Film Review - "The Marvels"

The Marvels

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Starring Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, and Iman Vellani

I'm tired. I'm tired of the discourse surrounding the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and where it stands today. I don't want to listen to the haters, deflectors, and trolls anymore, calling for the end of the franchise, while at the same time I've grown weary defending it. Don't get me wrong, I loved 90% of Phase Four, but Phase Five...beyond Guardians Vol. 3 (Which I will eventually talk about) and the second season of Loki, I can't deny these are tough times. I mean I never even finished Secret Invasion.

Nevertheless, here we are with The Marvels. The thirty-third film of The MCU that (surprise) has left audiences split right down the middle. It is not the train wreck many are claiming it to be, but at the same time it's far from the best film of the franchise. It's fun, but it is flawed. (Do I want to write this?...I've come this far.)

The film is both a sequel to the original Captain Marvel film, and a follow-up to the events of the WandaVision and Ms. Marvel series. Carol Danvers (Larson) is out in space being a lone gunslinger, Monica Rambeau (Parris) now works with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) on the S.A.B.E.R. space station, and Kamala Kahn (Vellani) is enjoying life as a teenager and the hero of Jersey City. A bizarre phenomenon in the cosmos intertwines the powers of the three women, causing them to switch places whenever they use them at the same time. 

This leads them to join forces and figure out a way to control their "switch-powers" while also confronting the source of their troubles, which is a Kree Revolutionary named Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) who has a personal beef with Danvers, and is seeking to restore her now-dying homeworld, while destroying other planets in the process.

Right off the bat, our three leads are incredibly likable and they have immaculate chemistry. Larson gets a far better chance to shine here as Captain Marvel than she has so far in the MCU. She's tough but soft-hearted, comedic, charming, and easy to love, despite what the trolls say. Teyonah Parris also gets a chance to expand on her portrayal as Monica. Here we see a much more comedic side to her than we did in WandaVision, and she also gets to do a lot more heavy lifting in both the drama and action department. Iman Vellani charmed the world as she carried the Ms. Marvel series, and she's a real standout in The Marvels. You can tell she's having a lot of fun playing this character. I really want to see more of these three.

The supporting cast is also great. Honestly, Kamala's family got the biggest laughs out of me in the film, and Samuel L. Jackson continues to be the best as Nick Fury. Alas, Zawe Ashton's Dar-Ben falls into the category of Bad Marvel Villains. She does the best with the material she's given, but the character is incredibly underdeveloped, and comes off as a discount Ronan The Accuser from Guardians of The Galaxy.

While avoiding spoilers, Dar-Benn's whole arc (or lack thereof) in The Marvels make it feel like follow-up to a Captain Marvel 2 that we never got. There are exposition-filled moments that do their best to "fill in the gaps" but by the time we have all the pieces, the emotional disconnection between film and audience is too great. I found myself zoning out for a good portion of the film, which is something I don't think has ever happened between me and an MCU entry.

But what the film lacks in...plot, it makes up for in character work. Again, the three leads are incredible, and there are so many great scenes between them. A few moments between Larson and Parris stand out, that deal with the characters' history and fractured relationship. The action scenes in the film are a lot of fun, especially when the heroes are working together and switching powers. 

There are some...interesting set pieces in the film. There's a side-quest to a planet where the inhabitants can only communicate by singing, and then there's a bit involving Goose and his Cat-like species, set to the song "Memory" from the musical Cats (Cardinal sin. Don't remind me that exists.) To each their own but these didn't do anything for me.

The Marvels is flawed yes, but there's enough to enjoy here, and it's not devoid of heart. The characters in the film are endearing, and the performances carry this MCU entry to the finish line. If you like these characters, I imagine you will have a good time with this film. 

So...where do we go from here? Well, thanks to the WGA & SAG-AFTRA Strikes (Pay your creatives fairly), The MCU won't be around for a lot of 2024, at least in the movie theaters. Deadpool 3 will be the only film released from the franchise next year, and you know what? That might be a blessing in disguise.

Between COVID messing up their schedule, commercial and critical discourse post-Endgame, the death of Chadwick Bosemen, the allegations against Jonathan Majors, Jeremy Runner getting attacked by a snowplow, and the Sony/Spider-Man deal hanging by a thread, the MCU could afford to take a chance to breathe, and as Joe Byron would say "Build Back Better"

But if you enjoyed The Marvels, I'm glad you did. Who's to say that's wrong? As I say on my podcast Movies That Matter (shameless), entertainment is subjective and that's not a bad thing.

I don't want to say not every MCU film needs to be amazing or groundbreaking (because I've said that twice now and it's starting to get to me) but if anyone can walk out of theater having enjoyed themselves, then maybe this franchise is worth sticking around.

Film Review - "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes"

Listen for brevity's sake, I'm just going to refer to this film as Songbirds & Snakes going forward...

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Starring Tom Blyth, Rachel Zegler, and Viola Davis

I would never call myself a Hunger Games fan. I never read the books, but I hopped on the trend train, and saw all the films in theaters. I reasonably enjoyed them. It's never been a franchise I've had a serious desire to revisit, although I did rewatch them all in anticipation of this film. Needless to say, it feels about eight-ten years too late for a Hunger Games prequel doesn't it?

Well surprise, surprise, because Songbirds & Snakes is not only a very good film, it's arguably one of the best films of the franchise. Ironic, because one might say, the odds weren't ever in its favor...please don't go...

Set thirteen years after the Rebellion in the nation of Panem, a young Coriolanus Snow (Blyth) and his once wealthy family are now struggling to make ends meet in the Capitol. As the tenth annual Hunger Games approaches, the creator of the games, Dean Casca Highbottom (Peter Dinklage) seeks to make it more enticing, and entertaining for those watching. In doing so, Highbottom assigns Snow and other Capitol Academy students to be mentors to the tributes (What Haymitch was to Katniss and Peeta).

Snow is assigned to the female tribute from District 12, Lucy Gray Baird (Zegler). As the Hunger Games approach, Snow and Lucy grow closer, as he promises to keep her alive, while also scheming to restore glory to his family name. 

This film, this whole series could make for a fascinating study on how media is used as a tool in both politics and war. Songbirds & Snakes does wondrous world-building, showing The Hunger Games in its infancy. A time when it was raw, brutal, and just plain torture. Its gripping and gets your heart pumping. It's probably the most compelling the Hunger Games have ever been in...well, The Hunger Games.

We didn't need an origin story for President Snow but it's a damn good one, seeing what lines a character must cross to go from hero to villain. It's an emotional merry-go-round because you root for the guy...but in the end you know he's going to become President Snow. It's almost-Almost, like Arthur Fleck's journey in Joker, but significantly more nuanced.

This is in credit to both to the script, and actor Tom Blyth, who gives a great performance as young Snow. There's real charm in his performance, but you see the wickedness brewing beneath the surface. He has wonderful chemistry with Zegler's Lucy Gray, who is also incredibly charming in this film. You really rally behind both of them and believe in their relationship. Additionally, the supporting cast is filled with talent. Peter Dinklage is at his usual best as Dean Highbottom. Viola Davis is deliciously menacing and unhinged as Head Gamemaker Dr. Gaul. Josh Andres' Rivera gives it his all as Snow's classmate and friend Sejanis Plinth. Hunter Schafer is endearing, and a bright light in a dark world as Tigris Snow, Coriolanus's cousin (Who was the tiger lady in Mockingjay - Part 2. Who knew?). Finally, Jason Schwartzman is delightful as Lucky Flickerman.

One thing I've come to notice from this series is James Newton Howard's score for them is incredible, and Songbird and Snakes is no exception. One thing that unfortunately was not incredible in this film was the pacing when it comes to the third act (or Part 3 as the subtitles label them). The film is packed with such adrenaline, that when we enter this part of the film it almost grounds to a halt. Bizarrely, the climax also feels rushed, and not completely satisfying.

That said, Songbirds & Snakes is that rare prequel that lives up to its predecessors, and in this case even eclipses some of them. It's thrilling, thought-provoking, and filled with wonderful performances. It's one of the biggest surprises at the movie theaters this year. Again, what are the odds? (Please don't leave me.)

The "Frasier" Revival Gives Me A Tossed Salad & Scrambled Eggs of Emotions

 (Mild spoilers for the premiere of the Frasier reboot. If you've made it this far and that concerns you.)

I don't think it's a hot take when I say one of the most successful television series of all time was Cheers, and one of the most successful spinoffs of all time was its own spinoff, Frasier. 

I grew up loving both series, and I don't mean like somehow I've lied to you all and Im secretly twenty years older than I really am. No, I just did like any normal high-school male did, and binged the hell out of the reruns that were syndicated across various networks. I collected the Cheers DVD boxsets and received a few as gifts (I'm really dating myself here...) and made regular pilgrimages to the original pub and its sister location in Boston, which the series based its primary setting off of.

I really grew to love the world of Cheers and its characters, and that love spilled over into Frasier. At times I might say I enjoy the latter more than the former. Alas, like any beloved piece of media from the past, the money hungry powers of Hollywood finally came for it, and like Full House, Will & Grace, and Night Court before it,  Frasier became the next series to get revived.

A continuation of Frasier had been discussed for many years, particularly by its star Kelsey Grammer. Many like myself suspected those talks were going to cease when John Mahoney, who played Frasier's father Martin Crane, passed away in 2018. That was not the case however, obviously, or we wouldn't be here right now. But not only would Mahoney be absent, but none of the main cast was going to return either. 

(Full disclosure, I do not have Paramount Plus, and I was only able to watch the series premiere via the streaming service's Youtube.)

Seven into this ten-episode season, and so far Bebe Neuwirth has made one guest appearance as Frasier's ex-wife Lilith, and it has been announced that Peri Gilpin will make an appearance as Roz, but there's very little hope for an appearance of David Hyde Pierece's Niles, or Jane Leeves's Daphne. So the mainncast is 99% new faces, and then Grammer. Which on the surface level doesn't make this look any different than other (failed) attempts to repeat the sitcom success of his career (Harsh, but true).

But what's the premise of this new Frasier? Well set twenty years after the finale, Frasier (Grammer) has returned to Boston to check in on his now-grown son Freddy (Jack Cutmore-Scott). Martin (Mahoney) has passed prior to the start of the series, and Freddy missed the funeral. Now here's where I start feeling conflicted. I'm never quite sure where to side in this issue. If an actor dies, should their character die too? On one hand, Mahoney is Martin Crane. You could not recast him. You could make him a character that is mentioned but never seen, like Niles's ex-wife Maris, or Norm's wife Vera on Cheers. But then his prolonged absence starts to become a problem, which is probably at least partially why this series was set in Boston and not Seattle. In the end, I support the decision to kill off Martin Crane, but at the same time this is all feels very unnecessary, and if this series didn't exist, they wouldn't have to write him off in the first place. I digress.

Anyway, Martin's death is the catalyst for the pilot. Frasier wants to check-in on Freddy, but Freddy wants very little to do with his father. They're estranged because...we need conflict? I'm not saying Frasier was the best father in the world. Hell the whole spinoff happened because he moved halfway across the country from his son, but even in that spinoff Frasier always did his best to be a good father.

This is a cardinal sin of any sequel or follow-up, and that is to undo or undermine the good work and storytelling of its predecessor. See Mark Whalberg and Mila Kunis's characters getting a divorce in Ted 2. See Ralph Breaks The Internet opening with the 'Sugar Rush' video game getting shut down. See Frasier 2.0 opening with Frasier being estranged from his son...and also his relationship with Laura Linney's Charlotte also destroyed, which sucks, but Frasier having bad luck in love, I guess that's par for the course BUT HE WAS SO CLOS-alright...

Why are father and son estranged? Well turns out Freddy dropped out of Harvard to become a firefighter, much to Frasier's dismay...and for me, this is where it gets interesting. Father and son struggling to find a common ground due to their different vocations and views on life. Frasier's relationship with his son now mirrors his own with his father (Martin was a policeman, Frasier a psychiatrist). I really appreciate this parallel, and this definitely could make for a compelling premise. Unfortunately, it will never see its full potential because we don't have John Mahoney or Martin Crane in the story. That said this all comes to a boil in a very touching scene in tribute to the lost patriarch, and as someone who recently lost his father, it managed to strike a chord.

I won't give you a complete play-by-play of the first episode of Frasier 2.0, but it ends with Frasier taking a job in Boston to stay closer to Freddy. Which is nice, but opens up an even bigger can of worms. Again, it all goes back to Cheers. Frasier is going to live in Boston again, and we are just supposed to accept that he will never resist his old watering hole? He will never run into Woody Harrelson's Woody (Heh), George Wendt's Norm Peterson, or National Treasure Ted Danson's Sam Malone?? I know we shouldn't expect (or maybe we should...) them to sneak a backdoor pilot to a Cheers revival into this. (That would be trippy, Cheers leads to Frasier, and Frasier leads to Cheers), rebuild the old soundstage and throw buckets of money at all the sitcom alumni but...why tease us like this?? 

There is a line where Frasier says "[He] probably wasn't the best version of himself in Boston" which could make for an interesting storyline. I mean, he's not totally wrong. He had two failed marriages, hung out in a bar a lot, and almost threw himself off a building. Will the creatives behind the series tap into this? Who's to say?

In the end, I want to hate the Frasier revival, but I can't. There's a lot of promise in its premise. There are times I genuinely laughed out loud in the premiere. Kelsey Grammer is still great as this character, and the supporting cast definitely have their moments. Although most of them seem to just be trying to fill the void of the original cast. Nicholas Lyndhurst's Alan is filling the Niles role. Jess Salguerio's Eve has similarities to Roz. Anders Keith's David Crane, Frasier's nephew/Niles and Daphne's son...is somehow trying to fill the void of both his mother and father and failing? 

This all feels totally unnecessary, but in the Hollywood of 2023, I suppose it was inevitable. There is potential in this revival of Frasier, but since I don't have Paramount Plus, I personally might not be able to see it. If you have, should I add yet another streaming service to my library so I can watch Frasier? What else is good on Paramount Plus?

Anyway, as the doctor would say, thanks for listening.