Captain America: Civil War

I really enjoyed the last Captain America movie. The Winter Soldier was a spy movie and it was breaking the mould of what a superhero movie could be, whilst still having the familiar elements that everyone enjoys. Civil War on the other hand takes it all away and punches you in the face instead. It wants to make you certain that this is a balls to the wall action movie, but for me it didn't stand out against any of the other superhero movies that I've seen recently, which is really disappointing because it has Spiderman in it. Spiderman!

Captain America (Chris Evans) and his team of Avengers are facing public backlash when they accidentally kill a large number of aid workers in Nigeria whilst trying to stop a villain who has stolen a biological weapon. This leads to the United Nations proposing a policy which would bring the Avengers under their umbrella to be used only when they deem it necessary. Endorsing this deal is Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) who urges the other superheroes to sign, as they must do so voluntarily or else their actions are considered illegal. Captain America still refuses to sign, especially because his old buddy Bucky Barnes (AKA The Winter Soldier) is being accused of a variety of crimes that Cap believes he has no involvement in.

I saw somewhere that this movie is basically Avengers 2.5 and that's true. Instead of focusing on the hero of the title, it cuts between both him and Tony Stark, making me think a much better title would be Captain America V Iron Man, but that's too much of a mouthful. There are definitely parallels to be drawn with the latest Superman movie, but they don't drag this film down as much. While there are definitely way too many characters in this movie, they have been set up in other films and that fives us an opportunity to be able to focus on the two new ones. But just because you don't need to introduce every single character that doesn't make the film less confusing. I found it hard to track every character's motivations in the film because they're all important to the plot.

The plot is definitely the weakest part and I know that it's a superhero movie so what am I expecting. Well, Civil War is essentially two movies. On the one hand there's the Avengers being split up and having to fight each other and on the other is a Captain America movie with Bucky being framed for crimes he didn't commit, so he has to clear his name while dealing with someone who wants revenge. I would totally be happy with the latter because you could shuffle some plot points around and drop a lot of the extra characters while still introducing others. But people want to see that shot where the two groups meet each other in the middle of the screen. I wasn't really impressed with the way the final fight between Cap and Iron Man played out. It seemed very out of character for both of them.

Since we've spoken ad nauseam about all the actors who've played these characters before, I'll quickly talk about the new and expanded upon parts. Chadwick Boseman is introduced as Black Panther and I really liked his arc. Boseman's performance was solid considering his character is not that well known to cinema audiences and he's up against characters that have been well known for almost a decade. Tom Holland was absolutely perfect as Spiderman. They nailed his non-stop talking and genius way better than both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield and it's very disappointing that he wasn't in the film for long at all. Daniel Brühl was criminally underused as the movie's bad guy and he really just felt like 'generic German villain'. I really appreciated that Emily VanCamp's Sharon Carter was expanded on because that was sorely lacking from the last movie. Finally, Paul Rudd slipped into the main group with ease and he has great chemistry with everyone else.

I know I've already compared this to Batman V Superman but it's pretty hard not to. Did I enjoy it more than that movie? Yes? Is it the best Marvel movie so far? I don't think so. There were some shining moments which I enjoyed, but I mostly felt ambivalent throughout. I know that it's leading to brighter things in the future though so I'm hopeful.

In the Heart of the Sea

Herman Merville’s novel Moby Dick has an interesting film history, with the last notable adaptation of the epic being the 1976 John Huston film with Gregory Peck – Unless you count Moby Dick: 2010. Now the disaster-master Ron Howard has had a crack at it with In the Heart of the Sea – which tells the story of the sinking of the whale-ship Essex, which was one of the inspirations for the novel.

In the early 19th century, whale-oil is in hot demand, used to fuel the lights and industry of the era. Nantucket, Massachusetts is one of the centres of whale-oil production and one of its most profitable ships, The Essex has just been restored and ready to go out hunting. Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) is an experienced first mate who is due to be given his first command, but is disheartened to find out that he is only being offered his usual position because a Captain George Pollard, Jr (Benjamin Walker) has been assigned to the Essex. Pollard is part of a long-line of naval royalty and Chase feels that he is not experienced enough to command the vessel. Their relationship is off to a rocky start. 

After a series of unsuccessful months out at sea, the Essex crew is getting weary, but know they can’t return until they’ve “filled their belly” with oil. After a visit to South America, the crew learn of a mythic field of whales as far as the eye can see, so they set sail in the hope that they can finally bring their journey to an end. Although they also hear of a ‘monster’ whale that lurks in those fields, capable of sinking an entire ship. 

This is a fast-paced film overall and is split up into several distinct sections. The close-up action shots and detailed edits build a sense of tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat, however at times this works against the plot and makes it difficult to understand what’s happening. As Nickerson says, the story of the Essex is about two men, Own Chase and Captain George Pollard, Jr. and really the plot focuses on how their relationship evolves over the course of the disaster. Their polarizing backgrounds and lifestyles play out the classic class-war tale but ultimately this is a simple story about men trying to survive at sea whilst a ‘monster’ whale hunts them down. 

With the flourish of recent films that see characters surviving at sea (Life of Pi and Unbroken notably), we’ve seen a lot of CGI development put toward the ocean. Considering this is a major Hollywood release and that Howard made significant use of CGI in Apollo 13, it’s surprising that the sea and background landscapes sometimes can’t hold up to the level set by recent films. The scenes set in thriving 19th century Nantucket in particular, struggle to convey the complexity of the surroundings. 

Chris Hemsworth and Ben Whishaw both give admirable performances, although their accents don’t quite hold up throughout. Brendan Gleeson has a similar problem, although in his few short scenes he manages to out-act the rest of the cast. Cillian Murphy is sadly underused and Benjamin Walker’s character development feels slightly forced, although Waller is certainly one of the more interesting characters to see evolve as the situation unfolds. A stand-out for me was Tom Holland as the young Thomas Nickerson, who captures the conflicting fear and excitement with surprising finesse.

In the Heart of the Sea is a solid action film that keeps you interested throughout. Its skillful composition and editing construct a compelling story, however its occasionally confusing direction and questionable acting decisions hold the film back.

New Spider-Man will be like a John Hughes movie

Marvel boss Kevin Feige has the premise of the upcoming Spider-Man movie that will take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He describes it as being "a John Hughes movie". His motive for this comment is due to the fact that it takes place largely while Peter Parker is still in high school. Well, as you all know that we love our John Hughes movies here at the blog. So, we can only guess at which movie it will be like. Will it be The Breakfast Club with Peter sitting around in detention with Mary Jane, Flash Thompson and Harry Osborne? Or will he chase around Gwen Stacey in a reverse Sixteen Candles? We all know it won't be at all like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because Peter Parker is nowhere near as cool as Ferris.

And since we didn't talk about the casting when it happened, I suppose it's high time I raised my concerns with Tom Holland. It seems to me that with each iteration of Spider-Man, the studios are trying to make Peter Parker cooler and cooler while missing the point of what the character represents. If you were a "cool" kid growing up, you probably wanted to be Iron Man or Captain America or Wolverine, if you were slightly rebellious, smoked and wore leather jackets. The whole idea of Spider-Man is that as soon he put on the mask he transformed from a nerdy, shy teenager into a witty superhero, thus becoming a role model for anyone with social anxiety. Tom Holland has been in a handful of movies, including Locke and The Impossible and I doubt will ever be able to match Tobey Maguire's level of geekiness.

The next revelation from Feige is that he will come up against a villain who has yet to be seen in the movies. Now there are only a handful of major villains who haven't shown up in the movies that have been made up to now. They are Chameleon, Mysterio, Vulture, Scorpion and Kraven the Hunter. Anything further than those and you risk losing people who aren't all that familiar with the comics. Personally, I'd be happy with Mysterio, but that might be a boring movie.