former Avenger) turned into a full-on villain who suffers from her use of the “Darkhold” and has her dream dashed by her own actions in the end. Simply put, I don’t think people appreciate just how bold of a choice this was for Marvel Studios. All that being said, Multiverse of Madness is not a perfect superhero film. Namely, I did not connect with or relate to Chavez as much as I hoped I would but am hopeful she will be further developed in a potential “Young Avengers” story that will give Gomez the chance to grow as a performer. Furthermore, given how much he has shown up in MCU projects since his introduction in the first Doctor Strange movie, I was somewhat let down by how he was utilized in this movie. While I understand the purpose of Strange mentoring Chavez on his own, I just wish Wong was given a more compelling subplot than just being forced by Wanda to do her bidding. If anything, I really want Wong to be given his own show or movie because he’s that good of a character. Overall, though, Multiverse of Madness is a pretty solid and entertaining movie that remains one of my favorite Phase Four projects in spite of its drawbacks. I know this opinion is unpopular, but I enjoy this film more than its predecessor and am excited to see Doctor Strange’s world expand into even crazier and whackier territory in the inevitable conclusion to his trilogy. Ms. Marvel (2022) Given how well coming-of-age stories have been done in the MCU thus far (Jon Watts’ Spider-Man trilogy being the standout), I was hopeful for Ms. Marvel. Granted, as a white man in his mid-20s, I was not expecting to strongly relate to the eponymous protagonist’s origin story as a Pakistani-American teenage girl. If anything, I wanted to become invested in her journey and the people in her life (notably, her family and friends). Also, given the universal praise of early reviews, I allowed myself to get a little excited for the series (if only I’d learned my lesson from Moon Knight ☹). In the same way that I showered praise on Oscar Isaac for his performance in that show, Iman Vellani does a fantastic job embodying the infectious charm, quirkiness, and genuine personality of Kamala Khan. Undoubtedly, she’s one of the more likeable Marvel Studios heroes from the get-go of her introduction. And while some of the more emotional beats involving her and the Karachi storyline fell flat for me (which I’ll get to later), Vellani makes her mark as one of the best new heroes of Phase Four alongside the likes of Hailee Steinfeld’s Kate Bishop and Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova. Similar to how much I loved Bishop’s dynamic with Yelena in Hawkeye, I am very excited to see Kamala interact with other heroes around her age (and her idol in the upcoming Phase Five film The Marvels). Fortunately, unlike Moon Knight, this show also has a stellar supporting cast. For starters, Kamala’s relatable and believable dynamics with her best friends Bruno (Matt Lintz) and Nakia (Yasmeen Fletcher) are very well established in the first half of the show. By doing so, the evolution of their three-way friendship feels natural and poignant by the finale (one of the few things about the show that lands, but I’ll get to that later 😊). Furthermore, head writer Bisha K. Ali creates an interesting conflict between Kamala and her family: mother Muneeba (Zenobia Shroff), father Yusuf (Mohan Kapur), and elder brother Aamir (Saagar Shaikh). Specifically, much of this part of the story focuses on the generational divide between Kamala and her parents with regards to how her superhero fandom and lack of intimate connection to her Pakistani heritage causes an ideological rift between them. There were some nitpicks I had with how Kamala’s relationship with her mother changes seemingly on a dime in the last two episodes (why would she be so comfortable with her teenage daughter having superpowers and risking her life to use them?!?). Overall, though, I enjoyed their presence in the series and am as excited to see them show up in The Marvels as I am to see Kamala in action alongside Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) and Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris). The cast is the core strength of Ms. Marvel, but much of the story direction and pacing feels just as jarring and convoluted as the weaker MCU shows of Phase Four. Having seen the entire show through twice now, I think it comes down to the problem of its ambitions. Simply put, the show tried to say too much over the course of six, hour-long episodes and didn’t really do a great job with either of its main plots. Consequently, the portrayal and characterization of the villains of Ms. Marvel suffer. While some elements of the show held up better on a rewatch, the storyline involving the Clandestines—led by Najma (Nimra Bucha) and her teenage son Kamran (Rish Shah)—remain some of the worst villains in the entire MCU. Period. We know virtually nothing about where they come from, we are given no reason to empathize with their desire to return home, their dialogue is overtly cartoonish (and not in an endearing way), and their opposition to Kamala and Kamala’s desire to stop them ultimately feels hallow and pointless. If you ask me, this whole plotline should’ve been saved for a second season because the origins of the powers residing within Kamala’s bangle don’t really matter to tell the story of her becoming a superhero. Which leaves the other antagonists of Ms. Marvel: the Department of Damage Control, represented by Agent Cleary (Arian Moayed) from Spider-Man: No Way Home and Agent Deever (Alysia Reiner). Somehow, Deever (who ends up leading the attack on Kamala and her friends in the finale without Cleary’s consent) is written more unrealistically than Hayward from WandaVision. Numerous times, she violates peoples’ constitutional rights by searching Kamala’s neighborhood mosque without ever showing a warrant. Then, in the finale, organizes a tactical offensive against Kamala, Aamir, and her friends at the high school which ends up in Deever herself shooting real bullets at Kamala…A TEENAGER!! In other words, there’s getting an audience to dislike a human villain and then there’s just making a member of law enforcement purely evil for the sake of half-baked social commentary. I don’t know about you, but it didn’t work for me. If anything, Ms. Marvel should’ve invested more screen time in fleshing out the generational trauma between Kamala, her mother, and her grandmother Sana (Samina Ahmad). I think it would’ve served the show and Kamala’s arc better if the third, fourth and fifth episodes involved her and her mom in Pakistan to accomplish this while injecting a couple cuts back to New Jersey to slowly build up the Damage Control agents’ search for Kamala. Once the family stuff is mostly resolved by the end of episode four, then Ali and head directors Adil & Bilall could have Aamir’s wedding be the “calm before the storm” before Damage Control raids the party. This would then force Kamala to confront the realities of being a superhero (like Peter Parker, she would realize than using these powers for good meant putting your loved ones at risk). But, she proves brave and steadfast enough to risk her own life and freedom for her family and friends to solidify her transformation into a deserving acolyte of Carol Danvers. In this scenario, Ms. Marvel could’ve been at least a very good show (but maybe even a great one). Instead, the series was bloated with too many villains and subplots that even its very charming and likeable cast couldn’t do much to overwhelm. Furthermore, the inexplicable disappearance of the hyper-animated style on display in the first couple episodes for the last two-thirds of the series didn’t do it any favors either. So, while I’m excited to see Kamala’s interplay with other heroes in The Marvels (let alone future projects after that movie), I am not excited for a second season of this show unless Feige and his team at Marvel Studios shores up the writing and story direction by focusing it more and giving it a more concrete, consistent identity from start to finish. Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) Given the critical and commercial success of 2017’s Thor: Ragnarok (especially compared to the first two Thor films), it was inevitable that Taika Waititi would return to direct a sequel post-Avengers: Endgame. And while I was not the biggest fan of Ragnarok, I was entertained enough by it to be interested in what Taika would do if given the chance to follow that up for another shot at telling a story starring Chris Hemsworth as everyone’s favorite Asgardian. What excited me more than Taika coming back as a writer-director was the announcement at 2019’s Comic-Con that Natalie Portman would be returning as Jane Foster only to transform as “the Mighty Thor.” Given my very limited knowledge of the comics version of this storyline, I became very intrigued about how Taika (who’s done drama-injected comedy in films like Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Jojo Rabbit) would handle this. So, did it meet my somewhat-checked expectations? ☹ Honestly, I think the core problems with Thor: Love and Thunder have to do with its rushed pacing and inconsistent tone. Essentially, the film is an operatic rock epic in space wherein Kevin Feige decided not to rein in Taika’s more eccentric storytelling sensibilities whatsoever. The result? A flashy, stylistic, and colorful movie with only the shallowest level of substance. Admittedly, the least offensive aspect of the film is Thor’s arc involving him confronting his quasi-immorality by looking to develop meaningful relationships with people. While this could’ve been a heartwarming and impactful story for the character’s fourth solo outing, Taika didn’t seem all that concerned with impactful storytelling in this movie. Instead, he aims to get his audience to laugh from a fury of jokes. Some people really enjoyed this for Love and Thunder, I personally wanted a bit more given the complex downfall treatment that the Russo Brothers gave the character in Infinity War and Endgame. However, this silly approach hurts the arc for two other characters more than it does for Thor, in my humble opinion. Regarding the film’s villain, Gorr the God Butcher (Christian Bale), Taika plants the seeds for a great sympathetic antagonist in Gorr feeling betrayed by the gods due to the senseless and tragic death of his daughter Love (India Hemsworth). However, he doesn’t show much of Gorr’s butchering of the gods to make the character all that terrifying. Instead, Bale’s incredible acting chops alone are expected to carry the weight of this part of the story. Luckily, Bale’s performance makes Gorr fun to watch despite my lack of investment in his supposed tragedy by the third act. The other character that Taika’s pacing and inconsistent tone fails is Jane Foster (Portman) who simply deserved a much better return to the MCU (especially given her transformation into the superpowered “Mighty Thor”). Given the dark nature of Foster’s cancer storyline from the comics, I was hoping Taika would give us more than a couple of moments by herself being frustrated about chemotherapy and her life coming to an end so soon. Simply put, I wanted to see essentially half of the narrative really focus on Foster’s emotional turmoil and psychological struggle over picking up Mjolnir reversing her cancer treatment and actually shortening her life despite turning her into a god-like superhero. Alas, Portman’s incredible talent must do so much with relatively little screentime devoted to her. Furthermore, Taika’s desire for a fun time over constructing a compelling story displaces any potential for Foster to really shine and blossom in what appears to be her final appearance in the MCU (although I hope not, because I’d LOVE to see Portman return to the role and become “Mighty Thor” leading into the next two Avengers movies). With two viewings of Love and Thunder, I certainly don’t hate the movie. It’s undeniably a fun ride that offers plenty of laughs and some decent action scenes. However, I just wanted a little more than a redux of Ragnarok; I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything else from Taika Waititi. 😊 That being said, I am hopeful that the film’s more polarized response from critics and audiences, as well as its relatively lackluster box-office showing compared to Multiverse of Madness, will convince Feige to either replace Taika for the next Thor movie or take a more hands-on approach in order to balance the filmmaker’s comedic tendencies with some actually good storytelling. I Am Groot (2022) For twenty-five minutes of content, I Am Groot is a lighthearted and amusing enough concept. While serving only as an executive producer, James Gunn’s vibe and style from the Guardians of the Galaxy films are on full display throughout these five shorts starring the loveable tree-human Groot (Vin Diesel). And much of the credit for capturing the look and feel of those movies goes to the show’s writer-director Kirsten Lepore. From the look of the cosmic side of the MCU to Groot’s characterization to the use of pop and dance music (notably Jimmy Cliff’s hit single “You Can Get It If You Really Want”), Lepore excels at embracing Gunn’s cinematic style to tell some fun and funny short stories surrounding Baby Groot and his misadventures. Granted, these aren’t by any means essential viewing for MCU fans. But they don’t really need to be; seeing Baby Groot have a dance-off with himself or nearly destroy the Guardians’ ship to make a drawing of his family is enjoyable enough to justify thirty minutes of your life. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (2022) Due to the harsh audience reviews for She-Hulk with the release of a new episode each week (and my lack of interest in the character), I decided to wait until the entire show was released and binge it all. And while this may not have been the ideal way to watch the show, it worked well enough. I’m surprised to say that, when it’s all said and done, She-Hulk is my favorite MCU Disney+ series of 2022. To be clear, I don’t love She-Hulk (especially compared to my favorite shows like Loki and Hawkeye). However, I think it does the best job of going for something and actually accomplishing it. Whereas Moon Knight and Ms. Marvel fell short of their respective genres and styles, She-Hulk never wavers from embracing its sitcom roots to be a (very) low-stakes story. Essentially, creator and head writer Jessica Gao tells the tale of mid-30s, up-and-coming lawyer Jennifer Walters (Tatiana Maslany) who must deal with the consequences of gaining Hulk-like superhuman abilities after her cousin Bruce Banner’s (Mark Ruffalo) blood accidentally gets into her bloodstream during a car accident. From there, the show’s overall narrative delves into Walters wanting to focus on her career while getting dragged into crime-fighting antics by the likes of Wong (Benedict Wong) and other fun cameos. When it comes to the series’ low stakes, She-Hulk does best when it balances Walters’s eccentric career move as the head of a superhuman law division (and the related fights, both in and outside the courtroom, she gets into as a result) and her attempts to have something of a normal social life. This story is unquestionably elevated by Maslany’s performance as the newest Hulk because she very much understands the assignment for this show. Despite my mixed feelings about the fourth-wall breaks, I think Maslany does a great job acting them (particularly in the penultimate episode where it better services the story). On that note, though, I found many of the examples of meta humor (like Banner referencing the fact that he used to be played by Edward Norton) a bit much. Also, sometimes it seemed like the writers relied on this device as a crutch to replace quality storytelling which results in it coming off as tacky and shallow as opposed to inspired. In regards to the format of the show—a half-hour legal sitcom with comic book roots—it definitely works in its favor. I think that it Gao and head director Kat Coiro tried to stretch out much of this material into an hour-long, three-act structure, it would feel just as bloated and convoluted as Ms. Marvel (if not more so). As such, the creative team behind She-Hulk seems to at least know one of its strengths and lean into it. That being said, I do feel that the episodic nature of the show’s overall structure does remove some of the stakes of Walters’s arc by injecting too much comedy and silly antics in lieu of genuinely compelling storytelling about a woman who’s struggling to balance her career, her social life, and having superpowers. Furthermore, I think if I did watch She-Hulk week-to-week that I would’ve liked it less due to the very hit-or-miss nature of its format. By making each episode a (mostly) self-contained story with little narrative connectivity linking them together, the low stakes of the show slowly evolve into no stakes (which is only confirmed by the finale, but I’ll get to that later 😊). Despite my mixed reception to the show’s structure, I freely admit that it’s able to preserve its lighthearted tone from beginning to end in a way that Ms. Marvel and Thor: Love and Thunder could not. Another thing I didn’t love about She-Hulk was its overreliance on cameos to craft story for Walters. The one that did work on a storytelling level was the return of Emil Blonsky/Abomination (Tim Roth) as Walters’ high-profile client. It was fun to see the result of Blonsky’s offscreen rehabilitation serve Walters in her first major superhuman legal case. However, the other cameos didn’t feel as natural like Wong and Matt Murdock/Daredevil (Charlie Cox). I don’t want to give off the wrong impression; I really liked Wong’s presence in the show and I LOVED Daredevil’s full-throated introduction in the MCU (particularly having recently watched all three seasons of Netflix’s Daredevil show). However, the fact that these cameos were fun doesn’t justify the writer’s seeming desire to displace Walters and her supporting cast from being the stars of their own show. More than Yelena in Black Widow or Kate Bishop in Hawkeye, this show felt like it didn’t respect its star enough to flesh out her character and her dynamics with the people in her world. And then there’s the finale, “Whose Show Is This?” which was undeniably entertaining in just how far it went in breaking the fourth wall. And I get why they did it. However, the fact that Walters has the ability to just rewrite her own show in the end removes what little stakes there were for her journey and the show overall. In the end, it feels like nothing much mattered. The red-herring subplot about Todd Phelps/HulkKing (Jon Bass) stealing a sample of Walters’ blood so that he can turn into a Hulk (which was set up since the premiere) was just tossed aside. In a way, it’s insulting to the viewer because of the fact that at least two full episodes were devoted to fleshing out this storyline (not to mention screentime from other episodes). Despite my general enjoyment of She-Hulk overall, this final episode ultimately left a bitter taste in my mouth. Maybe I sound like I’m hating on She-Hulk, but I certainly didn’t hate it. I had a fun time watching a lot of it and think Maslany did a great job with the material she was given. But, as Marvel Studios’ first straight-up comedy show, I think it could’ve been better serviced by some more emotional moments with dramatic heft after the premiere. When it comes to new MCU heroes, I’m less excited to see Walters show up in the future than Kamala Khan but I’m more excited to see her again than Moon Knight. That counts for something, I guess? 😊 Werewolf by Night (2022) As a fan of his scores in movies like The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and The Batman, I was definitely intrigued by the announcement of Michael Giacchino directing Marvel Studios’ first long-form “Special Presentation.” On top of that, the pitch for this project as a loving homage to (and soft parody of) monster movies from the “Golden Age of Hollywood” (notably King Kong and The Wolf Man) further interested me. I was very curious how such a project could work on Disney+ in 2022. I should’ve had more faith in Giacchino’s storytelling sensibilities, because Werewolf by Night is a pleasant viewing experience. It knows what it is, and does it well, while never overstaying its welcome or leaving me at all dissatisfied with the final product. Arguably, the strongest quality of Werewolf by Night is just how well it honors the legacy of the horror and monster movie genre that it stems from. From its lighting and editing style to its reliance on practical effects, the special perfectly plays into the quirkier side of the MCU to tell a fun story about a bunch of monster hunters with a few interesting twists and turns sewn throughout the narrative. With its relatively briskly-paced two-act structure, the special embodies the “less is more” mantra by going for a straightforward but effective story about Jack Russell (Gael García Bernal) going undercover to find his monster-friend Ted/Man-Thing. With Bernal’s subtle enough performance in the first twenty minutes, the reveal of his rescue mission made for a welcome surprise given the special’s brief runtime. From there, the second act intertwines Russell’s story with that of Elsa Bloodstone (Laura Donnelly) whose ulterior motive to sabotage the hunt and take over the reins of her family acts as a nice foil to her co-lead. From there, Jack and Elsa forge a tenuous alliance to achieve their respective goals but it all goes to shit. With Jack primed to turn and Elsa thrown in the cage with him, Werewolf by Night fully embraces its horror roots in the final fifteen minutes by crafting a very inspired and visually engaging monster transformation. Having earned a tense and violent climax, the special’s finale is suitably entertaining without outreaching its grasp or playing it too safe. Honestly, my only gripe with the special is the fact that we don’t yet understand where or how it fits within the broader Marvel Cinematic Universe. Other than that, Werewolf by Night is a very unique and well-crafted passion project that excites me for Giacchino’s directorial future and to see more of this monster-hunting world in the MCU going forward. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” You have been warned.] Given my mixed feelings about the first Black Panther film, I was nervous about a sequel before it was even announced more than three years ago. But then, with the tragic passing of Chadwick Boseman two years ago now, my nerves turned to outright fear. Despite the evident writing and directing talents of Ryan Coogler, the burdensome task of reconceptualizing a sequel without the lead character is something nobody would wish upon their worst enemy. However, after seeing it in the theater on opening weekend, I’m happy to say that Wakanda Forever is a damn good MCU movie and a fitting conclusion to the rather mixed quality of films in Phase Four. Simply put, Coogler stepped up to the plate by pouring his heart and soul into this movie. In the process, he managed to craft a poignant tribute to a great actor and character that also manages to be an incredibly entertaining and impactful comic book movie. When you add on the reality that the film was produced in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s utterly astounding that it was made at all (let alone that it came out as good as it did). While not a perfect movie, the screenplay of Wakanda Forever (co-written by Coogler and Joe Robert Cole) is exceptionally paced. For what could’ve easily been an excessively outstretched two-hour-and-forty-minute runtime, the movie never feels rushed or slow. On the one hand, it maximizes its smaller, intimate, character-driven moments to explore powerful themes of grief, revenge, and mourning. Conversely, these scenes fittingly serve the film’s spectacle and globe-trotting action sequences by keeping the audience invested in what happens to our principal cast the entire way through. If anything, I can see an argument for cutting the scenes with Everett Ross (Martin Freeman) and Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) to shave off ten or so minutes. However, these scenes never personally bothered me nor did they detract from the main narrative. Speaking of the cast, those of you who know my thoughts on the first Black Panther film know my take that T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) is ultimately overshadowed by the great supporting characters that surround him. With Boseman’s death, I became curious in the lead-up to Wakanda Forever how actors like Angela Bassett, Danai Gurira, Letitia Wright, Lupita Nyong’o, and Winston Duke would be utilized. Never did I doubt that they could take the reins and lead the movie, but what I found surprising but great was how each of these characters grieved for T’Challa’s death in their own way. Queen Ramonda (Bassett) becomes overprotective of her daughter, Shuri (Wright) pours all of her energy into her lab due to her shame over not being able to save T’Challa’s life, Okoye (Gurira) tries to uphold her deceased king’s legacy and re-dedicates herself to Wakanda, and Nakia (Nyong’o) avoids Wakanda altogether because she can’t face anything that reminds her of T’Challa. By injecting plenty of nuance into how each of these characters mourn differently, Coogler continues the work of the first film by making them all just as (if not more) interesting than the late king of Wakanda. Once all the casting news was out, I was also very curious to see how the introduction of Riri Williams (Dominique Thorne) and the film’s villain Namor (Tenoch Huerta) would be handled. Regarding the former, I was concerned that her addition to the story would feel forced just to set up her Disney+ spin-off series. Fortunately, Thorne is incredibly charming from the get-go (similar to Yelena Belova in Black Widow and Kate Bishop in Hawkeye). But, more importantly, her role in the narrative isn’t distracting to the point of annoyance. If anything, what I saw from the character in Wakanda Forever makes me way more interested in the Ironheart show. Plus, her introduction in this movie worked better than American Chavez in Multiverse of Madness. 😊 The villain of the movie is a little more disappointing. Of course, Coogler was hard pressed to top Michael B. Jordan’s performance as Killmonger in Black Panther. On top of that, introducing another unknown civilization in the form of Talokan is beyond ambitious. To give credit to Huerta’s performance, Namor was an intimidating and compelling antagonist from the jump (despite the fact that he has wings springing from his feet that make him fly). His ability to play everything about the character straight helps him give Killmonger a run for his money. Undoubtedly, the most improved aspect of Namor over Killmonger is how he’s handled in action scenes. Unlike the first movie’s overreliance on CGI with Killmonger and T’Challa each wearing Black Panther suits to fight, Wakanda Forever gives Namor a distinctive fighting style that works for the bigger scale set pieces as well as the intimate, one-on-one fight with Shuri in the third act. Unfortunately, Namor’s motivations leave something to be desired as they are virtually identical to Killmonger’s from Black Panther. While this doesn’t completely ruin the character’s first (hopefully not final) outing in the MCU, it was a little underwhelming given how well Huerta did in the role. I have a few other nitpicks with Wakanda Forever. But, overall, the positives far outweigh the negatives for me. Against all odds, Ryan Coogler and his creative team (both cast and crew) gave us a great superhero flick to close out the year. With the goals of both honoring the life of Chadwick Boseman and creating a thoroughly entertaining blockbuster, they managed to do both. For that, Wakanda Forever supersedes its predecessor and earns its place for me as one of the best Marvel Studios projects of Phase Four. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special (2022) While I was interested in Michael Giacchino’s Werewolf by Night when it was announced, I was stoked when Kevin Feige let us know that James Gunn would be returning to Marvel Studios five years after the release of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 to write and direct a Christmas-themed special on Disney+. Now, having seen it, I’m happy to say that The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special was a fun romp. Simply put, Gunn as director fully embraces the lighthearted style of a holiday special with the zany antics and dysfunctional family dynamic of the current team of Guardians. Even in its brief, 45-minute runtime, Gunn’s screenplay delivers enough heart to make the special feel tonally and thematically consistent with the Guardians’ past adventures. And while not all the main Guardians cast is the focus, they each get a moment of two to shine here (I LOVED seeing buff, young adult Groot dance to the opening number!). However, Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) are the standouts here. While they have a pretty good dynamic in the second Guardians film and Avengers: Infinity War, their rapport here makes them one of the more enjoyable MCU duos of Phase Four. As they sneak to Earth to kidnap Kevin Bacon (played by himself) as a gift for Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), their misadventures dealing with tourists and law enforcement are a fun-filled collection of scenes. Granted, is this the most emotionally fulfilling and impactful way to end Phase Four? In my humble opinion, no. I do think that Wakanda Forever serves that purpose better. However, as a nice epilogue to Phase Four and a tease of what’s to come in Phase Five (at least with the Guardians), I was down for it. The best phrase to capture the vibe of this special? It was a warm and fuzzy experience that didn’t overstay its welcome and gets me excited for Gunn’s conclusion to the Guardians trilogy coming in less than six months. 😊 At the end of the day, how will I remember Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? My take isn’t unique: it’s definitely a mixed bag in terms of quality (with the highs of Loki and No Way Home but also the lows of Eternals and Moon Knight). However, I think that’s somewhat by design on the part of Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios. I believe the core mission of Phase Four was to let filmmakers and storytellers experiment more within the framework of this franchise, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately, many of the projects within Phase Four remain coherent in relation to one another which is still an impressive feat in modern Hollywood (just look at the lengths that DC and Warner Brothers have gone to course-correct their approach to cinematic world building). In other words, I’m excited to see new heroes like Yelena Belova, Shang-Chi, Kate Bishop, Kamala Khan, and Ironheart interact with some newly-formed veteran heroes like Sam Wilson as Captain America, Shuri as Black Panther, and (fingers crossed!) a Peter Parker-free Spider-Man. Will we get to see a Young Avengers and New Avengers team up in Phases Five or Six? Only time will tell. At the end of the day, I think the better projects of Phase Four outweigh the weaker ones. Thus, I remain hopeful for the future of the MCU (and we have some potential bangers coming up in the near future)! With all that said, here is my ranking of Phase Four of Marvel Studios’ “Multiverse Saga”:
What is your favorite and least favorite MCU project from 2022? Which project announced for Phase Five are you most excited for? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
With their conclusion of their “Infinity Saga” eleven years in the making, Marvel Studios’ future of blockbuster filmmaking was bright yet uncertain. Well, for like two weeks. On July 21st, 2019, not long after the very successful debut of Spider-Man: Far From Home, producer and studio president Kevin Feige stepped onto the Hall H stage at San Diego Comic-Con to announce ten films and television series that would make up the bulk of Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Ever since that announcement, fans of superhero cinema generally and the MCU in particular have seen nearly all fifteen projects that ended up being part of Phase Four (the most stuffed phase of the franchise relative to the span of the release window). While many of these individual projects have been positively received by both critics and audiences, there remains a question as to whether or not Phase Four ultimately turned out to be a worthy addition to the MCU as a whole. And what better way to answer that question than to take a look back at all of the Phase Four projects (and yes, I mean BOTH the movies AND the shows 😊). So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! WandaVision (2021) As the unexpected kickoff for the Phase Four series on Disney+, WandaVision was (in my humble opinion) ultimately the right choice for this task. Essentially, the core benefits to spinning off the MCU into interconnected shows are highly on display with WandaVision: fleshing out a pre-existing character from the universe in a distinctive style that propels their story for the films going forward. In that, WandaVision was a success. In terms of its style, head writer Jac Schaeffer crafted a loving homage to the various eras of classic sitcoms. Whether through the use of tacky special effects in the early, black-and-white episodes, the cheesy but charming humor, or the crew’s expert embrace of old-school camera techniques and aspect ratios, the backbone of the show’s unique brand makes it wildly different from anything that’s come before or since in the MCU. In this sense alone, WandaVision works as enjoyable weekly television. But what about the storytelling? Is there substance to back up the style? Fortunately, yes. In adapting Schaeffer’s writing for the small screen, director Matt Shakman (who is currently attached to direct the Fantastic Four film for Phase Six) effectively creates a slow-burn tension in the first three episodes with subtle hints here and there about what exactly is going on in Westview. With periodical “breaks” from Wanda Maximoff’s (Elizabeth Olsen) synthetic reality experienced by the people of the town, Shakman helps invest the audience in learning the truth behind why Wanda is broadcasting sitcom-inspired “episodes” of her life to nobody. And it all bursts open in the fourth episode, “We Interrupt This Program.” It’s here that Shakman and Schaeffer greatly utilize new and old side characters—Maria Rambeau’s now-adult daughter Monica (Teyonah Parris), FBI agent/amateur magician Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), and Jane Foster’s sidekick Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) —to unravel the mystery of Westview. This acts as a very effective and satisfying catharsis in the beginning of the second act by pulling back the curtain to show that Wanda, in her grief, has brainwashed the townspeople and “cast” them in her “sitcom” starring herself and Vision (Paul Bettany) who’s supposed to be dead after the events of Avengers: Infinity War. But, in all honesty, it’s the show’s middle episodes that truly bring the A-game. As S.W.O.R.D., led by Tyler Hayward (Josh Stamberg), keeps trying to sneak through Wanda’s bubble around Westview, her relationship with Vision is strained. This emotional, character-driven conflict gives Olsen and Bettany the opportunity to flex their thespian muscles and they do not waste it. Simply put, the argument they have at the end of episode five (“On a Very Special Episode…”) is STILL one of my favorite scenes from all the MCU Disney+ shows. And, upon rewatching the series a few months ago, it did not disappoint (and reminded me how much potential Olsen has in the future of the MCU portraying Wanda as an anti-hero). With a delightful, mysterious first act and a propulsive second act, surely WandaVision nails the ending. Right? I think that, in some ways, it does. So, to begin with the positives, the way that Shakman and Schaeffer handled fleshing out Wanda’s tragic backstory in episode eight (“Previously On”) before building up her coming into her own in the finale (“The Series Finale”) by truly embodying the “Scarlet Witch” persona was a lot of fun. Notably, I really liked how it all came together with Wanda turning the tables on Agatha Harkness (Kathryn Hahn) and outsmarting her with her own take on chaos magic. To top it all off, the emotional goodbye she has with her children and Vision before ending “The Hex” around Westview once and for all served as a pretty fulfilling end to her journey of grief and mourning that began in Avengers: Endgame. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the series finale fell flat due to so much missed potential. For one thing, until the dialogue-centric conclusion involving Vision outsmarting “White Vision,” the Vision-on-Vision fight felt pretty out of place for a show that was never really centered on action sequences. Furthermore, the reveal of Agatha’s true identity and villainous motivations came off as pretty rushed and confused (was she ever controlling Wanda, or was she just creating the illusion of herself as nice to earn Wanda’s trust and learn the secrets behind what she was doing in Westview?). Because of that, I’m by no means excited for the spin-off centered on her characters (despite feeling that Hahn nailed her performance for virtually the entire run of the series). And that doesn’t even cover the outright bad stuff. For starters, Hayward was never a very compelling or complex antagonist even compared to other “government bureaucrat” bad guys that we’ve seen in comic book movies (like Amanda Waller in The Suicide Squad). Aside from the show’s villains, Monica Rambeau felt very much forced into the show’s narrative by the end and lacks the punch that it needs to get me excited for her role in The Marvels. And, of course, I have to address the utterly disappointing reveal surrounding the fake-out return of Evan Peters as Quicksilver (in reality, Agatha’s “husband” Ralph Bohner). This really just came off as Marvel Studios baiting their audience to get them excited for something that (as of now) is not going to happen. However, what is quite possible the worst decision made for the finale of WandaVision from a storytelling perspective is the fact that Wanda never suffers external consequences for her actions. To remind ourselves, she BRAINWASHED AN ENTIRE TOWN. And she never even has to apologize to these people, let alone suffer legal or punitive measures as recompense for mentally and physically enslaving hundreds of innocent people to help her grieve Vision’s loss. That felt like a very lazy story decision that could have been mended after a couple of passes on the script. Overall, I enjoyed WandaVision. It fleshed out Wanda’s character with added dimensions (thanks to Olsen’s great performance) that excited me to see her return as a potential villain in the Doctor Strange sequel. However, it is by no means a perfect (or even great) MCU show due to it feeling a bit stretched out in the third act in spite of its thematic heft and ambitions. Still, its strengths generally outweigh its flaws so it falls into the category of “pretty good” in my book. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2021) In a sense, this show is rather frustrating because of how imbalanced it feels. On the one hand, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier has many great moments that keep the show soaring. On the other hand, its drawbacks and low points keep it from achieving greatness. When it comes to the action, this show succeeds better than most of the other Phase Four series. The show makes a strong impression with the grandiose, multi-layered set pieces like the rescue scene in “New World Order,” the highway chase in “The Star-Spangled Man,” and the helicopter chase in “One World, One People.” However, it also shines during the more intimate fight scenes like the Dora Milaje fight in “The Whole World Is Watching” and the two-on-one battle in “Truth.” While it doesn’t always hit, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier rarely feels like a television show when it comes to the action (something that I cannot say for WandaVision). Regarding the characters, its co-protagonists—Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie) and Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan)—carry the series on their shoulders. By building on the chemistry between these two that was teased in Captain America: Civil War, creator Malcolm Spellman and director Kari Skogland allow both actors to play to their strengths. Furthermore, after setting up both of their arcs beautifully in the premiere, the adventure they go on together (mostly) serves their respective journeys Whereas Sam struggles to embrace donning the mantle of Captain America as a black man (thus is concerned with his uncertain future), Bucky is dealing with processing and moving on from his identity as the Winter Soldier (thus making amends for the sins of his past). Simply put, whenever the show is focused on them it edges closer to the status of being great. Unfortunately, most everything else about The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a mixed bag to varying degrees. To start with the better of the two villains: John Walker (Wyatt Russell). While by no means as good of an actor as his father (who played Ego in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2), Russell does a pretty good job in the first act of the show making it difficult for the audience to love him and thus leans into his role as an antagonist to Sam and Bucky without going full-out villain. However, once he gives in to his emotion and anger and lashes out following the death of his best friend Lemar Hoskins/Battlestar (Clé Bennett), Walker’s downward spiral could have worked really well as a foil/anti-hero arc to Sam becoming Captain America. But the way that his soft redemption is handled in the finale is incredibly rushed. The fact that he goes from being on a murderous rampage against the Flag Smashers to helping Bucky and law enforcement in the span of fifteen minutes is pretty ridiculous. Overall, I get that John Walker’s turn as U.S. Agent didn’t fully work in the show. For me, I liked it more often than not due to Russell’s great job balancing this normal soldier’s seemingly genuine desire to do a good job and his increasingly powerful narcissistic tendencies wrapped up in his ego about being the new Captain America. While his arc in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier didn’t quite land, I’m interested to see how his character fits within the ensemble Thunderbolts. But the villains that were not well done in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier were the Flag Smashers. Notably, their leader Karli Morgenthau (Erin Kellyman) whose moral ambiguity often feels pretty black-and-white (that is, when her motives are clear in the first place). Ultimately, I know that the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the story that Skogland and Spellman were planning to tell. That being said, I don’t think that the goals of the Flag Smashers nor the broader geopolitical context they were operating within were fleshed out very well at all. As a result, the show lacks a compelling antagonist outside of John Walker. Which gets to what is (in my humble opinion) the show’s biggest problem: its handling of Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp). Despite planting an interesting seed for Carter as feeling betrayed by Sam and Bucky after her suffering due to helping out Steve Rogers in Civil War, they way her character and reveal as the “Power Broker” was handled was just terrible. Maybe it’ll be fleshed out more in the fourth Captain America film or something, but I would’ve preferred that the creators either minimized her role to better flesh out the Flag Smashers or more effectively integrate her into the main storyline. All that being said, I do ultimately like The Falcon and the Winter Soldier more than WandaVision. While one is not necessarily better than the other, I was personally more invested in Sam’s journey becoming Captain America while reconciling America’s legacy of systemic racism than Wanda’s journey overcoming her grief after the loss of Vision. At the end of the day, however, I respect both shows for doing a pretty capable job of fleshing out previously supporting characters in the MCU films to help convince me that they’re worthy successors to the original team of Avengers going forward. Loki (2021) Based on its premise alone, Loki should not have worked as a Disney+ series. Not only does bringing back Tom Hiddleston as Loki (albeit as a variant of the one murdered by Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War) strip away some of the meaning behind the character’s sendoff in Phase Three, but the idea of doing a time-travel murder mystery/crime series to introduce the concept of the multiverse in the MCU was incredibly ambitious (even for Kevin Feige). Lucky for us, creator Michael Waldron and director Kate Herron were up for the challenge. 😊 Evident from the premiere episode, “Glorious Purpose,” Loki takes its eponymous character who was mostly known as a villain of the Avengers and—similar for Scarlet Witch in WandaVision and Sam Wilson in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier—gives him a meaningful character arc by fleshing out his motives, personality, and flaws. Not long after Loki is captured by the Time Variance Authority (TVA), his megalomaniacal tendencies are put in check by Agent Mobius (Owen Wilson) who offers the mischievous Asgardian a second chance to be something other than “just another Loki.” Instead of shying away from the problem of getting the version of Loki from The Avengers to a place where he would sacrifice himself for his brother in Infinity War, Waldron and Herron embraced it. And by the end of the premiere, Loki was on his way to a well-earned and long-awaited true redemption. Another commendable strength of Loki is its world building. Unlike the relatively minimal time paid to Agatha’s witch coven in WandaVision or the inadequate job done fleshing out the Flag Smashers in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, this show effectively pulls out the slow-burn mystery of what the TVA really is and how the MCU’s multiverse works. Through exchanges between Loki and Mobius (with some other characters thrown in), the importance of preserving the “Sacred Timeline” is sufficiently established. By the finale, however, the reveal of “He Who Remains” and the true fragility of the multiverse makes for a fulfilling payoff to this mystery before setting up the central plot element of the MCU’s “Multiverse Saga.” Aside from just the story of the TVA, the art direction and production design put into bringing the look and feel of the TVA felt as inspired as the sitcom homages in WandaVision but as grounded and substantive as the real-world race politics on display in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Undeniably, the reluctant bromance that forms between Loki and Mobius makes for one of the show’s best character dynamics. Even during some of the slower, talkative moments, Loki is at its best when the two of them are exchanging jabs back and forth. However, the other supporting characters (mostly) maximize their screentime to make at least some impression. Notably, I was surprised on a rewatch how much more I appreciated the oddly touching romance that forms between Loki and Sylvie (Sophia Di Martino)—a female variant of the God of Mischief. On her own, Sylvie has a pretty compelling journey as the anti-hero in contrast with Loki’s former anti-hero status. Given her tragic backstory as a child abductee of the TBA whose sole purpose is to burn it all down, I sympathized with her despite not ultimately agreeing with her brash methods. However, Hiddleston’s chemistry with Di Martino sells their heartbreaking ideological split in the finale as believable. What most surprised me about Sylvie, however, is how compelling her antagonists dynamic with Judge Ravonna Renslayer (Gugu Mbatha-Raw)—the TVA agent that originally captured Sylvie as a child. While never quite spelled out in the series, it seems that merely being born a girl was enough for the “Sacred Timeline” to cancel her existence. And the fact that Renslayer never acknowledges the screwed-up nature of the TVA’s work, even when it’s undeniable, makes Sylvie’s vendetta all the more understandable. But Sylvie and Mobius are both great characters entwined with Loki’s arc, too. Primarily, their presence at this particular point of his existence helps Loki earn his redemption by wanting to help them and be there for them. Whether it’s Loki genuinely wanting to help Mobius realize the truth about the TBA or him staying by Sylvie’s side in the standoff against Alioth, the writers give us the kind of redemption that the overall lackluster Thor movies could only dream of. The cherry on top, however, is seeing Loki hang out with a bunch of variants of himself in the Void at the end of time. While every cutaway to Alligator Loki is funny and Kid Loki (Jack Veal) has a couple good moments, the standout is Classic Loki (Richard E. Grant) who earns an emotional, badass sacrifice moment in the penultimate episode. Moreover, though, being around these variants reminds Loki how important it is for him to be better. All of that said, the best thing about Loki is just how well it lands the plane in the finale episode “For All Time. Always.” While there’s a lot to like about the episode, I can only summon two words: Jonathan Majors. Simply put, he captivates as “He Who Remains”—a subdued variant of the multiverse villain Kang the Conqueror—in a mere twenty or so minutes of screen time and his introduction excited me for the future of the MCU for the first time since Avengers: Endgame. If it isn’t clear by now, Loki remains my favorite Phase Four series. It’s a fun ride with a great mystery, some standout new characters, compelling arcs for our heroes, and ends with the superb introducing of the MCU’s next big bad with devastating consequences for the stability of the multiverse. Needless to say, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania can’t come soon enough. 😊 Black Widow (2021) Of all the announced Phase Four projects three years ago, Black Widow was both the least surprising and one of the most befuddling ones. Rumors of a solo movie starring Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff date back to 2014, but when it was finally confirmed to be coming out after the release of Avengers: Endgame I was skeptical immediately. Not necessarily of the movie’s potential to be an entertaining addition to the MCU, but rather its necessity and impact given the fact that Romanoff’s fate was cemented by her story in Endgame. Having seen the film three times now (once in theaters and twice at home on Disney+), my opinion of Black Widow remains largely the same. It undeniably has great qualities, most notably the performances of and chemistry between the actors. In a way, this both helps and harms Johansson’s swan song as Romanoff in a similar vein that T’Challa’s first solo outing felt underwhelming compared to the incredible supporting cast surrounding him in Black Panther. Still, like my rewatch of Black Panther made me appreciate Chadwick Boseman’s portrayal of T’Challa more, I was consistently impressed by Johansson’s nuanced take on Romanoff that, alongside her turn in Endgame, is easily the best she’s been in the entire franchise. However, I still enjoyed the film’s protagonist’s “family” in the movie more than the protagonist herself. Rachel Weisz does very well keeping the audience unsure of her allegiances during the second act’s climax, David Harbour has great chemistry with everyone as the washed-up Captain America rip-off, and Florence Pugh absolutely steals the show as the new “Black Widow” and Natasha’s sister figure Yelena Belova. More than Natasha’s storyline itself, rewatching the film made me more excited to see Yelena and the Red Guardian together again in the upcoming Thunderbolts movie than satisfied as Romanoff’s final outing in the MCU. When it comes to the villains, it was a mixed bag for me. While Ray Winstone maximized his relatively little screen time as the unforgivably malicious Russian general Dreykov, I found the screenplay’s use of Taskmaster (both in the action scenes and their characterization) leaving something to be desired. Which brings up a bigger problem (in my humble opinion) with Black Widow: it has too few good action scenes. The standouts are the reunion fight between Natasha and Yelena, but virtually the film’s other action sequences (from Taskmaster chasing the Widows through Budapest to the third-act set piece involving Natasha’s whole family) felt uninspired compared to many other MCU flicks. Ultimately, Black Widow is a decent but not great entry in Marvel’s superhero franchise that came several years too late to feel deservedly impactful. Despite missing the mark with closing out Johansson’s tenure as the character, however, its introduction of her quirky and deadly family members excites me in their future appearances more than invoking the necessary emotions of Natasha Romanoff’s final appearance in the MCU’s canonical storyline. What If…? (2021) As Marvel Studios’ first animated property, What If…? is…pretty good. Rather than summarize my thoughts on the show overall like the others thus far, I want to (briefly) dissect each episode on its own terms to paint a picture of just how diverse this series can be in terms of ground it can cover. The first episode, centered on Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) becoming a super soldier during World War II instead of Steve Rogers, is okay. While it’s a bit too familiar in terms of the plot structure (strongly resembling Captain America: The First Avenger), it serves as an entertaining introduction of the concept of What If…? to general audiences who are still wrapping their minds around the multiverse after Loki. Furthermore, as the pilot, it does a very good job showcasing how friendly the animation style is to heightened action sequences which serves the series overall pretty well. The second episode, centered on young T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) being kidnapped by Yondu (Michael Rooker) and the Ravagers instead of Peter Quill (voice in the show by Brian T. Delaney), is good. Rather than sticking to the formula of James Gunn’s first Guardians of the Galaxy film, the episode fully embraces the idea of who the Ravagers would be if T’Challa was their leader. While it still embraces the aesthetic and colorful cast of the cosmic side of the MCU, the episode’s story exemplifies the pure, good-hearted nature of T’Challa which speaks to how well the episode serves as a tribute to Chadwick Boseman as an actor (specifically his tenure in the MCU as Black Panther). Fortunately, this episode isn’t the last we see of this version of Star-Lord. The third episode, centered on a murder mystery involving the original six Avengers, is also good. Similar to the T’Challa Star-Lord story, watching Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Natasha Romanoff (voice in the show by Lake Bell) solve a “whodunit” and discover who is killing off the likes of Tony Stark, Thor, Hawkeye, and Hulk is a whole lot of fun. Furthermore, it completely diverts from the story structure of 2012’s The Avengers by celebrating many Phase One movies when visiting each of these heroes’ final moments. Despite Loki’s (Tom Hiddleston) invasion of Earth feeling a bit forced, it paid off very well in the episode’s final moments when he disguises himself as Fury to reveal the culprit: a repurposed, evil Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) whose tragic loss of his daughter Hope van Dyne turned him into a vengeful Ant-Man. A strong finish helps me remember this episode fondly. The fourth episode, centered on an alternate Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) trying to undo his origin by saving the life of his love Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams), is the first great episode of What If…? Unlike the previous episodes that either celebrate or slightly tweak the arcs of familiar characters, this episode takes Strange on an emotional, introspective journey that ultimately consumes him with dark magic and leads him to losing his mind in the vain attempt to undo the unchangeable past. Aesthetically, the episode embraced the strange visuals of Doctor Strange (albeit in animated form) to great effect. Furthermore, it uses its supporting characters (notably The Ancient One) very well. But what ultimately makes this a great episode (in my humble opinion) is how head writer A.C. Bradley and director Bryan Andrews fully commit to the incredibly cataclysmic ending with Strange Supreme destroying an entire universe through his hubris. Even on its own, this episode is worth watching for any MCU fan. The fifth episode, centered on a zombie apocalypse in the MCU, is another good one. Admittedly, not everyone loves zombie media…but I do. 😊 Thus, as a fan of the MCU and the zombie subgenre, I just had a lot of fun with this episode. Seeing so many of our favorite heroes—notably Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Peter Parker (voice in the show by Hudson Thames)—fight off zombie versions of Iron Man, Captain America, and Scarlet Witch makes for some of the better action in What If…? overall. In addition, the villain twist with Vision (while a bit rushed in both its execution and resolution) was an interesting enough idea for the third-act reveal. Even if you’re not into zombies but enjoy the MCU, this episode does enough with bringing the two together while also justifying the story’s continuation with Marvel Zombies coming in a couple of years. The sixth episode, centered on Killmonger becoming Tony Stark’s right-hand man in order to orchestrate his coup in Wakanda, is alright. While I was never a huge fan of Black Panther, Michael B. Jordan was unquestionably a standout character. Still, I thought the film could’ve done more with him and I think this episode of What If…? does that fairly well. Unfortunately, the concept of Killmonger befriending Tony Stark and commandeering his technology and resources to invade Wakanda does not (in my humble opinion) justify an entire episode of this series. The seventh episode, centered on an alternate version of Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who never grew up with Loki as a brother, is okay. Even more so than the Killmonger episode, this just felt like an animated version of Thor: Ragnarok set in Phase One of the “Infinity Saga.” As a result, it’s pretty funny throughout the runtime but lacks the well-done action of the Captain Carter story, the emotional weight of the T’Challa Star-Lord story, or the dramatic heft of the Strange Supreme episode. It’s also easily the silliest What If…? episode which helps it work more as a cartoon than if they tried to do this kind of story in live-action (like in Thor: Love and Thunder). That being said, it’s the only episode of this season of What If…? that can just be skipped over entirely because you don’t need to see it in order for the season finale to work. The penultimate episode, centered on Ultron (voice in the show by Ross Marquand) achieving perfection and conquering his universe with the Infinity Stones, is another great episode. For one thing, it shows off the kind of fantastic villain that Ultron could’ve been in live-action due to his black-and-white nature and unyielding ambition to “correct the course” of humanity by wiping out all of existence. But the episodes transcended expectations by finally making the Watcher (Jeffrey Wright) a sympathetic character in the series. Once Ultron learns of the multiverse’s existence, the Watcher has an outstanding fight sequence with Ultron to try and protect the multiverse…and fails. By doing so, this episode perfectly septs up the finale by making What If…? more than just an animated anthology show. The finale, centered on the Watcher assembling a team of multiversal heroes to defeat Ultron, is pretty good. What makes this a strong conclusion to What If…? for me is how well it pulls off the team dynamic of the “Guardians of the Multiverse” given the fact that each of them only had a single episode devoted to their respective storyline. Strange Supreme is the obvious standout due to his redemption arc as the team’s muscle, but I appreciate how Captain Carter easily takes up the mantle of leadership to make up for her relative lack of otherworldly powers. Furthermore, the finale utilizes each of the heroes’ powers very well (I LOVED Strange multiplying Thor’s hammer to trap Ultron in a ball of hammers!). While the logic surrounding how prescient the Watcher actually is (if he knew the outcome of the fight, then why was he so worried about Ultron discovering the multiverse in the first place?), I still thought it was a solid finale to the story. Overall, What If…? is a fun, easygoing MCU show that (mostly) embraces its concept of exploring the limitless alternate possibilities of its established canon. Despite lacking the stakes or ramifications of the live-action stuff like Loki, the show nonetheless set a pretty high bar for Marvel Studios’ animation department going forward and excited me for a second season with new heroes and fun cartoon stories. Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) When Destin Daniel Cretton was announced as the co-writer and director of a Marvel movie back in 2019, I was immediately excited. He is undeniably one of the better up-and-coming directors who has made great movies like Just Mercy and Short Term 12 (one of my favorite indie films of the past decade). Despite my lack of knowledge of the Shang-Chi character or my general aversion to martial-arts movies, I sat down in the theater last September very excited to see what Cretton’s take on an MCU origin story would be. Needless to say, I was not disappointed at all. 😊 Simply put, Cretton directed the hell out of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. As the first Marvel Studios movie with an Asian lead and predominantly Asian cast, the work of Cretton and his team seamlessly combined the fantastical action of Honk Kong cinema with Western storytelling sensibilities and big-budget Hollywood filmmaking. Maybe this is a pessimistic thing to say, but the fact that a mainstream superhero blockbuster with a non-English opening scene connected with general audiences on such a deep and meaningful level is such an accomplishment for both representation and good storytelling. Similar to Black Widow, the cast of Shang-Chi is simply phenomenal. While not always the most entertaining character, the eponymous protagonist is impeccably brought to the silver screen by Simu Liu as a generally enticing and reluctant hero whose efforts to escape his past only make it harder to do so. But, like movies such as Black Panther and Black Widow, much of the supporting cast tend to be more fun to watch. Notably, Tony Leung’s sympathetic but malevolent turn as Shang-Chi’s crime-lord and near-immortal father Wenwu goes down as one of the better villains of the MCU due to his grounded and relatable nature. Of course, Awkwafina shines is virtually every role that she’s in and that is absolutely the case here with her quirkily funny but endearing turn as Katy (on that note, I appreciate the lack of an overtly romantic angle on her and Shang-Chi’s friendship). And, to my surprise, Michelle Yeoh impressed me as the third-act familial mentor figure Ying Nan. However, unlike Black Widow, this movie has much more going for it than just the actors. Without a doubt, Shang-Chi has some of the best fight choreography in the entire MCU. Period. Clearly, Cretton and his team took lots of care to nail the staging and cinematography of the fights to serve as both loving homages to martial-arts movies while also being compelling action that is easy to follow while also kinetic in the best way possible. What’s almost as impressive, though, is how the special effects (almost) always meld seamlessly with the fights. This is thanks, in large part, to the cast (notably Simu Liu) committing wholeheartedly to the stunt work in order to sustain the audience’s suspension of disbelief that the characters are impressive fighters even without superpowers. At the heart of Shang-Chi is a grounded tragedy about a broken family struggling to pick up the pieces of their relationships that the past left fragmented. Unlike several MCU movies that try to be heartfelt (lookin’ at you, Love and Thunder! 😊), this one does a very good job of introducing virtually all brand-new characters and telling a compelling story about them with a solid enough structure and pace to feel satisfying by the end of its two-hour runtime. Which gets to my primary criticism of Shang-Chi: the third act. Admittedly, seeing Shang-Chi and his sister Xialing (Meng’er Zhang) flying a water dragon as it fights a giant flying demon monster is silly fun. But, I really wanted the climactic showdown of the movie to be more focused on dramatic and intense action between Shang-Chi and Wenwu rather than mercenaries and villagers fighting off CGI demons and over-the-top kaiju fights á la monster movies like Godzilla vs. Kong. Fortunately, the weaker third-act battle does not sour me on the movie overall. Shang-Chi was a very good origin story, and remains one of Phase Four’s better projects that excites me for seeing the character’s future in the MCU (and hopefully with the Avengers!). Eternals (2021) While I’m admittedly not the biggest fan of the directorial work of Oscar winner Chloé Zhao, I think her primary strength as a director is how she excels at telling intimate, character-focused stories. Whether it’s the neo-Western The Rider or the Best Picture-winning drama Nomadland, she is clearly comfortable when she films the travails and tribulations of individuals who struggle within their microcosmic existence. In that sense, I can understand why Kevin Feige thought that her cinematic sensibilities could translate to an ensemble epic about a group of heroes that live for centuries on Earth. Unfortunately, Zhao’s direction and writing on Eternals ends up feeling like a bunch of potential being sadly tossed down the drain. For starters, Eternals comes off as the “anti-Avengers” movie in terms of its approach to telling a team-based hero story. Whereas Joss Whedon’s first Avengers film became the gold standard for fleshing out the group dynamics of a bunch of hard-headed superheroes who must work together to save the world, Zhao’s take on the cosmic team led by Ajak (Salma Hayek) and sent to Earth by Arishem the Celestial (David Kaye) to fight the predatorial Deviants subverts everything we know about telling this kind of story effectively. Upon rewatch, I realized that Eternals was differentiating itself by centering its narrative on how the universe-altering catastrophe of the birth of a new Celestial (and, subsequently, Earth’s destruction) breaks up its eponymous superhero team. However, I just think this was done better in Captain America: Civil War both in terms of giving multiple lead characters meaningful arcs and motivations and investing the audience in the team itself. I think part of the reason why Eternals doesn’t work on that level is because the viewer is never given enough time with any of its ten lead characters to feel attached to their respective journeys from start to finish. Unlike Civil War, which had twelve films preceding it to build upon, Zhao tried to introduce ten new heroes in less than three hours and endear the audience to them. Yet, her directorial style ultimately worked against her (as did the screenplay) because she simply could not give equal time to these characters to make me equally interested in all of their distinct stories. As a result, many of the Eternals blend together for me to the point where virtually none of them felt that characters unique to themselves. For example, the extent to which one is invested in Makkari (Lauren Ridloff) depends upon how much you want to see her and Druig (Barry Keoghan) consummate their unspoken romantic feelings for each other. Which would be fine except for the fact that Makkari is not involved in the present-day story until ninety minutes in (and Druig not much sooner than that). The consequence? Makkari and Druig end up feeling pretty wasted. I could say the same for several of the characters: Phastos (Brian Tyree Henry) and his love for his human family, the intimate friendship between Gilgamesh (Don Lee) and Thena (Angelina Jolie), or Ajak’s motherly, protective instinct for many of the Eternals. When it comes down to it, the only one of the ten main characters that I actually enjoyed watching was Kingo (Kumail Nanjiani) because of how much fun banter we get between him and his valet Karun (Harish Patel). However, even his character arc felt soulless and anti-climactic when he refused to take a side in the battle over the “Emergence” and instead just bounced. Was it in character? Sure, but I feel like Zhao and her writers could have come up with a logical enough explanation for him showing up in the final fight while still being consistent with his character. But what about the heart of the film—the complex romance between Sersi (Gemma Chan) and Ikaris (Richard Madden). Not only do the actors lack chemistry when they’re supposed to express mutual yet unfulfillable love for each other, but the way that Ikaris just kills himself after Sersi kills the birthing Celestial (against Ikaris’s wishes) because he loves her too much to kill her felt incredibly rushed and out of nowhere. I feel like a character of his ilk fleeing Earth to go to Arishem and tattle-tale on the other Eternals would have been a more satisfying conclusion to his arc while remaining in line with his blind loyalty to the Celestials and his disdain for humanity. Overall, I felt the actors did too little with the material they were given to humanize these nonhuman characters (which perhaps says more about the inherently flawed concept of making your humanoid protagonists synthetic androids with no memories of their past lives). Furthermore, the general lack of much levity to help keep the audience engaged with its broad scope and epic scale prevents us from ever being able to fully relate with any of the main cast. On that point, what I’m about to say is by no means an original idea, but one worth repeating: Eternals should have been a Disney+ series. If Zhao was given the time and bandwidth to devote one episode to each of the ten heroes, I believe she could have more effectively fleshed out their dynamics with the other heroes, values, philosophies, and motivations all the while interweaving the present-day story involving the “Emergence” of a new Celestial much more organically and seamlessly. However, in its final form, Eternals ends up being one of my least-favorite films in the entire MCU to date. Despite having some redemptive value in its visuals and world building, it ultimately made me more excited to see Dane Whitman (Kit Harington) fighting supernatural creatures with Blade (Mahershala Ali) in the future than any of the surviving Eternals show up in a future MCU project. Hawkeye (2021) Given the higher-stakes nature of Phase Four’s other projects from last year (Loki, Shang-Chi and No Way Home primarily), what I most appreciate about Hawkeye is that it embraces its low stakes to deliver a fun ride of a series. Set during the week leading up to Christmas Day the year after Avengers: Endgame, the show’s focus on Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) trying to get home to his family for the holiday while settling the red in his ledger and doing what he does best was a very good direction to go. No offense to fans of Hawkeye, but I don’t think he’s a character that could (or should) be the focal point of a large-scale, universe-altering conflict like in Eternals. Which is fine, because the journey that Barton goes on is intimate and personal and that works very well in its own right. In contrast to Black Widow somewhat failing to give Natasha Romanoff a fitting send-off for her final major appearance in the MCU, Hawkeye acts quite well as an epilogue to Barton’s tragic descent into darkness due to “The Blip.” In addition to the plot centering on Barton trying to recover the Ronin suit to prevent his post-Infinity War identity from going public, he must also confront the sins of his past and the ramifications therein with regards to how they made an impact in New York City’s criminal underworld. On top of all that, however, Renner gets some shining emotional moments reminiscing about the time he met Natasha and talking to her plaque to show how much he still misses her and how little attention he’s paid to actually mourn her death. But the best part of Hawkeye, in my humble opinion, is Hailee Steinfeld. Full disclosure: I LOVE Steinfeld as an actor. Her performances in True Grit, The Edge of Seventeen, Bumblebee, and Dickinson are awesome and she does not disappoint as Barton’s protégé. Beyond just her archery skills and button-poking demeanor, Steinfeld brings a grounded and relatable vibe to Bishop by fleshing out her pure and noble motivations for wanting to be a hero like her role model. Simply put, these are heroes that aren’t cool because of their powers. Instead, they’re admirable because they choose to help others (often at the risk of their own lives) because they know that it’s the right thing to do. Undoubtedly, she (alongside Simu Liu’s Shang-Chi) is the new hero character that I’m excited to see in a team dynamic going forward (with or without Barton fighting by her side). When these two characters are onscreen together, Hawkeye is at its best. Despite some drawbacks with the supporting characters in the show, Renner and Steinfeld’s chemistry as war-weary Avenger/mentor and eager yet inexperienced hero hopeful makes for one of the best new duos of Phase Four. And this dynamic only improves once Yelena is thrown into the mix in the last two episodes. While she has a serviceably emotional moment with Barton in the finale that wraps up the tease for her story in the post-credits scene of Black Widow, her love-hate rapport with Bishop makes me hopeful that Kevin Feige and his team will concoct some other great match-ups for new MCU heroes in the future (or, at the very least, bring Yelena and Bishop together again 😊). Regarding the villains, it is once again a mixed bag more reminiscent of the flaws of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. A bright spot (which surprised me on a rewatch) was Maya Lopez/Echo (Alaqua Cox) whose tragic backstory condensed in a short opening to the third episode immediately makes her sympathetic. Beyond that, however, I appreciate the character’s complex motivations and ability to reconcile when she’s in the wrong to search for the truth behind who’s mostly to blame for the death of her father William Lopez (Zahn McClarnon). On the sillier side of things, we get the Tracksuit Mafia that makes for a serviceable group of goons for Barton and Bishop to fight (with the chase scene in episode three being the highlight). While not the most competent or intriguing villains, these street-level gangsters fit within the comedic vibes of the show while Cox’s performance gets me intrigued (but not particularly excited) in her spin-off series. While I wish I could say that Hawkeye avoids the lackluster finale problem like Loki does, I would be lying if I did. ☹ First and foremost, the three planes of action—Kate Bishop protecting her mother Eleanor (Vera Farmiga) from Wilson Fisk/Kingpin (Vincent D’Onofrio), Barton coming face-to-face with Yelena, and the LARPers fighting off the Tracksuits with the help of Eleanor’s boyfriend Jack Duquesne (Tony Dalton)—feel awkwardly paced and excessively slow. Furthermore, the red herring of Jack not actually being a bad guy always felt obvious to me compared to the way that Eleanor reacts to her daughter’s involvement with an Avenger. Speaking of which, I was somewhat underwhelmed by D’Onofrio’s return as Kingpin. Having seen all three seasons of Netflix’s Daredevil series, nothing in Hawkeye was going to top his performance in season three (that being said, I appreciated him being in the show and am excited for him and Daredevil to butt heads once more in the upcoming Daredevil: Born Again). At the end of the day, Hawkeye doesn’t feel like an ambitious comic book story with a broad scope and vast consequences. But it doesn’t need to be; it exemplifies the best of what a street-level MCU show can be. With good action, great humor, and fun performances, Hawkeye aims to entertain without forever changing the MCU and it nails that. Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) For my extensive thoughts on No Way Home and Tom Holland’s MCU journey so far, click here. Simply put, this movie should not have worked. Despite the positive results that Sony Pictures & Marvel Studios’ agreement to bring Spider-Man into the MCU have produced since 2016, the story of No Way Home was ultimately born in the aftermath of the two studios making up in the wake of a brief cease to negotiations in 2019. Specifically, it’s pretty clear to me that Sony executives (maybe even Amy Pascal) pressed Kevin Feige and Disney to pave the way for their “anti-hero” characters from their pathetic excuse for a cinematic universe to cross over into the MCU. On top of that, leaks years prior to the film being released that revealed the use of antagonists from past Spider-Man films forecasted the screenplay being bogged down with the “too many villains” problem. But, despite all of these potential problems, Spider-Man: No Way Home ended up being one of the best comic book movies ever made. So much contributed to this: the story, the cast, the action, the themes. All of these ingredients came together under the more-than-capable direction of Jon Watts to craft a fantastic hero’s journey that blends fun, laughs, action, and emotion effortlessly. Furthermore, he makes the best of the awkward studio partnership by turning the film (which, again, could’ve been an obviously cynical move to remind audiences of Sony’s past success with the character) into a “nerdgasmic” celebration of Spider-Man on the big screen. By including Andrew Garfield’s and Tobey Maguire’s versions of Peter Parker as supporting roles in the third act, Watts pulled off two impossible tasks. First and foremost, he made their presences more than just glorified cameos but actually meaningful characters that prop up Tom Holland’s Peter Parker by being the only two people in the multiverse who can truly relate to and empathize with his motivations, losses, strengths, and flaws. Beyond that, however, both Garfield’s and Maguire’s storylines from their respective movies are satisfyingly wrapped up because—like Holland’s Peter Parker—they want to right the wrongs of the world. Specifically, Holland gives them both the second chance to redeem themselves by saving their villains rather than just killing them. However, the film works more than anything else as an utterly breathtaking conclusion to Holland’s tenure as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Of course, this gets fully set in motion in the wake of the loss of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) whose embodiment of the film’s theme about power and responsibility propels our protagonist’s journey forward. Not only does he learn from his mistakes in the first act by saving all the villains of Spider-Man from other universe, but he realizes that there is only one decision he can make to truly redeem himself: the existence of Peter Parker must be erased from everybody’s memories, including his girlfriend MJ (Zendaya) and best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon). Simply put, this is one of the boldest and most heartbreaking finales to a hero’s journey in any superhero franchise (even the MCU) that I’ve ever seen. Despite the soaring, heroic music during the film’s final sequence of now-alone Peter Parker swinging in his new, handmade suit, there is an undeniably tragic subtext to the screenwriter’s decision to effectively erase Peter Parker from the MCU and leave Spider-Man completely isolated in a post-Avengers: Endgame world. For these reasons and more, Spider-Man: No Way Home is as close to a comic book movie masterpiece that we’re going to get in this decade. Honestly, I’ll be surprised if any MCU film (except for maybe the next two Avengers movies) will manage to match it let alone surpass it. What is your favorite and least favorite MCU project from 2021? Which project announced for Phase Five are you most excited for? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst With spooky season in full swing, the timing could not be better for me to look back at the unexpected birth of a horror franchise that has lived on for more than forty years in the hearts and minds of moviegoers. And that franchise is none other than the Halloween movies. Initiated by John Carpenter’s low-budget classic from 1978, viewers watched seven sequels and two remakes over the course of the next thirty-plus years that were met with varying degrees of negative reception.
And then, in 2018, under the direction of indie darling David Gordon Green and writer-producer Danny McBride, the series was softly rebooted with a direct sequel to Carpenter’s original film while ignoring everything else. Its box-office success birthed a new trilogy under Green’s direction that concludes with Halloween Ends hitting theaters (and Peacock) this weekend. Thus, I want to look back at this newly-created “quadrilogy” to solve, once and for all, if all the retconning and soft rebooting was worth it. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Halloween (1978) For a summary of the production and release of Halloween, click here. Full transparency: I’m not the biggest John Carpenter fan. While I appreciate the artistic achievement of his cult sci-fi horror flick The Thing and thought that his sci-fi romance movie Starman oddly charming, he’s by no means my favorite director from the “New Hollywood” generation. That being said, however, I uphold his 1978 film Halloween as not just one of the greatest “slashers” ever made but as a well-deserving horror classic that holds up to this day. For starters, Halloween remains a great example of low-budget filmmaking at its finest. As both co-writer and director, Carpenter’s approach to both the script and the shots exemplify how (unlike some other accomplished directors) he crafted a movie that played into its lack of money rather than allowing it to get the best of him. His direction of the cinematography, combined with the staging of the scenes, rely not on heavy-duty special effects but classic tension that can be a slow burn at time. Ultimately, however, such an approach worked to his advantage in terms of making Halloween a movie that transcends its time as opposed to feeling tied down by it. But, undoubtedly the greatest technical achievement of Halloween is its score. Also done by Carpenter, the signature theme (most strongly associated with Michael Myers in the film) goes down as one of the best musical stingers of cinematic history alongside the iconic themes from Jaws, Star Wars, Superman, and Indiana Jones made by the industry-defining work of John Williams. Similar to those signature genre themes, the ways in which Carpenter applies the music to certain scenes does a great job of enhancing the horror and ratcheting up the tension. Surprisingly, I’ve found that music in horror movies (in my humble opinion) often works against the director’s overall creative vision by either being too excessive to be special or too minimalistic to feel impactful. Fortunately, that is not the case with Carpenter’s score in Halloween. When it comes to the atmosphere of horror movies, I found on a rewatch that Halloween managed to form a very distinguished and recognizable eerie vibe from the get-go. Even after the noteworthy opening POV-shot scene of young Michael Myers (Will Sandin) murdering his older sister Judith (Sandy Johnson), seemingly without remorse, the film’s time jump with Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) and nurse (Nancy Stephens) embraces a midnight drive through a rainstorm to peak effect. But, more importantly, the small town of Haddonfield Illinois never feels like a place where an elusive killer like the adult Michael Myers (Nick Castle) is unbelievable. Quite the opposite, in fact; Carpenter’s portrayal of the town and its residents in the first and second acts adds to the horror that Michael’s victims experience on Halloween night because nobody wants to peak behind the curtains and become invested in other people’s lives and problems. Unfortunately for many of the characters, that level of small-town nosiness could have saved lives. But what about the characters? Are any of them memorable? Aside from the protagonist and antagonist, not really. But they don’t need to be because Halloween relies on the audience sympathizing with Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) while simultaneously longing for Michael Myers to kill more of her friends. Carpenter excels at striking this balancing act, allowing for Strode to cement her legacy as one of the original and most iconic “final girls” of the horror genre. Curtis’s portrayal of the plain, wholesome teenager is somehow relatable and pleasant in the first two-thirds of the flick before turning into raw, emotional fear during the climactic fight. In other words, I am certainly glad that Strode has remained a central character of the franchise (particularly David Gordon Green’s “H40” trilogy). But, I think that Halloween ultimately sits on the shoulders of Nick Castle’s embodiment of “The Shape.” He terrifyingly embodies the pseudo-faceless and speechless killer who represents the primal nature of death and human nature. In fact, I would argue that the film is even more enjoyable if viewed through his eyes. As the villainous protagonist, Michael Myers’s quest to relive the thrill of killing his sister fifteen years prior by dispensing Haddonfield of its several horny teenagers an experience that you are genuinely invested in. At the end of the day, Halloween may not be the best acted or producer horror movie compared to some of recent years. But if you watch it, you cannot deny its timeless appeal as a progenitor of the modern slasher flick that remains a brief piece of entertainment and an impressively crafted work of art nearly a half-century after it was released. Halloween (2018) Having never seen a single sequel to Carpenter’s original Halloween flick, I counted myself fortunate when the news of David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express, Stronger) making a direct sequel that would ignore all previous sequels came out. Simply put, I carried no baggage into the theater four years ago seeing 2018’s Halloween for the first time which (in my humble opinion) made the experience more enjoyable. But, the question now was: does Green’s first entry in his “H40” trilogy hold up now? At least for me, the answer is a resounding yes. Much to many peoples’ surprise, Green’s collaboration with Danny McBride crafting a retcon four decades after Carpenter’s film somehow pulls off an incredible feat of this kind of filmmaking. Not only does it respect the original work in the writing and direction, but it also modernizes the story of Michael Myers going on a killing spree by treating its main cast as (mostly) intelligent and resourceful in addition to fleshing out the specter that his murders in 1978 cast over Haddonfield ever since. Of course, no one was more traumatized by the events of the original Halloween movie than Laurie Strode herself. As the sole survivor of “The Shape” forty years prior, Strode’s descent into trauma-inspired paranoia is undoubtedly the heart of Green’s film. Unlike in the original, Jamie Lee Curtis is no longer a young, inexperienced actor here. Rather, she pitch-perfectly embodies the effects of PTSD have had on the character and the ramifications of that night. From her complicated relationships with her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) to her psychotic break around the Halloween season, Curtis expertly shows the audience how Strode has effectively avoided processing her trauma and moved on from it. Instead, she has become like a war veteran in her later years whose obsessive trap-building, security measures, and weapons training reflect her inability to move on. Sure, it helps her and her family in the third act but that’s beside the point. 😊 The other character from the original that gets much-deserved respect in 2018’s Halloween is Michael Myers himself (now primarily played by James Jude Courtney). Whereas in Carpenter’s film the iconic serial killer is largely relegated to the realm of reality (until the final scene, that is), here Green and McBride fully blur the lines of the true nature of “The Shape.” Throughout the film, characters like true crime podcasters Dana (Rhian Rees) and Aaron (Jefferson Hall) and Michael Myers’s new psychiatrist Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) examine if Myers is just an adaptive and remorseless murderer or if he truly does emit elements of the supernatural. In this movie, “The Shape” fully takes form as the stoic “boogeyman” which elevates it to a thoroughly enjoyable slasher flick that’s bloodier and more gruesome than its predecessor. And, if you ask me, it’s better off for it. That being said, 2018’s Halloween is by no means perfect. Certainly, it includes a few too many visual homages to Carpenter’s movie that almost—key word ALMOST—pushes the film into camp territory. However, the two incredible tribute shots (Laurie Strode standing outside Allyson’s classroom and Michael Myers looking over the balcony to find Laurie gone) more than make up for the several less-than-good callbacks. In terms of the movie’s structure, it is a little slow in the first act largely due to the fact that podcasters Dana and Aaron are simply not very interesting characters to follow. By about twenty minutes, I started asking myself: “How long do they survive?” Fortunately, my wish was answered within the first thirty or forty minutes when Michael Myers fled the bus crash and brutally murdered the podcasters in one fell swoop. This is the catalyst for an amazingly visceral and compelling second-act rampage involving Myers indiscriminately murdering on Halloween night back in Haddonfield. Using a great one-shot following Myers through the neighborhood, Green successfully ratchets up the tension before bringing the conflict to the personal level involving Allyson’s friend-zoned classmate Oscar (Drew Scheid) and Deputy Frank Hawkins (Will Patton) being victims of either Myers himself or the effect he has on people trying to decipher the substance behind his evil deeds. And, of course, it all culminates in an utter blast of a third-act showdown between Michael Myers and three generations of Strodes—all of whom get at least one moment to shine—in which “The Shape” is defeated with brains instead of brawn. Thanks to Laurie’s hidden trap, the movie ends in the visual feast of Laurie’s home burning to the ground with Myers trapped in it before Laurie, Karen, and Allyson flee into the night to mourn their losses of family and friends. In all honesty, there are few more perfect endings to a recent horror movie than 2018’s Halloween. While, in my humble opinion, Green’s first entry in his “H40” trilogy doesn’t quite emanate the vibe of a classic like Carpenter’s 1978 flick. However, it stands on its own as a more-than-entertaining sequel that could have—and, perhaps, should have—served as the end of a retconning duology for Laurie Strode’s story. With a solid murder rampage from Myers and a thoroughly satisfying climax wherein Laurie’s daughter and granddaughter helping her defeat Myers symbolizes the mending of their complicated relationships, I don’t think a better bookend to Halloween could have been than what this movie accomplished. But, the business of moviemaking is a thing and thus Universal Pictures could not help themselves by greenlighting two sequels after 2018’s Halloween grossed 255 million dollars (becoming the highest-grossing slasher movie of all time). So, what did Green and McBride come up with for Halloween Kills? Halloween Kills (2021) Man, did they fumble the ball with this movie. I don’t care what criticisms you may have for Carpenter’s original from 1978 or Green’s first film of the franchise from 2018. No matter the gripes one might hold against those movies, they simply don’t hold a candle to the near-abomination that is Halloween Kills. I want to be clear that the movie had potential to be a fun continuation of the story from 2018’s Halloween. While it had no chance of living up to the iconic status of the original, it could have stood on its own as a solid piece of entertaining “slasher” filmmaking. But it just isn’t. From the piss-poor screenplay to the uninteresting characters, Halloween Kills possesses little can be called good. But, let’s highlight some of those positives before diving into the horrid aspects of this movie. I mean…Carpenter’s music is still great. And…Michael’s kills are good, I guess. And…the flashback scenes are cool…That’s it. ☹ I think one of the biggest problems I have with Halloween Kills is how unnecessary it feels. Even before the trilogy comes to a close with Halloween Ends, I can find virtually no justification for this movie existing other than as a shameless cash-grab to give Green and his crew time to write and prepare to film the sequel. But, why is this movie bad? Let me explain why. 😊 First and foremost, Green and the writers decide to evolve the mythos of Michael Myers from the embodiment of death that the first two Halloween movies did in favor of some forced social commentary about the effects that social paranoia have in crises like these. While the intention is noble, I just think that they misunderstood the kind of movie they were making. To be clear, slasher movies can excel at providing sharp critique about humanity (David Robert Mitchell’s low-budget flick It Follows is a great example). But, more often than not, these movies should be nothing more than sleek entertainment. Yet Green’s indie sensibilities dragged Halloween Kills down when he tried to make it more than that and fell so incredibly short in the process. Beyond the story itself, there is such a drastic and off-putting tonal shift from 2018’s Halloween to this movie. Whereas the former relied more on witty bits of sharp humor designed to break tension in the lead up to savage kills, the latter gives us lazy, over-the-top performances from several principal cast members that are unceremoniously murdered with an excessive amount of blood and guts that feels cheap and uninspired by comparison. In other words, I feel like Halloween Kills is not happening in the same world as the two movies that preceded it. Instead, it creates its own distinctive tone and vibe for the worse. However, perhaps the most damning creative choice was for Halloween Kills to shift the story’s focus away from Laurie Strode and her family in favor of bringing back several survivors of Michael Myers’s murder spree in 1978: namely, Tommy Doyle (Anthony Michael Hall) and Lindsey Wallace (Kyle Richards) whom Laurie babysat that night, Dr. Loomis’s nurse assistant Marion Chambers (Nancy Stephens), and Tommy’s childhood bully Lonnie Elam (Robert Longstreet). Simply put, none of these characters are as compelling survivors nor are these actors as talented as Jamie Lee Curtis (or even Andi Matichak or Will Patton). As a result, the whole plot revolving around the townsfolk gathering into a mob to hunt down Michael Myers ends up feeling vacuous when it should have been engrossing. All of these problems, however, can be tied back to the creative decision by Green and the writers to have Halloween Kills pick up right where its predecessor left off. If some time passed, we could have explored the generational trauma passed down to Laurie’s daughter and granddaughter as a result of them surviving Myers’s rampage while also grieving the death of their husband and father, respectively, Ray (Toby Huss). Instead, we get one brief scene of Karen and Allyson holding together and acknowledging his death before chaos falls upon the hospital where Laurie is laid up. This did not help the fact that I was not at all invested in any of the other characters’ journeys, and with Laurie wounded and in a hospital bed, the lack of focus on Allyson or Karen in favor of Tommy Doyle taking center stage just makes the movie a less-than-adequate, pointless “slasher” sequel. While I can dream that the final film of the “H40” trilogy will retroactively make Halloween Kills a better movie, I’m by no means getting my hopes high. Ultimately, I just want Halloween Ends to be good. Halloween Ends (2022) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Halloween Ends.” You have been warned.] Is this the worst movie ever made? It’d be dishonest of me to say so… However, I think that Halloween Ends is quite possibly the worst way to conclude both this trilogy of films as well as the story of Laurie Strode and Michael Myers that John Carpenter began in 1978. And while I could nit-pick individual scenes for the weird writing, clunk dialogue, and laborious pace, I want to approach my critique of the movie in a different way. First, to highlight the primary reason why (in my humble opinion) Halloween Ends simply doesn’t work: the introduction of the Corey Cunningham character. Now, to be clear, I have no qualms whatsoever with Rohan Campbell (the actor that played Corey Cunningham). In fact, I think he did the best he could with the material he was given by evoking an ounce of sympathy out of me in the first act before turning full-on serial killer and committing some of the most gruesome kills of any of these Halloween flicks. But, I just cannot get behind the creative decision of David Gordon Green and his writers to introduce a brand-new protagonist in the third and final movie of their trilogy that they expect us to care about just as much (if not more so) than Laurie Strode or her granddaughter. Overall, the first eighty-ish minutes of Halloween Ends feels like a giant middle finger from Green to fans of both the original Halloween movie and his own 2018 sequel by doubling down on spending so little time on both Laurie and Michael Myers. Instead, the movie’s entire first act and much of its second act tries (and fails) to be a character study of Corey Cunningham who embodies the “infection” that Michael Myers has left with Haddonfield itself. With echoes of Pennywise the Clown’s malevolent influence on Derry from Stephen King’s “It” (albeit far less interesting or impactful), Halloween Ends turns Michael Myers into a virus more so than an unstoppable murderer in order to make the point that the true evil lies with the people of Haddonfield and the town itself. Could this have worked in an indie, no-name horror movie like It Comes at Night? Sure, but this is the finale to a trilogy four years in the making and, more importantly, a conclusion to a story that began nearly fifty years ago! Because of that undeniable fact that Green inexplicably forgot about while making this movie, Halloween Ends comes off mostly as a wasted opportunity to conclude Laurie Strode and Michael Myers’s story in satisfying fashion. Thus, after finishing this movie, I asked myself: how could it be done better? And as I sat on the toilet pondering it, I decided to write a treatment that kept the first twenty or so minutes of Green’s version of Halloween Ends intact but diverged it from there into a story that I think would be both more coherent and more entertaining than what we were actually given. So, if you will indulge me, I’d like to share my take on the finale to this forty-four-year journey that Laurie and Michael have been on. Without further ado…here it goes! 😊 Okay, so after Corey Cunningham wakes up from being pushed over the side of the highway and enters the sewers he is killed in spectacular fashion by an in-hiding Michael Myers (the first diversion from Green and company’s screenplay). The next morning, Laurie and Allyson learn of Corey’s death on the news; despite Allyson trying to grieve, Laurie snaps back into paranoia mode as she’s convinced that Michael is back and is going to track them both down. Despite Allyson’s protests, Laurie forces her to flee Haddonfield together. Thus, the second act is essentially an “anti-buddy” road trip/on-the-run movie that explores Allyson’s trauma and culminates in an emotional argument between her and Laurie wherein she blames her grandmother for all of the horrible things that have happened to her since the 2018 movie (specifically, the fact that her obsession to face off against Michael Myers indirectly caused the deaths of her friends and parents). In the aftermath of the fight, Allyson leaves Laurie alone not long before Michael Myers finds and attacks her to conclude the second act. Their first fight is gruesome, but Laurie narrowly escapes Michael and decides to return to Haddonfield because she’s now convinced that the only way to end this all is to go back where her journey with Michael began: the childhood home of Tommy Doyle where Michael nearly killed her over forty years prior. Upon arriving there (the house is abandoned or vacant), Laurie sets up several traps for Michael as she mentally prepares herself for battle (a callback to the militaristic, PTSD-stricken version of the character from Green’s 2018 movie). Then, we get a “calm before the storm” scene where Laurie calls Allyson but it goes to voicemail in which she apologizes to Allyson for her trauma being passed down to both herself and her mother Karen while also asking that, if she hears this, to contact Deputy Frank Hawkins so he can bring the police to the house and find hers and Michael’s bodies (implying that she doesn’t plan to survive this final encounter). Once Michael finally shows up, him and Laurie Strode have an epic showdown throughout the Doyle house (including some visual callbacks to the 1978 film). She is nearly killed more than once, but Laurie manages to finally pin Michael down (much like she actually does in Halloween Ends) and prepares to finally end it all by killing him. However, Michael briefly breaks free and nearly chokes Laurie to death (like in the actual movie) before Allyson arrives, debilitates him, and she and Laurie kill Michael Myers together (like in the actual movie). With the battle over, Allyson helps Laurie bring Michael’s body outside to show to Frank and the Haddonfield cops (who came thanks to Allyson’s warning). Finally, the film ends with a flash-forward one year into the future showing that Allyson has moved away from Haddonfield to start a new life. However, she still keeps in touch with Laurie who has finished her memoir (like in the actual movie) and is finally at peace (á la the epilogue of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2). I’m no screenwriter, but I came up with what essentially amounts to two acts of a Halloween movie in the span of ten minutes while using the bathroom. If I could do that, certainly multiple paid writers could have concocted a better conclusion to this four-film story than what they actually put out. Again, my pitch isn’t the most original storyline but I’m wholly convinced it would have been a more faithful and entertaining way to end this series without a doubt. Simply put, Halloween Ends is a pathetic excuse for both a sequel and the conclusion to the “H40” trilogy. At the end of the day, how will I remember these four Halloween movies? All differently, of course. Carpenter’s original Halloween from 1978 remains a classic horror movie that defined the “slasher” flick for years to come, while Green’s direct sequel from 2018 earns its reputation as an overall fulfilling continuation of Laurie Strode and Michael Myers’s story that balances the inherent silliness of the slasher subgenre with some genuine thrills and great character moments for both Laurie and Michael. And the two sequels to the 2018 film are bad. Honestly, just watch Carpenter’s film and Green’s first film and ignore that the other two even exist. Trust me; you’ll get much more out of this franchise by doing so. With all that said, here is my official ranking of these four Halloween films:
What is your favorite Halloween film? Are you excited or nervous about David Gordon Green bringing his filmmaking style to The Exorcist franchise next year? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Movie franchises can vary so much in quality. From the consistently good (if not great or fantastic) movies of Marvel Studios’ cinematic universe to the more mixed nature of the Star Wars saga, fans of a particular film series can expect some level of quality which defines that franchise. And there is perhaps no other mainstream series plagued with a lackluster vibe than the Jurassic Park series.
With the exception of 2015’s Jurassic World, none of the sequels to Steven’s Spielberg’s original 1993 sci-fi classic Jurassic Park have received any kind of love from critics or audiences. So, what better franchise to pick apart than one that is generally accepted to be bad despite one notable exception? This blog will be split into two parts, with this first half dedicated to the original trilogy of Jurassic Park films. Then, in the lead-up to the release of Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World: Dominion, I’ll examine the “soft reboot” Jurassic World series on its own terms before ranking all six movies in this franchise against one another. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Jurassic Park (1993) For a summary of the production and release of Jurassic Park, click here. There are movies that stand the test of time by having cross-generational appeal spanning decades (lookin’ at you, Star Wars! 😊). And then there are movies that you apparently had to be there and experience at the time to fully appreciate why it is upheld as a masterpiece. And, in my humble opinion, the original Jurassic Park certainly falls into the latter category. To be clear, I do think that Jurassic Park is a good film. If, for nothing else, because of Spielberg and his team’s devotion to making groundbreaking special effects that managed to integrate 1990s computer-generated imagery with practical puppetry and animatronics to convince the moviegoing audience of the time that dinosaurs could work in live-action cinema. This achievement alone helps the movie deserve its status as a modern classic. That being said, I do think that the movie’s significant flaws in terms of characters and storytelling are too often overlooked despite how much they detract from the viewing experience. So, let’s pick apart what makes the first Jurassic Park movie good while also acknowledging the things that hold it back from being a true masterpiece of modern cinema. First and foremost, enough praise cannot be showered on Spielberg’s uncanny (and, in many ways, unmatched) ability to bring fantastical, supernatural, or extinct creatures to life on the big screen. Of course, this lineage can be traced all the way back to some of Spielberg’s early creature features like Jaws and E.T. the Extra Terrestrial. And he only improves his talents here both in terms of scale and sheer suspension of disbelief. While, of course, the peak of this CGI-practical combo is the introduction of the Tyrannosaurus rex stampeding out of its cage around the film’s midway point, I think that not enough good things can be said about the life-size Triceratops and the small yet nimble and menacing Dilophosaurus. In other words, I can see why kids in the theater fell in love with dinosaurs watching this movie. The other technical aspect of Jurassic Park that rightfully gives the film its iconic status is John Williams’s genre-defining score. Particularly, the theme that is played as the characters first arrive on Isla Nublar via helicopter which remains one of the defining pieces of music from Williams’s extensive, Oscar-winning career as a film composer. Simply put, ask any moviegoer to hum one of Williams’s themes and this one would almost certainly be in the top-three choices alongside something from the original Star Wars or Indiana Jones trilogies (despite him having so many other iconic themes from films like Jaws, Superman, and the Harry Potter series). Before I get to what I find less-than-excellent about Jurassic Park, I can only be fair and therefore will identify aspects of the storytelling and characters that I do think work here. For one thing, the movie manages to balance rather different tones between its first and second halves. Whereas its first hour is a (mostly) lighthearted, whimsical adventure introducing the concept of cloning to bring dinosaurs back from extinction, the second hour transitions pretty drastically to a horror-tinged survival flick where our main characters spend most of the time running from those very same dinosaurs. This successful balance is largely due to the screenplay’s effective foreshadowing of darker things to come later on in the story. In terms of the characters, Jeff Goldblum’s turn as the quick-witted and sarcastic “chaostician” (is that a real thing?!?) Dr. Ian Malcolm holds up as the most enjoyable person to watch from one scene to the next. Despite him being underutilized in the third act due to an injury, Malcolm never lets his presence in any scene be forgotten by the audience thanks to his solid jabs and one-liners. But when it comes to raw dramatic acting talents, Richard Attenborough is undeniably the best performance at work here. Not only does he work as the charismatic but doddering elderly billionaire Dr. John Hammond, but the moments of seeing more of the self-serious darkness behind the curtain make for some great hints of a deeper character on display. Furthermore, his arc as a misguided man who must confront the error of his ways due to the chaos and death that his creations cause helps the film’s deeper themes actually resonate by the time the credits roll. Unfortunately, it is here that the positive aspects of Jurassic Park come to an end for me. So, what holds it back from being (in my humble opinion) an absolute triumph of moviemaking? The pacing, for one. While I do appreciate the balanced tone from the first half to the second, the drawback of this comes with how poorly paced the film is from start to finish. Despite the more adventurous spirit of that first hour, the opening act of Jurassic Park kind of drags until the characters arrive at the park itself. But even once there, Crichton’s screenwriting (despite having written the original novel upon which the movie is based) struggles to compress the extensive genetic science needed to explain how dinosaurs could be cloned and brought back to life. Instead of the many pages of Hammond’s team of scientists delving into just that, the movie shows a childish animation of an anthropomorphic DNA strand and some brief retorts from Dr. Henry Wu (B.D. Wong) to keep the audience from asking any complex questions about how anything that we’re about to see is believable (let alone possible). Aside from the story’s structure, what is easily the weakest element of this movie is the characterization and acting. Despite being a somewhat more enjoyable leading man in the second sequel, I have never really enjoyed Sam Neill’s performance as Dr. Alan Grant here. Not only because his whole subplot about embracing future fatherhood comes off as needless and saccharine, but he also lacks much chemistry with girlfriend and paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Furthermore, both Grant and Sattler’s apparent unwillingness to question anything that Hammond is doing on Isla Nublar until Malcolm repeatedly interrogates the old man comes off as lazy writing of two characters that could have potentially been competent scientists. Instead, they just feel bland in comparison to Goldblum’s or Attenborough’s characters. However, at least Neill and Dern are good actors. Hammond’s grandkids, on the other hand, are (for the most part) completely obnoxious. Ariana Richards’s take on Lexi serves as a fine example of the stereotypical “bad child actor” in films with otherwise solid casts. When it comes to Joseph Mazzello as Tim, he has some good one liners and funny reactions but otherwise just feels like a pointless reason for Grant’s subplot (along with Lexi). If you want to Mazzello acting well, watch the HBO miniseries The Pacific where he plays Sgt. Eugene Sledge. So worth your time. And even the thing that is universally applauded about Jurassic Park—the visual and special effects—are by no means perfect. While some of the dinosaurs hold up superbly well, some of them are downright laughable. From the lackluster green-screen introduction of the herd of Brachiosaurs to the foam toy-looking legs of the Velociraptors in the kitchen scene, the movie’s special effects are certainly not unblemished when examined through modern eyes. I could go on about Jurassic Park, but I’ll leave it at this. If you want a digestible, two-hour movie about dinosaurs, feel free to check it out. But if you want an excellent story about the morality of science and man’s universal struggle against nature and our own place in the food chain, read Crichton’s original novel. And you can also just skip the first two sequels. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) I have little nice to say about The Lost World. So, let’s get what good things that the movie does offer out of the way before tearing it to shreds. 😊 For starters, the special-effects team did not hold back despite the scenes that their creations were in are far less exhilarating than anything from the first film. Particularly, the two T-rex parents attacking the crew’s mobile home on Isla Sorna shows just how good life-size puppeteering (when integrated with CGI) can look. But easily the best dinosaur scene in the movie is the incredibly thrilling introduction of the Velociraptors that scurry through the tall grass to ambush Ajay (Harvey Jason) and the other surviving mercenaries from InGen. Simply put, it remains one of the best scenes of dinosaur killing in the entire franchise (too bad it’s surrounded by two hours of bad filmmaking). My only other real positive is the one character who not only has an arc but a satisfying one: Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite), the big-game hunter hired by InGen to capture dinosaurs on Isla Sorna. While most of the other characters are surprisingly stupid given their scientific backgrounds, Roland’s familiarity with the behavior of predators in the wild makes him a fitting person to anticipate the dinosaurs’ actions. Furthermore, he seems to not hold much of a grudge against Ian Malcolm and his crew after Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) sabotaged their dinosaur cages and let them all free. Instead, he helps save them from the T-rex parents, works with them to get off the island, and once InGen comes to save them he informs his boss/Hammond’s nephew, Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), that he has no interest in continuing to work for him. It would be easy to miss or ignore Roland’s surprisingly well-written role in the story of The Lost World. So, I thought I’d shout it out because it’s one of the only competent aspects of this film. Basically, everything else about this movie is so bad. First off, David Koepp (who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Jurassic Park) seems to have spent a matter of minutes thinking up a justification to convince Ian Malcolm to go to another dinosaur-infested island. Keep in mind that, of the first film’s cast, Malcolm was the MOST skeptical of the safety and security of Isla Nublar. So, how is he cajoled into willingly risking his life knowing about the dinosaurs? Well, Hammond’s company is being taken from him by Ludlow and so Hammond has sent Malcolm’s annoying girlfriend and paleontologist Dr. Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) to the island to document the creatures in an effort to convince the general public that the best way to handle dinosaurs on Isla Sorna is by leaving them alone. … WHAT?!? According to the first film, Hammond really dislikes Malcolm even before everything on Isla Nublar goes to shit. So, why is he the person that he reaches out to help him with creating a dinosaur nature preserve on this other InGen-owned island? Certainly, Dr. Grant or Dr. Sattler would have at least been more amenable to such a proposition (I guess the studio couldn’t get them back for this sequel?). Furthermore, whatever illness Hammond is suffering at this point in his life has clearly turned his brain to mush for thinking that Malcolm would have any desire to do his bidding. This is beyond hubris or overconfidence, but sheer clinical insanity on his part. Yet, the real reason Malcolm ends up risking everything to go to Isla Sorna is to find Harding and take her off the island. Granted, any decent human being who hadn’t experienced the utter shitshow that was Isla Nublar would probably do the same. But, Malcolm nearly died thanks to Hammond’s experiments (not to mention seeing several others get killed). Thus, if he was anything close to sane I imagine the Malcolm that we knew from Jurassic Park would say: “Well, she was great and all but she’s pretty much dead already. So, let’s not go to that island and avoid ever encountering dinosaurs again.” Of course, if he did not there would be no movie (much to the studio’s disappointment). Fortunately, Malcolm doesn’t go alone. Not only is he accompanied by wildlife photographer Nick and engineer Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff), but his teenage daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester) sneaks aboard so that Malcolm is now responsible for her, too. All of this culminates in the entire second act on Isla Sorna being a plot driven by moronic and insane decisions that either get themselves or each other killed. Probably the most blatant example of this is Nick rescuing a baby T-rex and taking it back to their camp to fix its wounded leg. This is beyond ridiculous. If anyone with half a brain saw an injured infant predator in the wild, they would walk away? Why, you ask? Well, what if the baby’s mother or father show up thinking that you’re the one that hurt it and thus are a threat? You would think that a paleontologist would know better and force the wildlife photographer to immediately take the baby T-rex back where he found it. But, if it isn’t clear by now, the characters in The Lost World do not make sane, rational decisions despite their backstories dictating otherwise. So, the second act is a rash of stupid choices leading to a bunch of deaths. What about the third act? Does it bring it home in such a way that makes up for the rest of the film? Far from it: somehow, the movie gets worse!! This is because the last twenty minutes or so cut to San Diego where Ludlow’s crew have brought the baby T-rex and its father to the mainland for their California dinosaur theme park. There is no explanation for how this happened, but somehow all of the human crew on the ship carrying these creatures are killed. Once the boat crashes, the T-rex escapes and stampedes through the city killing several people (and one innocent dog) in the process. How is all of this chaos resolved? Well, Harding (remind you, a paleontologist) uses a tranquilizer gun to sharpshoot from a distance and knock the adult T-rex unconscious…I mean, did anybody read this script and suggest a second or third draft?!? Whatever. The Lost World is a pathetic excuse for a sequel to a movie that many consider a classic. Furthermore, it’s a poor example of Spielberg’s talents as a director on display compared to even his middle-of-the-road movies. Don’t watch it; it’s certainly not worth your time. And you’d think the poor reception to The Lost World would tell the studio that there’s no reason to make another film. But they did, so now let’s talk about Jurassic Park III! ☹ Jurassic Park III (2001) After the absolute dumpster fire that is The Lost World, can it really get worse? In my humble opinion, the second sequel to the original Jurassic Park is actually more watchable and entertaining than its predecessor. That being said, it’s by no means a perfect movie. So, let’s take a look at what makes it enjoyable but what, in my humble opinion, also keeps it from achieving any level of quality seen in the first film of this trilogy. Compared to The Lost World, this movie has a much more streamlined screenplay and storyline. In terms of coming up with an excuse to make another movie in an effort to make some money, having some returning characters from the first movie get wrangled into a desperate rescue mission on Isla Sorna is at least serviceable. I think this works better than Malcolm’s story in the prior film because there are essentially two parts to Jurassic Park’s core identity: the adventurous nature of running from dinosaurs, and the thematic exploration of the consequences of corporate greed and hubris. When The Lost World screws up the latter so much, this movie realized that it could do a little better by focusing almost exclusively on the former. And, in that sense, Jurassic Park III works as a forgettable adventure flick. When it comes to our characters, they are generally more likeable and sympathetic than any of the morons from The Lost World. On the one hand, the return of Dr. Alan Grant and the reason why he ends up going to Isla Sorna does not do nearly as much character assassination as was done to Ian Malcolm before [side note: people tend to exaggerate Grant and the “talking Velociraptor,” but despite its inherent silliness as a visual it not only conforms to the logic of storytelling but is also relevant to Grant’s fascination with these specific dinosaurs conflicting with the trauma that he experienced on Isla Nublar in the first film]. Furthermore, the people who trick Grant into flying to the dinosaur-inhabited island in the first place—middle-class parents and divorcees Paul (William H. Macy) and Amanda (Téa Leoni) Kirby—have more believable motives than Dr. Sarah Harding who presumably knew about the horrors of what happened on Isla Nublar (having heard it from Malcolm) and went to Isla Sorna anyway. These are simple changes to the characterization, but they make enough of a difference so as to improve the film’s overall quality compared to what came before it. Related to this, I found this movie’s inclusion of a child character to be much less annoying than either of the previous films. Whereas Tim and Lex from Jurassic Park are mostly frustrating for having somehow survived and Kelly from The Lost World just felt shoehorned into the plot, Eric Kirby (Trevor Morgan) is at least a competent survivor whose circumstances for being on the island were largely out of his control. Aside from just the screenplay, though, just the decision to keep the movie’s runtime short (barely over 90 minutes) helps the entertainment factor here so much when compared to the two-hour-plus runtime of The Lost World. And, unsurprisingly, the film’s special effects bringing the dinosaurs to life are (mostly) on point. The Pteranodon attack is probably the standout scene for most viewers, although I appreciate how much the pack-hunting instincts and intelligence of the Velociraptors is showcased here. Not only does it feed into Grant’s continued fascination with these particular dinosaurs, but seeing them communicate with each other in an effort to hunt down the humans trespassing on their home makes them more menacing than virtually any other dinosaur in the franchise. In all fairness, however, Jurassic Park III is certainly not a perfect movie. As it’s a part of this particular film series, it simply cannot avoid some of the pitfalls and trappings of the fictional world in which it exists. Unfortunately, the problems on display are evident from the get-go with the story’s pacing and structure. First off, why would Amanda allow her son to go parasailing with her boyfriend Ben (Mark Harelik) around a well-documented nature preserve inhabited by man-eating dinosaurs? Maybe I missed something on this most recent viewing, but there was never really an explanation from Amanda or Eric as to why this happened. Thus, the catalyst for the entire plot of this movie feels just as idiotic as the inciting events from The Lost World. Speaking of Amanda, I found Téa Leoni’s performance in this movie laughably awful (particularly the excessive screaming upon discovering Ben’s corpse hanging from a tree). Apparently, she was not nominated for a Razzie Award that year but she certainly should have been. Especially when in scenes with Macy and Neill who are pretty good actors, Leoni just makes a fool of herself by bringing nothing even close to nuance or complexity to this grieving mother whose greatest fear is to find her son’s body because of her own incompetence as a parent. When it comes to the dinosaurs at the forefront of Jurassic Park III, the undeniable weakest link is the Spinosaurus. Not only does the CGI used to bring this new big bad to life not hold up (mind you, seven years after the original Jurassic Park came out), but its opening fight with the T-rex and final scene in the lake are just lame in light of some of the other dinosaur-on-dinosaur action that we’ve gotten in this franchise before. Maybe there is a dinosaur out there that could take the place of the T-rex as the primary antagonist, but the Spinosaurus doesn’t fit the bill. And, of course, I can’t point out the flaws of this movie without addressing the astonishingly rushed and abrupt conclusion. Whereas I found Dr. Grant’s inclusion in this story as a decent opportunity for him to be a leading man in this franchise again, Laura Dern’s cameo appearance as Dr. Ellie Sattler feels so obviously shoehorned in just as a mechanism by which to save Grant and the others after their plane crashes on Isla Sorna. Despite the fact that multiple characters let us know that the U.S. or Costa Rican government will absolutely offer no aid to them, somehow Dr. Sattler has enough credibility with the U.S. Armed Forces that she is able to convince a sizeable detachment of the Navy and Marines to travel to Isla Sorna only because she hears Grant say the word “river” over the phone. How the hell does she piece together that he’s on Isla Sorna, but also the specific part of this island where this river he’s at is? All of this is to say that Jurassic Park III is not good. But it’s short, mindless entertainment that feels like a solid entry in the franchise when put up against The Lost World. Of course, neither of them holds a candle to the original Jurassic Park movie despite my issues with that film. At the end of the day, how will I remember the original Jurassic Park trilogy? Honestly, I won’t. Despite the first movie being pretty good, the two sequels are largely forgettable (albeit for different reasons) and provide no good reason to justify any more films in the series being made. Alas, there is a whole other trilogy to discuss which will be the subject of the second half of this blog. For now, though, we leave these three movies where they lie as nothing close to resembling a cohesive, three-part story but rather an example of “lighting in a bottle” with diminishing returns. Which of the Jurassic Park sequels is worse? Is Spielberg’s original movie from 1993 indeed a masterpiece or perhaps a bit overrated? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Manuel Schäfer from Pixabay In recent history, kids growing up have had different movie franchises serve as tentpoles for their coming of age. My dad’s generation, for example, saw the original Star Wars trilogy in theaters. Younger generations these days have watched the plethora of superhero flicks (notably the Marvel Cinematic Universe) from childhood to adolescence and young adulthood. But it’s rare that a select generational subset can point to a movie franchise that grew up with them.
For people around my age, that franchise is none other than the Harry Potter series. While I don’t consider myself a rabid fan like so many out there, I remember reading J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books pretty quickly from one to the next. Furthermore, I have distinct memories of seeing several of the Harry Potter movies in theaters with friends and family. And I was thoroughly overjoyed visiting the Wizarding World theme part at Universal Studios while on a high school band trip. It's been more than a decade since the epic story of Harry Potter’s hero’s journey and Voldemort’s rise to power concluded, yet the series continues to have an impact on popular culture. Whether it’s the highly-popular “Cursed Child” stage play or the financially successful Fantastic Beasts series of films continuing with a third entry in a couple of weeks (with two more supposedly on the way ☹), I don’t think peoples’ love for Harry Potter has completely waned. And perhaps it never will. What better time to rewatch and look back at the fourth-highest-grossing film series of all time? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) For a summary of the production and release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, click here. Whenever I decide to go through the entire Harry Potter series again, I am perhaps most excited to see the first film more than any of the sequels. While there may be several reasons for this, I think the primary explanation for it is because Sorcerer’s Stone (faults and all) remains one of the best beginnings to any cinematic saga. Despite being over twenty years since its debut in 2001, it generally holds up due to its incredible strengths outweighing its notable weaknesses. What I think is the main factor in Sorcerer’s Stone retaining a timeless quality over these past couple of decades is how gracefully it introduces the audience to a fantastical world of magic through the youthful and endearing eyes of its eponymous protagonist Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). By making Harry’s foundations in life up to age eleven rooted in the “muggle” world, Rowling and Chris Columbus (Adventures in Babysitting, Home Alone)—the filmmaker that brought the first two entries in the series to the big screen—seamlessly and effortlessly make him an incredibly empathetic character. And then you throw in his tragic orphan backstory and cruel, abusive treatment at the hands of his obese uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), sharp-tongued aunt Petunia (Fiona Shaw), and spoiled brat cousin Dudley (Harry Melling). Put together, this introduction to Harry makes for such a skilled and sensitive onset for bringing the audience out of our reality and into the world of Hogwarts and the magical society surrounding it. But following Harry alone would only make Sorcerer’s Stone a good movie. No coming-of-age story can ascend to greatness without having key supporting contemporaries to bounce off the main character. In this respect, Columbus and the team behind the movie gave us one of the most memorable trios in modern cinematic history with Harry and his two best friends: the fiercely loyal but cocky redhead Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint), and the intelligent, charming young woman Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). These three characters’ distinct personalities, strengths, flaws, and worldviews balance each other out to the point that their relative lack of acting experience highly evident in this first film is made largely moot thanks to the chemistry amongst them. If it was only the child actors, however, Sorcerer’s Stone probably would not be as good as it is. Thus, several of the accomplished adult actors superbly elevate Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the other kids’ performances whenever sharing the screen with them. On this rewatch, I particularly enjoyed the moments with professors Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) and Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) accosting and mentoring our three heroes. But I always appreciate and admire Robbie Coltrane as Hogwarts’ gentle, half-giant gamekeeper being Harry’s bridge into the world of magic (especially poignant considering he’s the one who safely brought Harry from Godric’s Hallow to Little Whinging on the night of his parents’ deaths). And, of course, Alan Rickman shines throughout the series as the mysterious and morally ambiguous potions instructor Severus Snape. In addition to the people in front of the camera, Columbus and the creative team behind the camera obviously left everything on the table when it comes to building out the wizarding world. From the costumes, sets and props to weaving in so much world building (like Quidditch and the Stone itself) into the narrative without overwhelming the audience, Sorcerer’s Stone does a pretty solid job of working both as a movie in its own right as well as the inception of a multi-movie franchise. Do certain story moments feel weighed down too much by exposition? Definitely. Is the villain reveal involving Professor Quirrell (Ian Hart) pale in comparison to most of the sequels? For sure. All that being said, Sorcerer’s Stone never disappoints in making me fall in love with the world of Harry Potter every time I watch it. I grin seeing Harry and Hagrid walk into Diagon Alley together, and I’m hooked when Harry falls off his broom when swallowing the Golden Snitch during his first game of Quidditch. But, at the end of the day, it’s the character dynamics (particularly among the central trio) that make this movie both a tentpole of my childhood nostalgia as well as a genuinely great fantasy flick. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) When it comes to examining the early years of the Harry Potter series, I think that Chamber of Secrets unfairly gets a bad rap when compared to its predecessor. So, I want to look back on this movie by highlighting what (in my humble opinion) it actually does better than Sorcerer’s Stone while also acknowledging what ultimately makes it a less enjoyable film. On rewatch, I was reminded of how much more compelling the central mystery in Chamber of Secrets is than everything going on with Snape, Quirrell and Dumbledore in Sorcerer’s Stone. Even watching these movies as a kid, it was pretty obvious to me that Snape wasn’t evil and that Harry, Ron, and Hermione were way out of their league in trying to snatch the Stone for themselves. Conversely, the way in which Rowling’s narrative and Columbus’s direction unravels the true nature of the Chamber of Secrets feels like a more mature approach to this kind of storytelling. On that note, the film’s narrative delving more deeply into the history of Hogwarts and the broader implications regarding the magical community (i.e. Salazar Slytherin’s hatred of “mudbloods” foreshadowing Voldemort’s war against muggle-borns) kept up the stakes of world building that Sorcerer’s Stone established so expertly. In contrast to the somewhat underwhelming reveal of Quirrell’s dual identity in the previous film, the use of Tom Riddle’s (Christian Coulson) tainted diary as both the tool manipulating Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) to petrify the muggle-born students of Hogwarts and the window into parts of Voldemort’s past felt more authentic in a world filled with magical artifacts. In this respect, I think this is the most inventive use of Voldemort as the villain without actually seeing his contemporary form in the flesh from the fourth movie onwards. Furthermore, Chamber of Secrets shines as an example of how much CGI and special effects can improve only a year off the heels of the movie that came before it. Notably, the Quidditch match involving Harry and his blonde-haired rival Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) looks and moves far better than the game featured in Sorcerer’s Stone. Also, Harry’s confrontation with the Basilisk in the Chamber itself held up surprisingly well and was—dare I say it—a more tense and compelling climax than Harry facing off with Quirrell in the first movie. And, without question, the best addition to the cast was Jason Isaacs as Draco’s malevolent, scheming father (and secret Death Eater) Lucius Malfoy. Not only was his role in the plot incredibly satisfying, but his scenes with Harry that bookend the movie remain some of my personal favorite character-focused scenes involving a hero and villain. Sounds like I really enjoy Chamber of Secrets, doesn’t it? To be clear, I do. In fact, I like all of the Harry Potter movies to varying degrees. And, for the most part, the differences in quality from one movie to another are largely miniscule enough so as to be negligible. Still, I do want to justify my ranking at the end of this blog with some reasons why (in my humble opinion) Sorcerer’s Stone is ultimately the stronger of the first two films in the series. The biggest thing working against Chamber of Secrets as a whole is the bloated runtime. At two hours and 41 minutes, it just feels overly long for no good reason. Upon rewatching it, there are undeniably multiple scenes that could’ve been shortened up (if not cut entirely) like some of the stuff with Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) or Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson). But I could forgive this if not for the utterly disappointing lack of Hermione for most of the film’s second half. I get why Hermione being petrified is needed to raise the stakes going into the third act, but I just think watching only Harry and Ron work together without Emma Watson’s presence highlights just how much all three of them need to be intimately involved in the story to keep the narrative strong and enticing versus just mildly interesting. While I said earlier that I appreciated the unique take on Voldemort’s role as the villain in Chamber of Secrets, I do admit that making Voldemort the villain once again feels repetitive and somewhat unnecessary. Especially considering his increased presence in future installments of the series, we probably didn’t need a teenage Voldemort working behind the scenes this much at this point in the overarching narrative. Finally, while I appreciate the distinct look and feel of these first two films, I do think that Columbus’s storytelling sensibilities are not as adept at balancing a darker and more mature tone with the silliness and corniness inherent to several scenes and moments in Chamber of Secrets. All in all, Sorcerer’s Stone benefits from its many strengths overcoming its flaws. Unfortunately, the reverse is true when it comes to Chamber of Secrets. While it’s certainly not a bad second movie in the series, it does not hold up as well as its predecessor and doesn’t hold a candle to many of the sequels to come. But again, I like all of these movies…I just happen to like Sorcerer’s Stone more than Chamber of Secrets. 😊 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) When fans of Harry Potter reflect on when the series really started embracing its young adult audience and shifting away from an older kid audience, they often bring up Prisoner of Azkaban. Chris Columbus will forever deserve credit for jumpstarting the franchise, but Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Gravity, Roma) took over directing duties and very clearly intended to age up the series to match our wizarding trio becoming full-blown adolescents and the increasingly dark, sinister tone of Rowling’s source material. In doing so, he made one of my personal favorite films in the franchise as well as one of the best. In my humble opinion, the main source of my great admiration of Prisoner of Azkaban is how it crafts a compelling mystery and scary narrative without ever involving Voldemort intimately in the plot. Instead, it is the specter of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), who supposedly played a key role in Voldemort’s murder of Harry’s parents, and the increasing dangers posed by Sirius tracking Harry down to finish what Voldemort started. With this threat looming over Hogwarts during his third year, Harry finally receives some guidance and care from an actually competent Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin (David Thewlis). Not only do we see a genuine friendship bloom between this mentor and his student, but it adds tension and thematic nuance to the critical second-act reveal at the Shrieking Shack about the true nature of Black’s past connection to Harry and his parents’ deaths. Before I get to that, however, I want to briefly shine a spotlight on some of my favorite elements of world building in the Harry Potter franchise: the Dementors. Before Sirius Black supposedly becomes a genuine threat to Harry by infiltrating Hogwarts, he must face down his fear of these soulless, floating, demon-like creatures cloaked in black whose sole purpose for existence is to steal peoples’ happy memories from them. Without question, the Dementors not only effectively push Prisoner of Azkaban towards the line of being straight-up horror but also have gone down as one of the most terrifying magical creatures of Rowling’s universe. On a lighter note, I always enjoy the introduction of Buckbeak the hippogriff. On the one hand, the CGI involved in creating this elegant and proud creature holds up to this day (especially when compared to some of the more questionable special effects in later entries of the series). Also, the bond he establishes with Harry leading up to pretty important moments in the movie’s overall plot is another great reminder of how (mostly) tight this story and Cuarón’s cinematic adaptation of it truly is. Of course, the first half of Prisoner of Azkaban is very good. But once the truth about Sirius Black is revealed, it becomes truly great. Cuarón pulls off such incredibly staging in the Shrieking Shack scene to ramp up the tension between Harry, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall)—the actual betrayer of the Potters still devoted to Lord Voldemort—to keep the audience questioning the legitimacy of what Lupin and Sirius are saying until Pettigrew himself admits it upon returning to human form. From here on out, Prisoner of Azkaban continues to amp up the stakes by flipping everything we thought we knew on its head. Whereas before the narrative was about Harry avoiding being found by Sirius, now it becomes about saving him from wrongful execution. Thanks to the time-travel plot thread involving Hermione and Harry using a Time Turner to spare more than one life, the audience is able to experience the second act of the film with that new emotional context. All of this great moviemaking comes together during the climactic face-off between Harry and the Dementors who are trying to kill Sirius and Harry’s past self. His training with Lupin both in the Patronus Charm and in overcoming his fears builds to this moment when Hermione convinces him that his dead father will not suddenly show up and save everyone. Instead, Harry has an epiphany: he is a powerful wizard, and he must be the one to save his godfather and himself. Just thinking about this scene gives me chills, and (in my humble opinion) is the culminating of Harry’s first fantastic character arc in one of these movies. Before, he succeeded in defeating Quirrell and Tom Riddle’s memory based largely on luck and lots of outside help. But here, he’s able to channel what he’s learned from three years in the wizarding world and show everyone (most importantly himself) what he is capable of. To be fair, there is some clunkiness in the editing of these time-travel scenes that upon a rewatch I wish Cuarón and his creative team could’ve cleaned up. Furthermore, I do wish we had a little more Dumbledore (now being played by Michael Gambon) to make his reinterpretation in the series more acceptable at face value. But these are minor criticisms at the end of the day; Prisoner of Azkaban will always be one of my favorite Harry Potter movies, and I’d be surprised if most fans of the franchise didn’t agree. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) Part of me wishes that Alfonso Cuarón stuck around to direct the follow-up to Prisoner of Azkaban. But I’m grateful that he gave us one film in the series, and I’m just as grateful that Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco) managed to craft a sequel that, in more ways than one, supersedes its predecessor as one of my other favorite films in the franchise. Maybe that’s controversial to say, but on this rewatch Goblet of Fire just hit me a little harder than it has before. Let me explain why. Similar to the challenges that Cuarón faced in maturing the characters and world of Harry Potter while also managing a complex narrative with plot twists and time travel, Newell looked down no less daunting obstacles in adapting Goblet of Fire for the big screen. First off, you have the challenge of weaving the subplot of Voldemort’s resurrection in the flesh into the main story involving the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts without the former distracting from the latter nor the latter overshadowing the former. Somehow, Newell’s direction in tandem with the cast and crew somehow pulls this off. He effectively balances the lighter comedic tone of the teen-centric scenes surrounding the Yule Ball, the action-heavy drama of the Triwizard challenges, and the horrifying climax involving Harry facing down Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) thirteen years after their first encounter. Never at any point watching Goblet of Fire did I feel that a scene was out of place given what came before or after it. In fact, I found the teen drama and romance refreshing given all of the high-stakes doom-and-gloom happening around it. (I will say that Ron and Harry’s brief falling out felt entirely unnecessary, but obviously that’s more the fault of Rowling’s book than the filmmakers) Another surprising strength of Goblet of Fire is how it surpasses the mysteries in the first two films of the series (and remains on par with the twist in Prisoner of Azkaban) while involving Voldemort directly in the narrative. Of course, he gets help from Barty Crouch, Jr. (David Tennant) disguising himself as ex-Auror and eccentric professor Alastor “Mad-Eye” Moody (Brendan Gleeson). Both actors pull off effective performances, particularly Gleeson who manages to convince the audience of his genuine care for Harry while always keeping the viewers at a distance before fulfilling the terrifying and heartbreaking reveal of his true identity. Certainly, the most entertaining highlight of Goblet of Fire in terms of the plot is the events of the Triwizard Tournament themselves. While some elements of Harry fleeing the Hungarian Horntail on his Firebolt feel dated and anticlimactic or the champions surviving the maze somewhat confusion, you cannot deny when watching this movie that magic has never felt more like a modern action movie than in these scenes. Of course, this plot alone doesn’t work without the underlying mystery of why Harry was forced into this competition and the extent to which Voldemort is working behind the scenes leading up to getting him into the graveyard for his grand entrance in the third act. Thus, it all came down to this fantastic scene. Once Harry and fellow Hogwarts champion Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson) agree to take the Triwizard Cup together, they are transported to Voldemort’s location where Cedric is unceremoniously murdered by Peter Pettigrew and—with some of Harry’s blood—Voldemort is finally brought back from the brink of death. From this point on, the series changes forever as the audience is finally confronted by the “big bad” of Harry’s story. AND IT’S AWESOME! 😊 Seeing fourteen-year-old Harry Potter duel the most powerful dark wizard ever and, ultimately, not succumb to his fears by standing up for himself is arguably his most heroic moment as the hero of this story. Furthermore, Ralph Fiennes absolutely KILLS it in this scene (a sliver of what we see over the course of the next four movies). But the emotional gut-punch of a cherry on top is Harry speaking to his parents—or at least their spirits—for the first time ever. I’m not a particularly emotional person, but I always choke up during this sequence out of sheer sympathy for Harry as a tragic character who has rarely succumbed to self-pity or other unlikeable characteristics due to what Voldemort did to him. To tie up loose ends, Harry manages to escape Voldemort’s bloodlust by the skin of his teeth but returns to Hogwarts (with Cedric’s body) the winner of the Triwizard Tournament. But he is bruised, bloodied and broken, and isn’t afraid to show everyone just how dire the situation has become for the wizarding world. And while I understand some peoples’ criticisms about Cedric’s death feeling a little shallow since we only knew him for one movie, I found on this rewatch that his death hit me harder than really any time before. Personally, I think it’s because I realized that Cedric is dying is less about this one kid getting killed and more about the metaphorical and thematic significance of his death. Essentially, Cedric dying at Voldemort’s hands (and, in turn, Harry watching it happen but helpless to stop it) represents the end of innocence for these characters. Even with some pretty dark shit happening during their first three years at Hogwarts, they all know that from here on out them dying at the hands of a Death Eater—or Voldemort himself—is not just a possibility but something of a likelihood. And recognizing that this time around, while also seeing our characters come to that conclusion, was really quite heartbreaking. (Shoutout to Robert Pattinson for maximizing his screen time to make us care about Cedric enough for his death to mean as much as it did) Simply put, I loved Goblet of Fire more than I think I ever have before. Is it as tight of a story as Prisoner of Azkaban? Maybe not. Is it bursting with as much charm and nostalgia as Sorcerer’s Stone? Certainly not. But I think it’s a fantastic halfway point for this movie series that aptly ties a knot on Harry, Ron and Hermione’s early years while foreshadowing dark times ahead of them with the threat of Voldemort looming on the horizon. With a new director taking over from here, where does the franchise go? Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) After three different directors kept the first four Harry Potter films fresh and distinct but also aesthetically and narratively cohesive, David Yates took the helm and went on to direct the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth entries in the franchise (as well as all three Fantastic Beasts movies made to date). There are both positive and negative aspects of this change in leadership behind the camera, but all in all I think Order of the Phoenix is one of his stronger entries in the series. What ends up being one of this movie’s greatest strengths, in my humble opinion, is the intense and intimate focus on the effects of the psychological trauma that Harry has accumulated in his short yet eventful life. From reminding the audience of the horrifying nature of Dementors in the opening scene to exploring his mental, magical connection to Voldemort as representing his struggle with the darkness within him, Harry goes through the wringer in Order of the Phoenix just as much (if not more) than previous movies. Furthermore, I appreciate how Yates tackles the explanation of Harry and Voldemort’s minds being tied to one another towards the end of the film without giving too much away for the future of the series. Unfortunately, one of the trade-offs of the near-complete focus on Harry’s story in Order of the Phoenix is the disappointing lack of meaningful screen time or character arcs for Ron and Hermione. They certainly get their moments (I’ve always appreciated the three of them sitting by the fire laughing at each other), and I get that the story of this movie is more about building out the team of warrior wizards and witches like Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) and Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch). But I just wish we could’ve seen a bit more of development for Ron and Hermione given how much Goblet of Fire was focused on Harry coming into his own as a formidable wizard. The focal point of the plot, however, is where we get the standout performance of the film as well as the one and only villain performance in the entire series that threatens Ralph Fiennes’ top spot as Voldemort: the government employee who takes over Hogwarts—while donned entirely in pink—Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton). From her very first scene during Harry’s trial at the Ministry of Magic, Umbridge makes her mark on the franchise as an impeccably immoral and devious antagonist that you just love to hate but hate to watch. And Staunton absolutely nails the character as the epitome of a corrupt bureaucracy bent on denying the truth about Voldemort’s return while being far more concerned with Dumbledore’s non-existent rebellious plotting against Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy). Similar to how the increased violence and drama of the past couple movies reflect the series’ growing maturity and darker tone, the political themes dominating Order of the Phoenix exhibit how this series is becoming more for teenagers and young adults and less for children. With Umbridge’s presence and the diminishing power of Dumbledore and McGonagall, Harry and his friends experience the plight of sociopolitical oppression, state-sponsored fear-mongering, and propaganda through the education system firsthand. Given its place in the series, I appreciate this movie taking the time to ask the question: “What if the wizarding community acted like so many actual human beings do in the face of overwhelming danger and just flat out deny it?” Does it make for the most gripping fantasy cinema and entertainment? Kind of. Despite lacking much of the action that filled out Goblet of Fire, there’s enough to keep the narrative moving and the most impactful action in the climax makes up for the lack thereof earlier in the film. Which gets to the film’s pretty great finale. I’ve always enjoyed how clear Yates shows just how out of their depth Harry and his friends are once they’ve arrived at the Ministry of Magic. While they hold their own against Lucius Malfoy and Voldemort’s other lieutenant Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), they get outgunned and outsmarted just before Sirius, Lupin, and the other members of the Order come to save the day. It’s at this point, after nearly five Harry Potter movies, that the cinematography and staging of magical action sequences results in seeing wizards and witches throw offensive spells at each other in a way that feels organic and exciting to watch. And it’s in this scene where two of the best moments in the entire Harry Potter series happen. First, another heartbreaking death scene where Bellatrix kills Siris right in front of Harry. This might be Radcliffe’s first genuinely great moment of acting in the franchise; despite not hearing his scream, seeing his entire world collapse around him as Lupin holds him back is always so affecting and heartbreaking to watch. Just knowing the last of what Harry can call his family is gone forever tastefully adds to the tragedy of his hero’s journey. But then, out of anger, Harry seeks revenge on Bellatrix and is caught in Voldemort’s trap. Do we get another duel between Harry and Voldemort? Nope. Instead, we see what (in my humble opinion) will be the uncontested greatest duel in the history of the franchise: Dumbledore and Voldemort. There is so much creativity and ingenuity in the spells these two cast against each other and what they do to defend themselves from the other’s attacks. Furthermore, Gambon and Fiennes convey so much backstory with so little dialogue which helps justify the logic behind Voldemort’s plan to take Dumbledore off the board in the next film. Hopefully I’ve given you the impression that I like Order of the Phoenix. Is it as well structured or paced as Goblet of Fire or as complete of a story as Prisoner of Azkaban? For sure, but these flaws are ultimately overshadowed by this movie’s very high highs that make it a solid entry in the franchise despite not being my absolute favorite. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) So, is Yates able to follow up the solidly entertaining Order of the Phoenix with an equally pretty good sequel Half-Blood Prince? Despite some interesting elements at work here, I think not. As a reminder, I don’t hate any of the Harry Potter movies. Nor do I think any of the eight films in the series are bad. But, if I’m honest with myself, Half-Blood Prince ends up being the most flawed of all the movies on its own. Ultimately, much of these flaws stem from the fact that the movie feels more like an essential yet difficult piece of the puzzle rather than a well-integrated part of a painting. Instead of fitting elegantly into the overarching narrative of the series by upholding what came before, it acts like more of a stop gap for the audience by forcing too much exposition in too little time to soak in and process in an effort to just set up the finale. Another way to explain this is by viewing the Harry Potter series in a three-act structure. Sorcerer’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban essentially make up the first act that introduces our protagonists and key supporting characters as well as building up to the central conflict and main villain. From there, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, and Half-Blood Prince propel the story forward with Voldemort’s return and some impactful character deaths (Cedric, Sirius, and Dumbledore, respectively) to inject heightened stakes for our heroes going forward. And, of course, the two-part Deathly Hallows concludes the story. If viewed through this lens, I don’t think Half-Blood Prince delivers on being the tragic conclusion to Harry’s second act. Much of my disappointment with this movie is due to the relative lack of impact from Dumbledore’s death at the hands of Snape. While both Felton and Rickman’s acting is on point during the scene atop the Astronomy Tower, what is lacking from this crucial moment is how little I was invested in Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship. I don’t blame the actors, but rather the screenplay and overall direction that severely limited their screentime together in favor of unnecessary teen romance subplots that feel out of place given the increasingly dire atmosphere present throughout some of the movie. In a way, it feels like Yates wanted to do his version of Goblet of Fire too late in the series that ends up diminishing the character dynamics, drama, and terror caused by Voldemort’s full-blown return. And the characters who end up feeling disproportionately affected by this drawback? Snape and Malfoy. After six movies, Tom Felton was finally given some meaningful writing and character work beyond simply being a privileged, racist bully towards Harry, Ron and Hermione. And when he’s on screen (particularly with Snape in the hallway, with Harry in the bathroom, and facing down Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower), he effectively captures my attention and makes me sympathize with Draco’s internal moral struggle trying to reconcile the pressure on him to please his father and Voldemort and his unspoken knowing that what he’s been asked to do is the wrong thing to do. Closely tied to Draco’s storyline is Snape, whose past as a Death Eater (only mentioned briefly in Goblet of Fire) comes to the forefront in his dealings with Bellatrix and Draco’s mother Narcissa (Helen McCrory). After promising her to protect Draco and assassinate Dumbledore if Draco is unable to do so, Snape’s true intentions remain shrouded in mystery up until he casts the Killing Curse against his boss and friend (at Dumbledore’s pleading). From there, his identity becomes firmly committed to Lord Voldemort’s vision of the future. Don’t these both sound like great character arcs? Too bad they only make for a handful of scenes because, due to Yates’s take on Half-Blood Prince, we needed the focus of the first two acts on Ron’s dating life and Harry and Hermione’s jealousy. Now, I understand that the state of the relationships between our three main characters is necessary for the last two films of the series. I just wish Yates had better balanced these elements to make for a rich story with distinct, yet equally compelling, character arcs. Another character that I found myself surprised by how much I enjoyed watching was Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). For a character primarily featured in only one of the eight films, Slughorn ends up being fairly complex as someone who surrounds himself with greatness to conceal his own insecurities as well as evade confronting his greatest regret: enabling young Tom Riddle’s (Frank Dillane) insatiable curiosity with immortality and dark magic. Thanks largely to Broadbent’s performance opposite Radcliffe, the scene of Harry manipulating Slughorn to hand over his untainted memory of Riddle goes down (in my humble opinion) as one of the best acted scenes of the entire Harry Potter series. Ultimately, however, Half-Blood Prince doesn’t really come into its own until Harry and Dumbledore journey to find the Horcrux in the cave. From there on out, the movie becomes engaging all the way through. But it shouldn’t have taken nearly two hours of meandering, superfluous teen drama and plotting exposition to get there. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010) When last watching the Harry Potter series from start to finish a few years ago, I remember being really down on the first half of Deathly Hallows. I found it poorly paced, narratively disjointed, and not very engaging given the seemingly low stakes in comparison to past films. Furthermore, its inevitable trappings as the first two acts of a three-act finale to this saga can definitely come off as unsatisfying by the time the credits roll. But something was different this time around. Coming off of the rushed storytelling of Order of the Phoenix and the stunting, exposition-heavy narrative of Half-Blood Prince, I found this movie a refreshing breather even though there’s still a lot going on. It felt like it had a good reason to take its time in telling its story, and ended up (mostly) keeping me engaged the whole way through. Contrary to me not giving it credit awhile ago, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 has some pretty great action and intense scenes during its first act. Notably, the Order escorting Harry from the Dursleys’ home in Little Whinging to the Weasleys’ home in the Burrows remains one of my favorite scenes of the franchise. Not only does Yates establish the lengths that Voldemort will go to to track down and kill Harry, but I’ve always loved Hagrid coming more to the forefront in this part of the story. He says it himself: he brought Harry to the Dursleys years before, and it was only fitting for him to take him away from Voldemort once more. Furthermore, in a similar vein to Dumbledore’s badass duel with Voldemort in Order of the Phoenix, the chase through London is another example of the creative team finally making combative magic feel grounded and sensible but also fun to watch. Despite the slight slowdown for the wedding between Bill Weasley (Domhnall Gleeson) and former Triwizard champion Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy), the movie allows breathing room for some tying up of loose ends. From the new Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy) delivering Dumbledore’s gifts to Harry, Ron and Hermione to the introduction of important elements of lore like Harry’s birthplace Godric’s Hallow and the story of the Deathly Hallows themselves, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 continues to remind the audience how rich the lore of Rowling’s magical world is while planting some seeds for the last movie (i.e. Harry’s first Golden Snitch, Gryffindor’s sword, the Elder Wand). Another sequence I ended up appreciating more upon rewatch was Harry, Ron and Hermione infiltrating the Ministry of Magic disguised as employees. Their mission: to steal the locket that is Voldemort’s true Horcrux. Who must they steal it from? None other than Dolores Umbridge, who has fully embraced her position in the puppet Ministry that Voldemort has propped up. As soon as she’s on screen, Staunton wastes no time reminding us just how much we love to hate Umbridge. And, of course, it’s great to see the three kids all grown up pulling off another one of their cockamamie schemes. But this is the part of Deathly Hallows – Part 1 that I was really worried about going into it. From them escaping the Ministry to being captured by Snatchers and taken to Malfoy Manor, I recalled the three protagonists wandering the woods and being angry with each other to be the least interesting collection of scenes in any Harry Potter movie. But in light of the two films that came before this, I ended up genuinely appreciating how much character work is done in this movie’s second act. For one thing, we get to see our three heroes (almost) completely on their own and tested to the greatest extent. Not only is there some good drama and tension from watching them forced to survive without any help or guidance from Dumbledore, the Order or the Weasleys, but these three do some of their best acting in the entire franchise as their character are brought to the brink enduring psychological turmoil and physical isolating from everything they know and love. I was particularly impressed by Grint playing the various dimensions of Ron’s erratic personality (largely caused by wearing the Horcrux around his neck) affecting his demeanor towards Ron and Hermione. While this middle act isn’t the most exciting or action-packed of any Harry Potter film, I feel like it was needed to make many of the moments in the last movie live up to their potential. Much of the third act sees our trio captured and sent to the residency of the Malfoys. Their escape scene makes for a solid final action piece, much thanks to the levity provided by Dobby (voice by Toby Jones) who I found much better utilized as the source of humor than as the annoying, paranoid side character in Chamber of Secrets. But the tone quickly changes to what is (in my humble opinion) one of the best-handled death scenes in the entire series right up there with Cedric in Goblet of Fire and Sirius in Order of the Phoenix. I think Radcliffe’s performance holding what, in real life, amounts to nothing in his hands opposite Jones’s beautifully tragic line delivery shows how underwhelming some of the other death scenes in both Deathly Hallows flicks (“Mad-Eye” Moody, anyone?) end up being. All that being said, I do think Deathly Hallows – Part 1 remains one of the relatively weaker films in the series simply due to it being the first half of one complete story. But I found myself appreciating it on its own terms much more this time around. And it accomplished what’s undeniably its most important task: exciting me for Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011) For a summary of the production and release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, click here. While some viewers are frustrated by the incomplete and unsatisfied feeling they get after watching Deathly Hallows – Part 1, I have heard few (if any) fans of the Harry Potter series disappointed by Deathly Hallows – Part 2. I am certainly one of the people who thoroughly enjoys this movie. That being said, there are both pros and cons to a movie that is virtually all payoff to the seven films that preceded it. For starters, the second half of Deathly Hallows has so many hype moments throughout the climactic Battle of Hogwarts that can effectively service any fan. From Harry and McGonagall confronting Snape in the Great Hall to McGonagall commanding Hogwarts itself to fight back to Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) finally getting her badass moment to shine by ruthlessly killing Bellatrix to Neville standing up to Voldemort AND slicing Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor to…SEE WHAT I MEAN?!? So. Much. Payoff. And not just in the action scenes. For our main hero’s journey, Harry has plenty of meaningful closure to his story. Notably, his final scene with Snape (while not a gut punch) is always quietly heartbreaking even before the final twist of the series is revealed: Snape, a double agent, was always loyal Dumbledore (including killing him per Dumbledore’s request) and defended Harry out of love for his deceased mother Lily (Geraldine Somerville), and that Voldemort’s failed murder of Harry unintentionally made Harry into a Horcrux. Forgiving the fact that Alan Rickman unquestionably deserved more screen time in all the other movies to develop this backstory, what we learn about who Snape really is in Deathly Hallows – Part 2 retroactively redeems him and makes him one of the most complex and compelling characters in the entire franchise. But, more importantly, this revelation pushes Harry towards his fate: he must die by Voldemort’s hand. I always get chills during his “final” goodbye to Ron and Hermione and him using the Resurrection Stone to see his mother, father James (Adrian Rawlins), Sirius, and Lupin (who unceremoniously died offscreen…but I’ll get to that later 😊). All of this leads up to Harry coming to Voldemort of his own accord defenseless and ready to die (shoutout to Robbie Coltrane giving that gut-punch delivery of Hagrid disconcertedly expression his anguish about why Harry would ever in his right mind actually show up in the Forbidden Forest). For any hero’s journey, seeing the hero straight up sacrifice himself for the greater good evokes some universal respectability that few other heroes can muster in me. From here, Yates’s adaptation of Rowling’s writing gives us easily the most spiritual scene of the entire series with Harry tinkering on entering the afterlife alongside Dumbledore. Honestly, it was just nice to see Radcliffe and Gambon act opposite each other with everything out in the open (in addition to Gambon offering a touch of Richard Harris’s performance from the first two flicks to tie a neat bow on Dumbledore as a character). My final positive for Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is the epilogue. I know that this is controversial, but I’m personally someone who loves “full circle” endings. And Yates and Rowling giving the audience (and Harry) the happy ending he deserves where he’s moved on from Voldemort, married, and now has children that he’s sending off to Hogwarts like Mrs. Weasley did for him so many years before is (in my humble opinion) a perfect end cap for the series. With all that said, however, Deathly Hallows – Part 2 certainly has some drawbacks as a movie that relies almost exclusively on payoff. On the one hand, the film sets itself apart from most of the rest of the series (arguably with the exception of Order of the Phoenix) by pursuing a no-holds-barred, pedal-to-the-metal pace that never really lets the audience breathe from scene to scene. Surely, this is understandable given the more deliberate pace of Deathly Hallows – Part 1 but I do think there should’ve been more of an equitable balance between these last two movies in the series. Likewise, the almost exclusive focus on Harry’s journey with Voldemort wrapping up comes at the expense of most of the other characters lacking satisfying conclusions to their arcs. While we do finally get the Ron/Hermione romance cemented in the eons of cinematic history, I found that Draco and the Malfoys’ unceremonious departure from the Battle of Hogwarts left something to be desired from where his story left off in Half-Blood Prince. When it comes to the villains, however, I think Voldemort’s anticlimactic death always feels lackluster compared to his grand resurrection in Goblet of Fire and various other scenes in Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows – Part 1. Certainly, Ralph Fiennes deserved better. But when it comes to the deaths in this movie, Lupin and Fred Weasley (James Phelps) are easily done the dirtiest. For one of the Weasley twins who’ve been in the series from the start, he deserved an on-screen death. As did Lupin, who doesn’t even get the slow-motion cut that Fred got. Instead, my personal favorite Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher is simply shown dead on the ground holding the hand of his wife Nymphadora Tonks (Natalie Tena), who also probably deserved a better death scene. These criticisms aside, though, Deathly Hallows – Part 2 is still one of the best conclusions to any film series in modern history. The fact that it lands the ship that was started by seven films before it is part of what makes the Harry Potter franchise timeless and a modern classic cinematic saga. No matter my nitpicks or disappointments with certain aspects of the series, I’ll always look back fondly on these movies both as nostalgic aspects of my childhood and as a great, epic fantasy story that does far more right than it does wrong. With all that said, here is my official ranking of the eight films in the Harry Potter series:
What is your favorite (and least favorite) Harry Potter film? Would you like to see a reboot of the series, either in film or on television, in the near future? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|