Despite being the first superheroes created by Marvel Comics (yes, predating Spider-Man, Iron Man and the Hulk!), the Fantastic Four have not had much like being adatped to movies or TV. The Roger Corman version from 1994 (unreleased) is objectively terrible, the 2005 Tim Story films didn't blow anyone's skirts up, and the 2015 Josh Trank version was an utter bomb, regarded by many as being the worst superhero movie ever released, and Marvel disliked the movie so much they not only killed analogues of the actors in another comic, they cancelled the Fantastic Four comic itself.
Director Matt Shakman (WandaVision) and a host of writers have crafted a tight little adventure film (first Marvel film to clock in under two hours in who knows how long) that has great heart and expresses the core characters pretty much perfectly.
By settting the movie in a completely independent timeline (Earth 828, for artist/creator Jack Kirby's birthday), the filmmakers not only gave themselves a chance to play with a retro-future vision of New York, but removing it from an increasingly convoluted MCU continuity means absolutely no 'homework' is required by exhausted, lapsed or maybe even new viewers.
The casting is pitch perfect, from Pedro Pascal's portrayal of Reed Richards/ Mr. Fantastic as a brilliant, preoccupied but loving husband, to Vanessa Kirby/ Invisible Woman showcasing Susan Storm as being protective, diplomatic but also ruthless when her family is threatened. Joseph Quinn brings the needed sass and swagger to Johnny Storm/ the Human Torch but doesn't look out of place when displaying his own insights and intelligence.
My favourite is Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm/ The Thing, for carrying so much humanity and empathy through a CGI-created set of rock-like features - my compliments to the FX team! He also underplays the mopishness and woe-is-me nature so prevalent in the early FF stories. His deep appreciation of his found family does not grate against his desire to punch a threat if the opportunity presents itself.
I wish I could spend more time in retro-pastiche Earth 828, and the next time I watch this film I will pay even more attention to the billboards, ads and magazine covers (although wow it felt like a lot of product placement early on). I love that one of the montage bits early on show the Mole Man abducting the Pan-Am (Airlines) tower, and all the analog touches like tape drives for the H.E.R.B.I.E. robots.
For the first time in a long time, a Marvel picture has balanced action, character, humour and pathos proportionately while still bringing all the vibrancy and wonder of the source material. It is a wonderful thing to experience in the theaters, and a real tour de force in superhero films.
Most critically for me though, is how quickly they establish what differentiates the Fantastic Four from every other team in comics - the fact that they are a family.
Family, loyalty and sacrifice are themes that run throughout the film, and I would love to delve into them except for fear of spoiling even the tiny revelations that enthralled me. Suffice to say, this is one of the better Galactus stories I have ever come across because of the hard choices given the heroes in this story.
The love and optimism displayed in Fantastic Four: First Steps make it a great double-feature pairing with Superman, at time when the real world could use a lot of both. Highly recommended, not just to comic fans, but to anyone who appreciates wonder on the big screen.
I had a whole Thunderbolts* review written here, hit a key combo by accident and lost the entire thing.
So let me just say this:
great film and a wonderful time
best MCU flick since Endgame? Probably yes, but let's not dismiss the two excellent Spider-Man films in there too...
stellar post-Avengers cast - Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan,Wyatt Russell, David Harbour and Julia Louis-Dreyfus
dances with admirable skill and rhythm along a very thin line between dark, funny, and darkly funny
ties in to established MCU lore without feeling like homework (a criticism Kevin Feige has made himself, actually)
a team of anti-heroes brought together in a story tied inextricably to mental health? Bold!
managed to stick the landing on both the team name* (and the asterisk)!
best post- (really post) credit scene since Phase 3 (and it was only shot three weeks ago)
If you feel done with superhero flicks, this one might not change your mind, but if you enjoyed them at some point in the past, you should maybe oughta give Thunderbolts* a chance? It is not only distinct, but gives solid hope for future MCU films.
And I know all my fellow comic nerds have already seen it or have made plans, so we good.
Since Avengers: Endgame, Marvel's movies have suffered from more than a bit of "what do you do for an encore?" None of the entries in Phases 4 or 5 have grabbed the interest of viewers the way previous entries did, which I suppose is kind of natural - not only is the Infinity Saga a tough act to follow in general, Captain America boasts what is likely the best superhero trilogy ever with First Avenger, Winter Soldier and Civil War. So to say that both Anthony Mackie and his character Sam Wilson have some immense boots to fill in Brave New World is a fairly significant understatement.
So let's get this out of the way: it's a fairly mediocre movie, as movies go. With the exception of the villain reveal (which Marvel has done a great job keeping out of most of the trailers and such), there is next to no tension in this film - next to nothing in the way of surprises.
Given the death of William Hurt and the recasting of the legendary Harrison Ford as Gen. (and now President) Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross, I don't know how they could have marketed this film without spoiling his inevitable transformation into the Red Hulk, but wouldn't that have been cool?
The aerial scenes are great but the on the fight segments on the ground don't appear to be up to the high standard we've come to expect from the MCU, although the climactic showdown is handled pretty well over all. But they also aren't throwing them in every seven minutes to keep you awake, so that's good. Does it feel like director Julius Onah is out of his element at times? Yeah, kind of. Is BNW too 'woke'? No, don't be stupid - what the hell does that even mean?
Story-wise, turning the snake-themed villain cadre the Serpent Society from the comics into a mercenary outfit with the same name led by an uncostumed Giancarlo Esposito as Sidewinder was a welcome discovery. It is a new nod to the slightly more grounded villainy the previous Cap had to deal with, and was apparently one of the big elements added in reshoots. And yes, reshoots are never the kind of thing you want to hear about, but I am willing to bet they came away with a stronger movie than they might have had without them, and besides, who doesn't like a bit more Giancarlo in their genre cinema?
So in some ways, CA:BNW feels a little like a salvage operation, not unlike the second Black Panther film, Wakanda Forever. And like it, I think the filmmakers deserve some kudos just for pulling off something coherent and entertaining while navigating the increasingly complex continuity of the MCU.
For my perspective, an adequate entry in the series is a little disappointing (given the strengths of the previous films) but not a loss or a defeat in any way. But remember, I am not buying my ticket as a movie fan who likes comic movies; I am going because I am a comics fan who wants to see beloved properties treated with respect.
And I got that, for the most part.
I like Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson a lot, and the film pulls no punches in showing that, as Pres. Ross tells him to his face, "you are no Steve Rogers." He is not as strong, not as fast, not as durable, nor as resolute. But they make it clear that his heart is just as big as skinny Steve's, the kid from Brooklyn who could do this all day and hated bullies.
Linking the story to Carl Lumbly's Isaiah Bradley, who received the super-soldier serum during the Korean War and was tasked with taking down Winter Soldier before being disavowed and imprisoned was a great touch. It lets us address the racial issues at play with a Captain America of colour without making it the focus of the film.
Joaquin Torres (Danny Ramirez) is just as anxious to become the new Falcon as he was when introduced in the Falcon and Winter Soldier Disney+ series, and has much of the same swagger as Sam did when introduced in the second Cap film. He brings tech skills and heart, but will need more to become a sidekick we will clamor to see.
Saga-wise, I know many viewers will be heartened by the absence of a multiverse story (despite that being the name of this current set of Phases!), but be warned, it does get hinted at. Mostly I was glad to see them finally address the new landmass created by the Celestial emerging from the Indian Ocean in 2021's The Eternals. This was a movie where I remember more about the post-credits scene than the film itself, which is not a great sign, obviously.
More critically though, Celestial Island gives them a great way to introduce Marvel's other famously made-up mineral, adamantium. And having the initial tension revolve around an international treaty regarding the island and its miraculous metal was a great angle, but hopes for a Tom Clancy-like approach are never really met. (Note to filmmakers - despite being the Commander-in-Chief, the President should never be shouting orders like "launch interceptor missiles" on a warship - even if it is Harrison Ford!)
In the end, Captain America: Brave New World is by no means a must-see, even if you haven't succumbed to "superhero fatigue." But if you are curious at all about the progress of a character willfully stepping into shoes too big to fill, or the evolution of the MCU in general, we certainly didn't come away feeling disappointed.
I have been indulging in a lot of escapism of late in my continuing efforts to avoid looking at or discussing the news since the U.S. presidential election. Reading comic books on my iPad, painting miniatures while re-watching Stranger Things, playing in multiple role-playing games - these are all welcome dissociations from a threatening reality.
And in that vein, I would like to explore a potentially unpopular opinion of mine which will have almost zero bearing on the lives of most sensible people, and it goes like this: I straight-up hate the idea of Marvel Comics character and X-Men mainstay Wolverine having bone claws.
There, I said it.
The idea that the man called Logan has always had natural, bony claws under the surface of his skin (as opposed to bionic implants added later when adamantium was added to his skeleton) has been canonical in the comics now since 1993. This is when arch-villain Magneto used his powers to strip all the adamantium from Wolverine's skeleton (messy, but honestly a pretty solid idea), including the bony claws which surprised quite a few readers (and apparently angered quite a few of the writers too!).
In 2001, the six-issue mini-series Originfully demystified Logan's backstory and confirmed, yes, bony claws were part of his original mutation.
Given the range of superpowers we have seen in comics and fanciful physical adaptations displayed by the ever-increasing numbers of mutants in the X-books, having retractable bio-swords in one's forearms is a long way from the least credible mutation we have ever seen, and once they were wrapped in metal again six years later (no idea how, btw), maybe it doesn't even matter, but it still grinds my gears something fierce.
I vastly prefer the idea that Logan's primary mutation is his healing factor which makes him very, very difficult to kill, and also slows his aging considerably. His secondary mutation is presumably his incredible senses, particularly scent and hearing, more akin to those of a wild animal.
"But Stephen!" some people might say, "surely bone claws are a natural pairing with the other animal-like qualities displayed by the character? In fact, wasn't creator Len Wein's original plan to reveal Wolverine to be an artificially evolved or otherwise enhanced actual wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)?"
Absolutely!
If we are talking about claws supplanting fingernails on the end of phalanges, like Wolverine's nemesis Sabretooth, that is.
The idea that a naturally occurring mutation, in addition to making a random individual nearly unkillable and enhancing their scent, hearing, sight etc., would also see fit to put three (not four, not five, to match the aformentioned phalanges) fully retractable, knife-length claws in their forearms unlike anything else in nature?!
I have read comics nearly my entire life. I can take a lot of stuff on faith and my capacity for the suspension of disbelief is tremendously high, but it is not infinite. That just seems dumb to me.
Particularly when there is a much better explanation available!
Logan was already a formidable opponent prior to his being augmented by the Weapon X program, where some government or agency or what-have-you made his skeleton unbreakable by either replacing it or bonding it with the fictional metal adamantium. It is a very short trip from there to having some officious knob saying, "hey, as long as you're already under the hood, why don't you pop a set of three enormous switchblades in this guy's arms?"
X-Men artist and co-plotter John Byrne clearly felt this was the case over a decade earlier when he drew the legendary "Days of Future Past" story. In this alt-future tale where most of those bearing the x-gene are already dead or incarcerated, mutant-hunting Sentinel robots relentlessly hunt the rest, and one actually manages to kill Wolverine by incinerating him.
One too many 'fastball specials' I guess
The very next panel shows Logan's skeleton, but his forearms appear bionic, with a clear housing apparatus for his claws.
Later on, the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (still a high-water mark in 'overthinking it' that puts a lot of Star Trek supplements to shame), adds even more detail:
In fact, John Byrne found so much of the post-Dark Phoenix X-Men canon disagreeable that he wrote and drew 32 issues of fanfic (called Elsewhen and viewable here -highly recommended!) showing how he would have carried the story forward, including his own take on an origin for Wolverine.
In Byrne's version, sometime after WWII (including an undocumented stint with The Invaders, Captain America, Sub-Mariner, original Human Torch and others!), Logan has barely survived being trampled by a cattle stampede while working as a ranch hand...
...and twenty years later, accepts an offer (from the Weapon X) program to replace his shattered skeleton...
...but is unaware of the addition of metal claws until he unsheathed them for the first time during his recovery!
Now, an excess of 'logic' or 'sensibility' or, worst of all, 'realism' has been the death knell for many a comic book. But setting aside for a moment just how much more down-to-earth these bionic claws are than the alternative, look at how much pathos has been unlocked here!
The horrified expression on Logan's face as he realizes that while in the past he has feared becoming more feral, a literal animal, now he has been made into a monster - a living weapon.
Another of my favourite comic writers, Peter David, actually blames himself for the bone claw debacle, as he was at a Marvel writer's retreat and joked, "hey, why doesn't Magneto just pull all the metal out of Wolverine's skeleton and be done with it?" He never thought that the writer who actually took up the idea he had only put out as a joke would a) take it so far and b) decide that the claws were too important to leave out of the equation and made them boney as a result.
Now, to be clear, when Hugh Jackman pops the organic, cruelty-free claws in the movie version of Days of Future Past, it looks completely badass and makes for a great scene. From his look of initial surprise and eventual realization to the subsequent employment of said calls, let's face it - this is the Wolverine we came to see.
But beyond fan service, I am damned if I remember them playing any sort of meaningful role in the remainder of the story, and I note with interest that Logan is the biggest character on the movie poster, but has metal claws in that picture.
Like I said at the start, it is a largely meaningless argument with no real stakes to speak of. The decision was made decades ago and none of us bothered by it are so put off by it that we have stopped reading about the character. Because it has been undone, (in fact, a few years back Wolverine was dead for the better part of a year before returning from Hell itself with glowing hot claws...) we can each revere or ignore the bone claws and adjust our headcanon accordingly.
But with an X-Men reboot and MCU integration seemingly just around the corner (presumably following Secret Wars in 2026), there is likely another chance coming to get it right and set the record straight.
Apparently San Diego ComicCon was having a real banner day in Hall H at around the same time that I was enjoying Deadpool & Wolverine in IMAX. Hall H is the largest auditorium at the con and where Marvel Studios has dropped some amazing reveals in the past.
At the panel for the upcoming Fantastic Four movie (which I am becoming more and more excited about all the time), Kevin Feige, studio head and Chief Creative Officer, announced that the Russo Brothers would be returning to direct the next two Avengers movies.
Anthony and Joe Russo directed some of my very favourite MCU films (Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War, and Avengers: Infinty War and Endgame), so I was over the moon to hear they were back for more. Hopefully they can bring writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely with them too.
The Russos came onstage to talk about the honour and challenge of helping to wrap up the MCU's latest 'saga'. They also announced that 2026's Avengers: The Kang Dynasty was being renamed Avengers: Doomsday, presumably as part of a pivot away from the actor who had been playing the time travelling villain Kang, Jonathan Majors. No change to Avengers: Secret Wars (2027), which makes a lot of sense since the Russos had both said that was one of the few titles that might draw them back to Marvel from their own projects.
Doomsday obviously suggests that the new villain du jour is none other than the monarch of Latveria and perennial foil of the Fantastic Four, Doctor Doom, arguably the best villain in the entire Marvel pantheon. And the Russos wasted no time in introducing the actor they had selected to play this iconic figure, and in such a stylish reveal:
That crowd reaction gives me chills every time I hear it, even though I have tremendously mixed feelings about casting Robert Downey Jr., the man who played Iron Man, as Victor von Doom. And judging from what I am seeing on the interwebs, I am not alone in my concerns.
But I am also cautiously optimistic!
Now, those of you less invested might be surprised that the return of a beloved actor to such a pivotal role in this immense movie franchise would be met with nothing but sheer joy, but the apprehension is actually quite understandable.
You see, the fear is that Doctor Doom, this distinct and well-established character (who actually pre-dates Iron Man by almost half a year!), an imperious and arrogant monarch of a fictional European nation whose mask conceals a horribly scarred visage, will become some twisted, alt-universe, "What If...?" version of our martyred Saint Tony of Stark.
This is not an unreasonable assumption to make either; the cowardice of (most) studio executives is legendary and the idea of spending so much money on an actor and then not showing his face will be a hard sell. The Thanos Saga had many heroes, but the major arcs coalesced around wise cracking, irreverent, smart-ass but still actual genius (plus billionaire, playboy. and philanthropist) Tony Stark and his armoured alter ego, Iron Man.
And there is a precedent in the source material as well: Tony Stark has been Doctor Doom and Victor von Doom has been Iron Man. Also, Deadpool & Wolverine introduced the concept of 'anchor beings,' character so fundamentally important that their removal leads to the extinction of their entire universe (a dangerous notion that I hope never leaves the boundaries of the fourth-wall breaking Deadpoolverse). Such a notion could be the angle that Marvel Studios needs in order to justify bringing Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, a real crowd pleaser and proven box-office draw, back to the MCU.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I will hate it if they go that route, but I will still likely see the films. I will never stop lamenting the missed opportunity there though. A Tony Stark/ Doctor Doom connection would be a real admission of failure to me and a lot of other fans beside. It would be a concession to unoriginality and dramatically unsatisfying in the extreme. This casting already smacks a little bit of desperation but it doesn't yet feel cheap and exploitative and I really, fervently hope that is not the direction they intend to go.
And I think there is actually good reason to believe they won't.
I have been thinking about this casting for days now, too much, really (ask anyone), and I knew I was going to write about it so I was kind of disappointed when Susana Polo from Polygon beat me to the punch and expertly expressed almost precisely how I felt about the whole situation in an article entitled "When Robert Downey Jr. plays Doctor Doom he better keep the mask on."
And I mean, that's it - that's the magic bullet right there.
In the comics, Victor von Doom does not show his face. Not never (after 80 years? come on!) but exceedingly rarely, as near as dammit to never. Even in his origin story, where a dangerous experiment at university leaves him horribly disfigured, you never see the face of the man he once was, nor the ravaged thing he has become.
This mystery, this allure, is foundational to the character - this is not a tragic figure who is trapped behind a mask of iron like the Dumas character. This is someone whose arrogance and pride is such that they choose to isolate themselves, rather than reveal imperfection or vulnerability.
So no matter who Marvel ended up choosing to play Doctor Doom, my hope would be that his is a mask that can come off, but never, ever does. In fact, I would suggest doing the origin story above strictly from von Doom's POV, which also gives you a chance to have Pedro Pascal's face peering in sympathy at Victor's ravaged features after trying to warn him of the risk, only to have an angry von Doom croak, "Begone, Richards!"
And if the mask never comes off, the comparison to Tony Stark is never an issue. No shocked recognition, no gasp of realization - there ends up being absolutely no connection between Stark and von Doom except for the talented actor who played both.
And who also played Charlie Chaplin as a young, middle-aged, and elderly man.
And who played a white Australian actor portraying a black American soldier in Tropic Thunder. (Thanks for the reminder, Zach!)
If the mask stays on, I don't think there is any danger in audiences or characters mistaking Doctor Doom for Tony Stark if the mask stays on. But is that realistic? Will studio executives let Feige spend a boatload of money drawing Robert Downey Jr. back to the MCU and not want to put his face on the posters and merchandising? Won't RDJ want to get his (admittedly handsome) face on screen at some point, as all masked actors are wont to do?
Well, maybe. But there are a few factors that suggest maybe the mask can, indeed, stay in place. (Or if it comes off, they either map on another face, distinct from RDJ's, or have it so scarred and twisted it makes Wade Wilson look like George Clooney.)
First, RDJ is the 800-lb gorilla in this scenario, not the studio execs. In addition to the aforementioned princely sum, he only agreed to return if the next two Avengers movies were directed by prior collaborators and known quantities the Russo Bros, and he got them.
RDJ is also know for getting what he wants, such as increased pay for his fellow Avengers actors. So much so, in fact, that the rallying cry for their agents was rumored to be "f**k you, call Robert."
Downey is not just a good actor, he is a great actor, and now has an Oscar to prove it (for his supporting role in Oppenheimer). But he is not ashamed of his acting in the unapologetically commercial yet astonishingly high quality and emotionally satisfying Avengers movies. He calls it some of his best work that went unnoticed because of the genre it happened to be in.
The Russos are comics fans, and even before Endgame came out, they said the only story that might draw them back would be Secret Wars, the series that got Joe Russo really into the medium. Even if no one else does, I am wholly confident they understand the importance of a masked Doom.
Kevin Feige is one of history's most successful film producers recently honoured with a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame. He is also a huge nerd, but more critically, he understands better than anyone ever has the intersectionality between successful movies and the source material they are adapted from. Most importantly he know where to stand his ground, and I am confident he will do so on a masked Doom.
If Feige, the Russos and Downey present a unified front on this, I am confident of a positive outcome; but like I said before, RDJ is the 800-lb gorilla here, so let's consider a few other final facts. For instance, I only discovered today that he had actually auditioned to play Doctor before, for Fox's Fantastic Four movie in 2005, so portraying the character has occupied some portion of his mind for nearly two decades.
After the reveal at ComicCon, Downey said "New mask...same task. What'd I tell you, I like playing complicated characters." Now, I suppose that could mean, 'what is the connection between multiversal Tony Stark and Doctor Doom?!', but I really hope it isn't. I hope he finds Victor von Doom a complicated, intriguing and ultimately satisfying character to play: an arrogant, aristocratic and ruthless villain who is also fully human, haunted by failure, bound up in a complex code of honour perhaps even he himself doesn't fully understand.
I hope he sees Doctor Doom as a chance to bring one more brilliant performance to an epic film that will also feature prominently on lunchboxes and children's Hallowe'en costumes. and I hope he does so completely bereft of irony. Hell, I hope RDJ ends up getting nominated for and then winning the first acting Oscar for a Marvel movie - man, I would probably get that acceptance speech tattooed.
But the main reason I believe Downey might play the role as distinct from Stark comes from the reveal itself. He comes onto that stage in a crowd, anonymously, and I fully believe he is in character even after he removes the mask so dramatically, right up until he puts his sunglasses on.
There is no smirk, no smarm, not even a smile on that face; no trace of Tony Stark smugness. That face is serious, imperious, dispassionate, superior - maybe even regal.
If this is indeed the face of Doom, I hope and pray it stays behind the mask.
Although this review should be spoiler-free (as always), it is problematic for two reasons: first, I cannot be trusted. Because I am an unbashed fan of the source material (i.e. comics) even more so than a movie buff, it is impossible for me to be objective about these films, so I don't even try.
Furthermore, because I don't want to spoil anything, my hands are tied in describing much of what I enjoyed so much about Deadpool & Wolverine, but I will take a shot at it.
A lot has happened since the last Deadpool movie was released in 2018; the character has moved from a rival studio (Fox) to the MCU (Disney). Marvel has lost its once ironclad grip upon pop culture, largely due to overextension. D&W is, in fact, Marvel's sole offering for 2024, the first year with only one MCU movie since 21012 if you discount the pandemic. (Deadpool to Logan: "Welcome to the MCU! You're joining at kind of a low point...")
To be honest, I've enjoyed all the Marvel offerings to date to some extent, with the possible exception of Secret Wars, which felt like a wasted effort and missed opportunity. Sure, I've liked some MCU flicks more than others, but like the comics they are drawn from, I appreciate when the movies diverge into psychedelia, farce and even self-referential humour. But it was heartening to see how many other people were looking forward to seeing Hugh Jackman's return as Wolverine, and it was also good to see Marvel poking some fun at itself throughout the film.
And when Ryan Reynolds's Wade Wilson grabs an unconscious Logan by the lapels and clearly spies the legit superhero outfit we have waited so long to see, even he is moved to say, "well, that only took 24 f**king years...".
So let's be clear about a couple of things right up front:
If you don't like or are tired of superhero movies, this one won't change your mind.
If you found the first two Deadpool movies a little too irreverent or raunchy or gory for your tastes, give this one a wide berth as well.
But if you find the MCU's ever-complexifying canon overwhelming, I have great news - this is barely an MCU movie.
Oh, they get the studio leader and fanfare, and the Time Variance Authority (introduced in the Loki streaming series) is a critical part of the plot, but very early on they lay out enough exposition (Deadpool even exclaims "what the MacGuffin is that?" during the setup) that even newcomers can probably follow along easily enough. And Matthew McFadyen as Mr. Paradox make a great foil for the Merc With a Mouth. There is also a wonderful cameo early on from an Avengers-adjacent stalwart.
What follows is a two hour love letter to the Fox superhero movies, actually, full of bloodshed, cheap gags and cameos galore, but all three of those elements are well-handled and GOD I wish I could tell you more, but please trust me and go see it quickly if you don't want many of the best moments spoiled for you, all right?
Wolverine's hero suit becomes a topic of conversation more than once in the movie, and even prompts a sober moment of guilt-laden reflection when Logan confesses why he wears it. And if I am being honest, the costume and the cowl were enough to ensure I saw this movie in the theater (even if I had to wait an unbearably long time for the latter). Grown men on the set were said to be moved to tears when Jackman showed up in the iconic blue and yellow outfit, and the actor even said, "why the hell didn't we do this years ago?"
Beyond the suit (God, the suit! I am so happy y'all!) there is no shortage of fan-service, but Shawn Levy and company know when to hang a lampshade on it, like prior to the first big set-to between the titular characters, when Deadpool breaks the fourth wall to say "okay nerds, get your special sock ready - this gon' be good!"
And there's a lot of these fights, some of which are pretty long, which I am sure will bore Audrey to tears - but maybe not. They keep their staging pretty imaginative for the most part, with some of them getting so busy I can't wait for a chance to watch them at home with a hand on the rewind button.
But it is a solid stuff, overall. The ridiculous plot gives room for both some emotional gravitas, an excellent new villain (Emma Corrin as Charles Xavier's sorta sister Cassandra Nova, introduced in Grant Morrison's extraordinary comics run 20-odd years ago), and a chance to say farewell to some long-standing characters.
I am not in the least bit clear how the resolution of the movie might or mightn't open the door for mutants in the MCU, and I earnestly do hope they don't keep Hugh Jackman doing this until he's 90, but in a strange way, Deadpool & Wolverine will make still another very decent farewell piece to this iteration of the character (19 appearances by Jackman as Wolverine! 19!) a brighter and lighter but still emotional counterpart to bookend the more earnest and serious Logan (2017).
Commercial success appears assured with a staggering $205M opening weekend, and with Feige's workload a little lighter, I am hoping there are more Marvel successes to follow this one.
While culture warriors line up to decry the latest Marvel series, Echo, on Disney+ as more woke nonsense or whatever, Audrey and I enjoyed finishing off its five-episode run last night.
I am barely familiar with the comics background of the main character, Maya Lopez (Alaqua Cox), so the fact that her background and power suite differ from the source material is a non-issue with me. Having watched Hawkeye, however, I know the character is a former villain doing a face-turn and is a legit badass.
And I think a lot of the badassery comes from the actress herself, who, like Maya, is both deaf and an amputee with a prosthetic lower leg. This doesn't make any of her many fight scenes any less impressive, but the showrunners don't pinwheel from fight to fight. The bulk of the drama involves Maya's return to her former hometown in Oklahoma and her reluctant interactions with her estranged family and childhood friends.
Having Tantoo Cardinal and Graham Greene appear as her separated grandparents was a real treat, as was seeing nearly a half-dozen actors from Reservation Dogs (including Dallas "Willaim Knifeman" Goldtooth). The Choctaw history and mythology that make up a big part of the story are well-presented, and a pre-Columbian game of lacrosse captures both the athleticism and desperation of a sport designed to replace battles.
The real draw for this program for me, however, is the return of Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk, better known as the Kingpin. The tension he brings to almost every exchange, and ability to transition so naturally from measured control to elemental rage makes him as captivating to watch now as when he was the heavy on Netflix's Daredevil.
For my money, there hasn't been a real Marvel knockout on streaming for me since WandaVision, and Echo doesn't quite reach that level, even if the new PG-13 rating adds significantly more edge to the fight scenes. But as a family and crime drama set in the MCU, it brings a lot to the table, and at five tidy episodes, it makes sure not to overstay its welcome.
Echo is a good romp filled with interesting characters who are not just pulled from the Central Casting pool and who all fit well under the street-level focus of this corner of the MCU, even if that street is in small-town Oklahoma. And if some people believe that a comic book show led by a deaf, physically disabled Native American female is anything but a cool thing, well, let them miss out, I guess.
The rest of you, be sure to hang around for the post credits scene that may hint at happenings in Daredevil: Born Again!
As the weekend winds up, it has become clear that the MCU's latest venture, The Marvels, has not been a commercial success. I guess an ad hoc team featuring an underappreciated and possibly underutilized film character as well as two who made their debuts on Disney+ streaming shows just didn't have the draw that people were looking for?
Everywhere you look, people are ringing alarm bells on behalf of Marvel Studios. A recent Variety article entitled "Crisis At Marvel" outlined a number of concerns including lackluster responses to many of the recent Disney+ shows, visual FX challenges, and the possibility of recasting or pivoting away from their current Big Bad, Kang the Conqueror due to possible criminal charges against actor Jonathon Majors. And Stephen King, despite not being a fan of the MCU, called out the gloating of many at The Marvels' box office collapse.
But you know what? Fans of comic book movies are pretty likely to have a good time at this film.
That is not to say I don't have problems with this movie; to be honest, I didn't really start enjoying it until maybe a third of the way into it, and both the plot and the villain left me pretty cold.
Thankfully Iman Vellani as Kamala Khan/Ms. Marvel was there to carry me through until I realized that the villain and plot were secondary to the actual story, which was about three female characters coming to grips with their powers, roles and legacy (all while the 'quantum entanglement' of their powers have them swapping places from across the universe.
Vellani is just straight-up adorable, and her precociousness, combined with her character's fangirly exuberance, is a perfect antidote to cynicism. When Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) asks Khan how many chapters of Captain Marvel fanfic she is getting from one memorable interaction on an alien planet, the look of pure rapture on Vellani's face is not even acting, as far as I can determine.
Rambeau is still getting used to the powers she gained in WandaVision (and I loved how they glazed over her origin story as "you got your powers walking through a witch hex?") and is not really interested in heroics or even having a code name - but has unsettled business with her Auntie Carol from Captain Marvel.
Carol Danvers (Brie Larson), on the other hand, has added another nickname to her repertoire as the alien Kree now call her "the Annihilator." This eventually makes sense in context, but the fallout from the Kree civil war might have had more significance to us if a) we had heard about it before this movie and b) Captain Marvel's significant actions in precipitating this event weren't revealed to us solely through an underwhelming flashback.
Once the three principals get together though, the film really started to click for me. Khan's apprehension and excitement about meeting her namesake, Rambeau's resentment at reuniting with Danvers, combined with Captain Marvel's own compulsion to clean up the mess she feels responsible for as the Annihilator makes for a decent game of rock, paper, scissors, hero, artifact.
Zawe Ashton as Kree Accuser Dar-Benn is not given a whole lot to do. She is primarily there as a plot focus - a talking MacGuffin and resolute heavy - which feels like a real missed opportunity. And I don't think they even use her cool title even once in the film or do any sort of callback to Lee Pace's Ronan from Guardians of the Galaxy.
On the plus side, for me at least, they lean into the comic book weirdness, bringing Khan's delightful family (along with Carol's not-cat, Goose) up to Nick Fury's S.A.B.R.E. space station from Secret Invasion. And this is before introducing an alien culture who communicate through song and who may have inadvertently cemented Captain Marvel as the newest Disney princess...
In the end, despite its imperfections, you have a perfectly reasonable and moderately entertaining little film that not only carries the MCU flag forward a little bit (or more? stay for the mid-credits scene!) but also gives us our first superhero flick with three female leads, two of which are persons of colour and one of whom represents Hollywood's first Muslim superhero. And it isn't like you need to be a feminist or woke or whatever to have a good time at this movie, but maybe being open-minded helps?`
So in some ways, the barely concealed glee manifested by many of the same trolls who review-bombed Captain Marvel and are bellyaching about the lack of white male representation in these films (give me strength...) because this film is underperforming is not so much surprising as it is disappointing.
The sad truth is though, as the Variety article suggests, on top of needing to use less-recognizable heroes than the lunchbox stalwarts of The Avengers, Marvel has also put quantity over quality since the end of Phase Three, and people are beginning to notice. Some of this was a pivot to online entertainment during the pandemic lockdowns, but as a result, the MCU is building on a less sturdy foundation now, and the moviegoing public can be fickle.
Superhero fatigue is not a concept that resonates with me personally - as long as Marvel keeps faithfully adapting or even homaging the source material that I am a fan of, I am likely to keep showing up. Which I suppose kind of undermines the credibility of my MCU reviews a bit...but whatever. Reasonable people can agree to disagree.
The MCU can't really be all things to all people, and the bigoted mouth-breathers trying to chalk up an 'I told you so' can go pound sand as far as I am concerned.
I saw The Marvels with seven other people ranging in age from eight to 50+, and we all had a wonderful time. Most of us agreed that the movie was at its best when it pushed the plot and villain to the back burner and focused on our trio of heroines, and for the first time in a while, I am also excited about what Marvel Studios are trying to build to, despite the challenges they face.
In terms of release dates, Guardians of the Galaxy is the longest Marvel trilogy, with nearly nine years between the release of the original in 2014 and Vol. 3 this weekend. It's funny to think back about the skepticism around the first movie: "Marvel's lost their minds! Do they expect to make their money back on a sci-fi picture with no superheroes, no stars, and bookended by a walking tree and talking raccoon? Sell your stock!"
Obviously, Marvel's tenth movie went on to do all right, with the characters appearing in two Avengers movies plus their own Holiday Special. Having read and loved the source material I was never worried, but as the MCU gets bigger and almost prohibitively interconnected, there is a worry about diminishing returns.
But let me say this about that: I will need to see it again to be sure, but I think Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is the best entry in the trilogy. It is also unquestionably the most emotionally impactful Marvel movie since Endgame.
I recognize nothing is more subjective than emotions, but the story is so empathetic and the characters are so emotionally grounded that I have a hard time finding another adventure film to really compare it to.
Despite an expansive and expanding cast of characters, everyone is given a chance to shine, even ones like former first mate Kraglin (Sean Gunn), space-dog Cosmo (Maria Bakalova). And all our favourites are given a chance to do something new, from Drax (Dave Bautista) providing legitimate insight to Mantis (Pom Klementieff) asserting herself beyond providing support to her teammates.
Most impressively, James Gunn does a fantastic job of establishing Zoe Saldana's alternate universe Gamora as a new and distinct character from the original she replaced in Endgame, and the relationship between her and Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) is handled deftly.
But the lynchpin of the story is Rocket (Bradley Cooper), whose origin story and links to the High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji) provide not only the plot but emotional hub for the rest of the yarn to revolve around. Cooper peels back the cynicism and displays tremendous vulnerability in Rocket's tragic, younger self.
Looking in the eyes of the animal subjects of the High Evolutionary's experiments reminded me of my own pets, but never felt excessively manipulative. Likewise, Ikuji's performance is less maniacal and more monomaniacal; someone so convinced of the legitimacy of his perspective that he will go to any lengths to pursue it - the fact that lives are lost along the way are not the goal, like Thanos, but an incidental consequence.
As a comic fan, I appreciated having Adam Warlock (Will Poulter) in the film (as teased by the cocoon in Vol. 2), even if his naive demeanor is very different from the composed and nearly omniscient character from the pen of Jim Starlin.
And James Gunn's dialogue has never been better; funny, poignant, and with only a handful of pop-culture references. Well, outside the soundtrack, which has now progressed to the 90s, courtesy of Star-Lord's Zune from Vol. 2.
But while the laughs are great, the real highlights are the increasingly personal moments of truth shared between characters. Some of these play up relationships established in the Holiday Special, so it helps to have seen that, but there are very few connections to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe, if that is a concern. In fact, they do a great job distilling the complex time travel shenanigans into just what is needed for new viewers to follow along.
But if you have watched the previous movies and have been looking for something to shake off the dust of the Phase IV films, and familiar characters treated in new ways but with heart and respect and full appreciation of their background, Guardians Vol. 3 is a film that scratches a lot of itches, at least for this nerd.
Glory and I took in the new Marvel film, Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania, on Tuesday. Despite it having the worst Rotten Tomatoes score of any recent Marvel Studios release, we still had a pretty good time. But it did raise some interesting questions about the future of the MCU and people's expectations for an increasingly immense franchise.
Quantumania is not the worst film the MCU has ever made (I would personally rank Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 2 as greater wastes of opportunity, but still wouldn't call them awful films), but it is a long way off from peak features like Captain America: Winter Soldier or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. It lacks both a real sense of coherence or a convincing notion of genuine stakes, and sometimes mixes its goofiness with its pathos.
But kudos for having such a frankly bizarre film swing so far in both directions in the first place! The first act of the film is probably the most enjoyable, with the extended Lang/Pym family (including Scott Lang's daughter Cassie) being sucked into the sub-atomic Quantum Realm by the villainous Kang the Conqueror (Jonathan Majors).
The initial explorations felt like familiar MCU characters like Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), Henry Pym (Michael Douglas) and The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) being dropped into an episode of Rick & Morty. Hearing the acerbic senior Pym ruminating about how intelligent life in the Quantum Realm means re-evaluating biology, physics and evolution and then interrupting himself to interject, "holy shit, that guy looks like broccoli," was a delight.
Things turn more serious when Kang shows up, the first real introduction of the MCU's "bid bad" to fill the overarching gap left by Thanos. Jonathan Majors largely eschews megalomaniacal scenery chewing in favour of quiet menace and a sense of multiversal weariness which could make him as fascinating and compelling a villain as Josh Brolin's. But such a shift in tone is difficult to maintain, making the earlier, goofier parts of the movie more enjoyable on the whole.
Some of the carping I just don't get though; I loved seeing an iteration of MODOK from the comics, because if you can't shoehorn a ludicrous character like this in via the Quantum Realm and all its weirdness, we will never, ever see him in the MCU. But if you don't know about his provenance, he might seem needless or out of place.
Despite people going on about the bad box office (tbh: who cares? it's not like the tickets prices change! but as a measure of popularity I suppose it has weight), Wikipedia reports "the film made $46 million on its first day, including $17.5 million from Thursday previews that began at 3 P.M. It went on to debut to $106.1 million (and a total of $120.4 million over the four-day frame), marking the best opening of the Ant-Man series and the third-best for a February release, behind Black Panther ($242.1 million in 2018) and Deadpool ($152.1 million in 2016)."
And while reviews are mixed, Quantumania is hardly being panned (although it deserves to be ranked lower than both of its predecessors.) I suspect some of these metacritics may be the same people saying "mark my words, Marvel is going to lose their shirt trying to sell a movie about a walking tree and talking raccoon in space" just prior to Guardians of the Galaxy becoming a bona fide smash.
I have heard people complaining about the CGI, something Marvel has a reputation for rushing on, but honestly, unless they are so egregiously bad that it pulls me out of the film, I am not concerned with weird biological spaceships or broccoli-headed dudes looking particularly photorealistic - because I know they aren't real. I am seeing these movies first and foremost as a comics fan, still amazed that second and third-tier characters like these are getting greenlit for major cinematic releases, based largely on the strength of the universe grown out of two dozen films and umpteen streaming series underpinning them.
But even some of the fan criticisms have credence, like the idea of "if I am watching a film about an adventuring family being pulled into another dimension and facing an implacable foe in a psychedelic environment, why the hell is that family the Lang/Pyms and not the Fantastic Four?"
It seems a lot of people have begun to drift away from the MCU, and some of the reasons they give are easy to understand:
there is no time left to anticipate MCU films any more, with 3-4 movies a year and as many series and Special Presentations on Disney+
plus the mythology and canon is getting top-heavy from the number of releases and making the connections feel less like a treat and more like a burden
"superhero fatigue" setting in with other comics properties entering the fray and now anti-hero or irony-driven shows like The Boys or Invincible gaining ground in the public consciousness
Phase 4, the films following Avengers: Endgame, have all felt smaller and less joyful than the foundational MCU films
And that last point is probably the most fair: how the heaven's name can anyone be expected to stick the landing the way Kevin Feige and Co. did with that first glorious run, and then just pick up and carry on from there?
So I kind of get it, and I think Marvel is hearing some of this too, with reports now coming that they intend to slow down their release schedule and perhaps pare back some projects. Because the more recent projects have felt diminished, and I think taking more time and care can only help mitigate that.
But the other reason they have felt diminished is because the subject matter is simply not as legendary as it once was. Leading off the creation of what would become the MCU with a second-tier property like Iron Man was a brilliant move that let the filmmakers and studio set the tone and interconnectivity at their own pace, so they could bring more well-known and larger-than-life figures like Captain America, Thor and eventually flagship character Spider-Man into the picture.
And frankly, after so many films scoring 8+, every 6 is going to feel a bit like a failure, isn't it?
In a post-Endgame world, where many of the franchises are trying to pass the torch from legacy characters like Captain America and Iron Man to newcomers like The Falcon and Ironheart, the transitions are even more difficult onscreen than they are in the comics that inspired them. And this places even more pressure on lesser-known and but well-established characters like Ant-Man to carry an increasingly immense MCU narrative forward.
So I have reconciled myself to the fact that I am unlikely to ever experience anything like Avengers: Endgame ever again. And I am okay with that! It was miraculous enough I got to experience it at all, and more movie franchises should aspire to stick the landing so well as that film did.
And I suspect that at some point down the line, maybe sooner, maybe later, the MCU will take a hard look at rebooting the whole thingamamajig and recast all the Phase 1 characters and take another swing at, well, everything - but do it differently too. Maybe let Hydra be the villain in more that one or two flicks this time around, I dunno.
But in the meantime, I am still going to look forward to seeing comic book adaptations like Quantumania, because even if they don't transcend the source material the way some of the earlier films did, it is still great to see these sometimes goofy characters dealing with absurd situations in almost unimaginable locales like the Quantum Realm. And part of that is because of the sheer joy I take just in seeing the words and images of comic books re-presented on the big screen.
Remember, it was not that long ago that David Hasselhoff playing Nick Fury in a tv movie was about all we comic fans could hope for. Actually, 1998 was pretty long ago after all I suppose... but my point is not that we should just lower our expectations or standards for the current iteration of the MCU, but to recall those times when just an offhand reference to Metropolis by Val Kilmer in 1995's Batman Forever was enough to set fans excitedly speculating. "What it might be like to have two major comic characters in a single movie?" - unimaginable at the time!
Anyhow, depending where your interests or degree of fandom lies, I believe Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania is worth seeing if:
you like the idea of seeing MCU characters in a Rick & Morty-type setting, or
you still find high-concept comic hijinks enjoyable, or
you want to see Jonathan Majors play a different type of MCU villain, or
you want to keep up with things because you know another Avengers movie is coming, or
you just want an interdimensional adventure movie with some neat weird ideas and a few laughs in it.
In the end, going on a Tuesday instead of opening weekend suited Glory and I just fine in terms of money spent to entertainment gained, and we are already stoked for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 in May.
James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special takes a few of its cues from 1978's near-mythical Star Wars Holiday Special, which is ironic, as the latter is almost uniformly derided and has never been rebroadcast or released on home video.
Like the SWHS, the GotG Holiday Special mixes animation, music, humour, action, and sentiment to try to reach an increasingly jaded audience with a message about the values of this season. Does this unlikely-seeming mashup transcend the original, or is it destined to join Chewbacca's on Lumpy in pop culture's fickles trash heap?
Yeah, I think they nailed it. In fact, at this point, having watched it twice, I am ready to give GHS the number two spot in my definitive (and highly subjective) all-time Christmas TV shows ranking.
Like the Star Wars special, this one also includes an animated flashback, rotoscoped for extra retro charm. Peter Quill, as a young boy on a Ravager starship, enlists first mate Kraglin in trying to recreate Christmas with a stubby tree and presents. Yondu, unsurprisingly, does not approve, and gosh but it is good to hear Michael Rooker in that role again!
But once you return to live-action, a good holiday special has to be entertaining, and it can do this through suspense, action or drama, but will most commonly draw from comedy. It must also walk a delicate balance between sincere emotion and treacly sentiment or nostalgia. My number one pick, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, remains my favourite example of this because animator Chuck Jones is a bona fide genius.
But GHS does the humour just as well as The Grinch, particularly in conveying an alien's perspective on just how ridiculous much of our Christmas lore and holiday traditions would seem to an extraplanetary outsider. And best of all, they do it in a song performed by alt-country legends The Old 97s very early in the show in order to set the stage for the mayhem to come.
The rest of the music in the special is a great mix (dare I say "awesome"? 😋), enhancing Gunn's already significant soundtrack reputation with artists ranging from The Pogues to The Waitresses and Smashing Pumpkins
There is also a ton of slapstick and some very well-done fish-out-of-water comedy demonstrated by Mantis (Pom Klementieff) and Drax (Dave Bautista) as they return to Earth and wander around Hollywood looking for the gift that they believe will save Christmas for their dear friend Peter (Chris Pratt) - the legendary Kevin Bacon.
Saving Christmas can be a contrived goal of the highest order when handled poorly or literally (or both) in fare like Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but it works here because these two Guardians aren't trying to save Christmas for the entire world or even save it from itself (like they do so well in my number three pick, A Charlie Brown Christmas) - no, they are trying to save a memory of Christmas for someone they love and respect, and one of them has a great reason for doing it which I shall not spoil.
For us MCU nerds, it is also a chance to check in on the cosmic corner of an increasingly expanding catalogue of people, places and things before Vol. III of GotG comes out next May. This special is the capstone for Phase 4 of the MCU and doesn't waste any time with major linkages, but there are some offhand references and a couple nice easter eggs (and a post-credits scene, natch). I was also glad to finally hear the voice of Cosmo the space dog, but have to confess I alway heard their voice as male when reading the comics.
The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is the whole package: great laughs, wonderful music, cracking dialogue and a heartfelt message about why Christmas can matter to everyone, regardless of their beliefs and proximity to Sol III, and whether or not they have heard of it before. And it is only 45 minutes long, so definitely consider adding it to your selection of Christmas tv shows, at least for this year.
I can't say for sure why the death of Black Panther actor Chadwick Boseman two years ago had such a profound impact on so many people, myself included.
It probably has something to do with the intersectionality of Boseman's dedication and compassion combined with the intrinsic nobility of T'Challa, the royal leader and superhuman protector of an afro-futurist kingdom in a comic-book universe. He was an actor who recognized the significance of being the first black superhero on the big screen, and carried himself like a king, but with abject humility. Such a loss!
Following up the immense success and cultural impact of the first Black Panther (2018) would have been a tall order even if Boseman had lived; with the director and studio refusing to recast the character, how do you carry on?
Well, to begin with, you lean into the grief.
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever opens with the death of the eponymous character from an unnamed disease and carries on from there with the grieving of T'Challa's sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) and his mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Bassett), as well as the kingdom of Wakanda.
But Wakanda must also deal with an increasing number of nations becoming increasingly desperate to obtain the African nation's greatest resource, vibranium, and are becoming ever more forceful in their efforts. Wakanda's uncompromising defensive stance makes it all too easy to blame them for an attack on a ship that has found the miracle element at the bottom of the Atlantic.
But a new player has entered the MCU -the undersea kingdom of Talocan and its headstrong ruler Namor (Tenoch Huerta) - and like his vainglorious namesake from the comics, Namor does not hesitate to demand Wakanda turn over the scientist who helped locate the oceanic vibranium so they can be killed.
Director and co-writer Ryan Coogler has to deftly weave together a story that not only balances personal grief and geopolitics, but also introduces established comics characters like the Sub-Mariner and Ironheart, while establishing a credible way for the Black Panther's mantle to be passed on to a worthy successor.
Is it as strong a movie as the first? Sadly, no. It is probably a smidgen too long (at 2:41, the second-longest of all the MCU), and Namor's imperiousness is no match for Killmonger's righteous anger from the first film. There is a hint of a same-sex relationship that Marvel again fails to capitalize on and no one can be surprised that the climax of the film is a massive set piece that begs to be reenacted with action figures.
But that last bit, despite feeling a bit inevitable or compulsory when considered alongside most ot the other 29 MCU films, makes sense in the context of this story, and is engaging and unpredictable as it sets the stage for a possible revenge.
And Namor's origin and that of the Talocans (a stand-in for the Atlantis of Marvel Comics) is a brilliant mix of science and fantasy that will prevent any comparison to the undersea denizens of the Distinguished Competition, and firmly establishes him as more of an anti-hero, despite his undeniably villainous actions. Design-wise, I think Namor is also the best cinematic homage to the comic look since the Vulture in Spider-Man: Homecoming. The green trunks are in playand yes, they even managed to make those tiny ankle wings cool - don't ask me how.
And I am always glad to see the corners of the MCU fleshed out a little bit, as they do in a handful of scenes featuring CIA Director Valentina Allegre de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman). I hope they repeat this and more things like it a few more times before the release of Marvel's Thunderbolts in 2024.
Most importantly though, is that every scene with established characters drips with belief and power. Bassett's grief as Queen Ramonda feels real. Wright's anger at Shuri's inability to save her brother is evident even in scenes where that is not the focus. The frustration and shame of Okoye (Danai Gurira) is palpable. And even Huerta's Namor vacillates between imperious and marginalized in a complex manner that is compellingly charismatic.
Wakanda Forever may not feel quite as seismically significant as its predecessor, but it continues the story of Wakanda - and introduces those of Namor and Ironheart - with grit and feeling, right in the sweet spot between the comic book fantasy we love and the real emotional heft we need. And you can feel the spirit of both Chadwick Boseman and T'Challa throughout the film - hats off to Ryan Coogler and company for taking what could have been merely the salvage recovered from tragic circumstance, and turned it into a treasure of a touching adventure film.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
