BEFORE: I've packed my bag, I'm ready to go, I'm standing here outside the door. OK, not literally, but I always listen to the song "Leaving on a Jet Plane" (the cover version that played in the movie "Armageddon") before I fly to San Diego, so it's rolling around in my head. This worked out very well, saving up a few extra superhero films, because I was able to concentrate on my packing list, and since I wasn't distracted by a movie last night, I'll arrive at Comic-Con with things like pants and socks. Stan Lee carries over from "Thor: The Dark World", here he plays a security guard in a museum, and Chris Evans carries over as well.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Captain America: The First Avenger" (Movie #1,093)
AFTER: I needed to watch this film in April, because I watch the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." TV series, and they made direct references to the events seen in this film, and I had to see what all went down. S.H.I.E.L.D. is the common story thread that unites all of the Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor films. Nick Fury has appeared or done a cameo in all of them as the Avengers team came together, and now they've decided to tear S.H.I.E.L.D. down. I guess that means more work in the long run for the superheroes, protecting the Earth and all that, and putting this government agency back together for a second season.
In this film, Captain America and the Black Widow come face-to-face with the Winter Soldier, who's been a prominent character in the Cap comic books for the last few years. If you don't know his identity, which was one of the worst-kept secrets in Cap's history, it means you're not current on the comic books - I won't reveal it here, but the movie doesn't take any chances and telegraphs it early on, so we'll all be caught up. Let's just say it's someone from Captain America's past, which nails it down to exactly one candidate.
This was a character who died (OK, comic-book died) decades ago, and as we all know, comic-book deaths are reversible. Except for Spider-Man's uncle, and until recently, this character. So some writer came on board the Capt. America comic a few years ago and got the memo saying you can't revive this character, and darned if that wasn't exactly what he set out to do. From a storytelling aspect, we have series "Bibles" for a reason. If you set out to break the story rules, please make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, and not just because someone told you not to, and you consider it a challenge.
For the Winter Soldier, that meant crafting a back-story where he was put on ice (literally and figuratively) for a few decades, given a bionic arm and mind-wiped, then trained to be a master assassin. Supposedly he's behind every big Soviet operation ever, right up to possibly assassinating JFK (wait, I thought Magneto did that - or did Magneto try to stop that?), or whatever we had going on in Central America in the 80's, not to mention Afghanistan. All right, I'm willing to roll with it as long as you writers don't do anything else stupid like nullify Spider-Man's marriage. Whoopsie...
But let's get to the Captain America film itself. Some good stuff does happen here, and it seems like a mix between the last decade of Cap comics, mixed with the storyline from a S.H.I.E.L.D. limited series called "Secret Warriors", in which Nick Fury learns that the terrorist organization HYDRA has infiltrated his own organization, so the whole thing must be scrapped from within.
If you recall, I lauded the "Dark Knight Rises" film, gave it a "10" for doing essentially the same thing as this film - mixing 3 comic-book storylines together, simplifying the conflict while tying a bunch of things together - so why does THAT film get a "10" and this film gets its slightly lower score? Well, it all comes down to the details - I could not find one fault with the last Batman film, and believe me, I tried. Here I've got a couple of NPs that did end up affecting the score. Namely:
NITPICK POINT #1: We've seen the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier before. Destroying, or trying to destroy it, was a key part of the "Avengers" film. Why are we covering the same ground here? For that matter, why rebuild the helicarrier, which is essentially an aircraft carrier (aka emormous floating rock) in the sky - who approved this? It seems to fall to earth and damage stuff like, every other week. Can we all just agree that this floating deathtrap should not be airborne in the first place?
They've blown it up or crashed the thing so many times in recent comic-book history that I'm left with one conclusion - the various Marvel writers and editors do NOT talk to each other. So they end up covering the same ground, again and again. Case in point: Marvel did a storyline where Spider-Man appeared to die, but really just formed a cocoon and emerged with more spider-powers, then did almost the exact same story again just one year later. (Look it up, one of them was called "The Other")
Marvel Comics, I will repeat my offer - what you need is someone reading all of your books before they're published, someone with a great memory who can say, "No, you DID this storyline already" or "This is too similar to the Avengers storyline from 1995..." or "Haven't we killed Iron Man three times before?" My services are available, I can keep all of your writers and editors in line.
NITPICK POINT #2: Again toward the same point, there is a cameo in this film from someone important to the (upcoming) history of the Avengers - problem is, he's a mutant and he's also important to the history of the X-Men. So, which is he? The X-Men franchise and the Avengers franchise are at two different studios, so who gets to use this character? Again, who's running the store here? Who has the authority to decide this character's storyline? In the comic books, he has the same problem - the X-Men writer makes him a hero, the Avengers writer makes him a villain, and the X-Factor writer says he's just misunderstood. Gee, I wonder why.
NITPICK POINT #3: Though for the most part I was impressed by the fighting depicted in this film - very true to the comics - some things do still cause me to wonder. Why do villains insist on shooting directly at Cap's shield, when they should be able to figure out quite quickly that the shield is bullet-proof, and maybe NOT shoot at it. Jeez, aim for where the shield is NOT, maybe? Otherwise, you're just wasting bullets. I mean, maybe they shoot at Cap and then he raises the shield in time, but that's not really what I witnessed - I saw a lot of people shooting right AT the shield. Maybe it's the bullseye-like red and white stripes on it?
NITPICK POINT #4: Asking me to believe that the world's greatest spy organization has a large number of double-agents in its ranks - so, really, how can they be such great spies? It's like thinking that half of the agents in the C.I.A. are also working for the KGB - who knows, maybe it's true, but you'd like to think that the number of double agents would be much lower, or that such an organization might have some way to check its own members before things got too far out of hand, no?
NITPICK POINT #5: The film takes a thinly-veiled swipe at the Patriot Act, or perhaps it's the NSA tapping phone conversations, or maybe even enhanced airport security - all recent situations in which U.S. citizens were forced to give up their freedoms in order to be (or feel) more safe. If you take this notion to the extreme, you get the kind of plan that HYDRA presents as it works through S.H.I.E.L.D. - the theory being that the greater the global threat, the more power will be given to the agencies in charge of homeland security. But there's a fallacy here if HYDRA and S.H.I.E.L.D. are one and the same - if S.H.I.E.L.D. weapons are seen taking out targets, why on Earth would people rush to have that same organization protect them, or give that agency any more power? The citizens in Dr. Doom's country, for example, are well-protected, but they're not anything close to free. So, as soon as HYDRA launches their plan, I think they've pretty much shot themselves in the foot, unless I'm missing something.
"Nick Fury Jr." in the comics - stop trying to shoehorn the movie continuity into the comics I like. If the Marvel movie universe can be different from the Marvel comic universe, then it's OK for the reverse to be true as well. The films are adapted from the comics, you don't need to then adapt the movie continuity into the books. (I have a feeling I'm going to be directing this same comment toward JJ Abrams in a year or two with regards to "Star Wars")
I will say that they did a darn good job of setting up the next Captain America film, ending on a note where he's got a clear mission ahead of him, while also setting up a solo film for the Black Widow and perhaps one for Nick Fury as well. Plus, of course, there's the teaser for the next "Avengers" film at the very end. Which, again, as we've seen this week, really needs someone who thinks logically to approve or disapprove them.
Also starring Scarlett Johansson (last seen in "Hitchcock"), Samuel L. Jackson (last seen in "The Long Kiss Goodnight"), Robert Redford (last seen in "Up Close & Personal"), Sebastian Stan (last seen in "Rachel Getting Married"), Anthony Mackie (last seen in "Gangster Squad"), Cobie Smulders (last seen in "The Avengers"), Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, Hayley Atwell, Toby Jones (last seen in "My Week With Marilyn"), Jenny Agutter, with cameos from Garry Shandling (last seen in "Iron Man 2"), Danny Pudi, Steven Culp, and the voice of Gary Sinise (last seen in "Snake Eyes").
RATING: 8 out of 10 reel-to-reel tape drives
No comments:
Post a Comment