Mockingbird In A Blizzard
By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Shea Whigham.

 The Joker has gotten many iterations in the past, through the likes of Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Mark Hamill, and Jared Leto. With each of these portrayals, both in comics and films, there's always a different take with the character, most of these takes being successfully masterful (though Leto's is my least favorite). There's many ways you can craft Batman's infamous nemesis, and each new take brings a whole new element to the character. Whichever take they do with the character, his origin story remains the same for the most part. So when it was announced that Joker would have his own origin film, I wondered how they would pull it off. Were they taking a direct route from the source material? Or were they going to take a completely different route and make a new story? It's safe to say that Todd Phillips' origin film about the Clown Prince of Crime chose the latter. That leaves us with another question. How will they take a completely different spin on a comic book villain's origin?

Joker takes place in 1980s Gotham, where the city is on the verge of collapse. There's a clear conflict between the rich and the poor, and nothing much was done to fix the issue. It is here that we're introduced to Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a professional clown who longs for a career in stand up comedy. He's invisible to the world, his only proof of existence being beaten up and abused by others. His current job doesn't do him justice, he's on several different medications, and the system that's supposed to help him isn't doing him any favors ("Everyone is awful these days, it’s enough to make anyone crazy," Arthur says at some point). His mental condition, one of them being fits of uncontrollable laughter that constantly puts him in pain and jeopardy; causes a rift that drives society further from him. And the more strained his relationship with society gets whenever he tries to get closer, the more he drives himself towards the edge. As he gets closer towards the edge, that's when we see a flick of the switch, the transformation of the man who would become the arch nemesis we've come to know for decades.

It is no surprise that Joaquin Phoenix is the star of this film. Phoenix's take has a vice-like grip on you, enticing you to take trip in the mad world of Gotham through his eyes. It's a brilliant mix of haunting, chilling, menacing, and tragic. It may not take the reign from Heath Ledger's already iconic performance in The Dark Knight, but it's extremely close. Here's the thing though, both Ledger and Phoenix have different takes on the Joker, and both portrayals were perfectly electrifying on their own. Whenever Phoenix appears on screen, you're immediately drawn in. Arthur Fleck as a character may not have much of a charisma, but Phoenix knows how to capture the audience in a trance with his performance. In addition to Phoenix, the film boasts a fine supporting cast in the likes of Robert De Niro as talk show host Murray Franklin (a direct nod to his character in The King of Comedy), Zazie Beetz as Sophie, and Frances Conroy as Arthur's mother Penny Fleck. They're the ones who ground Arthur, and bring out the more intimate and human moments in him. But essentially, it is Joaquin Phoenix's film. He's the one that carries the film, and what he does with this role is incredible.

Image source: IMDB

This is perhaps the most gorgeous looking comic book film, possibly because its visuals approach a more arthouse type of film, one that punctuates an emphasis of certain things such as character, emotion, and atmosphere as opposed to wider shots to emphasize the vast scale of its world. Through the visuals, storytelling, and performance, it's clear that the film's intent was to solely focus on Arthur, and Arthur alone. It's both a visual feast, but there's a sense of beauty in the middle of the dreary madness. The film consists of symmetrical shots that makes it feel as if there's a little bit of that Wes Anderson vibe to the film, whimsical yet full of grit and realism. Every shot is a story of its own, whether it is a wide symmetrical shot, or a close up, all beautifully captured by Lawrence Sher and completed by the chilling score from Hildur Guðnadóttir. They help in creating a much grittier and intimate look on Gotham, as well as shape the character of Arthur Fleck as we follow him on his journey. While Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy views Gotham on both the metropolitan beauty and occasionally the dark side of the slums, Joker turns that image on its head and displays more of that dreary part of Gotham. While some visuals are colorful, none of them represent a true sense of joy. Through Arthur's eyes, Gotham is a bleak world, and the color palette emphasizes that beautifully.

Joker feels much like an arthouse film than a comic book film, a character study of intriguing proportions. We don't see a man who would later become Batman's foe, we see man slowly descending into madness from the society that pushes him towards the edge. In a world full of comic book films with heroes and villains, time travel, and CGI fights, Joker takes a more gritty take to it. Take away the comic book elements of Joker, and it's a character study about a man who slowly descends into madness. It's a perfect basis for a re-imagining of an infamous foe, and the film is well aware of what it has. It's a look into a person's transformation, a look into his mind and how he views the world. It's a film about what the world can do to a person, and what happens if that person is driven towards self destruction and snaps back at the world. Joker is one film that discusses mental illness and social class, and it does not simply shy away from the topic. In fact, it's lifting that topic for everyone to see. It asks the hard questions, it discusses subject matters that perhaps other comic book films wouldn't dare to delve in, and it is incredibly refreshing to see. 

Image source: IMDB

The film has the difficult task of having a well-known villain as the main protagonist, but the film does an excellent job of crafting the character and how he ended up being the way he is. Yet at the same time, it doesn't glorify his terrible actions that made him as the villain we know as the Joker. Yes, we may sympathize with him at times, and he's made good points of his own (one of them being when he rants, "If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me! ") That does not mean that we as the audience would condone his later actions, but we see why he does it. Joker does many things, but what it doesn't do is make a hero out of the man who would become a villain. The character of the Joker has never been heroic, and the film certainly won't change that fact. And the thing is, madness and violence have always been the traits of his character, so it's understandable that the film would later explore that aspect. Addressing the violence in this film, it is indeed violent, but not as much violence as many might be concerned. In fact, there are other much more violent films before it. But the violence here is the kind that's raw and realistically gritty. It may take some time for the film to really change gears, but once it does, that's when it gets insane. No, it does not glorify violence as some may have been concerned with. It's more of a cautionary tale of a crumbled society that consequently shapes the character of a man who would later crumble with it. And I could not stress this enough when I say that this is not a film that you should take kids to see. Just because it's a comic book film, it does not mean that it's suitable for children.

 Joker is not a film that lingers on action sequences to keep the audiences on their feet, but it's one that keeps them intrigued with its intricate character study on how one man's journey could lead him to be the Clown Prince of Crime. The portrayal of the Joker as a character always has something new up their sleeve, and Joker brings plenty of those to the table, with masterful results. There's obvious nods to its main inspirations, namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both coincidentally star Robert De Niro. Some story elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke can even be seen here. What's most interesting, however, is its use of what is called "the death of the author", meaning that once a story is brought out to the world, the author no longer holds authority over what the reader interprets from the story. Joker uses this to an advantage, playing with elements of what is real and what isn't real. It incorporates ambiguous scenes in which to me, feel like it's leaving some of the interpretation to the audience. It's more focused on character than it is on action as well as visual storytelling than exposition, or in other words, it shows more than it tells, which is why it is not only an excellent comic book film, but an excellent film in general. So no, it might not follow the standard elements of a comic book film, but that's exactly what makes it riveting.

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: Joker doesn't take much of a focus on the elements of a comic book film, but rather in a similar beat of an arthouse film. In fact, it's taken a far leap from its source material by a completely different re-imagining that differs from most comic book films. Joaquin Phoenix is a revelation in this role, turning everyone's eyes on him and keeps them glued for the entire film. With Phoenix, the film boasts an impressive supporting casts with the likes of De Niro, Beetz, and Conroy. But in the end, it's Phoenix that steals the show. While perhaps it may not take the reign from Ledger's iconic take, Phoenix's performance is a close second, if not equally masterful to Ledger's. Its minimal action makes for a bigger focus on character, on the crumbling society that affects the characters. It focuses on the hard matters that other comic book films would probably never discuss. Joker takes an intriguing view of how society plays into the shaping of a person, of how things can lead them to certain actions that make them who they are; without hailing those actions as heroic. It's far from a standard comic book film, but it's a brilliant choice for Joker, especially when it nails the execution. Joker is without a doubt, a masterpiece, both as a comic book film and as a film in general.

 Stars: 4.7/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Andy Muschietti
Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, Bill Skarsgård, Andy Bean. 

 Stephen King's infamous novel IT is no stranger to pop culture. The 1986 novel about a group of kids that call themselves the Losers Club going against a killer clown has been one of the most iconic horror novels. By 1990, IT was adapted into a two part miniseries with Tim Curry as the menacing Pennywise. But that wasn't the last we've seen of the clown. In 2017, IT was once again adapted for a new generation, this time taking place in 1989, with Bill Skarsgård taking over the role of Pennywise. IT became one of the highest grossing horror films and became one of my personal favorites of 2017. A full out horror film might not be a fitting way to describe IT, perhaps more of a coming of age film with bits of horror sprinkled into it, which makes for a more interesting experience. Pennywise's appearance was a way for the characters to grow out of adolescence, to force themselves into facing their worst fears, and in the end, these kids became one of the best aspects of the film. Now, it's time for the adult portion of the story to be told, hence IT Chapter Two.

Taking place 27 years after the Losers Club's confrontation with Pennywise, IT Chapter Two begins with a bang, or in this case, a gory murder. Once the murders start to resurface in Derry, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa), the only Loser to remain in Derry; takes it upon himself to seek help to the former Losers, who have all moved out of Derry and became successful as adults. The club's former leader, Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy) is now a novelist and screenwriter, while Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain) is a fashion designer. Richie Tozier (Bill Hader) is a stand up comedian, Eddie Kaspbrak (James Ransone) is a risk analist, Stanley Uris (Andy Bean) works in an accounting firm, and Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan) is an architect. While they've all become a big success, the rest of the former Losers (aside from Mike) have seemingly forgotten about their encounter with Pennywise, as the longer they stayed out of Derry, the more hazy their memories of Pennywise are. Mike, who had spent the last 27 years in Derry, was the only one whose memories stayed intact. Unlike the rest of the Losers, Mike spent 27 years researching Pennywise's origin, and in the process, how to kill it. Once the Losers regroup in Derry, it's up to them to rediscover their childhood memories and defeat the killer clown once and for all.

The adult version of the Losers has an impressive list of actors that pulls their characters of wonderfully. James McAvoy is brilliant as always being the adult Bill Denbrough, especially when it comes to moments of grief. McAvoy seamlessly blends into the role of the Losers Club's former leader, and like Jaeden Martell (who played the young Bill Denbrough in the predecessor), he carries most of the film's dramatic moments. Jessica Chastain is fierce as Beverly Marsh, taking over the role from Sophia Lillis with ease; while James Ransone as Eddie Kaspbrak not only looks exactly like his younger counterpart (previously played by Jack Dylan Grazer), but perfectly embodies Kaspbrak's mannerisms from Grazer's performance in the predecessor. Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, and Andy Bean also had fine performances as Mike Hanlon, Ben Hanscom, and Stanley Uris respectively. The standout however, as many have already said, is Saturday Night Live alumni Bill Hader as the group's loudmouth Richie Tozier (he's also fantastic in the show Barry. Definitely worth a watch). Hader is the film's biggest surprise, and perhaps mine, as I've seen him in many great SNL skits, so seeing him switch from comedy to horror was a pleasant surprise. But not only does Hader's Richie become the comedic relief, he's also the film's heart. 

Image source: IMDB

IT Chapter Two may be bigger in terms of horror aspects, but it doesn't quite hit as much as its predecessor did. What made the first IT such a great film was the chemistry and the relationship between the seven Losers. Nevermind that it isn't truly scary compared to other horror films, at least the film knew that it wanted the audience to care for these characters. Once they're placed into a terrifying ordeal, we're not scared of the monster that taunts them, but for the characters who are going against the monster. The characterizations of the first IT are effective, showing that the Losers are just as interesting on their own as they are together. Bill is traumatized over not being able to save Georgie from his gruesome fate, Beverly has a troubled home life with her overly possessive father, Eddie has an over-protective mother, Ben is taunted for being the new kid; you get the jist. It succeeded because we cared about the kids, we cared about what they were going through, even when it didn't involve Pennywise. The first film interwove their character arcs together wonderfully, and in return, it gave Pennywise a chance to turn their ordeals into true horror.

IT Chapter Two doesn't quite manage to do the same for the adults, save for Richie, who has a much more poignant storyline than the rest. As kids, Pennywise's appearance was a way to deal with their worst fears. As adults, it's more of facing an emotional trauma, which is certainly interesting, but the film never really explores this, instead treating it as more of a fragment of a memory. Moreover, the film chooses to focus on expositional dialogue rather than actually showing it, which could either be effective or unnecessary, depending on how you look at it. Even for a nearly three hour film, some of the developments seem too rushed, which would probably explain why there isn't as big of a connection between the audience and the Losers now as it did then when they were kids. The comradery is still there, but compared to its predecessor, there's a lack of development between the characters we once loved, whose journeys we followed with excitement and dread, not to mention that the characterizations are sacrificed for bigger (and sadly predictable) jumpscares; and it leaves some of that duty to the flashbacks. And because the film has some pacing issues, it does disrupt its coherence between serving the scares and developing the characters, which was something that its predecessor was much better at. 

Image source: IMDB

And then there's the formulaic scares that is too reminiscent of the usual horror tropes. The first film had those, but it wasn't overdone or repetitive. Most of the scares were genuine because it relied on silence and the character's expression to build the tension, not the over-done scary music that's a constant reminder that a jumpscare awaits. Take the scene in the first IT when Pennywise appears behind Beverly after she attacked her father. It had no buildup music that tells you a jumpscare was about to unfold. We only had a moment of silence before Beverly turns around, and low and behold, Pennywise was right behind her. It was an effective jumpscare because it was completely unexpected. Or perhaps when Stan encounters the flute lady, with only a tune and eventually the drop of the flute to create tension. It's devoid of the usual high pitch music that goes eerily silent for one second before a jumpscare, instead opting for a tune that would have been sweet to listen to, had it not come from a figure that Stan fears. Chapter Two, on the other hand, does feel like it's a little too reliant on cliché jumpscares that loses its momentum the more it repeats itself. The scares here don't stick as well as it did in the first film, though it doesn't fully fall flat on delivering some truly thrilling scares (helped immensely by Bill Skarsgård's brilliant return as Pennywise), and it especially doesn't hold back during the film's insane third act.

IT Chapter Two isn't a terrible film, by all means. In fact, there's still a lot to like from this film. It still manages to take some of the best aspects of both the predecessor and King's novel, and the fact that this one stays more faithful to the novel could be taken as more of a positive. As said before, there's still a sense of comradery for the most part that still manages to tug at heartstrings at times. When the Losers are back together, it's definitely a delight to see, especially during their reunion scene in a Chinese restaurant (the banter between Hader's Richie and Ransone's Eddie being one of the highlights). Despite rushing character development on the adult counterparts, the film does give some room for the characters to take a breather and have a moment of contemplation and nostalgia upon returning to their hometown; which are some of the film's best moments. It gives a pleasant sense of nostalgia to the kids that forged a lasting bond. The film is knows that it's a character driven story, for sure, and that the characters are what elevates the story. And when it lags in development, it soars in the chemistry, thanks to the film's impressive ensemble cast. There are moments where it hits you emotionally, some of them being from flashbacks, and others from the adult Losers.

Overall, IT Chapter Two is still a solid closure to the IT duology, and is a fine companion piece of the first IT. There's more to like than there is to dislike, especially when there are moments where the film is fully aware that the characters are what made the predecessor worked in the first place. The film retains that stunning cinematography of the first film, capturing beautiful shots in the midst of all the horror, accompanied by Benjamin Wallfisch's gorgeous score. The flashbacks with the kids can feel as if they overshadow the adult part of the story, but some offer much needed development towards the present day, especially when it comes to these characters reliving past memories of their hometown. Some of these scenes even became the film's emotional heavyweight, providing a sense of those childhood memories that we don't ever want to forget. It's not an easy task to adapt a story that spans a thousand pages, but Chapter Two did what it could to compress the second half of what is already 1,100 pages worth of story into a near three hour film; whilst developing some of its own narrative along the way. While Chapter Two isn't as cohesive as the first film, and it should have used its runtime more effectively, that certainly doesn't stop it from having its moments. 

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: IT Chapter Two provides a satisfying closure to the IT duology, despite its flaws. The ensemble cast that consists of McAvoy, Chastain, Ransone, Mustafa, and Ryan all have impressive performances as the adult Losers. However, it's Hader that steals the spotlight, providing most of the film's humor whilst also being the film's heart. Compared to its predecessor, the scares aren't as effective as the first film, but sometimes its need to amp up the scares pays off. As for the adult counterparts themselves, their development isn't as fleshed out as when they were kids; though it doesn't fully take away the joy of seeing the Losers back together. Even if it's a little more reliant on bigger scares this time, it's still aware that it's a character driven story, that in the end, it's the characters that help bring the film up on its feet. And since a big chunk of the story is about the Losers rediscovering their childhood, the film provides us with more flashbacks that could sometimes feel unnecessary, but other times pack that much needed emotional punch that drive the development in the present day. IT Chapter Two isn't as cohesive in when it comes to balancing its themes and elements as the first film, but it's still an enjoyable ride with plenty of moments to keep you invested.

Stars: 3.4/5

You can also read my review of the first IT here


 

 By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB
 
Director: F. Gary Gray
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, Liam Neeson, Rebecca Ferguson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall, Laurent Bourgeois, Larry Bourgeois, Emma Thompson.

 The Men in Black franchise was never really something I was fully attached to back then. I did remember having a lot of fun with it, but I was so confused with all this weird alien mumbo jumbo. As the years went by, I was much more fond of it than I was when I first saw it. A talking alien puppy, a time-traveling Boglodite, an entire freaking galaxy in a small piece of jewerly, and just all out fun action? Men in Black has it all. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as Agents J and K were one of the most iconic duos to ever cross the screen, and without them, Men in Black would not have worked as well as it did. As bad as Men in Black II was, Smith and Jones really knew how to carry a film. Heck, even Josh Brolin as a younger Agent K had great screen chemistry with Smith in Men in Black III. It's a trilogy that you can simply have fun with, no matter how ridiculous the plot and all these aliens can get, there's that sense of energetic vibe that you can't help but just go along with. It was a memorable trilogy, and one with a pretty satisfying conclusion. That is until its spin-off, Men in Black: International, came into the picture.

Men in Black: International begins with a young Molly Wright, who sees her parents get neuralized by the Men in Black after encountering an alien in their house. Years later, adult Molly (played by Tessa Thompson) is an ambitious seeker of the Men in Black, constantly seeking out the organization that deals with things that are not from earth. When she does find herself in the MiB quarters, she is recruited, but not before she could prove her worth in her position as an MiB agent by working alongside their neighboring branch in London. There, she meets the infamous Agent H (Chris Hemsworth), an agent known for his heroic act with fellow MiB leader High T (Liam Neeson) of taking down a big alien threat with "nothing but their wits and their Series-7 de-atomizers," something the film makes clear multiple times. M gets paired on a mission with H, where they discover that another alien threat had come to earth to seek a powerful weapon that has the potential to destroy a whole planet. Together, M and H team up to stop this alien threat from taking this weapon and save the Earth from destruction.

Image source: IMDB

 In what could have been a standout and a fresh take on the Men in Black franchise, the film is an unfortunate mess, with plot-holes that could have been much easier to explain than Captain America's ending in Avengers: Endgame. The film has a habit of introducing plot points that have no resolution, and that it would rather move on to another plot point without the previous being resolved. The plot is a mess, with no sense of direction as to where it really wants to go. It's like little sidequests in a video game that have little to no use in propelling the main plot. It doesn't even give the characters room to breath and show some kind of development. Take the plot point regarding an alien death merchant played by Rebecca Ferguson that only serves as room for more fight scenes and wasted potential. However ridiculous or forgettable Men in Black III might be (I actually enjoyed it for what it is, to be honest), its plot points and the characters that come across Will Smith's Agent J and Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K, at least they all served a purpose one way or another, either as their ally or someone serving vital information for the mission (when else can you see Andy Warhol as an alien informant?) Point is, they propel the plot. Men in Black: International had none of those. Don't even get me started on the villains, even Boris the Animal from Men in Black III had better development than them.

Men in Black: International lacks that feeling of genuine comedic absurdity that made the first three Men in Black films highly enjoyable. Men in Black is memorable for how crazy they can be without having it feel forced. Remember the giant cockroach alien that tried to steal the "galaxy on Orion's belt", which turned out to be an entire galaxy lying on the collar of a cat named Orion? Or how Agent K defeated said villain by intentionally offering himself to be swallowed whole just so he could shoot the alien from the inside with his favorite gun? Those things are what made Men in Black so memorable. This new Men in Black just feels so...lifeless. Not that it has to go all out in order to sell itself, but it lacks that energetic vibe that the previous three films had (well, with the exception of Men in Black II, but that's just me). The thing is, it nailed the delivery of banter and jokes, thanks to the likes of Hemsworth and Thompson. The real issue is the script, the content of the banter and the jokes themselves. The jokes won't crack more than an eyeroll. It's not that they're terribly forced, they just didn't stick the landing. There's a running gag between Agent H and another fellow MiB agent about H being "papa's little boy" that just isn't funny and drags on for a good minute. Chris Hemsworth is a genuinely funny actor. He can nail a punchline when it's actually good. When you give Hemsworth comedy-worthy lines, you can work wonders with it. Thor: Ragnarok is a fine example of that.

Image source: IMDB

 For a film that surely requires exposition, however crazy it is, it seems much more content with exposition about what certain characters did rather than actually showing what they can do. Men in Black: International suffers the same curse as Captain Marvel: characters who are told to have certain traits but lack the physical evidence from the characters themselves to prove it. In other words, they're much more focused on the tell than show. In Men in Black: International, we're told countless times that High T and Agent H defeated a big alien threat years ago. Due to this, Agent H is deemed a hero, and other than his triumph at defeating said great alien threat, he's regarded as one of the best agents in the London branch. But we don't get to see this great agent. Instead, we get a cocky agent who apparently didn't see that a high ranking Jabbabian alien is in danger of assassination until it's too late (even after the alien literally warned him in clear desperation). Either it's him taking the "Jabbabians like to have good time" rule too literally, or that he's gotten drunk off-screen. And because story likes to sometimes jump ahead before anything is resolved, we don't get to see much of the character development. The first Men in Black worked because we got to see the development between Agent J and Agent K. Their development as individual characters and with each other was what made their dynamic work.

 Men in Black: International could have been a game-changer to the MiB franchise, unfortunately it's easily forgettable. Sure, it has its moments and at the very least, you can have fun with it. Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson are the perfect buddy cop comedy duo, and they could have fit right in when they're armed with a good script. Sadly, their dynamic wavers because of the messy plot and flat jokes. They're one of the very few aspects that made the film watchable. I quite liked the scene where Thompson's character tried to convince her fellow employers that she would like to be in the division that deals with things from "up there", which led to one of her potential employers to say "you mean accounting?" It was silly, but I liked Thompson's delivery of it. They did what they could with the script, but even they couldn't bring in much energy if the script itself doesn't work in the first place. In the end, Men in Black: International is unfortunately forgettable. More than anything, it felt as it didn't try to do anything new to the story, which is why it failed to really make itself standout among the previous Men in Black films. However, it's definitely not boring. It can have fun when it wants to be, and sometimes it's unashamed of its ridiculousness. This is the type of film that you watch when nothing else is playing, and you just want to have a little fun. You'll get it here, for sure, but to say that it's reinventing the Men in Black franchise is a bit of a stretch, especially when it simply stands as just another Men in Black film, perhaps the least favored of the bunch.

Image source: IMDB

 Overall verdict: Despite the star power of Hemsworth and Thompson, Men in Black: International lacks that genuine energetic vibe that made the previous three films so enjoyable (except Men in Black II, it was just a really weird film for me). The story just didn't seem all that cohesive, especially when it spends much of its time jumping onward to different plot points before the previous one could be solved. It's as if a chapter in a school subject is being discussed, but before you could even fully understand it, the teacher moves to a completely new chapter without having even finished it. That's what Men in Black: International felt like. What's worse is that most of these plot points have no significant impact that propels the story. So what was the point of having all that just to lead up to nothing? Moreover, this Men in Black felt unusually lifeless, and the jokes fell completely flat. I couldn't really find one that I laughed at, maybe just smiled at the delivery of it, thanks to Hemwsorth and Thompson. And that was the problem: the delivery was perfect, but the joke itself wasn't. Hemsworth and Thompson are really the best aspects of the film, their chemistry was there, it's just the development that's lacking quite a bit. That's not to say Men in Black: International was fully lifeless to point that it bores you for the entire runtime, it does have its fun moments. You can forgive its faults as a Men in Black film, it just fails to stand out among them.

 Stars: 2.5/5


By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB
 
Avengers: Endgame has been out for weeks, but I'm still giving out a spoiler warning to give some chance for anyone who hasn't seen it. If you haven't seen it, I suggest that you watch the film first, then come back. If you have seen it, welcome aboard to the spoilers discussion. This is mostly just my spoilery thoughts about Avengers: Endgame since I have a lot of feelings with this film. It's possible that I might have missed out on a few things in this spoiler review, but really, I just wanted to discuss about the things that stood out to me, and things that made me downright emotional. Let's get into them.

 [SPOILER WARNING. THERE WILL BE MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS: ENDGAME. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED, TURN BACK NOW]

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Still here?

Alright.

Let’s talk spoilers

Thor finally goes for the head

Image source: IMDB

In some ways, I knew that somehow this confrontation wasn’t going to work out. The fact that what I expected to happen actually happened made it quite a surprise, which was that the infinity stones were already destroyed. This was one specific theory that I said to myself would be interesting if they actually did it, and they did. By the time the Avengers found out where he was, they were too late; Thanos had already used the stones to destroy themselves two days earlier. I thought that was an interesting way to set the film up. One particular scene that I have to mention here that I actually really liked, both because of the visuals and the music; was after Thor beheads Thanos (because of course he finally went for the head), he walks out of the front porch, with Alan Silvestri’s somber version of the “Porch” track from Infinity War. I thought that was a really great contrast to when compared to the ending of Infinity War, where Silvestri used the music to symbolize both the defeat of the Avengers whilst also highlighting Thanos’ victory and serenity; while in Endgame, a much somber version of the track is played to symbolize the Avengers’ second defeat. It just gives me chills.


Five years later

Image source: IMDB

If you’ve been keeping up with news and theories regarding the MCU, chances are, the five-year time jump won’t be much of a surprise. The time jump was something that had been previously discussed prior to the film’s release. In this film’s case, it jumps from 2018 to the year 2023. Here, we see that the world hasn’t fully moved on yet, including the Avengers. They can’t really do much other than accepting that half the population is wiped out and all they could really do is provide comfort and support for each other. Tony has somehow moved on by settling down with Pepper and the cutest surprise, a daughter, while Steve is holding a support group for people in grief, and Natasha is overseeing conflicts within earth and the galaxy through contacts with Okoye, Carol Danvers, Rocket, and Rhodes. Scenes in the first act like Natasha silently crying and Steve coming over to comfort her gave room for our heroes to show vulnerability, that such a defeat would have a great effect on them. It gives so much more emotional depth and in those moments, we see them as more than just superheroes, we see them as humans. Hawkeye, who lost his family to the snap in the beginning of the film, becomes the vigilante Ronin. I loved the Tokyo sequence where Ronin takes down some sort of mafia gang, but it does feel like it belongs in another film, because it had a completely different vibe compared to everything else (for some reason, it gave me John Wick vibes).

Whilst we see other Avengers grieving over the Snap, it’s Thor who’s drastically changed. Some people may not like how the film went with his character, since he no longer looks the part of the mighty God of Thunder, but instead as a sort of hermit who has isolated himself from everyone else in New Asgard (save for Korg and Meik) and is playing Fortnite (yes, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Fortnite is still a thing in 2023) whilst constantly drowning himself in booze. I honestly enjoyed where they were going with Thor. It’s understandable that their failure to undo the Snap has affected Thor a lot. He has lost the people he loves, he lost his home and he lost his people to Thanos’ slaughter in the beginning of Infinity War. The reaction Thor has when Bruce mentions Thanos is undeniably heartbreaking. You see his pain, his grief, and his denial when Bruce says they have might have found a way to solve the Thanos problem. But throughout the film, we see that despite being unable to forgive himself for preventing the snap, it doesn’t make him any less of a hero. I loved that in the second act, he got to spend more time with his mother and that he sought guidance from her. It was a nice little scene that actually warmed my heart.

Back to the Future

Image source: IMDB


The time travel element was actually really fun, I’m not going to lie. I loved going back to the events of previous films and looking at them in a completely different perspective (like how we see that boisterous opening to Guardians of the Galaxy where Peter Quill dances to “Come and Get Your Love,” just in the perspective of an outsider who of course, would think Quill’s an idiot for dancing on his own. I’m looking at you, Rhodey). Honestly, the time-travel logic kind of went over my head the first time I saw it. It literally took a second viewing for me to really see their time-travel logic. As Bruce explains it, travelling through time and taking the stones won’t affect their current timeline, but it would open some sort of alternate timeline. Not sure if I’m saying this right, but he did say something along the lines of “your present self becomes your past” (anyone who remembers this line, help a friend out). Point is, as explained by Banner and later The Ancient One, the present them that is about to embark on this time heist will be their past, meaning that anything from the past events won’t be affected, rather it opens up another branch reality. Also, they really had the audacity to say that Back to the Future, aka one of my most favorite films of all time; was a bunch of nonsense (not taking this to heart, it did give me chuckles when they mentioned it). 

Time travel logic bonanza aside, I just really loved that the film was reliving past events. Fans who have watched and cherished previous MCU films will be truly rewarded by the second act. There’s something so nostalgic and so joyful about returning to 2012 New York and seeing the present Avengers witness their past selves. And I loved that fight scene between present Steve and past Steve. It was a fun little fight scene. Let’s also address that joke about Captain America’s ass, because that joke was the one my theater laughed the hardest at. I mean, when do you ever get to see Captain America looking at his past self and saying “that is America’s ass”? That was admittedly hilarious because it came out of nowhere and it was so sudden, yet so delightful to see. Also, this might be a major plot hole, but Loki escaped with the tesseract, so there’s an alternate branch timeline where Loki didn’t go to Asgard with Thor and is actually still alive out there..? Or….is that some sort of set up for the new Loki show that’s coming out? Either way, that should be a pretty fun arc to explore.

Now, about that 1970s New Jersey sequence. Some may say this is where the film is just stalling for some more returning appearances from other MCU characters. In this film’s case, it’s the much younger versions of Howard Stark and Hank Pym. Maybe you can see it as an excuse to fit in more returning characters and make MCU fans gasp upon seeing them, but I didn’t mind it one bit. I liked that Tony got some one-on-one time with his dad, even if he wasn’t able to say that he’s Howard’s future son. It gave the characters a more emotional depth. I also felt a little pang in my heart when Steve saw Peggy again (I want to give a shoutout to Alan Silvestri for bringing back Cap’s original tracks because those added so many emotional and nostalgic beats to the scenes), and I squealed when Edwin Jarvis showed up (any Agent Carter fans out there?). I happened to watch Agent Carter back when it aired, so I couldn’t forget about Howard’s beloved butler who Tony’s A.I is named after. This was perhaps the first from Marvel’s line of television characters to actually appear in an MCU film.

Image source: Slash Film


Then we get to second major death scene after Thanos in Vormir. As soon as they paired Natasha and Clint together to go to Vormir, I instantly knew it was a bad idea. What made it worse is that I already knew who was going to die. Little backstory about this, so about a week before I saw the film, a friend of mine had a couple of theories, one of them being that two Avengers will die in the film. This leads to another one of his predictions that Natasha will be one of the two deaths. Fast-forward to the day Endgame came out, my friend had already gotten spoilers from someone who had seen it. He decided to give me some hints about one of the spoilers, which actually confirmed two of his predictions: two Avengers will indeed die and that one of those deaths were between Steve Rogers and Natasha. My guess at the time was Steve Rogers. Now back to when I finally saw the film and came across the Vormir scene. Because my friend had indirectly spoiled it for me, I already knew who was going to die. But here’s the thing, even if I knew who was going to die, it doesn’t make the death any less painful. What made it even more sad is Natasha’s last line to the Avengers before they head separate ways for their mission was “See you in a minute.” It was actually more emotional for me the second time because I was already aware of what was going to happen.

A Worthy Third Act

Image source: Youtube

What else can I say other than that the third act is one epic finale? I think it’s safe to say that it is one of the best third acts I’ve seen in a superhero film. I mean, Captain America finally wielding Mjolnir? That was freaking epic. And just when I thought it couldn’t get any better, they amped it up by having the heroes who were previously snapped out of existence have an epic return. I was squealing and I had the biggest chills watching it on the big screen. I’m sorry if I repeat the word “epic” but how else could I describe this entire act? Some of the scenes here even have “fan-service” written all over it, but guess what? The fan-service here just works. They’re doing more than just mere wish-fulfillment for the fans, they’re honoring the fans who have followed the franchise for eleven years. I also want to add the Wanda vs Thanos scene because heck yes, Wanda finally shows her full potential. Her powers always had the potential to be so much more than what the previous films have shown, and in here, they went all out and really gave her the spotlight. If it wasn’t for the aerial strikes, Wanda would have definitely defeated him easily and the film would have been over sooner (and Tony wouldn’t have died too). Which leads us to....

 “And I….am Iron Man.”

Image source: IMDB


As soon as Doctor Strange gave Tony the signal that this was the one chance that they would win, I was already dreading for what’s going to happen. When it was revealed that Tony had taken all the infinity stones from Thanos and preceeded with the words that started the entire MCU, the very infamous “I am Iron Man,” I was in tears. I knew he wouldn’t survive, but at the same time, I had a slight bit of hope that he would. But he didn’t, and when Peter Parker was crying and saying “Mr. Stark, we won,” while Tony was on the verge of death; I was full-out sobbing. It didn’t help that they showed his arc reactor flickering out when he was dying. Now, I was already sobbing when Tony died, but when they showed the arc reactor that Pepper gave him in the first Iron Man at his funeral, that was when I truly lost it. It didn’t help that the shot panned through every single hero that came after him, because in the end, it was Tony Stark that started this whole thing. I’m not sure if the whole theater sobbed, but it’s probably because I couldn’t hear it over my own tears, though I do know that the kid who sat beside actually cried as well. The MCU has crafted so many amazing heroes, and Iron Man was one of them. His development throughout each film he’s in just makes us love him more. The fact that his death hit audiences so hard means that the MCU has done a spectacular job in creating and developing these characters. We feel the weight of Tony’s death because we’ve spent more than a decade with him, seeing his development and how he falls and thrives again. It's just....I have never cried so hard over a death scene since Logan.

Steve stays with Peggy

Image source: IMDB

There’s one other thing I need to talk about. I’ve mentioned in my spoiler-free review that there are things I didn’t particularly like, and that’s Cap’s ending. This ending may be polarizing because as far as I know, I’ve seen people who hate his ending, love it, or just accept it, with valid reasons for each point. Most of my friends who’ve seen the film aren’t very fond of his ending, and I hate to say it, but I’m also one of those people. Now again, time travel here apparently doesn’t have any effect on the present, instead creating another branch timeline. Our heroes, Bruce Banner specifically, have clearly stated much earlier in the second act that they have no intention of messing their own timeline, hence why they’re adamant on returning the stones back to the time it was taken as soon as the job’s done. With how they concluded Cap’s story though, it’s the complete opposite of that. I don’t even know how to explain that there seemingly isn’t any effect on the current timeline. It isn’t even clear on whether or not he went to his current or another timeline to be with Peggy. 

Yes, Sam says that he’s living in a world without Captain America, but the film treats it like a minor thing. If the modern world never got to see Captain America, that means films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Captain America: Civil War never happened, or at least; the film never addresses whether or not those stories are completely erased from the current timeline. That means that his roles in the previous Avengers films are non-existent. Honestly, I don’t know, I mean I am glad that Steve finally got to settle down and have that happy ending with Peggy, and the passing of the torch scene where he gives his shield to Sam was touching, but shouldn’t his decision affect the current timeline and perhaps open a new one? Which is ironic considering that Bruce specifically said to not mess around and to close the other alternate loops that might happen. I'm pretty sure that by staying in the past with Peggy, Steve was doing the exact opposite of what Bruce told him to do.

                                       Final Thoughts:

Image source: IMDB

After seeing this film multiple times, it’s safe to say that my love for it hasn’t wavered. I can’t say if this is my most favorite MCU film (for now, that spot still belongs to Guardians of the Galaxy) but it is most definitely in my top five. Avengers: Endgame honors the fans who have been following the franchise since Tony Stark said "I am Iron Man" in 2008. The MCU has crafted these characters so wonderfully that we can't help but feel bittersweet to say goodbye to the characters we know and love. I never really put much thought into how I would feel when I had to say goodbye to the characters I have been following for years, but now that the time is finally here, I can say that I was not prepared for it. Endgame was really the perfect sendoff for the original six Avengers (save for Steve Rogers, but I don't hate his ending, it just didn't really make sense on a logical standpoint and it created so many questions and plot holes). And I love the credits sequence, especially when they honored the original six, that part made me cry because that is where I felt like I was truly saying goodbye to not only Tony Stark, but to the rest of the original Avengers. Endgame was an experience, and it was one that had everything I wanted, but at the same time, it had things that I did not expect; and that elevated the experience.
Newer Posts Older Posts Home

HELLO THERE!

Welcome to my blog! I'm an English Literature graduate navigating through a sea of films and books.

Categories

  • Articles/Editorials 12
  • Film Reviews 84
  • Movie Rewinds 6
  • Series Reviews 5

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Advertisement

Powered by Blogger.

Report Abuse

  • Home
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • ▼  2021 (15)
    • ▼  July (1)
      • Mid Year Book Freak Out Tag (+ video!)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2020 (10)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  February (2)
  • ►  2019 (9)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  March (1)
  • ►  2018 (26)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
  • ►  2017 (27)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2016 (20)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

  • 2021 15
    • July 1
      • Mid Year Book Freak Out Tag (+ video!)
    • June 2
    • May 1
    • March 2
    • February 4
    • January 5
  • 2020 10
    • December 5
    • November 1
    • May 2
    • February 2
  • 2019 9
    • November 3
    • October 1
    • September 1
    • July 1
    • May 2
    • March 1
  • 2018 26
    • December 3
    • November 3
    • October 3
    • September 1
    • July 3
    • June 2
    • May 2
    • April 3
    • March 3
    • February 3
  • 2017 27
    • December 4
    • November 1
    • October 5
    • September 4
    • August 2
    • July 3
    • May 2
    • April 1
    • March 3
    • January 2
  • 2016 20
    • December 2
    • November 8
    • October 4
    • September 3
    • May 1
    • April 1
    • March 1
Show more Show less

Pages

  • Home
  • Home
  • Film Reviews
  • Series Reviews
  • Movie Rewinds
  • Editorials
  • What's Listed
  • Home
  • Features
  • _post format
  • _error page
  • Beauty
  • Fashion
  • Lifestyle
  • Contact
  • Buy now

Popular Posts

  • The Trial of the Chicago 7- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: Aaron Sorkin Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mark Rylance, Je...
  • Nomadland- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: Chloé Zhao Cast: Frances McDormand, David Straithairn, Linda May, Swankie, Peter Spears, Bo...
  • Judas and the Black Messiah- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image source: WBUR Director: Shaka King Cast: Lakeith Stanfield, Daniel Kaluuya, Jesse Plemons, Dominique Fishback, Darre...
  • Home
  • Features
    • Error Page
    • Short Codes
  • Documentation
  • Download This Template

featured posts

Advertisement

Copyright © Mockingbird In A Blizzard. Designed by OddThemes