Riverworld pt 2

The film is the story of a terribly uninteresting man (played by Tahmoh Penikett) and eternal love, maybe. You might recognize him – he played Karl ‘Helo’ Agathon on Battlestar Galactica. Penikett was actually (in my opinion) that show’s only resolutely ‘good’ character. Originally written as a sort of redshirt character for the miniseries, he was brought back full time because fans liked him so much. Unfortunately, Peniket’s post-BSG career has not been so ‘stellar.’ He shares Channing Tatum’s misfortune (as observed by Roger Ebert).  Their names are much more interesting than they are ever allowed to be. Penikett’s misfortune is that Hollywood, ever the fickle mistress, only has room for one weird named movie star.

Riverworld begins when Penikett’s character decides to propose to his girlfriend while they are on a cruise. Before he can pop the question, however, everyone at the party is killed by a suicide bomber. After a CGI vision of bodies in spheres waking up underwater, Penikett’s character (I think his name is Matt)  surfaces on the shores of a body of water that looks suspiciously like a lake. We are emphatically told that it is a river. He meets passengers from the cruise, who are overjoyed to be alive and evidently translated from old age into an ideal physical state.

The film’s most interesting ideas emerge here – a vision of scores of people emerging from this lake in prime physical condition. Lost lovers embrace each other – Penikett briefly encounters the young woman who’s bomb murdered him. He attempts to speak to her but she flees. These ideas are the film’s greatest selling point for me, they speak to my own hopes for life after this one where misdeeds and improprieties are accounted for and we receive joyful reunion with those people who’ve proceeded us in death. Farmer’s ideas about how this might take place are thoughtful and interesting. In this afterlife the living are given ‘grailbands’ – bracelets that can be inserted into pillars located all over that provide food and drink several times a day. Penikett decides that he cannot rest until he has found his erstwhile fiancee.

This is the story’s essential conflict and its weakest part. I don’t understand why Penikett is so attached to this woman. The filmmakers never give us any context for their relationship. They never reveal anything essential about her – she’s a figment for most of the film.  When we finally meet her again we discover that, having emerged from the river years before Penikett, she hooked up with the film’s villain. I won’t begrudge her that – the villain is actually essentially only villainous because he takes Penikett’s girlfriend. The film’s secondary conflict, a fight between factions of blue skinned aliens who understand the workings of the said Riverworld, is never adequately explained. Because every other conflict is framed by this one the film is  hollow at its core. I like love stories. My two favorite films are both love stories – but they are woven through with reasons for their characters to love each other. This film provides us with no compelling reasons for Penikett to love his girlfriend, other than they love each other and we discover that is not really true.

There are reasons to watch Riverworld. Shortly after his reemergence from the river, Penikett encounters Francisco Pizarro. Pizarro is building an empire using slave labor. Penikett allies himself with a Japanese warrior woman (who is also searching for her lost love and inexplicably played by a white woman), Samuel Clemens, and Ludwig Durr. The film makes its greatest conceptual reach by including these ostensibly real people in its narrative. Mark Deklin plays Clemens. He doesn’t actually play Samuel Clemens; instead he plays a kind of memetic representation of what we all imagine when we think of the author. He is necessarily embodying a stereotype – Colonel Sander’s suit, cigar-chomping, and riverboat in all – and it is marvelously entertaining because he is clearly the only person in the production who is allowed to have any fun.

Penikett’s other allies aren’t offered much by the script. They come and go with very little accompanying context, which can be very amusing in the case of Penikett’s videographer friend, who is reintroduced only to be dropped off the edge of a cliff with no ceremony. In a world where resurrection is guaranteed, death serves little purpose in Riverworld’s narrative function.

In the end, I’m alright with unresolved plot points with non-linear arcs. I think they can be incredibly interesting. They make me, as a participant, work that much harder to follow along. If an artist is going to tell me that they purposefully designed a narrative this way, they need to give me better characters or better story. Either one could have saved this film; but it lacked both. I own Riverworld on DVD. I’ll watch it again soon. I admire its reach but deplore its lack of depth.  This film offered me a lot to get excited about, but ultimately let me down.  Big ideas are important – but they are sheep and sheep are stupid. They need a shepherd.

RIVERWORLD: Pt 1

I have this picture hanging on the wall of my office.

It is Rene Magritte’s painting called “The Treachery of Images.” The caption (in French) reads: ‘this is not a pipe.’ Magritte said this about the painting;

The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture “This is a pipe,” I’d have been lying!

For me, this painting is a kind of litmus test. Most people I interact with in my office don’t know anything about art history and that’s ok – it has limited appeal anyway. But, when they ask about it (and most do), and I explain it to them – I find that their reactions go a long way in helping me understand how they think about art. I think about this painting in the context of what Chip and I mean to do on this site. Like paintings, films are simulacrum of real life – but they are not real life. Even the grittiest documentaries are constructed artifacts that remove us from reality through actual filters and the choices of directors and editors.

I think about this painting quite a bit. You must remember that every time you watch a movie someone, somewhere had to be convinced to give money to the filmmakers in the first place. This is called a pitch and sometimes when I watch films I can’t help but wonder how the pitch went. The Day After Tomorrow was allegedly approved with a 1 sentence pitch: “scientists fight against personified global warming” or some other, tired bullshit. The catch is that the pitch isn’t always what is transferred into the production stage. Sometimes the pitch mutates and becomes deformed. Sam Raimi repeatedly stated that he would never introduce Venom into his films. He evidently wanted Spiderman 3 to focus on the Sandman and James Franco’s Id but a studio executive got involved and we ended up with a hot, hot mess of a film. McG meant for Terminator Salvation to be something else but then he signed Christian Bale and suddenly it wasn’t. If we care, then we’ll have to argue whether or not this is a bad thing. And it presumes that someone is at fault and if that’s true – who’s fault is it that the movie is terrible? After George Cosmatos died, Kurt Russell claimed that his involvement in the direction of Tombstone was so significant that Cosmatos was really the film’s ‘ghost-director’ and Tombstone is probably the greatest western ever filmed.

You see, film, like all art, is an investment in culture, not artistic truth. Generally the investors who fund the film’s production expect the film to make back twice its budget to be profitable. This break-even point increases in proportion to the film’s budget. Disney/Pixar’s upcoming John Carter cost $250 million dollars to produce and market. Industry standards require it to make $400 million to break even.  And when I watch a movie that is really, just terrible I think about that first pitch. What provided the momentum to get executives to open their pockets to get that ball rolling?

The Sy-Fy channel is, next to Lifetime, America’s rummage bin for film production. I’ve written about this before so I won’t trot out the Asylum for another beating except that I wonder how they got started and how the filmmakers imagine these productions before they begin. Do they start with visions of art floating in their minds? Or do they understand that they are making films that are not films? I’d love to work for the Asylum. I create ideas for a living – but receiving test scores isn’t a very satisfying product. I’d be so happy to have a film credit to my name. Think about Bowfinger – Steve Martin’s character lives for the chance to receive a script in the mail. That’s a film about the essential compromises that ‘artists’ make on the road to creation. I admire Martin’s perceptions. Maybe we’ll come back to Bowfinger later on; but for now; lets leave the Asylum on the insane/brilliant section of our bookshelf.

In 2010, Sy-Fy ran a 4 hour miniseries production of Jose Farmer’s Riverworld Saga. When I saw advertisements for Riverworld, I suspected that the filmmakers began their project with elaborated, hopes of cheaply producing a high concept Sy-Fy film. It had to have started that way – the texture of the film suggests too much thought for it to have been a slap-dash production. And, I can easily understand that these were devoured by the twin faults of money and talent when the cameras started rolling. I can tell that the wheels are spinning. I always try and give these movies a chance when its clear that, for whatever reason, the project did not quite make the frigid passage from concept to reality. That has to be heartbreaking. And yet, a flawed vision is better than none, right? I have to give credit for people who go big instead of just going home. I think there are geniuses and then there are people who get the job done.

 

After all, these are not mutually exclusive terms.

#1/#2 Music Video of 2010

The number 1 music video of 2010 is “Your Love is My Drug” by Ke$sha. This video keeps getting better and better. My sister told me (whilst defending Ke$sha) that she was a genius. After watching this video I agree. I don’t think Ke$sha is the kind of genius who creates wholly original work – I think she’s like Puff Daddy. She’s a master of remixing other people’s ideas. Conceptually, she wins the award the minute that the Augenblick Studios style waves begin crashing against her boat.

*As a side note, you may be wondering how Ke$sha won the #1 and #2 spots. Initially I envisioned a parody of “Telephone” by Lady Gaga winning #1. The female impersonators were so convincing that I didn’t realize it was fake until the real video came out. By the time of this column’s composition that video had been taken down. I liked the internet a lot better when it was still fun, ya’all.

Contagion

I think Kate Winslett is a national treasure. Not our national treasure (by our, I mean us – being Americans) but someone’s national treasure. I hope when she is taken off the shelf they are careful with her and keep her free of dust and debris and smudges. England is a country that is full of such nice things and pleasant buildings. She belongs there, really. Winslett appears in Contagion and she plays the smartest and most interesting character in that film. Lawrence Fishbourne plays her boss and is only slightly less interesting. It is a good movie but probably not a great movie. I like it because in the middle of a zombie bubble in American entertainment (it will burst when the film version of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies comes out – I’m calling it here), Contagion is a zombie movie I can buy into. But Dr. Wonderbrook, Conrad; you say, it isn’t about zombies at all! You’re right, I reply; which is why I can stomach it. Zombie films are really only playing up to our squeamishness of other people anyway. They offer a cheap narrative trick for disposing of excess people and plunging characters into situations where they must make life and death choices – after nearly every conceivable combination of “…. of the Dead” as a title aren’t we getting a little sick of this? I know I’m tired of people like George Romero and James Gunn – people who aren’t interested in anything that’s real – making movies that conclude that the human race isn’t able to save itself if it was worth saving to begin with. Grow up guys.

Anyway, give Contagion a shot. It is a hyper-link film, which means it doesn’t spend a lot of time with its characters. But a studied viewing earns the viewer some lovely gems of acting and writing.

Oliver Hirschbiegel and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad, Studio Interference

On September 26, 2005 in Baltimore, MD a man named Oliver Hirschbiegel began filming a little movie called The Invasion. The film was a remake of the 1976 film, Invasion of the Body-Snatchers, which was itself a remake of a 1956 Body-Snatchers film. Hirschbiegel was famous for directing a (German) made for TV movie called Der Untergang, which was released in the US as Downfall. That film won critical accolades, an academy award nomination, and most importantly mad parody hits on Youtube. The Invasion did not fare as well. The film was shelved for over a year immediately after he finished production. The Wachowski Brothers(Brother and Sister?) were hired to re-write and re-shoot it in 2007. The resulting film is a kind of mixed-masterpiece. It is the story of an erstwhile invasion of microbial alien creatures that consume the erase the personality of their host whilst connecting them to a kind of phermonal consciousness shared between the other ‘invaded’ subjects.  In a matter of days most of the country is taken over. We see video of US troops being withdrawn from Iraq while President Bush embraces Hugo Chavez. Ordinary folks move through the city in quiet, ordered precision while Nicole Kidman lurks, terrified at the implications of what is happening. When she discovers that her son, immune to the pathogen because of the measles or something, will be disposed of – she swings into action.  Kidman stars with Daniel Craig and Jeffrey Wright as a the scientists who resist these aliens. I was impressed with the film’s tenacious resistance to “telling” the audience everything that was happening. Instead, we receive information through terse implication. There are no explosions or gun battles. There are no breathless ejaculations of exposition. Instead the film relies on psychology and the trusts that the audience can infer the stakes. In this sense I think the film is remarkable and, evidently, unbankable. Hirshbiegel hasn’t made another feature since.

This movie leads to a larger discussion about the aesthetics of story-telling: how does  a ‘good’ filmmaker utilize characters in a movie? We must be aware that a big budget movie requires justification with the presence of a Nicole Kidman or a Daniel Craig (the film followed shortly after the release and success of Casino Royale). And we ought to be wise enough to realize that big budget actors aren’t really playing a part for the audience – they’re playing themselves in a movie. I like Nicole Kidman. I think she excells at depicting wounded, intelligent women. She has occupied a niche as a kind of archetypal classy, single mother in distress. The Invasion relies on this. Daniel Craig is (or was, when the film was released) a bit of an enigma. I think he was wise to reach for a career outside of James Bond and here we get a sense that he can play smart as well as he can play deranged. But this film’s greatest strength and its inherent weakness lie tied together in its willingness to imply that Kidman and Craig aren’t the only character with lives and hopes and dreams at stake. The film’s takes careful pains to collude its narrative with the stories of other citizens of the District. In a scene that is magically terrifying, Kidman boards a metro train with a group of uninfected survivors. These characters are aware of the invasion and have resisted. She is warned by another passenger that she must remain calm. The scene betrays itself when it only allows for her to escape from the aliens but the director trusts these non-essential actors with a surprising chunk of time. In several other scenes the director tears the camera from Kidman or the other A-listers to show us the stories of other characters who are making essential choices. This is a movie that does something that blockbusters rarely have the brains to even attempt – it implies other movies and other stories. I wonder, what would a companion to this film featuring one of these characters look like? TV shows like The Office and Frank Darabont’s increasingly disappointing adaptation of Robert Kirkham’s The Walking Dead attempt this as well by featuring second-and tertiary characters in webisodes. The difference is in the elegant staging and, again, the implication of these characters’ choices. When we see Kidman stop beneath a skyscraper in midtown DC want watch a couple on its roof embrace and then leap we understand that a moral choice has been made and it is crucial to enhancing our understanding of what is at stake in this story. This isn’t just a cheap lunge at our wallets, this is storytelling.

Of course there is a scene which paradoxically betrays our trust by going “full blockbuster” on a group of non-A listers. Kidman makes plans to meet Craig in a pharmacy. She encounters a group of “crowd” characters who are undergoing the change from human to alien. One is a police officer. She takes his gun and e locks them in a bathroom. They are furious when they wake up. When a now-infected Craig arrives and opens the door she shoots these people in the coldest blood. When Craig is the only one left she doesn’t murder him (because he’s a big actor) she just shoots him in the leg and leaves him bellowing in pain. Why couldn’t she have done that with the others? The only things that this choice accomplishes is that it establishes that her characterization is non-standard and amenable to the whim of whichever group of executives and directors who happened to be crafting the scene at the time. There is no integrity in this construction. We had previously been led to believe that she was a doctor, interested in healing and horrified by the prospect of causing violence. Then this. This makes her into a certifiable “Joss Whedon Strong Female Character” which is to say, a character who is attractive but unstable owing to a complete lack of artistic integrity.

In this way we see a larger principle at play – big movies treat non-big name characters like props and expect that all we, as an audience want, is to see them die.  This principle explains how we know the order characters will die in a horror movie or how we know which members of the elite team of Navy Seal Operatives are and are not going to make it through their final mission before retirement. Its why we understand that black male characters won’t end up with white female characters. These predictions fall to formula and indicate one resounding and frustrating truth: big movies will always sacrifice story for cheap thrills and big movie directors will always give way for gimicks  over storytelling.

You got Thor’d

Thor – a movie so jam-packed with people who are better than they’re allowed to be by the film’s standard. Thor is 2011’s second entry into Marvel Studio’s lead up to next year’s Avengers extravaganza following Captain America (and from other years – Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and both Hulk films).

Thor was heralded as a dark and deep super hero film. Helmed by Kenneth Branagh who touted it as the thinking man’s superhero movie, Thor was said to be ‘shakespearean.’ I find this ironic – Shakespeare had like 6 good plays, right? I mean – no one reads his famous plays (they watch the films) but no one really reads his not so famous plays (Cymbeline, anyone?). So I’m not sure Branagh sold me. He said he wanted to show how an old testament god becomes a new testament god (hint it isn’t by hugging it out). I think Branagh is a smart guy (even if he did ass-hole it up by ditching Emma Thompson). I think he did what he could with what he was given.  I’m glad he’ll get paid for Thor 2 even if he’s not directing it. For its own credit I’ll continue (after mentioning Kat Dennings) with Thor’s good points. I saw this movie after teaching a three month unit on Norse mythology. I like mythology. I get mythology. Thor was faithful to the rich stories it appropriates from that world. Branagh’s team creates beautiful images for Asgard and for Jotunheim. Anthony Hopkins is an inspired choice for Odin. I hope they’ll bring him back. Chris Hemsworth is not a bad actor. He’s charismatic and good looking and is as interesting (I think) as the script allows him to be.

Here’s my beef with Thor (you knew it was coming). While this is a movie with some smart streaks in it and a beautifully angelic supporting actress, unlike the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man it does not exist as a stand-alone movie outside of its status as a lead in for the Avengers and, what’s worst, it shows.  I don’t think anyone involved in its production was sure what kind of film this was supposed to be when they started out.  From a narrative standpoint there is never focus on any of its disparate parts which is sufficient to bring them together into a whole. Is it a film about a family tearing itself apart through intrigue? Is it a film about a man who learns humility and heroism? Is it a love story between a human and an alien? Is it part of a multi-film compendium designed to push books made for children too lazy to read? The film doesn’t seem to be sure. I don’t buy Thor’s development. It isn’t clear to me why he’s an asshole at the film’s start and a hero at its end except that its a Marvel film so this must be true. That isn’t enough for me. I don’t understand why Thor and Natalie Portman fell in love. What drew them together? I certainly couldn’t see it in the story. My friend tells me that this isn’t irony but it is a given that in any film or TV show the two most attractive people will end up together and so on down through the film’s strata of characters. I couldn’t argue with him because this explanation was so efficient. That means, however, that Thor and Portaman’s characters are incredibly shallow. Do we really want them to be guardians of the universe?

The absolutely incredible thing about Thor is the group of people who made it. Over the last ten years comic book movies have staked out an interesting place in cinema. They aren’t supposed to be high culture but they are becoming high culture. This film headlines two Academy award winning actors and a director with multiple nominations. It’s not alone. Marvel is spending huge sums employing the most talented actors and directors to make its films. We know Branagh’s not coming back – what about Portman? She’s an academy award winner now. Will she be in Thor 2? Or will they replace her with Meryl Streep or something?

How is Marvel getting away with selling us these films? And, more importantly, why aren’t the films getting more consistently better?

The Wolverine

I loved Scrubs. I even gave its terrible, forced, afterMash-like spin-off a chance despite the original series’ fielding one of the greatest and most satisfying series finales ever. The series was great because for a lot of reasons – but one of the funniest gags on show (and there were so many funny gags on Scrubs) was how characters began anticipating the delivery of other character’s stock personality quirks. The repetition of a joke over and over again can be hilarious but it is smart to anticipate joke fatigue and make a new joke about how tired it is. The instance that occurs to me was how every time John McGinley’s character Dr. Cox would begin ranting about things he hated he would list Hugh Jackman eventually. Magic:

I don’t share Dr. Cox’s sentiments but I think they’re hilariously specific. I believe Jackman is probably a better actor than almost all of his roles. And I’ll give him credit for carrying three X-Men movies on his back as the only actor cast who had any kind of charisma.  I just re-watched X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I have such mixed feelings about it. People spent so much money on it. The sets are incredible. The action is good. Liev Schreiber is a revelation as Sabretooth. When Tyler Mane saw the movie did his heart make a bo-woop sound as his dreams of ever putting on his “I’m Sabretooth” hat again shattered? Ryan Reynolds is in it. He’s not bad at all as Deadpool and evidently they’ll start shooting that spin-off later next year.

Here’s the problem: its the story, stupid. Why couldn’t they have put some money or energy into making the pieces of these movies fit together? Why can Patrick Stewart’s Professor X walk in this movie but James McAvoy’s Professor X can’t in First Class? I’m excited about The Wolverine. I think its going to be entertaining at least, but isn’t it crazy to think that its the 6th X-Men movie ? Weird.

CAPTAIN PLANET!

 

I wish Don Cheadle was in everything.

A Word on Batman

Read my post on Inception. As far as Christopher Nolan goes I haven’t had any of the kool-aid. I don’t think he’s a genius. I think he’s a good filmmaker with some interesting visual ideas who is (like almost every other filmmaker) not afraid to let something like a “terrible story” or “incoherent ideas” get in the the way of his visual ideas. I have mixed feelings about Nolan’s Batman films. I think Christian Bale was a good choice for the Caped Crusader. I thought Heath Ledger was amazing although I still don’t understand how Nolan can expect us to buy that he had planned out everything in the film. Like Inception, the Dark Knight has added words to the language of cinema. The car chase through Chicago’s Emerald City is masterful.

However, like Inception, the Batman series has been hobbled my miscast roles. Aaron Eckhart is not a serious actor. I am almost positive that nothing he does will ever convince me otherwise. His Two-Face is a freakish distraction – an unintimidating weeny with no bite. Does anyone remember Rachel Dawes? A character ‘brought to life’ by two of our worst and most distracting working actresses.

Having said all of that, I think that Batman Begins and the Dark Knight tell a complete, hermetic story about how a legend starts. I thought after my first run through with the Dark Knight that the story was told and that it was explained and complete. When Nolan announced he was working on a third film I thought: shit, the adulation’s gone to his head and now he’s going to undo all the goodwill from those two films. For a while I read the releases that said that he was bringing James McAvoy on as the Riddler and that the movie would be called Kings of Gotham. I thought, “good – Nolan is going to keep pressing the genre – looking for life in a lot of tired ideas.” Keep in mind, after this is the seventh Batman movie in 25 years. That is a lot of Batman. It even seemed like Nolan would pass on it completely and let it be. He gave several interviews where he seemed wary to start.

Then the money trucks must have backed up on his lawn because he got into it in earnest. He cast Captain Picard JR. as Bane and brought on Anne “Queen of the Nerds” Hathaway as Catwoman. Why?  We know he’s in the movie as a Gotham City beat cop but now the most recent news on the internet (thanks i09.com!) is that Joseph Gordon Leavitt will possibly be playing Robin. Sam Raimi gave interview after interview where he swore he would never bring Venom into his Spiderman series and then he did – ruining the franchise. Nolan has similarly stated that Robin does not belong in his stories but we have the rumors on our computer screens and it might be too late. I’ll go see this movie. Just wait. I’ll watch it and complain about how lousy it is next summer – but I had hoped I wouldn’t have to. Time will tell.

 

 

 

Captain America, F* Yeah

I wish I had a pale, English girlfriend.

Chris Evans has been in a lot of movies. I remember seeing him in Not Another Teen Movie where he mirrored Ethan Embry’s role from Can’t Hardly Wait. I liked Can’t Hardly Wait, it came out when I was about to be a freshman in high school so in some ways it conditioned my expectations for what high school would be like. I was annoyed by Chris Evans in Not Another Teen Movie. He infuriated me in the Fantastic Four movies. I was mad as hell when I heard he was going to play Captain America. There was never a cartoon for these movies when I was a child. I have no enured, nostalgic fondness for either the Fantastic Four or for Captain America but I thought: come on, this guy was terrible in one Marvel film – why put him in another?

I watched Captain America a few days ago with my family. Guys and girls – I’ll say it here. I really, really liked it. I don’t think that Joe Johnston is aiming for any artistic ideal, I think he just likes telling good stories. Johnston started off working as one of Steven Spielberg’s helper elves but broke off on his own in 1989 when he directed Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Since then he has directed two of my favorite films – October Sky and Hidalgo.

I like Johnston because he makes incredibly solid, entertaining movies with heart and soul. You hear terrible directors like Roland Emmerich say they make movies to entertain people and they don’t care what critics think, because they’re making movies to entertain people. I think Johnston does that too but Johnston isn’t an asshole, or at least he doesn’t seem like one.

He can do spectacle but he starts conceptualization with good characters and works around them. Although I love how bombastic a movie like Independence Day gets – there are no real characters in it. Just Will “Willenium” Smith:

See, the AV Club recently ran this article about how story is treated by Hollywood Executives. I know people in Hollywood are running a business and I know I’m a snob for movies about things like characters, and ideas, and feelings. But there’s hope for me folks – I loved Captain America. Its loud, its silly, Hugo Weaving probably needs to up his SPF and Samuel L. Jackson is as ridiculous as ever but I really enjoyed this movie.  But I have to hand it to Chris Evans. Evans takes a character who is as manufacturedly iconic as a character can be and invests that character with heart and soul and purpose. I rooted for him. I hope he becomes a big movie star as a result of this. And I hope, when he’s a big movie star, that he keeps making interesting choices. Did you see him in Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World? How about Sunshine? Evans might be one of those people who can be interesting in movies despite being ‘cursed’ with leading man looks. Hopefully he doesn’t wait until he’s a million years old to start making those interesting movies (cough, Brad Pitt, cough, cough).

I’ll finish with an inevitable dash of pretension.

This movie is another part of the now inoxerable lead-in to the Avengers event and I’ll say that it is the least distracting part so far. And I’m putting my hands together to the filmmakers for leaving out that smug asshole Clark Gregg – you hear me Gregg? I’m tired of your bullshit in these movies. There’s a teaser trailer at the end of this movie. It is a teaser in every sense of the word. It is constructed to allow the audience to perceive that there are images but the images pass by so quickly as to deny them a chance to actually see anything. Probably, I will write more about this trailer later on.