Doctor Strange (2016) Review

"I learned to tap into powers I never knew existed" - Dr. Stephen Strange

"Less superpowers, more magic" declares 2016, as we move into the final phase of blockbusters for the year. With Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them serving as a prequel to the magical Harry Potter series and a new entry in the Star Wars universe set to dominate the box-office, Marvel Studios have decided to join in the fun with their most popular sorcerer making his big screen debut. Doctor Strange is the latest entry in the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, and is the first film since 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy to not be a sequel. 

The film follows renowned surgeon Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) living his ideal lifestyle, surrounded by wealth and awards. However, after a horrendous car accident, Stephen's body is damaged to the point where his hands will never be able to replicate his previous skills. Becoming a bitter and lonesome individual, he finally seeks aid in Nepal from a sorceress known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). The Ancient One, along with sorcerers Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Wong (Benedict Wong), teaches Stephen their magical ways, including travelling through various dimensions. This brings Stephen into contact with the sinister Kaecillius (Mads Mikkelsen) and his cohorts, former students of the Ancient One, who plan to conjure an entity known as Dormammu to engulf the Earth.

The film's greatest strength is Cumberbatch. As we witness Stephen's evolution of having everything, then nothing, and then more than he could possibly imagine, it is Cumberbatch who draws us in with his commanding performance. He manages to portray the many stages of Stephen's life with complete believably. Never once did I feel he wasn't the fantastic surgeon, the hateful loner, or the all powerful sorcerer. Despite being surrounded by special effects and other high-profile actors, Cumberbatch is the film. So the film boasts perhaps Marvel's most engaging hero to date, but it sadly continues their trend of utterly forgettable villains. Kaecillius is an ex student to the Ancient One who has turned evil (not the most original idea). He is given no personal connection to Stephen and actually says very little throughout the film. Like Christopher Eccleston before him, we have a fantastic actor in Mads Mikkelsen completely underused in a role that seems tailor-made for him. Eccleston's dramatic weight was perfect for the role of Malakith in 2013's Thor: The Dark World, and after playing Bond villain Le Chiffre in Casino Royale (2006) and Hannibal Lecter on television, Mikkelsen is exactly who you want to see be a villain in a superhero film. This is one aspect the MCU desperately needs to improve upon, especially when tackling more famous villains, such as the Vulture in next year's Spiderman film.

The other characters are OK, but nothing special. The Ancient One is certainly the next most important character behind Stephen, as she epitomises the supernatural elements of the story. Despite the Ancient One being older than the other characters can comprehend, she is given a well-grounded performance by Tilda Swinton, who works as a good opposite to Stephen as he begins to learn about magic and the other dimensions. Rachel McAdams plays former lover Christine Palmer, who at first appears as though she will play a main part in the story as she personally knows Stephen better than any other character. However, she is actually given very little to do, disappearing from the film as Stephen learns of his new powers only to show up again all of a sudden. Her reaction to Stephen's new abilities is also a little odd. She barely flinches at seeing him in his astro-form, and then later on doubts him when he mentions he gets around via creating portals. Wong and Mordo aren't given much character, and so I didn't find myself caring for them nearly as much as the film wanted me to. They're not bad characters by any means, but they don't leave much of an impression.

The film also appears to obviously borrow from other blockbusters in terms of plot and visuals. The special effects when the characters enter an alternate dimension which allows buildings to be moved are instantly recognisable from Christopher Nolan's Inception (2010). Whilst impressive, having almost the exact same look is a bit of a distraction and isn't as powerful as intended. The film's climax is exactly the same as another Marvel film: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), which I thought was a bit strange considering that film isn't generally held in high regard, and yet it is mirrored here in Doctor Strange. An ancient being attempts to consume the earth and the hero must enter the void of destruction and confront his gargantuan foe face to face in order to stop him. The character of Silver Surfer confronts Galactus this way, and so does Doctor Strange with Dormammu in this film. It's something we've seen done before, and with the film's license to be as wild and imaginative as possible, this seemed a pretty cheap climax.

Despite a few minor gripes, Doctor Strange is at least a consistently fun film. Less downbeat than Captain America: Civil War (2016) and taking a more humorous approach similar to Guardians of the Galaxy is a welcome choice. Cumberbatch is no doubt the highlight, but it does also have some cool action sequences and a decent pace to keep interest. It also knows not to over-stay its welcome, clocking in at around two hours, whereas every other MCU film seems to want to stretch itself over the two and half hour mark. It would be a lie to say that you'd really be missing out on something amazing if you chose not to see it, but for what it is, it achieves its goal of being a fun little adventure with a likeable cast. Not spectacular, but not bad either. 

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) Review

"Everything they've built will fall!" - Apocalypse.

It seemed as though barley any time had passed between the release of three mammoth-sized superhero films. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice bored me, and so Captain America: Civil War acted as a painkiller and showed that superheroes in conflicted could be entertaining and not such a drag. After no time at all, we have yet another superhero film, and it seems as though people are treating X-Men: Apocalypse as the "one too many" release. Audiences are quickly being burnt out with the plethora of comic book films which are showing no signs of slowing down, but is the eighth entry in the X-Men franchise deserving of the disinterest, or is it just a case of it being released at the wrong time?

Following on from the craziness of 2014's Days of Future Past, X-Men: Apocalypse keeps things relatively straight-forward. Once again focusing on the younger incarnations of the X-Men, we are re-introduced to iconic characters such as Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). Their journey to become X-Men can't come soon enough, as an ancient evil in the guise of Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has awoken. Seeking to purify the world so that only the strongest mutants are the dominant species, Apocalypse assembles a new team of followers, including Magneto (Michael Fassbender). It's now up to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and the other X-Men to prevent Apocalypse from carrying out his plan.

Bryan Singer returns to direct, after continuing the franchise's success with Days of Future Past. Though he was able to tell a dizzying story in that film coherently, his direction here has the opposite effect. The story is less complex, but the pacing is a little off to begin with. Most of the first act has to establish where the characters are after the events of the last film, re-introduce the younger incarnations of the X-Men and also introduce the mythology of Apocalypse. It's a lot to juggle and the film comes across as imbalanced because of it. When it appears that Singer has finally got the ball rolling, there is an out-of-nowhere moment that halts everything. Colonel Stryker (Josh Helman) reappears and captures some of the X-Men, so the one's left behind have to go and rescue them. No of this seems to have any connection to the main plot of Apocalypse, and it takes up way too much screen-time. The sequence only exists to have Hugh Jackman keep up his record of appearing in every X-Men film, but I don't see much point in having another scene showing us the origins of Wolverine when X-Men 2 (2002) already told us plenty.

One thing the film did make we realise was how much I've missed seeing James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto. Many fans loved their chemistry in X-Men: First Class (2011), and both actors are as fantastic as ever here. In this film, we see them forced to contemplate exactly where they stand on the existence of both humans and mutants, with Magneto joining forces with Apocalypse and Charles having to confront Apocalypse on a telepathic level. Their scene's are the best parts of the film, and I'd be more than happy to see them return for more. Both characters are infinitely more compelling than the villain, which I'm sad to say doesn't fit the supposed massive scale I expected. With Apocalypse seeing himself as more a of a god than a mutant, I expected a stronger presence than menace, but he has very little to do and doesn't demonstrate much of his powers throughout the film. His backstory sets him up to be the most incredible foe the X-Men have ever faced, but he only confronts the team once and doesn't achieve much other than assembling his essential "Four Horseman".

Finally, I would like to mention my feelings of this film alongside my thoughts on the two other superhero blockbusters I have already reviewed. Although X-Men: Apocalypse is clunky and lacks a good villain, it was the first of the three films where I felt I had actually watched a story play out on-screen. Batman v Superman is hardly a film, it exists purely to set up sequels and throw iconic characters at us without focusing on why we should be invested in their conflict or feelings. Civil War, while an entertaining experience, is all built around that one massive fight sequence. The conflict in Civil War is better than BvS, but on reflection, it will serve as an example of how dumbed-down we like our cinema nowadays. Of course, a big selling point of X-Men: Apocalypse is seeing the team fight the villains, but there is much more emotional weight and less hammy acting than  BvS or Civil War. Bryan Singer actually wants to get you invested in his characters, and the chemistry between the cast was more believable and enjoyable overall. Bottom-line: it may not be the best superhero film, but with Civil War being praised as some kind of masterpiece, this was always going to have a lukewarm reception. I, however, cannot fathom why everyone thinks Civil War is so perfect, and so I recommend you check out X-Men for a more engrossing and just as entertaining film. 

Oh, and its a million times better than BvS, just in case you hadn't figured that out yet.

Captain America: Civil War (2016) Review

"I know we're not perfect, but the safest hands are still our own." - Captain America.

My work schedule is finally starting to clear up. But, no matter how busy I was, there was always room to fit in going to see Captain America: Civil War. I really admired last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron (the first film I reviewed on this blog), and so I was looking forward to seeing how these characters have progressed since then. This time around, the Avengers aren't up against a madman wanting to destroy or takeover the world, but instead are torn apart over government interference and personal issues. Boasting new, exciting characters such as Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spiderman (Tom Holland), Civil War aims to up the ante greater than any other MCU film. With it's engaging story and characters as well as incredible action, the film achieves its goal and is a stunning opening chapter in the third phase of the most successful franchise in film history.

Following on one year after the Avengers defeated Ultron, Captain America (Chris Evans) leads Scarlet Witch (Elisabeth Olsen), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Falcon (Anthony Mackie) on another mission. Their attempts to prevent the theft of a biological weapon ends in many innocent lives lost, with Scarlet Witch unable to be in complete control of her powers. This leads Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) to try and convince the team to agree to a new government initiative to keep the Avengers' actions limited, so as to lessen the chances of any more destruction. This causes a fraction within the team, with Captain America insisting they should act on their own freewill, and Iron Man feeling the imitative is the right thing to due after feeling guilty about creating Ultron in the last film. The divide is cemented by an attempt to frame Captain America's friend, Bucky (Sebastian Stan), which is orchestrated by a man named Zemo (Daniel Bruhl). Zemo seeks revenge on the team for the destruction they caused to his country in the last film, and feels the best way to do so is by having them fight one-another. So its Captain America and his Team vs. Iron Man, his team and the government, in the biggest superhero conflict ever devised!

A major plus point for the film is that it invests plenty of time into the motivations, emotions and personalities of the many characters. We've seen the tension between Iron Man and Captain America in previous films, but never have the stakes been this high. There's good drama to be had from Tony Stark (Iron Man) contemplating whether or not the Avengers are any better than "the bad guys" if they aren't supervised, but at the same time, Captain America's thoughts are difficult to argue against. So really, whichever "team" you decide to cheer for will come down to which you find the more cool, as both lead characters put in compelling arguments for and against the supervision initiative. I was also pleased that Scarlet Witch and Vision (Paul Bettany) are further developed. Scarlet Witch has made her transition from evil to good, but she is the most emotionally unstable of the group. Vision, being the all powerful being that he is, is able to understand her struggles, which covers the more sentimental parts of the film. This development aids the conflict as Scarlet Witch joins Captain America's side and Vision joins Iron Man's, which makes for far better viewing than just having a "good" character fight the token "bad" character, as is so often the case with superhero films.

Alongside the well written characters is the outstanding action. After city-scale battles in the two Avengers films, Civil War delivers on keeping up Marvel's high standard. This is helped by pitting the team against on another, as now they are facing their equals in combat. Before, the Avengers battled alien soldiers and robots, but now we get to see an all out battle involving technology, magic and hand-to-hand combat all being used against one another. There is also room for plenty of humour, too, especially when Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) is involved. This prevents the lengthy action sequences from becoming tiring, and is a more than welcome presentation after the anti-climatic Batman v Superman a few months earlier. I don't want to go into too much depth here, as the action is the film's selling point and is best experienced without knowing all the little details.

Aside from the promise of seeing the Avengers battle one-another, much of the film's hype revolved around the introduction of two new characters. The first is Black Panther, who joins the fight after Bucky is framed for murdering his father. With incredible speed and agility, he is more than a match for most of the team. Chadwick Boseman is thankfully given much to do with the role, going from a proud son to a vengeful vigilante, whilst still remaining likeable throughout. However, for all of Black Panther's might and presence, he was never going to top the inclusion of Spiderman, seen here for the first time in the MCU. Whilst it was only two years ago we last saw this character (in the underwhelming mess The Amazing Spiderman 2), audiences aren't growing tired of him anytime soon, as proven by the reaction his reveal received online as well as the screening I was at. Tom Holland is the first teenage actor to play the role, and his performance is noticeably different from previous actor's portrayals as a result. He has a vulnerable look due to his young age, but when in costume, delivers all the humour and tricks one could hope for. I wasn't surprised to see he wasn't in the film too long, as they've yet to fully establish him in the MCU and was more a treat for the fans than anything else. I look forward to seeing him in his own MCU film next year.

The film is selling itself on the spectacle of superhero team vs. superhero team, and you get exactly that. However, there is nothing too surprising overall about the plot, aside from one potential game-changer reveal towards the end. Whilst it isn't as cookie-cutter as other superhero movies, there isn't anything that stands out as brand new, other than the sheer scale of action and characters involved. That said, there is certainly a lot to enjoy throughout, especially the battle at the airport, where all the heroes get a chance to show off their unique abilities. After the depressing tone of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, this film feels like a breath of fresh air. It's much more fun and the conflict is handled so much better as the focus is mainly on Iron Man and Captain America. The supporting characters are all memorable, and it nicely sets up the rest of the series. Chances are you've probably seen the film by now, but if you haven't, go in expecting a fun ride and some decent drama and you'll have a blast. 

Tobey Maguire vs. Andrew Garfield: Who was the better Peter Parker/Spiderman?

So, the Spiderman franchise is being rebooted. For the second time in six years (2018 is the proposed year the new film shall be released)! Tom Holland will play the Web-slinger, and the film will be set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But how will Holland measure up against the two actors who have played the character on film? Lets take a look at Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and determine who, for now, is the better Peter Parker/Spiderman.

First, Peter Parker. This is where analysing who is better in the role is really tough, as they have to be both convincing as nerdy high-schooler Peter Parker, and then be convincing as a superhero. With the Maguire trilogy of films (2002-2007), there is definitely more focus on Peter's outsider status, with him being picked on throughout the first film's opening 15 minutes, and then later getting into a fight with school bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello). He is shown to be clumsy by nature in the second film, even after he gains his superpowers. He fails at his job as a pizza delivery boy and fails to stand up for himself when confronted by the manager. Personality wise, Maguire's Peter Parker is kind hearted, but very shy, and so he's an easy target for the bullies. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that even though he lives right next door to his love interest, Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he is unable to bring himself to asking her out. In the first film, I was totally convinced with the portrayal of the character, and Maguire brings out the weaknesses of the character very well. With Andrew Garfield in the newest incarnation, there is one fundamental problem with how Peter is presented: he's too cool. This kid would not be bullied at school, despite the fact the film tries its best to display intelligence as a nerdy trait (Einstein posters on his bedroom wall etc.). When Peter confronts Flash in The Amazing Spiderman (2012), he stands up to him before he gets his superpowers. Granted he confronts him again later in the film as he is learning about his new powers, but for me, Peter Parker shouldn't be the one standing up to bullies. Its his lack of courage to begin with that makes his transformation into Spiderman more awe-inspiring. 

Garfield's Peter Parker is also very cocky, with him obtaining a pass to a science demonstration without his name on the list, just by simply taking an ID badge and smiling confidently at the receptionist. To make up for his obviously un-nerdy persona, Peter acts even more awkwardly around his love interest (Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone), but it still isn't enough to convince me that this guy would get picked on. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Garfield's performance, but when compared to Maguire, its the latter that fits the criteria for the character of Peter Parker more. Of course, one of the biggest parts of Peter's story in both films is his relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen in each respective series). In both films, Peter unintentionally plays a big part in the character's death, with him refusing to be a good samaritan and letting a criminal get away, which leads to Uncle Ben being shot. This is the big emotional moment of both series, and for me, the writing behind Peter in the Maguire series is what gives him a big advantage in this comparison. After gaining his powers, Maguire's Peter enters a wrestling tournament and wins a large cash prize, which he hopes to buy a car with to impress Mary-Jane. However, the crooked manager of the tournament refuses to pay, and so Peter doesn't intervene when he is robbed at gun-point. When this results in Uncle Ben's murder, it is a lot more powerful because Peter has acted selfishly towards Uncle Ben in a prior scene by refusing to listen to his advice. Combining that with his pride of not interfering with the manager being robbed, makes for a greater tragic moment as Peter realises what his selfishness has caused. In The Amazing Spiderman, Garfield's Peter refuses to listen to Uncle Ben in a similar manner. However, his confrontation with an employee at a shop that leads to Uncle Ben being shot is very unconvincing. In the first series, Peter refuses to act due to not being paid money to impress a girl. In the newest series, Uncle Ben is killed simply because Peter didn't have enough money to buy a chocolate milk. It just isn't as dramatic and feels forced, whereas in the Maguire series the confrontation is more intense and we get a clearer depiction of what can happen if Peter uses his powers for his own ends.

As Spiderman, both portrayals have their particular strengths and weaknesses. One could argue that because Maguire is so convincing as the unpopular kid, he isn't as convincing as a superhero, whereas Garfield's established cockiness makes for a more obvious character that would go around fighting crime. What works best about Maguire's Spiderman is that he never comes across as overpowered, making for more suspenseful encounters between Spiderman and his enemies. Take the fight in the first film for example, the final encounter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Green Goblin beats him to within an inch of his life, which makes for Spiderman's resurgence more spectacular, and so means that we root for him more. Unfortunately, in the first film especially, Maguire is handed some painfully corny dialogue to deliver as Spiderman. Although Spiderman has always said one-lines throughout his history, some of the dialogue here is painfully bad, but also hilariously bad. My particular favourite is this exchange between Spiderman and the Green Goblin from the first film:

Green Goblin: "What about my generous proposal? Are you in, or are you out?

Spiderman: "It's you who's out, Gobby... out of your mind!

Having this kind of dialogue really downplays any seriousness that should be felt when Spiderman has to save the day. Granted, there is a limit to how seriously one can portray a superhero, especially something as un-realistic as Spiderman. However, when comparing the two franchise's portrayal, Garfield seems to have the better writing behind him and more presence. In both films in The Amazing Spiderman series, Garfield's Spiderman displays the same intense attitude as his alter-ego, and so is a more of a threat to criminals when given his superpowers. He is far more intimidating, but also more humorous without ever coming across as corny. This is all displayed in a scene from the first film, when Spiderman confronts a criminal who bears close resemblance to Uncle Ben's killer. He jokingly webs him to the wall, dancing around and laughing. However, he quickly changes his mood and squares up to him. Upon realising he isn't the killer, rather than simply letting him go, he warns him that things could have "gotten a lot worse". Garfield's Spiderman isn't flawless though, with the removal of his mask being done so often in the first film, that it becomes almost comical. I'm willing to overlook the removal of the mask by the villains and the police, but Spiderman deliberately reveals his identity TWICE within mere minutes! In the second incident, it is to help a calm a young boy who is trapped in a car suspended from a bridge. Despite the silliness of him removing his mask, the scene is another example of why, for me, Garfield is the superior Spiderman. Throughout most of the sequence, Spiderman never loses his cool, constantly encouraging the boy when helping him escape. Maguire's Spiderman seemed to always shout and sound fearful. Although I cite the more human element of Maguire's Spiderman as a strength, in the moments of him rescuing someone, he seems less reliable when compared to the more level-headed Andrew Garfield Spiderman. 

To conclude. though I enjoy both actor's portrayal of each persona, I believe Andrew Garfield just about edges out Maguire in this comparison. Despite Maguire being the more convincing Peter Parker, Garfield's Spiderman comes across as the more heroic. When things got tough, you never doubted that he wouldn't pull through and be victorious, whereas Maguire's Spiderman gave up being Spiderman in the second film simply down to the stress of trying to balance his lifestyle. Garfield's Peter Parker also has his flaws that help to aid his transformation into Spiderman in the same way that Maguire's did, meaning that he too can be relateable and gain the audience's favour. I look forward to seeing how Tom Holland will portray both the personalities of Peter Parker and Spiderman , and am excited to see what possibilities await for the character, as he joins the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.