Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Review #1840: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Cast: 

Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Benedict Wong (Wong), Xochitl Gomez (America Chavez), Michael Stuhlbarg (Nicodemus West), and Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the film Doctor Strange (#874), since it was only released...six years ago? To reiterate from long ago, this is based off the character of the same name that was co-created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that first appeared in comics in July of 1963. What I remember about the original film was that it seemed to dazzle my younger self with its effects and cast that had generated a bit of amazement and surprise in its sequences (whether an indictment of myself or perhaps the series, I haven't seen the film since the only time I saw it). That film was part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is still kicking around after fourteen years after having gone through various phases (the 2016 film was one of the first of the "third" phase while this one is smack dab in the middle of the ongoing "fourth" phase). That film was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who was known for films such as Sinister (2012) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2014), and Derrickson was slated to return for the film before stepping down in 2020; Raimi was signed on not long afterwards, and this is his first film as director since Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). This film was written by Michael Waldron, his first film credit. Times have changed a bit since then, since I guess one also needed to see superheroes appear in "miniseries" television as well (as opposed to their previous attempts at TV productions), with this film for example serving as a follow-up to WandaVision (2021). Of course, I will provide exactly one statement to the idea of trying to play catch-up to miniseries: movies are the ideal to engage my interest, so it seems too much like "homework" for my taste, but it is what it is. 

So, what does one think of a movie with a title long enough to abbreviate as "Doctor Strange in the M.O.M.?" Come to think of it, I haven't exactly been dutiful in actually seeing each of these Marvel movies in a few years. It isn't because they have degraded in quality, it just seems that the ones that look interesting are sequels rather than trying to introduce a hero (of course, if one stopped watching after Avengers: Endgame, I don't blame you). But hey, here we are with a supposedly "scarier" Marvel movie with a semi-interesting idea with an adversary quite familiar to viewers in going from "they are in that shot and sometimes talk" to "presence". Besides, anything that gives the character of Doctor Strange something better to do than what he did in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) should work out, but this is the rambling of a man who just thinks a hero seems more interesting to view without being just a supporting presence. The best thing I can say is that for all the cynical rambling and thoughts I had going into the film, it at least covers some of the expectations it has for itself with useful thrilling imagery with a game cast and director. It isn't exactly a good result, in part because there is a far better movie out now involving a "multiverse", but admirers of Raimi will still find it worth their time as a minor messy work. Cumberbatch walks through the film handily with the confidence one expects from his sense of knowing and timing that handles the demands thrust upon him with worthwhile patience. Of course, Olsen is the one who ends up stealing the show a bit, since her single-minded desire makes for compelling engagement when with Cumberbatch, one who does manage to draw a slight shred of curiosity for the simple desire of wanting to shape the world to have their children with them (no matter how inevitable it ends up being); in that sense, one can say that there is a semi-compelling threat in a Marvel movie. Gomez turns out okay, but in the attempt at trying to mold a young hero, one seems that she is used more for exposition that means one finds more insight in other movies involving the dimensions of being a hero than this (see, I did find a way to reference Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse properly). Ejiofor and Wong are only fleetingly involved in the general action, which results in a fraction of interest when either person banters with Cumberbatch. It is nice to see McAdams, even if her quiet patience is only there to show the apparent differences that have come from six years of comic book movie mythmaking. Yes, there are a few appearances that may or may not be a surprise to you, depending on how much one is invested into the subject material. While it did draw a slight smile, it really seems more of a "coming and going" kind of appearance built to build a boost (and possibly used just to dump exposition) before inevitability sets in. Besides, it does help setup the defining interest that the movie gets for me: setting up moments of horror, or at least the idea of it. There are plenty of decent effects shots that one would probably expect for a movie that just manages to stick its welcome at 126 minutes without pacing itself for too long. I don't think it particularly improves on the original film, but it does at least maintain some of the interest that made the original work without turning into an excuse for reference mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, an average modern movie is probably better than having no movie experience at all, so that might be the best thing I can say for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

1917.

Review #1585: 1917.

Cast: 

George MacKay (Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield), Dean-Charles Chapman (Lance Corporal Thomas "Tom" Blake), Mark Strong (Captain Smith), Andrew Scott (Lieutenant Leslie), Richard Madden (Lieutenant Joseph Blake), Claire Duburcq (Lauri), Colin Firth (General Erinmore), Benedict Cumberbatch (Colonel Mackenzie), Daniel Mays (Sergeant Sanders), and Adrian Scarborough (Major Hepburn) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall)

Review: 

“I wanted something that had the quality of a dream at times, but had real-life stakes. Any narrative, any fiction is a compression in time, a compression of character. You’re trying to find the tip of an iceberg. And if the tip is well done, the iceberg becomes clear. You don’t have to see it if you know it’s there.”

Most films in some form have something to do with family. Sam Mendes was inspired to do the film from stories that were told to him by his grandfather Alfred Mendes about his service in World War I. The elder Mendes was born in Trinidad in 1897, with chances of study in university being curtailed by the start of the Great War (also known as World War I). He served in the war under the 1st Battalion King's Royal Rifle Brigade and carried messages between no-man's land through the muddy trenches of war. After his war service, he wrote short stories and novels while working in provisions and civil service. His grandson Sam was the son of an author and a professor, who first developed an interest in cinema from a young age. His studies at Peterhouse, Cambridge helped him find interest in theatre as well, where he directed a number of plays at the Marlowe Society before his graduation in 1987. He soon became a director for plays in the theatre that rose in prominence over the next decade and a half before being brought in to direct his first ever film with American Beauty (1999), a tremendous success (he aspired to make films like the ones he had seen at Cambridge, such as Paris, Texas (1984), Repo Man (1984), and River's Edge (1986)). Other films (mostly successes) followed in its wake, with this being his eighth feature film (and first script written, done with Krysty Wilson-Cairns). He described his idea to do a film based on a messenger on a short time period to where he needs to go in the trenches of war that he described was "fundamentally about paralysis and stasis", one that would appear as two continuous shots (with the use of long takes). The primary stars and supporting characters are fictional, but the film's inspiration is Operation Alberich, in which Germany made their withdrawal to change their positions on the Hindenburg Line that happened in the span of a month in 1917 (as opposed to the date of April 6, 1917 that the film begins its story). 

There have been quite a number of war films over the years, with a portion of them revolving around World War I in some manner, whether that involves the silent era with The Big Parade (1925), or with sound in novel adaptations like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) or further down the line of perspective with Gallipoli (1981). To me, the sense of urgency that comes with the film seems a bit reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan (1999, a messenger film of sorts) or perhaps a more modern example would be with Dunkirk (2017, which dealt with an escape through three storylines and minimal dialogue), and the enjoyment of the film comes from how much of its filmmaking reaches you in interest for its urgent pacing for 119 minutes. The camera almost seems like a person following these two main characters at times, as cinematographer Roger Deakins weaves together a dynamic look and execution to following along with the span of one moment in time. For better or worse, the film is more a technical achievement than an achieved war film - it is fairly entertaining, in the same way that it will generally keep you on your toes for what could come around the screen next, but it can be easy to see a small divide between viewers that find marvel with its shot structure and others who find it more distracting to the real sense of the war as a whole. Having just two main characters mixed in with a group of glorified cameos also in some ways seems to tinker with its magnitude of war. MacKay does well with a role on the routine, having to move fast with bits and pieces of useful dialogue mixed in with the sounds of war that are fine without being wooden - in other words, we can follow him fine in those long takes without constantly checking our watch. Chapman does alright as well with his time to spend on screen, as each make for a useful duo that can have small exchanges beyond just the mission, such as when they have to get through a trapped place with one blind leap. The others come and go in parts, notably with Firth as the one detailing the mission, Strong as one of the leaders in transport, and Cumberbatch as the person to focus on to end the goal, and they all do fine here (it isn't exactly a role to mug the scenery if the camera is on the move anyway). As a whole, it is generally engaging with its intent of urgent moviemaking that will likely prove fascinating for those looking to find films of its era that capture curiosity in technical terms with a good hand guiding the way to looking back to the past as a way to keep it around in the present.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so this ends the Tribute to the Decades project (January-October). This was the largest project that Movie Night has ever had, and it is that drive to do ten months of reviews to cover a wide range of films that led to this being the greatest year ever for writing (the previous record was 242 in 2012), and it isn't quite over yet. Plans for what happens next will be on a smaller scale (namely, not more themed months for a while), but I hope you all enjoyed this project for what it covered and what it could have covered - Thanks, folks.

Avengers: Endgame.

Review #1213: Avengers: Endgame.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Josh Brolin (Thanos), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / The Wasp), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Rene Russo (Frigga), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax), Letitia Wright (Shuri), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Tilda Swinton (The Ancient One), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Marisa Tomei (Aunt May), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet Van Dyne), William Hurt (Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Hiroyuki Sanada (Akihiko), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Vin Diesel (Groot), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #796 - Captain America: Civil War, and #1079 - Avengers: Infinity War)

Review: 
It is a strange thing to reach the end of a film saga like this one, with 22 films in eleven years that showcased numerous heroes onto the big screen while making a cinematic universe unrivaled at this moment by any other sort of studio. There will be more comic book films in the future from Marvel Studios that one would hope will continue to make interesting hero stories that work well as entertainment. As I recall from Infinity War last year, I thought that it was a pretty good experience that went for spectacle and succeeded in packing in each moment it wants to for a 149 minute run-time. Endgame decides to build on the model with a 181 minute run-time, which makes it longer than any comic book film - which is likely for the best, since at least it does try to be thorough with where it wants to go. This is a film that has a big task on its hands - it has to follow the previous Avengers film and its big punch at the end from its main threat: half of the universe is eliminated on a snap of the fingers of its big space device, the Infinity Gauntlet. It was pretty shocking to see that actually occur in that film, but I admit that it had to happen, mostly because there had to be a way to put big stakes for the inevitable sequel - so why not just have some of your heroes actually vanish? Of course, we live in an age where rumors and sequel reports are rampant, so seeing a hero die does tend to feel a bit hollow if you figure that they'll just return for their own batch of sequels (although explaining that to a kid would probably be a bit cynical at first). In any case, this is a film that has fun with some of its greatest hits by going back to the past, which works itself out just fine without becoming too stupid with its use of time travel as a plot device - for the most part. For me, I thought that the film was pretty good. It is probably as good as the last film, and it will probably rank up as a top ten favorite of this "Infinity Saga", which is for the best. It lives up to the expectations set from before and fulfills its destiny as an ending that proves satisfactory in closing things out with its own set of twists and action pulls. It has a bit of emotional weight to it at least, with its opening scene being a pretty fine highlight in actually showcasing some consequences along with the only Avenger actor given nothing to do over the years in Renner, so that works out. Finales are hard to land, particularly with trying to cover its bases and hooking its audience with excitement and rewarding the ones who have watched these films for over a decade with a real ending. Suffice to say, this works out well.

Undeniably, the best part of the film for me was the interactions of the heroes together with each other, with a key emphasis on the original cast-mates from the earlier films, while pairing off certain heroes with each other like the previous Avengers film did, such as Downey and Evans, Johansson and Renner, or Hemsworth with Cooper. These work out pretty well, with Downey being the most entertaining part of the film, as one would expect from someone doing a role once again over the past eleven years while serving as the heart of these films with his journey, which works out as well as one should expect. Evans and his earnest nature shine through just as well, persistent and well-natured with his own story. It makes sense to pair these two together for their own little story, which makes for a neat team-up when it comes together. Ruffalo is pretty fun to be around with, working this character to a brilliant balance that lets him not get lost in the effects while giving him time to shine. Hemsworth is fine, representing the one most changed by the events from before, which works fine - minus the parts when he is just used as comic relief for the first half, which can feel a bit tiring given his character over the past few years, even if isn't completely permanent, and I do look forward to seeing him again in other films. Johansson does well for herself here again, resilient as expected. Renner does a good job here as well, particularly with a well-done sequence in Japan that makes for quick but fun action. Among the other parts of the main group of heroes to shine is Gillan, Rudd and Cooper, who help contribute to giving the film some weight and humor, respectively. The ones to not get much to really do is Cheadle and Larson, honestly. Brolin plays the inevitability of his villain fairly well when he is on screen (although I did chuckle a bit at his "Farmer Thanos" getup for a moment). He doesn't really have as much to go on as before, but going from a pursuit for powerful stones to trying to keep his power does make him still seem dangerous without diminishing him too much. The key moments that drive the film aren't necessarily just big action pieces (of which there are enough for any action hound) but instead moments smaller on scale, such as Downey with Slattery sharing a scene together or Hemsworth with Russo at respective key points of time. It isn't so much because the moments just help to drive the plot at each point as it the fact that it resonates with what viewers have seen from these heroes and parents that shape them that resonate far more than a simple quip. The film's plot tries to juggle these characters and its destinations with an assortment of set pieces and time travel gobbledygook (which makes sense if one really doesn't think about it severely) that builds up to a big climax battle - which I found to be fairly satisfactory. I felt it made the right choices of where to go more often than not without simply devolving itself into complete overload of fan-service. It will make people really emotionally invested in these characters probably have some sort of release of emotion (which for me are just movies) and it will work out well for occasional viewers without bashing their head in with a insulting plot. It is grandiose and consuming for those who seek it, pure and simple. It may inspire a bunch of debate over how it handles certain characters (or how things ultimately ends up), but it is clear that there was a great deal of effort to pull things together to make a winning end without having a creaky foundation.

One will leave the theater probably with a sense of relief that the film worked out as well as it did within the big amount of time it had to do so, likely reflecting on how things go from there. I will probably stick around to see how some of the next few films turn out in trying to build adapt new heroes on screen and what interesting things could happen next while probably looking back on these films on occasion. This has been the best and strangest ride of entertainment that transformed comic book movies into something more, turning heroes only just known in comic circles and elevating it into the mainstream. None of these films are perfect, but they each have had their own vision and purpose, with this one being a fine gem amongst other shining features, with this being a moment of triumph.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War.

Review #1079: Avengers: Infinity War.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (James "Bucky" Barnes / Winter Soldier), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Benicio del Toro (Taneleer Tivan / The Collector), Josh Brolin (Thanos), and Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier and #796 - Captain America: Civil War)

Review: 
On May 2, 2008, Iron Man (#135) was released into theaters, being the first film in what has become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has served to try and tell stories of entertainment with adaptations of characters from all-throughout its numerous comic book series. Eighteen films later, here we are with Avengers: Infinity War, picking up plot points from numerous movies such as the first two Avengers installments (#312 and #706) but also Guardians of the Galaxy (#626 and #932) and Doctor Strange (#874) among others. It is obvious to see the amount of effort (and money) utilized to try and make something that achieves its goal of great spectacle. As such, the film is successful in being good entertainment. While it can be argued that it may be a bit overstuffed for its own good (in numerous categories), it will ultimately prove satisfying for people invested in what it is trying to showcase, as is the case for this series in other films, which have had their own range of success. It might not go down as the best in this series or even the best comic book film ever, but it will serve as solid joyfulness for its viewers.

This is a film with a large scale and large importance to what matters, but it is the parts involving its main villain that ultimately tie the film best. For a series that likes to show off its heroes and their abilities, their depiction of villains have generally not always been their highlight, but I think that it works here because of the conviction taken to give Brolin's character a level of importance and depth, which Brolin does a good job in making entertaining and prime for what you would expect. The film manages to take what could've been unwieldy with having such a large cast and having to balance each out and makes it work just enough to keep its plots going with enough energy and commitment. It never spends too much time on one thing without sacrificing the other parts of the plot to its detriment. If you have spent time watching these characters (or care about them), you will find a good deal to appreciate in seeing certain people interact with each other, such as Downey and Cumberbatch, or Hemsworth and Cooper, filled with its moments of fun quips. The film can't be faulted for being murky with its effects or its costume look since it manages to not blur the line between wonderful and cut-scene. The action sequences are executed as you'd expect, accompanying the film with good craft and energy. The film and its impact will differ from person to person, but I found the film to be at the very least successful with telling its story without becoming a crammed exercise in over-indulgence, but I can't say that I am a staunch defender of what it does. At 149 minutes, it may prove a bit of overkill for some while being just the right kind of length for others in the mood for what it tries to sell. Its climax is fairly satisfactory, with enough pull and punch to make something worth going home to without feeling cheated or feeling sick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Doctor Strange.

Review #874: Doctor Strange.

Cast:
Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer), Benedict Wong (Wong), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dr. Nicodemus West), Benjamin Bratt (Jonathan Pangborn), Scott Adkins (Lucian), Mads Mikkelsen (Kaecilius), Tilda Swinton (the Ancient One), and Zara Phythian (Brunette Zealot) Directed by Scott Derrickson.

Review:
It's good to back in the theater again, and this time with friends to watch it with. When it comes to these Marvel films, it always seems that I can't not be surprised by the end product, no matter how good (or great) they usually are. There's always something to be surprised or amazed by, and the way that this movie universe is built makes for a diverse amount, and even if I don't know much about the comic book they usually end up being pretty good. The same can be said for Doctor Strange as well. It's an entertaining film, in part due to its cast and effects. Strange manages to change throughout the movie in terms of his manner, and Cumberbatch succeeds in conveying that, convincing in his mannerisms and timing, even getting time to say some quips. He's not as arrogant as Tony Stark for example, but he displays some sort of humility and some sort of charm. Ejiofor is also pretty good in portraying a character as rigid as the script allows him to be. McAdams isn't given too much to do, but at least she isn't meant to just be a love interest this time around, having a bit more independence and some sort of grace in the role Any movie that begins with "Shining Star" and "Feels so Good" wins at least some vote by me. The rest of the cast is exceptional, with Mikkelsen playing a fairly entertaining villain (even if half the time he's wearing what looks like glitter...long story), and Swinton and Wong are also pretty good, achieving some sort of mystical allure. The climax is also pretty good, demonstrating some creativity, with two credits scenes at the end that are also pretty well done (par for the course). The effects are where the film excels at, whether during some action or when Strange first meets the Ancient One. It looks really stunning, along with having a good fit with a film as mind-bending as this one, having some fun with the weirdness that goes on. There isn't technically a big bad villain to beat, but this film manages to still go along with a winning formula with its own kind of flair and own kind of imagination to succeed.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Cast
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Peter Weller (Alexander Marcus), Alice Eve (Dr. Carol Marcus), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike) Directed by J.J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek and #149 - Super 8)

Review
Eh, it's been a while (10 months, 22 days to be exact) since I've done a Star Trek film (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture), so why not do the most recent film. The first film (of the reboot series) wasn't bad, though it's not like it was a great piece of work, and you find that out during this film. It's not that this film is bad, it just feels like one step forward but one-and-a-half steps back. The effects are at least good, though those lens flares really get in the way on occasion, which almost gets in the way of actors trying to convey their scenes. The acting is fine, though I really didn't buy that Eve's character being Weller's daughter, maybe it's the lack of time they have together, but at least Weller is stellar despite limited time. Cumberbatch is pretty good, but it's the character I have an issue with. By making him play Khan, the film limits his motives in a sense. The original Khan had a motive of revenge and was great at portraying it. This Khan has more a touch of generic than revenge. Even when Cumberbatch cries it feels forced. It's not a bad performance, it's just flawed writing. The story is at least somewhat decent...until it rehashes Wrath of Khan's last half hour. Well, almost. Just because you have the villain from Wrath of Khan doesn't mean you have to emulate it, it's unnecessary and just makes the movie seem unsure of itself, like it wasn't confident with itself. At least the movie has its moments, any scene with Simon Pegg is brilliant, he brightens the movie, if only briefly. Your opinion on the movie will probably rest on what you think of Abrams as a director and/or Khan. It's a toss-up, basically.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.